"We either have a prophet or we have nothing"

Post by **_Gazelam** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:17 am

Tell ya what, why don't you go and slam your face against the wall, while believeing with all your might that the wall isn't really there, then see how much effect your denial of it has on whether or not it affects you.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:18 am

Gazelam wrote:Tell ya what, why don't you go and slam your face against the wall, while believeing with all your might that the wall isn't really there, then see how much effect your denial of it has on whether or not it effects you.

Test completed, I've learned that I have superpowers. While my nose is bleeding I can now see stars through the roof. X-Ray vision AT LAST!!!! No wait, they're gone now.

Post by **_huckelberry** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:23 am

[quote="Gazelam"]Tell ya what, why don't you go and slam your face against the wall, while believeing with all your might that the wall isn't really there, then see how much effect your denial of it has on whether or not it effects you.[/quote]

Why would I want to do that?

After all I believe in using my eyes ears feeling and mind to determine whats there before believing stuff.

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:19 am

The Nehor wrote:
truth dancer wrote:Relief Society handouts, VT articles in the Ensign, and quotes by the prophet are just opinion.

~dancer~

The problem with God speaking to us in a flawed language through flawed individuals. Use the middle man as you can but there is a legitimate end-run in the Church hierarchy. The CEO is willing to talk to all of us one on one and can clarify the memos we're getting from middle management.

Now, next time you happen to bump into one of them, run that opinion by them and see what they think. I would assume you ought to prepare for an all or nothing answer.

By the way, hi Nehor, welcome back.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:37 pm

The Nehor wrote:
Gazelam wrote:Tell ya what, why don't you go and slam your face against the wall, while believeing with all your might that the wall isn't really there, then see how much effect your denial of it has on whether or not it effects you.

Test completed, I've learned that I have superpowers. While my nose is bleeding I can now see stars through the roof. X-Ray vision AT LAST!!!! No wait, they're gone now.

LOL!

Nehor, you've been missed!

Post by **_The Nehor** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:22 pm

Inconceivable wrote:Now, next time you happen to bump into one of them, run that opinion by them and see what they think. I would assume you ought to prepare for an all or nothing answer.

By the way, hi Nehor, welcome back.

I explained my views once to a Seventy. He seemed to think I knew what I was doing. Another Seventy gave a talk and mentioned that relying solely on the advice of leaders to make decisions is a mark of LAZINESS.

Post by **_Blixa** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:47 pm

Don't take this the wrong way Nehor, but since you've been back you sound a bit, oh, wackadoodle...

I hope its only the effect of lurve...

Post by **_Lucretia MacEvil** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:27 pm

The Nehor wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Oh, there is so much middle ground. Religionists are just hellbent to take it away from themselves. Jesus was a God in the same way you and I and all the rest of us are Gods, the only difference is in the degree to which he understood and experienced God, but that idea was 99.99% lost by the time the New Testament was written and assembled, much less when Joseph Smith restored ego teachings instead of Jesus.

He claimed he gave the Law to Moses......he said he was God. He was talking to Jews who were not pantheists. If he came across as a pantheist he wouldn't have been a danger, Israel had tons of them at the time.

Assuming he said those things at all, assuming he wasn't speaking metaphysically, assuming it was correctly translated ...

If you're assuming his message is utterly and completely different than what was recorded than all you can do is guess. It could be argued that he actually was the first Goth and wanted people to drink his actual blood but the message got lost.

I do believe his message is utterly and completely different than what was recorded in the Bible, but there are other sources available.

As far as his being the first Goth and wanted people to drink his actual blood ... is that so much different than the blood sacrifices commanded in the Bible? Think about it. Blood-drinking Goths seem out of character of God FOR YOU, but Abraham's sacrifice doesn't? Blood-drinking Goths gross YOU out but a sword bearing angel threatening Emma doesn't? A god who would command the one thing could easily command the other. I don't believe in a god of degrees.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:32 pm

Lucretia wrote:I do believe his message is utterly and completely different than what was recorded in the Bible, but there are other sources available.

I'm curious, Lucretia. Could you expand a little more on what you feel his message was? Do you have a more scholarly view of Christ's message? By that, I mean, do you think that, as some scholars have asserted, Christ was making more of a political statement with his mission than a religious one?

Post by **_Lucretia MacEvil** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:34 pm

huckelberry wrote:I read it proposed that Jesus was a god just like all of us but that he understood god better.

I think it is possible to float an hypothesis. Once it is said it only seems reasonable to ask some questions about it. What facts does it explain better than other ideas? What value can be found in the idea? does it have internal consistency?

I am asking because any positive answers for this particualar hypothesis are not readily apparent to me. That is not a claim they could not exist but an invitation to state what they are.

I am unsure if it makes sense to say one person is god like the rest of us but understands better. Why would that be? how would you know? perhaps somebody else understands better. Why not Aristotle?

Does the word god have a meaning in this theory? doesn't it mean there is god of the variety of Hank Aaron, Eric Clapton, Hughe Heffner, Mozart, Picasso, Charles Darwin, Fred Flintstone , Elizabeth Taylor, Queen Elizabeth, Florence Nightengale, St Francis ,well you get the idea. The series of names has no end.

.................................................
I thought I would add to clarify that I actually like all the variety in the vast human carnival. I figure if Jesus is not what the New Testament proclaims it really is better to just let him be one more voice in the multitude. If he had some good ideas they can stand on their own feet.

I'm on the fly, but the best way I can explain my statement simply is that the only part of the Bible I take seriously is when it says "God is love." ANything that smacks of dualism, I feel free to disregard. It all makes perfect sense to me now, but it certainly didn't come naturally in the beginning and I understand why others don't take to the idea so readiiy.