Libs Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Why don't you believe those who did NOT believe in Jesus?The Book of Mormon was totally inspired- I personally believe it is indeed historical- but it doesn't have to be to be spiritually "true"Ha! I have often said that...that the Book of Mormon does not have to be ancient history, to contain spiritual truths. Many people disagree with that for some pretty good reasons, I guess. Partly, because the book stands as another witness of Jesus Christ, and if it is not historically accurate, then it cannot be what it claims. There is some logic to that.Why don't I believe those who didn't believe in Jesus? Spiritual witness.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Why don't I believe those who didn't believe in Jesus? Spiritual witness. And that is exactly the point!
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 For those who think that evidence can prove that Jesus is the Christ, I would like to respectfully ask them to explain to me why Christ himself says that is not the case?Matt 12:38Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. 42The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.Matt 161The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Libs Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 But, you didn't say anything about proof that Jesus was the Christ. I do believe that one can only know that through spiritual witness.You said, that it cannot be proven that he even existed. That can be proven.There are things that can be physically proven about the Book of Mormon, including whether or not it's an ancient document (perhaps, someday). But, the spiritual claims can only be known through spiritual witness..
Calm Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 My life would be a lot easier if I still believed. And my outward behaviors wouldn't be any different.More likely some aspects of your life would be easier if you still believed, but other aspects of your life which are currently more important to you are easier with you not believing.
Calm Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 My accusation is neither ignorant or offensive, especially if it is true. The truth being we always do that which we desire, and we often seek a rationalization for it. .....How then is it so difficult for an individual to do the same?One does not have to assume that the desire is inherently bad or selfish. Those who choose good use the same process of weighting what they desire and rationalizing it as those who choose bad and everything in between. The process of desire, choice, rationalizing is neither good nor bad, it is what values we choose to promote and what rationalizations we choose to allow that create that attribute.
LDSToronto Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 People will always see what they want to see in order to justify their actions.Even the very faithful?H. 1
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Ha! I have often said that...that the Book of Mormon does not have to be ancient history, to contain spiritual truths. Many people disagree with that for some pretty good reasons, I guess. Partly, because the book stands as another witness of Jesus Christ, and if it is not historically accurate, then it cannot be what it claims. There is some logic to that.Why don't I believe those who didn't believe in Jesus? Spiritual witness. Would a man standing next to the Brother of Jared have seen the hand of God? Would such a man deny it ever occurred if he did not see the hand of Jared?
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Even the very faithful?H.See my earlier post. Depends on the heart of a man now doesn't it. If you have anger and use your anger to fuel your doubt, what kind of witness are you really?
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Would a man standing next to the Brother of Jared have seen the hand of God? Would such a man deny it ever occurred if he did not see the hand of Jared?No one could prove the Brother of Jared did or didn't see the hand of God. But the details surrounding the historical account of the Brother of Jared can be proven, or at least analyzed with high degree of certainty (IMHO). So I guess I'll modify my original assertion about religions being able to be proven. They can be proven false through historical and scientific evidence, but they can not be proven true. If you want to tell me there was a person who lived some time in the last 10,000 years who prayed to God and saw his hand, with no other detail, this could not be proven false (or true). But if you give me a 500 page historical book with details about its writing and translation, then it can be proven false (but not true).
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 I would disagree that history can prove or disprove since we have many instances in which we know pure interpretation comes to play.Consider when Washington showed up at the 2nd Continental Congress. They were looking for a general and he would not request the position but showed up in his military uniform. Was this the not so subtle actions of an ambition man? Consider also that this was during the pre-industrial revoltion. Suits were expensive and Washington only had one that was tailored for him, his military suit, the others ordered from VA were for men of the maximum height of 6'. Washington was 6'4". It goes to one's preconceived notions of Washington to interpret, not necessarily what actually was.
Nemesis Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 This thread has been derailed to make it more personal. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts