Jump to content
cdowis

Winning discussions with the antiMormons -- ala Ben Shapiro

Recommended Posts

Side note: Is the term "anti-mormon" even acceptable anymore in this new day and age with a prohibition on the use of the term "Mormon" by the Church's members?  How many times is Satan winning when the term is used?  Just thinking out loud....

Edited by ttribe

Share this post


Link to post

"Christ and Satan are brothers"

I am saying that this is a half truth -- out 0f context of of what we actually believe. We are ALL children of God --Satan is your brother, he is my brother.  We are eternal beings, sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.
We lived as spirits before we were born and we will continue to live after we die. Depending on the choice we make in life, determines if you will live with God again.

Satan made the wrong choice while in the spirit world. 
https://youtu.be/9MiF_HKoFr4

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/13/2019 at 6:35 AM, cdowis said:

"Christ and Satan are brothers"

I am saying that this is a half truth -- out 0f context of of what we actually believe. We are ALL children of God --Satan is your brother, he is my brother.  We are eternal beings, sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.
We lived as spirits before we were born and we will continue to live after we die. Depending on the choice we make in life, determines if you will live with God again.

Satan made the wrong choice while in the spirit world. 
https://youtu.be/9MiF_HKoFr4

I would like to point out that I don't think we actually know that. Satan may have had a body when he instigated his final rebellion. I don't believe we can know that for sure. Isaiah strongly implies he was a son of the morning when he fell. As a son of the morning Christ had a physical body for his spirit before coming to earth - seen by Moses and the elders and the brother of Jared. If at this point Christ had rebelled, he would probably have become an angel of Satan - just sayin'.

Maybe Christ considers Satan to be his brother, but I doubt it. He ceased to be a brother when he rebelled against the gospel plan sometime before the beginning of this world. I don't consider him my brother, but to be honest I cannot say that he couldn't somehow change and decide to become subject to the gospel on a world. I simply don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I would like to point out that I don't think we actually know that. Satan may have had a body when he instigated his final rebellion. I don't believe we can know that for sure.

I am a bit surprised you would actually consider this to be a possibility.  I am certain we can know for sure that he had no more been incarnated than Jesus had been.  

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Isaiah strongly implies he was a son of the morning when he fell. As a son of the morning Christ had a physical body for his spirit before coming to earth - seen by Moses and the elders and the brother of Jared.

Isaiah implies no such thing.  "Son of the Morning" is more a title than a name, but even if it is a name, I don't see how it could imply a physical body.  See Ether 3:9

9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; 

In this appearance to the Brother of Jared, Christ's spirit took on the appearance of his eventual physical body, just as it was for all of us, including Lucifer, in the Pre-existence.  And what Moses and the elders saw was what the Brother of Jared saw.  He had not yet been incarnated.

I don't believe I've ever heard Christ being described as or named "Son of the Morning."  Closest I've read is "Dayspring".  But Lucifer is also "Light-bearer".  A name and also a title -- but he revoked all that promise in his rebellion.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If at this point Christ had rebelled, he would probably have become an angel of Satan - just sayin'.

Maybe Christ considers Satan to be his brother, but I doubt it. He ceased to be a brother when he rebelled against the gospel plan sometime before the beginning of this world. I don't consider him my brother, but to be honest I cannot say that he couldn't somehow change and decide to become subject to the gospel on a world. I simply don't know. 

To rebel against light?  To deny the sun at noonday?  There is no repentance from that.  As for brotherhood, if my earthly brother were to do something terrible against the family it would remove him from our fellowship, but it would not stop him from being my brother.  Same goes with any of my children.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2019 at 11:12 AM, ttribe said:

Side note: Is the term "anti-mormon" even acceptable anymore in this new day and age with a prohibition on the use of the term "Mormon" by the Church's members?  How many times is Satan winning when the term is used?  Just thinking out loud....

I've never really liked the term anti-mormon.  I prefer the term "critics of the church."   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I've never really liked the term anti-mormon.  I prefer the term "critics of the church."   

That is potentially a good alternative to replace the term with.  It is kind of broad though and not as specific.  For example, I would say that all anti-Mormons are critics of the church, but not all critics of the church are anti-Mormons.  One can be a critic without wishing/working/hoping for the dismemberment of the body of the church.  Perhaps we could distinguish by saying "critics of the church", and "vile, blood-thirsty, and ignoble critics of the church." 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

We could say "people with whom respectfully express disagreements with us" as opposed to "big jerks that need to get a life."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Where do Michael Coe and Dr Ritner fit in these categories.  Coe has done a couple of articles and interviews on MS. Ritner had some articles and a book on the BOA. When one looks at his cv his work in 99% of the time nothing to do with Mormonism.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2019 at 9:47 AM, cdowis said:

I am constantly engaged with the antis,  and found this video on Ben Shapiro very interesting.  For example, 

 

Remember when there were actual conservative intellectuals, instead of bratty sophists posing as intellectuals? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Share this post


Link to post

I am c/p'ng the below, because I could not have said it better than this reddit poster. I had all kinds of things I wanted to say, but this person put it down so much better than I ever could. I watched the Renland's fireside and was totally shocked. The video and whack-a-mole animation, remind me of the JW's and their videos they use for children, can't stand them. How about just talk to us like adults. Also, way to paint us doubters as being under the spell of Satan. 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/worldwide-devotionals/2019/01?lang=eng&vid=5989053995001

Thoughts on Broadcast last night

Sunday I listened to Elder and Sister Renlund’s fireside for young adults. The topic was “Faith and Doubt.” I was interested in seeing an Apostle’s take on the subject.

The talk included two animated stories The first was a parable of a person stranded at sea rescued by a passing fisherman. Initially grateful the rescued man then proceeds to criticize the less than perfect rescue vessel and the fisherman piloting it. Deeming the vessel and rescuer unacceptable the rescued man demands to be returned to the sea and is left to be destroyed be the ocean as the fisherman sails on. The second animation was a depiction of a man’s doubts as gophers holding signs that would pop out of a number of holes in the ground. Elder Renlund’s friend “Stephen” would have one concern about church history that once resolved would only lead to another concern represented by a new gopher in a different hole. This painted the picture of “Stephen” the perpetual doubter in an endless game of doubting wack-o-mole.

The entire talk was aimed at discrediting people with doubts as nit-picking, trivial, and spiritually weak. This strategy aligns very well with the message Elder Cook gave in the “Saints” debut. The message was clearly intended to shame people with doubts for having concerns and not ignoring their concerns on the basis of past spiritual experiences. This message infuriates me and hurts me deeply. As I struggle to reframe my faith in the face of very disturbing facts that call into question church truth claims, this message damages my credibility with my ward and family. It intentionally drives a wedge between me and my loved ones that are active in the church. I was severely disappointed.

One part of the wack-o-mole story seemed very misleading to me. The idea was that the initial concern was resolved to the satisfaction of the doubter before being replaced by a new concern. Most people I know that struggle never really get resolutions to their concerns. They may add some steel supports to their shelf or finds a different meaning for something but I think actual resolution is rare. I can see that the leadership feels like they are doing perpetual wack-o-mole but instead of blaming the abundance of challenging issues they blame the doubters for not being satisfied.

I have asked myself, “why this divisive message?” “Why not offer love and support for those in the margins?” Looking at the problem from a church leader’s point of view I can see the benefits of shaming doubters. It encourages members not to do research to resolve questions or ask questions at all. If there is enough fear of doubt then faithful members will take extraordinary measures to prevent it. Don’t be a “perpetual doubting Stephen,” we all know how we feel about him. What is sad to me is that the presenters have to understand that this message will only push Stephen away. In the final calculus Stephen is judged unredeemable, so a message that protects the flock and hurts Stephen is judged to be the appropriate course. Perhaps I had no reason to be disappointed after all.

So one thing was clear to me from this broadcast. I am other, I am less than, and members should protect themselves from me. I try so hard to stay engaged and maintain my truth and integrity but I see the world more clearly as it is rather than forcing it to align to a story that never quite fit. I feel the big machine of doctrine, culture, and authority trying to squeeze me back into the mold. It will not take me as I am. In the end I am afraid it just might force me somewhere I never intended to be.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/14/2019 at 12:40 PM, Stargazer said:

I am a bit surprised you would actually consider this to be a possibility.  I am certain we can know for sure that he had no more been incarnated than Jesus had been.  Isaiah implies no such thing.  "Son of the Morning" is more a title than a name, but even if it is a name, I don't see how it could imply a physical body. 

I agree. It is a title. How does one gain this title? Are all spirits coming to earth sons of the morning?

Quote

See Ether 3:9

9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; 

In this appearance to the Brother of Jared, Christ's spirit took on the appearance of his eventual physical body, just as it was for all of us, including Lucifer, in the Pre-existence.  And what Moses and the elders saw was what the Brother of Jared saw.  He had not yet been incarnated.

Incarnation is meaningless to me. It is not a scriptural term. All that taking upon  flesh and blood means, is having a mortal physical body which could die vs his prior immortal visible form. To me He went from immortal to mortal and back to immortal for us. That's all. He had a physical body every bit as much as the Father has. You are of course welcome to your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I agree. It is a title. How does one gain this title? Are all spirits coming to earth sons of the morning?

Incarnation is meaningless to me. It is not a scriptural term. All that taking upon  flesh and blood means, is having a mortal physical body which could die vs his prior immortal visible form. To me He went from immortal to mortal and back to immortal for us. That's all. He had a physical body every bit as much as the Father has. You are of course welcome to your opinion.

No, not all spirits coming to earth are sons of the morning.  That's Lucifer's title.

Whether "incarnation" is a scriptural term or not, going from immortal to mortal to immortal is not a scriptural principle.  Search high and low and you will not find this principle.  Anywhere. I use "incarnation" because it is a single word, rather than saying "becoming clothed with a mortal body".  Shorthand, if you will.

At base, we are all eternal, because we were organized by the eternal being, God the Father.  But until we appear on earth clothed with a body, we have no body.  Once that happens, we are mortal, meaning we have the capacity for and will die -- except for those very few of us who are "translated".  What I am trying to tell you is that Jehovah is of the same kind as us.  You seem to think differently.

I do wonder why you think Jesus had an immortal body before coming to earth.  Because the Father did?  What about the Holy Ghost, who is explicitly a spirit?  Wouldn't he need an immortal body, too, if Jesus had to have one?  The explanation you gave earlier, and of course you're entitled to your own opinion, does not, in my opinion, hold water at all.  

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I am c/p'ng the below, because I could not have said it better than this reddit poster. I had all kinds of things I wanted to say, but this person put it down so much better than I ever could. I watched the Renland's fireside and was totally shocked. The video and whack-a-mole animation, remind me of the JW's and their videos they use for children, can't stand them. How about just talk to us like adults. Also, way to paint us doubters as being under the spell of Satan. 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/worldwide-devotionals/2019/01?lang=eng&vid=5989053995001

Thoughts on Broadcast last night

Sunday I listened to Elder and Sister Renlund’s fireside for young adults. The topic was “Faith and Doubt.” I was interested in seeing an Apostle’s take on the subject.

The talk included two animated stories The first was a parable of a person stranded at sea rescued by a passing fisherman. Initially grateful the rescued man then proceeds to criticize the less than perfect rescue vessel and the fisherman piloting it. Deeming the vessel and rescuer unacceptable the rescued man demands to be returned to the sea and is left to be destroyed be the ocean as the fisherman sails on. The second animation was a depiction of a man’s doubts as gophers holding signs that would pop out of a number of holes in the ground. Elder Renlund’s friend “Stephen” would have one concern about church history that once resolved would only lead to another concern represented by a new gopher in a different hole. This painted the picture of “Stephen” the perpetual doubter in an endless game of doubting wack-o-mole.

The entire talk was aimed at discrediting people with doubts as nit-picking, trivial, and spiritually weak. This strategy aligns very well with the message Elder Cook gave in the “Saints” debut. The message was clearly intended to shame people with doubts for having concerns and not ignoring their concerns on the basis of past spiritual experiences. This message infuriates me and hurts me deeply. As I struggle to reframe my faith in the face of very disturbing facts that call into question church truth claims, this message damages my credibility with my ward and family. It intentionally drives a wedge between me and my loved ones that are active in the church. I was severely disappointed.

One part of the wack-o-mole story seemed very misleading to me. The idea was that the initial concern was resolved to the satisfaction of the doubter before being replaced by a new concern. Most people I know that struggle never really get resolutions to their concerns. They may add some steel supports to their shelf or finds a different meaning for something but I think actual resolution is rare. I can see that the leadership feels like they are doing perpetual wack-o-mole but instead of blaming the abundance of challenging issues they blame the doubters for not being satisfied.

I have asked myself, “why this divisive message?” “Why not offer love and support for those in the margins?” Looking at the problem from a church leader’s point of view I can see the benefits of shaming doubters. It encourages members not to do research to resolve questions or ask questions at all. If there is enough fear of doubt then faithful members will take extraordinary measures to prevent it. Don’t be a “perpetual doubting Stephen,” we all know how we feel about him. What is sad to me is that the presenters have to understand that this message will only push Stephen away. In the final calculus Stephen is judged unredeemable, so a message that protects the flock and hurts Stephen is judged to be the appropriate course. Perhaps I had no reason to be disappointed after all.

So one thing was clear to me from this broadcast. I am other, I am less than, and members should protect themselves from me. I try so hard to stay engaged and maintain my truth and integrity but I see the world more clearly as it is rather than forcing it to align to a story that never quite fit. I feel the big machine of doctrine, culture, and authority trying to squeeze me back into the mold. It will not take me as I am. In the end I am afraid it just might force me somewhere I never intended to be.

My Honest Hero!! Thank you Tacenda for being so open with your thoughts, ideas, feelings and sure knowledge to yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/14/2019 at 1:10 PM, RevTestament said:

I would like to point out that I don't think we actually know that. Satan may have had a body when he instigated his final rebellion.

I agree that we will only have modern revelation to tell us this

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, not all spirits coming to earth are sons of the morning.  That's Lucifer's title.

No. It was Lucifer's title. When you understand how he got it, you will understand better.

Job 37:

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Quote

Whether "incarnation" is a scriptural term or not, going from immortal to mortal to immortal is not a scriptural principle.  Search high and low and you will not find this principle.  Anywhere. I use "incarnation" because it is a single word, rather than saying "becoming clothed with a mortal body".  Shorthand, if you will.

At base, we are all eternal, because we were organized by the eternal being, God the Father.  But until we appear on earth clothed with a body, we have no body.  Once that happens, we are mortal, meaning we have the capacity for and will die -- except for those very few of us who are "translated".  What I am trying to tell you is that Jehovah is of the same kind as us.  You seem to think differently.

I do wonder why you think Jesus had an immortal body before coming to earth.  Because the Father did?  What about the Holy Ghost, who is explicitly a spirit?  Wouldn't he need an immortal body, too, if Jesus had to have one?  The explanation you gave earlier, and of course you're entitled to your own opinion, does not, in my opinion, hold water at all.  

I am sorry. I debated answering your first post, and this is why. The answer is in the scriptures, but men interpret them how they think they should read -- not by what they say. Once you begin to see through the veil, you will know that you agreed to come here, and that part of that agreement was to give up any physical body you had - like Christ did. I realize this is not going to be accepted, so will just bow out, and let you have your opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I agree that we will only have modern revelation to tell us this

I didn't say that. Revelation already tells us this. 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

My Honest Hero!! Thank you Tacenda for being so open with your thoughts, ideas, feelings and sure knowledge to yourself. 

I wish I had the means to say what I c/p'd Jeanne! Thankful for others and their saying what I can't do eloquently enough. You're a sweetheart for saying so though. I hope you're having a great snow day today! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting discussion - sad, humorous, and hubristic (I don't think that is a word) all rolled up in one thread. It has brought to my mind my recent discovery of recordings of several debates between a Catholic, Patrick Madrid and Elders Gary Coleman and Frank Bradshaw for sale on the internet. I am a bear of limited funds so I need your collective opinions about whether the debates are worth buying? Is the dialogue therein insightful and helpful in understanding LDS-Christian and Catholic-Christian differences and similarities? Are they simply polemics that are of little value? 

After reading this thread yesterday, I actually thought of starting a new one to promote discussion and dialogue based on a thread where only faithful Saints can point out the weaknesses, flaws, "less thans," etc. in their own faith; and likewise only non-Latter-Day Saints can point out similar things in their own faith, positions, etc. I thought that would be truly insightful and perhaps even fun. Then I thought that perhaps that is asking too much. As this thread reveals, folks here seem much more comfortable attacking the other than providing insight into the blind spots of their own particular perspectives, views, or faith. Certainly the true test of insight and integrity is the ability to discover and own one's own blind spots, not those of the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/16/2019 at 6:12 PM, Navidad said:

Interesting discussion - sad, humorous, and hubristic (I don't think that is a word) all rolled up in one thread. It has brought to my mind my recent discovery of recordings of several debates between a Catholic, Patrick Madrid and Elders Gary Coleman and Frank Bradshaw for sale on the internet. I am a bear of limited funds so I need your collective opinions about whether the debates are worth buying? Is the dialogue therein insightful and helpful in understanding LDS-Christian and Catholic-Christian differences and similarities? Are they simply polemics that are of little value? 

After reading this thread yesterday, I actually thought of starting a new one to promote discussion and dialogue based on a thread where only faithful Saints can point out the weaknesses, flaws, "less thans," etc. in their own faith; and likewise only non-Latter-Day Saints can point out similar things in their own faith, positions, etc. I thought that would be truly insightful and perhaps even fun. Then I thought that perhaps that is asking too much. As this thread reveals, folks here seem much more comfortable attacking the other than providing insight into the blind spots of their own particular perspectives, views, or faith. Certainly the true test of insight and integrity is the ability to discover and own one's own blind spots, not those of the other. 

I'm happy to learn new and true things.  But when you hear someone stating something as a gospel truth that which you are certain is false, what do you do?  Just say "That's nice, have fun with that?"  Or do you try to politely show them how they may be incorrect?   

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/16/2019 at 9:40 AM, RevTestament said:

I am sorry. I debated answering your first post, and this is why. The answer is in the scriptures, but men interpret them how they think they should read -- not by what they say. Once you begin to see through the veil, you will know that you agreed to come here, and that part of that agreement was to give up any physical body you had - like Christ did. I realize this is not going to be accepted, so will just bow out, and let you have your opinions.

You'll pardon me if it seems to me that you are interpreting them according to how you think they should read.  

In the end, however, even if what you are saying here is true, it doesn't materially change anything.  The Gospel remains the Gospel. So, I don't mind if this is how you believe it is.  Not that it's any of my business what you believe.

Rev, I believe some things that I understand from the scriptures which many (including probably you) would argue with me about, so I understand where you're coming from.  But that which you're saying here seems to go contrary to what the Church teaches in its official publications.  There is nothing therein about us having a physical body before coming to earth -- quite the contrary.  On the other hand, God didn't tell Moses how the sun generates its energy, and so the concept of nuclear fusion didn't make its way into Genesis.  Like Paul once said, "we see through a glass, darkly".  So, live and let live!  

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm happy to learn new and true things.  But when you hear someone stating something as a gospel truth that which you are certain is false, what do you do?  Just say "That's nice, have fun with that?"  Or do you try to politely show them how they may be incorrect?   

I guess it depends. I have learned in life that trying to show someone how he or she may be incorrect rarely produces any change. What does it depend on? I guess in the spiritual realm it would depend on whether or not I thought it was something necessary for salvation or sanctification. Anything but the basic essentials: atonement, repentance, and faith is not essential. In my mind it, whatever it might be is not worth the debate. Of course for some folks everything is essential. I would question that person's judgement, not their belief. A belief in spirit children prior to a mortal existence is an example. To me, it is a debate that has nothing to do with salvation or sanctification, so no, I would not try and correct someone on that. Just my two cents. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I guess it depends. I have learned in life that trying to show someone how he or she may be incorrect rarely produces any change. What does it depend on? I guess in the spiritual realm it would depend on whether or not I thought it was something necessary for salvation or sanctification. Anything but the basic essentials: atonement, repentance, and faith is not essential. In my mind it, whatever it might be is not worth the debate. Of course for some folks everything is essential. I would question that person's judgement, not their belief. A belief in spirit children prior to a mortal existence is an example. To me, it is a debate that has nothing to do with salvation or sanctification, so no, I would not try and correct someone on that. Just my two cents. 

Yeah, I definitely agree with you.  

An expression I heard once concerning argumentation over any given point is "Is this hill worth dying for?"  Very often, it isn't.

In this thread there is a conversation between RevTestament and myself over a particular item of doctrine.  I very much disagree with him.  I was trying to figure out a way to convince him he was wrong when I read your earlier post.  And what you wrote smacked me upside the head.   As you put it here, is it "something necessary for salvation or sanctification"? The answer being "No", I decided to pull back and see if I could learn from him, rather than contend with him.  There is another thread in this forum in which I had prepared a rather lengthy and (if I do say so myself) brilliant response.  But in light of what you wrote, I decided upon a different, more mild approach.

So, you have done a good deed!  I thank you for your timely words, sir.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, I definitely agree with you.  

An expression I heard once concerning argumentation over any given point is "Is this hill worth dying for?"  Very often, it isn't.

In this thread there is a conversation between RevTestament and myself over a particular item of doctrine.  I very much disagree with him.  I was trying to figure out a way to convince him he was wrong when I read your earlier post.  And what you wrote smacked me upside the head.   As you put it here, is it "something necessary for salvation or sanctification"? The answer being "No", I decided to pull back and see if I could learn from him, rather than contend with him.  There is another thread in this forum in which I had prepared a rather lengthy and (if I do say so myself) brilliant response.  But in light of what you wrote, I decided upon a different, more mild approach.

So, you have done a good deed!  I thank you for your timely words, sir.

Thanks. In the whatever it is worth department, my experience is that there is much to be learned from RevTestament. I know I have. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/16/2019 at 1:12 PM, Navidad said:

IAs this thread reveals, folks here seem much more comfortable attacking the other than providing insight into the blind spots of their own particular perspectives, views, or faith. Certainly the true test of insight and integrity is the ability to discover and own one's own blind spots, not those of the other. 

You are confused. 

Apologetics is responding to antiMormons who use misinformation and trash talking with the deliberate objective of destroying my belief in the church.  The "critic" is engaged in an open disagreement over ideas, such as we find here in this forum.

The hate monger pushes his agenda of the destruction of the church, and I push back politely but with bluntness.

Here is my latest example in youtube ==>>

 
 
Quote

 

min 8:12 "church leaders know the  church is false"
You claim to have a remarkable gift == reading minds. You either are able to peer into the depths of their souls with your power to read minds OR Satan has deceived you.
 
Matt.18 [6] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

 

 
Quote

 

"Mormons are crazy"
Of course it is going to sound crazy when explained by an exMormon atheist.  Are you going to listen to a creationist explaining evolution??
Now, THAT is crazy stupid.

 

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post

>> crazy mormon beliefs

Yessss! Kinda like when the Pharasees heard Christ say, "Tear down this temple and in three days I will build it back up." And Christ dies a terrible death, and a few days later he was visiting the apostles and eating a meal with them.

Talking crazy == how about entangled particles communicating instantaneous across a galaxy (quantum physics) ONLY when someone is observing them. They know someone is looking at them?? 👀 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OefsPBDOcFE

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×