Themis wrote:I don't want to be offensive, but the fool is the one who thinks they have a truth detector built inside them, and then gives excuses why others get different truths because they are ignoring their truth detectors, but I am not.
Themis wrote:I don't want to be offensive, but the fool is the one who thinks they have a truth detector built inside them, and then gives excuses why others get different truths because they are ignoring their truth detectors, but I am not.
What ever floats your boat.
The problem with this thinking goes right over your head. Unfortunate.
It's interesting how some people think it is wrong to ask how one knows or believes something is true. I have no problem telling anyone why I may believe something, and even admit why some beliefs have little evidence and I may easily be wrong. I suspect frank never went on a mission.
Themis wrote: I suspect frank never went on a mission.
I am a recent convert. So you are correct.
I suspected as much. As missionaries we could never get away from at least trying to answer how we know or think something is true. I suspect Gordon who easily answered this question in regards to LDS beliefs probably did go on a mission. We also knew because God or the HG told us was also coming up short.
Themis wrote:I suspected as much. As missionaries we could never get away from at least trying to answer how we know or think something is true. I suspect Gordon who easily answered this question in regards to LDS beliefs probably did go on a mission. We also knew because God or the HG told us was also coming up short.
Hello Themis!
Did you "know" what God or the HG told you "was coming up short" because that is what Church leaders were telling you? Or were you just not personally receiving much from God or the HG; thus only "thought" what God or the HG were telling you "was coming up short"?
"Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices found among some early Christian and non-Christian groups called "gnostic" ("knowing") by Irenaeus and other early Christian leaders."
I follow the path that scripture tells me I should be on. I follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. This is where I am. Many don't see this path in scripture. That is their path.
I would like to point out that there were many different "gnostic" groups; just like there were many different "non-gnostic" groups. Every one of the groups had varied beliefs, all of which (save one--which survived to become the RCC) eventually became known as heretical by the RCC. Unfortunately, the most popular modern "take" on today's gnostic groups is an homogenized blend of everything which the RCC decided was heretical. Likewise, the non-gnostic groups which disagreed with RCC beliefs were also labeled heretical. As a result, today there is a stigma unfairly attached to "gnostic" beliefs which do NOT hold to the "heretical" beliefs assigned to them by individuals who ignorantly puppet what others have told them about gnocticism.
In actuality, today's believers who follow a higher spiritual path consider themselves to be mystic, or gnostic, or mystic gnostics, regardless of whether or not they are connected to any particular religious institution. What distinguishes them from other believers is their choice to strive to give up the physical world, and seek a more spiritual path for their personal journey with God.
Beginning of the age 5810 BC. Todays date 2012. You do the math.
Here is a commentary about your source.
The concept of c-decay was first proposed by Barry Setterfield in 1981 in an article for the Australian creationist magazine, Ex Nihilo, as an alternative to physical cosmology. Setterfield's proposal was that the speed of light (), was infinite in the past, but has slowed substantially over time. Setterfield argues that this resolves the so-called "starlight problem", since light may have traveled fast enough in the past to reach Earth in thousands of years, despite being billions of light years away. Setterfield selected a number of historical measurements of starting with the original measurement by Ole Rømer in 1667, and proceeding through a series of more recent experiments, culminating in measurements taken in the 1960s. These showed a decreasing speed over time, which Setterfield claimed was in fact an exponential decay series that implied an infinite speed in the not distant past.[5] He later expanded his claim to cover a supposed decay in several other physical constants.[6] Setterfield's proposal has received criticism in the scientific community, including that his data is too noisy to show any strong correlation, and his argument is based on cherry picking outlying points in order to fit his model.[7] Setterfield's argument is highly dependent on Rømer's original measurement, which he copied from an issue of Sky and Telescope. This value was "301,300 plus or minus 200 km/s", about 0.5% above the current value. However, the article was actually an excerpt from The Astronomical Journal,[8] which disagrees completely, writing "The best fit occurs at zero where the light travel time is identical to the currently accepted value."[9] In his analysis, Setterfield also left out a number of famous experiments measuring the speed of light, as well as a number of measurements in his quoted experiments. When these points are added back into the set, there is no apparent decay. More recent versions of Setterfield's paper include these figures, using adjusted mathematics to rebuild the curve. These mathematics have been the object of ridicule.[7]
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Themis wrote: I suspect frank never went on a mission.
I am a recent convert. So you are correct.
Judging by your beliefs you are also a recent apostate...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator