Jump to content

pogi

Contributor
  • Posts

    11,067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pogi

  1. This is all played out in the temple narrative and creation story. Who is the "natural man" in this story? The fallen Adam. What did Adam do after partaking of the fruit? He hid from God's voice calling out to him. Adam was genuinely scared/terrified of how God might react to his disobedience. Stan convinced him that he would be better off in hiding. Satan convinced him that he was worthless after his fall and exposed in his fallen state "see that you are naked...hide!" Satan convinced fallen Adam that he was safer in his presence than in the presence of God. He was safer putting his own will before the will of God. He embodied the sentiment of "my will not thine be done", which is the definition of enmity towards God. Satan wanted him to know without a doubt that he was now a natural man and therefore unacceptable before God (kind of like how you are interpreting this verse). God continued to call out in concern and love for Adam, hoping that he would hear his voice and soften his heart toward God, but God allowed him his agency. Adam's heart was finally pricked and took the brave step of faith in standing naked and exposed before the all seeing eye of God - fully expecting God to strike him down ("though shalt surely die"). Instead, God preserved his physical life, extended his probation, and restored his spiritual life and wrapped him in the sacrificial skins of the atonement as a token of his love. Not quite the welcoming embrace you would expect from one who perceives you as their enemy. Fallen Adam represents all of us. This is the story of the natural man and God's outreached arms, tender mercies, and love towards them.
  2. It could be read both ways, honestly. When it says the natural man is an enemy to God, it may not be commenting on God's perspective of us at all, and may be more about our actions and behaviors toward him. It could be interpreted, "the natural man is an enemy toward God." "To" and "toward" are interchangeable in meaning.
  3. The whole article explains it well: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-makes-mankind-an-enemy-to-god
  4. I am not claiming that I have the answer to evil in general, but in this specific scenario while tragic, can such an event be called "evil"? I think evil is characterized by immoral or unrighteous behavior. Some may judge God's behavior to be evil/immoral for not intervening when he could, but I think that judgment is not attainable or defensible from our limited mortal perspective.
  5. It is futile, bOObOO will just become Baba... I think we are up past 13 accounts now. The resistance is strong in this one. Blocking his account is equivalent to a woman saying "no" to him. "No" is too unclear without a physical fight.
  6. I'm sorry, but without any sign of physical resistance/fighting, I am pretty sure that "stop" means keep doing it.
  7. Oh yes, every woman's fantasy is for a man to not respect their wishes and attempt get physical with them against their will. "No, huh? we'll see about that!" That would change any woman's mind! How could they resist such bravado? Since this is a hypothetical, lets say that for whatever CRAZY and unreasonable reason that the physical aggression after she said "no" didn't turn her on or change her mind. In that scenario, did/could the man take her virtue from her if she didn't physically fight? Whether she changed her mind or not, this is a dangerous man and should be taken off the streets. To become physical after a woman gives no indication of consent (not physically resisting is not a sign of consent - it could be a sign of horror/fear/trauma) and who said "no" is a man that is a danger to society and needs to be taken off the streets.
  8. Just when I thought you were starting to see the light, you come up with this... Facepalm! "No" really does mean "no". It is usually one of the first word a child learns and understands. No physical fighting required for my 2 year old to understand that "no" means "no".
  9. This sounds more reasonable. Just saying no is enough. It is not a physically fight or lose our virtue dichotomy. None of that - it would be better to die physically fighting than not fight - junk. None of that BS about someone being able to take virtue from us.
  10. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the natural man is. God did not create the natural man. It is a choice we make. The "natural man" is not what you are thinking - a human created by natural means. In fact, essential to our nature is a spark of divinity - the light of eternity - the good. Children are celestial beings. We can live in and yield to the spiritual environment. We can choose to act and live in/partake of the spiritual environment via the light that fills the immensity of space and is endowed upon every person and literally expands our capacity beyond the limitations of our physical bodies to connect with divinity and the mind of God. Without that, we would truly be slaves to the natural world, without agency. It is the window to the spiritual realm that frees us from the bondage of the fallen world where people can truly become slaves in captivity.
  11. Do you think that is the equivalent of a women choosing not to fight back? Even though they are not willing and never gave their consent, you think that they should be judged as a willing participant if they don't fight? Come on bro!
  12. Even if they choose not to fight back after weighing the risks, that doesn't mean that they are willing or lose or give away their virtue in anyway. That is a disgusting belief.
  13. You really aren't getting it. No, no I can't think of one single example where I could lose my virtue from being raped. Again, you seem to be conflating not resisting with being willing. That is toxic shame brother - unfortunately that is something that many victims carry with them unnecessarily for the rest of their lives. You should reconsider. Don't feed the toxic shame.
  14. A lot of times it is not a choice. People can literally be paralyzed with fear. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201405/neuroscientists-discover-the-roots-fear-evoked-freezing
  15. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it is wrong to defend yourself. I applaud people that fight, carry pepper spray, and even take defense classes if they so chose. What we are saying is that no one really knows how they are going to react in a situation like that. Without training, adrenaline and trauma can lead to freezing. It is a natural and normal human reaction. Nothing to be ashamed of. What we are saying is that death is not better than the alternative. No virtue has been lost.
  16. Again, it is not a thing that anyone can take. Do you really think that a perpetrator could be in possession of "dignity, propriety, fidelity, integrity, honor, courage" by stealing them from another person? You do understand that rape can only happen without consent, right? No victim is "giving in" to anything. Not fighting is not the same as being willing and giving in. They are not giving away anything. Their virtue is not tarnished or diminished or stolen.
  17. Virtue and chastity are not things that someone can take from you. They are not something you can give. They are not like a stick of gum. They are not things that once lost can never to return. They are not things. Neither are they equivalent to virginity. You haven't lost either of these virtues if you freeze in fear and are a victim of a heinous act.
  18. I am daily updated with infectious disease outbreaks across the globe. Would you like me to keep you up to date with other good contenders? We have a resurgence of Ebola in Beni, North Kivu Province. We have a Group B Strep outbreak in Hong Kong. There's cholera outbreak in Mali, Gao Region. Oh interesting, in Malaysia there is a huge spike in alcohol contamination/poisonings - maybe the government will just poison our food instead of infect us with disease. Seems easier to control. I'll keep an eye out for more good stuff to assist in your confirmation bias.
  19. Ummmm....why are you reposting this? Why do you make me parse through all the fluff? You could have simply stated "myocarditis and pericarditis". I am still at a loss as to why you think the US government would be willing to kill half the population of earth to "cover up" some acute cases of myocarditis that are self-resolving which are transparently being reported by the government, even you claim that we already know what the side effects are...SO WHY KILL HALF THE POPULATION??? This is truly bonkers! CFR that graphene oxide is in any of the Covid vaccines. Here let me help you out with the list of all ingredients: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html#Appendix-C Polyethylene glycol and polysorbate are commonly used in other vaccines (like the annual flu shot) and other injectable medicines. They have been used for years. You are starting to sound like an antivaxer in general - not just with Covid. It seems that is where you are getting a lot of your information. I don't know what you are talking about with overlap. Marburg doesn't cause myocarditis - which seems to be your biggest concern with the vaccine. And the vaccine doesn't cause hemorrhagic death. Not sure where the overlap is. It would be pretty easy to tell who is infected with Marburg vs having a vaccine reaction. There is also a test for Marburg, so it wouldn't be hard to rule out Marburg and identify vaccine reactions. This is just really coocoo for coco puffs stuff here.
  20. Nah. I didn't see any other relevant information to vaccines or attempts to cover up vaccine side effects. You like to distract from the topic with unrelated information. Lots of it! I think you think that if you can throw enough junk at us, eventually something will stick. Actually, it just makes you look incapable of discussing your beliefs in a linear, good faith way. Perhaps because you are afraid of what you might find - I'm not sure. You never answered my questions about the cover up in my last post. Instead you send me off on another wild goose chase with "Blackrock". What specifically do you want to discuss from this link? I like the cognitive dissonance part. This link claims that 150K people have died from the Covid vaccine. Do you believe that is true? Later they claime 276,996 thousand deaths from covid vaccine in the US. I am not sure which number to believe. Which do you believe is true? Either? Neither? Why? It also makes the point that "the one thing every hospitalized COVID patient has in common: they didn't use proven early treatment protocol." I'm not sure how they got access to HIPPA protected information of all hospitalized patients with COVID to confirm this, but lets pretend this is true...doesn't it suggest that early treatment isn't very reliable because people don't go get early treatment when it is just a mild infection. Once it becomes severe, it is too late! Hence the need for an effective vaccine. I don't appreciate the machine gun approach. One bit at a time please. Lets talk about Covid side effects and the cover up with Marburg.
  21. Do you also believe that Hinduism is exceptional? Islamism? You do freely admit that you believe in the evangelicalism. You believe in the mission of evangelizing non-Christians to bring them into the one true faith and one true fold, correct? You may not personally engage in it a lot and believe it is not your gift, but do you discourage it as an act of onlyism? Do you suggest that your fellow evangelists with the gift should be more humble and question their certainty in their mission of evangelizing non-Christians? Or do you believe that it is worth every effort? You don't see a point in "converting" Latter-day Saints because we are already Christian, same with Catholics, and Baptists, etc. but what about non-Christians? Is there a point there? If so, why?
  22. They probably removed it because they knew that anti-maskers would be making memes out of it and otherwise using it in inappropriate ways. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in response to something stupid members have done to use it in their anti-mask campaigns. Masks are not only approved now, but recommended.
  23. This sounds like an acknowledgment that what they did in this specific situation was wrong. It sounds an acknowledgement of guilt. Would you disagree? If you are suggesting that we need to acknowledge guilt and ask forgiveness, than I agree. Acknowledgment of guilt and a plea to forgive us for specific sins that we are aware of is required to receive forgiveness. We also must change performance as you say and have a change of heart - but that is not all that is needed.
×
×
  • Create New...