Kerry A. Shirts Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 This is one of the most astonishing sites I have ever read.......... and the comments are especially hilarious! We now have absolute PROOF that the Bible literalists are THE ENEMY of truth.http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Is that a serious site?I don't buy it. Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah
Kerry A. Shirts Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 Is that a serious site?I don't buy it.I know, I know........ I sincerely HOPE it isn't a serious site.
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Anyone who can refer to reference frames isn't going to make the error "we'd feel it move".
Darren10 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) That webpost is satire. And it's really funny. Edited July 10, 2012 by Darren10
Thinking Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 "However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving."And we wouldn't be able to keep our hats on. 1
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I guess it is anti-american not to believe one is the center of the universe. 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) :lol: Edited July 10, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Popular Post cinepro Posted July 10, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 10, 2012 As a member of a Church that teaches that the Earth was created near Kolob, and fell to its current position in the universe after the Fall of Adam, I respectfully decline the invitation to mock people with unusual views on astronomy. 7
Hamilton Porter Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 As a member of a Church that teaches that the Earth was created near Kolob, and fell to its current position in the universe after the Fall of Adam, I respectfully decline the invitation to mock people with unusual views on astronomy.I'm a member of the LDS Church who believes that Kolob is nothing more than an astral representation of Jesus. Can I mock geocentric people? 3
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 My first admonition to my children when they get their drivers license is to remember that "everyone is the center of their own universe and act accordingly". 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 KevinG:I taught mine that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. Drive accordingly. 4
wenglund Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 As a member of a Church that teaches that the Earth was created near Kolob, and fell to its current position in the universe after the Fall of Adam, I respectfully decline the invitation to mock people with unusual views on astronomy.Excellent point. Too bad, though, you haven't extended the same mock-avoidance courtesy to your own Church. But, I suppose the GSB isn't designed to work that way. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 2
yootaw Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I'm a member of the LDS Church who believes that Kolob is nothing more than an astral representation of Jesus. Can I mock geocentric people?This is a new idea to me. I've always heard of Kolob in literal terms. I like your framework better. Is this an idea that is supported elsewhere, our just personal interpretation?
volgadon Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 This is a new idea to me. I've always heard of Kolob in literal terms. I like your framework better. Is this an idea that is supported elsewhere, our just personal interpretation?I think Nibley mentioned it, but Joseph Antley from this board used to have a blog post on the subject. The idea is well-founded in the ancient world. Here is just one reference. http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2009/12/and-we-all-shine-on.html 2
volgadon Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/12/08/the-great-one-is-kolob/ 1
Maidservant Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 doesn't kolob = qalb, which is 'the heart'? (qalb is Arabic, I think)
volgadon Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 doesn't kolob = qalb, which is 'the heart'? (qalb is Arabic, I think)I'm more inclined towards a weak 'r' in the Hebrew word "karov," near. 1
The Nehor Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 As a member of a Church that teaches that the Earth was created near Kolob, and fell to its current position in the universe after the Fall of Adam, I respectfully decline the invitation to mock people with unusual views on astronomy.But ours is so much cooler. If it makes you feel better I do promise that I will mock anyone who claims to empirically prove that Kolob is out there using current astronomical observances. So far I've only had to do this once. 1
Popular Post JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted July 11, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Okay, granted, the "earth literally fell from Kolob orbit" is a pretty unnecessary view.But what, may I ask, is so out-there about humans living on other worlds circling a star?Presumably, that's what we're doing here, after all.The earth we are all currently sitting on while we type is a physically-real planet orbiting a star. Is this crazy science fiction stuff? Is this embarrassing? Is this something to downplay into solely astral symbolism for fear of looking silly to evangelicals? And if we've granted the premise that our subatomic premortal Intelligence (or whatever) is capable of being separated from wherever the Gods are and somehow Falling into the bodies we inhabit on this planet for this life (a view that many people already find ludicrously, laughably impossible), why should we think it's impossible for the reverse to happen when we die, with our Intelligence rising to inhabit a body on a different, physically-real world?I just don't understand what's so embarrassing (or, as Antley might put it, "narrow") about believing in a physically-real Heaven; frankly, I find such a view much more sensible than the usual Neoplatonic string-theory multiverse stuff invoking alternate immaterial dimensions that gets misclassified as "deep" mystical theology by so many folks. I think one thing Joseph Smith restored was the tangible reality of the "other worlds." Why must we constantly edge back from this blatant cosmism and revert to Neoplatonic post-Apostasy arguments about the other worlds which are so conveniently beyond time and space and "mere" matter? If the other worlds are "immaterial" it's because they're too far away to touch with our bare hands or see with unaided eyes. That doesn't mean they're not really out there.When The Godmakers plays ominous music and records a self-serious voiceover over their lame animation trying to get me to be ashamed of "Starbase Kolob", trying to get me to be ashamed for thinking that "trillions of planets scattered throughout the cosmos are ruled by countless [human] Gods", it just makes me laugh. What, the traditional Christian view of a Heaven outside of space and time and matter is somehow supposed to be more "respectable" just because it sounds sophisticated to Freshmen who think Aristotelian arguments for a disembodied First Cause monotheistic God as the Ground Of All Being are even remotely tenable? It's letting the opposition define the paradigm of the debate to concede that it's somehow silly to think of Heaven as a real world. The reason the symbolism in the Pearl of Great Price is powerful is, in my opinion, because the other worlds are real, and so is Christ and the rest of the Council. I'm just getting so tired of the arguments made by so many who think that those of us who hold to a more literal view of some aspects of the PoGP are somehow missing "what it [really] is", as if their metaphorical view is so much more wise and superior than those crass materialistic "astronomically-minded Egyptians." (I suppose it's just fitting karma, seeing as I'm constantly getting called a Neo-Orthodox Liberal Cultural Mormon for not believing in a literal Adam and Eve.)Everyone should really watch Nibley's Pearl of Great Price lectures detailing the history of the loss of the Divine Council, the loss of the plurality of the worlds, and the loss of cosmism from modern religion in favor of anemic "spiritual" platitudes and abstractions. I don't care that the KFD isn't canonized; I think the worldview Joseph Smith expressed there -- sci-fi planetary stuff and all -- underlies many of the Revelations in the D&C. And he showed from the Bible that the human Gods who "came down" to us here dwelt on an Earth -- a physically-real planet, like our own. God Himself could not create Himself (meaning -- gasp! -- He inhabits a body which evolved? Blasphemy! Kill the witch! ), and found Himself in the midst of countless other intelligences (who, again, He could not "create" at the fundamental level), who He organized according to law. (Organized in the sense of assembled into the Divine Council where He was elected as speaker by the common consent of those who recognized His wisdom, not "organized" in the sense of piecing together their atomic structure.)How is this different than the most glorious, exalted form of "secular humanism"? How is this different than NASA discussing panspermia and interplanetary colonization and terraforming and convergent evolution and biosystematics and the evolutionary Tree of Life? And why do we get embarrassed just because it's not vaguely "spiritual" enough, and is instead a genuinely plausible, concrete answer to a lot of questions about our origins? (And did anyone else love , despite the stupidity of some of the characters, such as the one near the end who somehow didn't think to just turn right while running away from the rolling ship about to steamroll her?) It's mindblowing to me that our culture has become so cynical that stuff like is seen as embarrassing rather than awe-inspiring just because the name sounds goofy now to a few small-minded parochial Americans. Same goes for the doctrine of Heavenly Mother. These are the things we should be preaching from the rooftops, not sweeping under the rug because "they're not essential for our salvation" and Protestants look down their noses at us Primitive Polytheists just like they do about Joseph the Village Seer with his head stuck in the stupid hat.No, these things may not be essential, but a physically-real Heaven and female deities and a positive view of human potential and sexuality are exactly what is missing from so much of western culture. We've dismissed the oldest stories of the human race as "mythology" instead of recognizing that the simplest explanation (everyone is so in love with Occam) for the worldwide traditional stories of people dying and being reborn among the constellations isn't the flawed etiology posited by Frazer, but simply the truth. Edited July 11, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 6
volgadon Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I don't find it embarrasing to consider Kolob a real planet, I consider it immaterial to the scripture, if you'll pardon the pun. The lesson being taught involved governing entities, represented by the stars/planets, and their role in the hierarchy and government of God. I've got quite a few references for a project of mine. The whole concept was far from anemic, as least from what I've found. I'm not even sure it would have made much sense for Abraham to look at it any other way.What I do find embarrasing is stuff like Hilton's Kolob Theorem. Edited July 11, 2012 by volgadon 1
Maidservant Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 For me, I accept that consciousness is the fundamental in the multi-metaverse. So everything else I think, believe and do flows from that framework. I also don't divide my consciousness, energy, matter, spirit, body, physical, tangible, intangible into neat little dualistic sorted categories, separated from each other. In one sense, maybe in the only sense (not quite there yet), everything is consciousness, everything is 'one'. I accept that all that we experience is information, program (which is tangible, has tangible elements for this transmission of information). This is particularly true for our mortal experience, which I accept as built. Not created, but actually built. I do believe in creation, but I have a different framework for that. This mortal plane, this test, is a built technology that provides specific experiences for us.Having said that, I also accept (without have a one-to-one correspondence of reconciliation on the above framework) and completely embrace the bodiness of us. I don't need to be anything else other than human. I don't seek for anything 'more sacred' than being human. I embrace the chaos. It takes my breath away--to be a person, and to witness all other persons here on their journey. I also completely accept and intend to be human for eternity, and am starting to admit the possibility that I always have been before I came here to this place. God cannot give me any other gift or heaven other than the one I'm already in--being alive . I read a book a long time ago that I sort of can't even quite remember, but these days lately again I've been realizing how deeply it has effected me, a seed growing, and it has taken me over a decade to realize its teaching in my life, well I'm not even finished realizing. I may need to read it again. But you might like it (Jeremy), "Mother of Pearl" by Melinda Haynes (I learned about the six-sided woman).
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I don't find it embarrasing to consider Kolob a real planet, I consider it immaterial to the scripture, if you'll pardon the pun. The lesson being taught involved governing entities, represented by the stars/planets, and their role in the hierarchy and government of God. I've got quite a few references for a project of mine. The whole concept was far from anemic, as least from what I've found. I'm not even sure it would have made much sense for Abraham to look at it any other way.What I do find embarrasing is stuff like Hilton's Kolob Theorem.No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the lesson wasn't also symbolic; I definitely agree with you about that -- I'm actually working on a paper myself about the Hosts of Heaven/the Stars. (And I apologize if that post came off as attacking you personally, volgadon -- upon rereading, it sounds rather more, um, pointed than I should have let myself get. I tried to edit out some of the excess.) I'm just annoyed at the argument Antley (and so many others I've read recently) make that imply that because cosmology isn't "essential to our salvation" that it's somehow less important than our symbolic understanding. I'm an amateur surrealist painter; I love symbolism. But I love astronomy and science, too! And I don't even know what it means when we shut down speculation just because it's "not essential to our salvation."Whatever principle of intelligence we gain will rise with us; if our religion is natural philosophy, as Brigham Young said, it seems to me that we should be at the forefront of all fields of science, trying to learn how to be like our Heavenly Parents who told us that the last enemy to be destroyed is death (see Corinthians). How? Joseph said it'll be a long time after this life before we understand salvation, but we should be trying to understand right now, and that's not going to happen unless we start using our brains to figure out the real world, rather than being as salt that has lost its savor because we're not smart enough to be the saviors of humanity yet. And I think the first step is to quit adopting the post-apostasy arguments I see being appropriated all over the place in the LDS sphere that take it as a given that the "spaceman" God traditional christians mock is supposed to be more embarrassing than the idealized outside-of-space-and-time abstractions (see the 'Did God Ever Sin' thread, where the inevitable First Cause God is trotted out as being so much more philosophically respectable than the Real Person God of Mormonism). Edited July 11, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 3
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Thanks for the book rec, Maidservant. I agree -- there is nothing better than being alive. That is the greatest gift of all, and I like being a "mere" human, one vaguely-intelligent little chimp among many in the tribe which evolved on this planet, sci-fi as the concept of an anthropoid species trying to fly to other worlds may be.
Hamilton Porter Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) This is a new idea to me. I've always heard of Kolob in literal terms. I like your framework better. Is this an idea that is supported elsewhere, our just personal interpretation?Yes, in addition to Volgadon's and Jeremy Orbit Smith's references, see this great article by David Bokovoy:http://maxwellinstit...es/?vol=3&id=71In Babylonian cosmology, the universe was governed by heavenly bodies. Edited July 11, 2012 by Hamilton Porter 2
Recommended Posts