All Things In Likeness Of Christ? Really?!?

[CV75]

Why is everything spiritual? And can you demonstrate this with anything realistic? Or is this just a claim said without evidence? If so, is there any logical reason why I should believe it on simple say so?

Today I heard a few people discussing the logic of someone simultaneously arguing 1) that no one can know that God exists; and 2) that he knows God doesn't exist.

Edited July 15, 2012 by CV75

[volgadon]

Today I heard a few people discussing the logic of someone simultaneously arguing 1) that no one can know that God exists; and 2) that he knows God doesn't exist.

You mean someone believing that there was a god who created the world, but remained distant, uninvolved in the running of it or in his creation's lives and destinies.

[blackstrap]

Sarapis!

Was Sarapis an ancient Shriner?

[blackstrap]

Today I heard a few people discussing the logic of someone simultaneously arguing 1) that no one can know that God exists; and 2) that he knows God doesn't exist.

Congratulations to the person who has proved a negative.

[CV75]

You mean someone believing that there was a god who created the world, but remained distant, uninvolved in the running of it or in his creation's lives and destinies.

It sounded more black and white than that--someone claiming that no one can know whether God exists while at the same time asserting that he knows that God does not exist. Kind of like saying that a belief in God is the same as not knowing there is one,but that no beleif in God is the same as knowing there is none--that no one can know that God exists, but everyone can know He does not exist.

[volgadon]

It sounded more black and white than that--someone claiming that no one can know whether God exists while at the same time asserting that he knows that God does not exist. Kind of like saying that a belief in God is the same as not knowing there is one,but that no beleif in God is the same as knowing there is none--that no one can know that God exists, but everyone can know He does not exist.

[Glenn101]

ShowFanX said: "If all spirit is matter, it must be the case that all matter is spirit, unless there is some class of matter that is not. The question is whether there is such a class."

That seems to be a syllogistic bit of reasoning.

Also you are conflating temporal/spiritual commandments with everything created being spiritual.

As far as animism is concerned, it is the belief that all objects, trees, the earth, rocks, etc. have spirits. If God created everything spiritually before He created it physically, it would seem to follow that the earth, the trees, etc. do indeed have spirits and are alive in some sense.

However, I may be quibbling over something that is not all that important.

Glenn

[bcuzbcuz]

Sarapis!

Give that man a cigar!

[bcuzbcuz]

Very nice picture. What did the museum say the statue was an image of?

Thank you. Yes, it is a nice picture. I'm surprised at how well it turned out. I like to think of myself as a photographer, same as I like to think of myself as a sports fisherman. In both exercises I rarely catch anything.

But I found the marble carving to be breathtakingly exquisite. 2000 years old and yet vibrantly alive. I was surprised that the image of Serapis so closely matches our modern concepts of Christ's image, (minus the hat, of course).

The museum placard said it was a statue of Zeus-Serapis (with a modion on his head) but because he is standing beside the three-headed dog Cerberus, that he represents Plouto, Lord of the Underworld.

Edited July 16, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[volgadon]

Thank you. Yes, it is a nice picture. I'm surprised at how well it turned out. I like to think of myself as a photographer, same as I like to think of myself as a sports fisherman. In both exercises I rarely catch anything.

But I found the marble carving to be breathtakingly exquisite. 2000 years old and yet vibrantly alive. I was surprised that the image of Serapis so closely matches our modern concepts of Christ's image, (minus the hat, of course).

The museum placard said it was a statue of Zeus-Serapis (with a modion on his head) but because he is standing beside the three-headed dog Cerberus, that he represents Plouto, Lord of the Underworld.

Syncretism at its best. As one magical formula had it, the one Zeus is Sarapis. Hadn't seen the Plouto connection before, though.

[CV75]

[media=]

LOL; he'd make a pretty good Korihor in the BOM Movie sequel!

[zerinus]

All Things Bear Record of Christ?!

By Kerry A. Shirts

An LDS acquaintance of mine here on these boards and I were discussing the significance and importance of science and religion, faith and knowledge. He said this to me after quoting the Pearl of Great Price:

Moses 6:63

“63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

He then noted:

“Many years ago I accepted this scripture as a foundation of my testimony. I have accepted and tested it and it is true. Over the years I have developed my understandings of all things temporal and spiritual in accordance with this principle. Following the insight of scriptures and counsel of prophets , I seek to find the likeness of my God and my Savior in all things both in heaven and Earth. If the scriptures are true to you then it should remind you of how it is that one can see God and his creations as I have done.”

Now I (Kerry) would propose this: Unfortunately, one can only accept this without having thought on it much. Allow me to explain please. I think what happens is that we are so over-awed by scripture sometimes that we stop thinking through the ramifications of what is said. A little reflection shows us the utter absurdity of the above philosophy of accepting this on face value.

Consider if you will Mosquitos. Blood sucking diseases carrying very ugly bugs. This is in likeness of Christ? Really? Now granted, the mosquito Aedes albopictus has actually mutated its parts of its biting apparatus into another pair of legs, so that they cannot penetrate our skin because they lack the tactile and chemosensory hairs that locate the right spot, but this is a likeness of Christ? So do we say that mutated species are a likeness of a mutating Christ or something?

<snip>

I haven't read all the posts in the thread, and I don't know if this point has been noted or not; but you and your "LDS acquaintance" are misreading that scripture:

Moses 6:

63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

"All things have their likeness" does not translate into "all things are in the likeness of Jesus Christ". It just doesn't. The second clause says that "all things are created and made to bear record of me . . .". That doesn't mean that they are all in the likeness of Jesus Christ either. "Bearing record of Jesus Christ" is not the same as being in the "likeness of Jesus Christ". Your error stems from your failure to understand the first clause, "all things have their likeness". "Likeness of what," you may ask? The rest of the verse, read in conjunction with the following, should give you a clue:

D&C 77:

2 . . . that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.

Do you get the idea now, or do you want me to spell it for you? The first clause says that all things have their likeness in the spirit. All temporal creations have their likeness in the spiritual creation, and all spiritual creations have their likeness in the temporal creation. That is what it means that all things have their likeness. And the second clause says that all these creations (be they temporal or spiritual, or their equivalent "likenesses"), are made to bear record of Jesus Christ. Exactly how they do that is not revealed; but here are some clues:

Alma 30:

44 . . . yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

D&C 88:

45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

Edited July 16, 2012 by zerinus

[SamIam]

I haven't read all the posts in the thread, and I don't know if this point has been noted or not; but you and your "LDS acquaintance" are misreading that scripture:

I believe that I can safely say that if you read all of the posts on this thread and the associated “this is why we need science thread,” you may find that you are in more agreement than disagreement with Kerry’s LDS acquaintance. You will have to listen with your spiritual ears and not the “ I can say it better this way” ears but you may find more likeness than you thought.

[zerinus]

I believe that I can safely say that if you read all of the posts on this thread and the associated “this is why we need science thread,” you may find that you are in more agreement than disagreement with Kerry’s LDS acquaintance. You will have to listen with your spiritual ears and not the “ I can say it better this way” ears but you may find more likeness than you thought.

The OP was not about science; it was about the specific verse in question. I was answering the OP. The fact that the thread may have drifted away from the OP into "science" is not my concern.

[SamIam]

The OP was not about science; it was about the specific verse in question. I was answering the OP. The fact that the thread may have drifted away from the OP into "science" is not my concern.

There's the edge Zerinus...I consider you a very good person and a generally on the side of testimony type but you do not do well with someone suggesting you might want to evaluate more carefully your stance in favor of a united approach. Instead you declare, in not so many words, "How dare you." You isolate yourself from the union of common goals and objectives for the isolating stance of individual superiority. I sense of you a genuinely diligent effort at understanding the Gospel but if you must do it alone, I suspect it may take a while longer to accomplish.

[wenglund]

I feel as if you are over thinking it?

...and doing so in an overly literalistic way, while ironically giving far too little thought to the important figurative/symbolic aspects of the quoted passage. Let us hope Kerry's recent fundamentalist journey into scientism is short lived and we eventually get back the old broad-minded and spiritually insightful Kerry that we have loved so much over the years. We would all lose much if he has gone all Kevin Graham on us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

There's the edge Zerinus...I consider you a very good person and a generally on the side of testimony type but you do not do well with someone suggesting you might want to evaluate more carefully your stance in favor of a united approach. Instead you declare, in not so many words, "How dare you." You isolate yourself from the union of common goals and objectives for the isolating stance of individual superiority. I sense of you a genuinely diligent effort at understanding the Gospel but if you must do it alone, I suspect it may take a while longer to accomplish.

Sorry, didn't follow that.

[SamIam]

Sorry, didn't follow that.

In your original post you admit to not having read all of the information and then used a snippet of a conversation to formulate the entirety of your response as if it represented the summum bonum of correct understanding without determining what had already been said. No big deal except that while recognizing openly that you did not have all of the information you choose to lump two opposite sides of a discussion into one messy pile together and while you ride in as the paladin of perfected understanding and then obscured the distinction between the two sides by suggesting what you construed as a third option which it was not. You posited to correct both as equally wrong while actually they do not belong on the same side of the debate in the least. This is much like the political contrivance of a spoiler to split the vote between constituents that would otherwise be united in defeating a common evil.

Your response had you been more wise could have elaborated, expanded, improved upon, or however it makes you feel best to see it, the side of the debate which actually your response indicates you are in perfect agreement with, IF the nature of your heart was more inclined to unite upon common interests instead of setting yourself to the forefront of perceived brilliance. I tried to be gentler in my first response to let you ponder upon what I was saying and choose the better understanding. However, maybe this will be more clear……………….

[zerinus]

In your original post you admit to not having read all of the information and then used a snippet of a conversation to formulate the entirety of your response as if it represented the summum bonum of correct understanding without determining what had already been said. No big deal except that while recognizing openly that you did not have all of the information you choose to lump two opposite sides of a discussion into one messy pile together and while you ride in as the paladin of perfected understanding and then obscured the distinction between the two sides by suggesting what you construed as a third option which it was not. You posited to correct both as equally wrong while actually they do not belong on the same side of the debate in the least. This is much like the political contrivance of a spoiler to split the vote between constituents that would otherwise be united in defeating a common evil.

Your response had you been more wise could have elaborated, expanded, improved upon, or however it makes you feel best to see it, the side of the debate which actually your response indicates you are in perfect agreement with, IF the nature of your heart was more inclined to unite upon common interests instead of setting yourself to the forefront of perceived brilliance. I tried to be gentler in my first response to let you ponder upon what I was saying and choose the better understanding. However, maybe this will be more clear……………….

Sorry, still don't understand.

[SamIam]

Sorry, still don't understand.

Perhaps you might at least look like you are trying to grasp the point by explaining back to me what you think I am saying. I don't think you are really trying very sincerely. And that is the symptom of everythinkg I have been trying to explain. Give it a shot - if you can be sincere I'll keep trying.

[ShawFanX]

ShowFanX said: "If all spirit is matter, it must be the case that all matter is spirit, unless there is some class of matter that is not. The question is whether there is such a class."

That seems to be a syllogistic bit of reasoning.

Yes it is. To be clear about it again. If all spirit substance, of any kind, is matter (of some kind), then, unless there is some class of matter that is of a completely alien or wholly "other" substance, it must follow that all matter is also "spirit." If I claimed that if all spirit is matter, then all matter is spirit, that, of itself, would not follow logically. It all depends, in this case, on whether ancient and modern revelation support the idea that there is some state or kind of matter that is wholly outside this class. Anything that is spirit is also matter. We know that much. A number of ancient gnostics would have little trouble thinking that the entire created universe, being matter, was utterly alien to spirit. This is also true with Neo-Platonism.

The D&C (and other references) scripture I quoted has the Lord saying that, to him, all things are spiritual. This implies that, for all of us, if we had a god-like mind, all things would also appear "spiritual." I'm inferring from this that all "things" include, not just only all relationships and states of being, but all phenomena, including all substances and objects in and of themselves and in relation to each other within the created order. Is being spirit and being spiritual interrelated? I think so.

Also you are conflating temporal/spiritual commandments with everything created being spiritual.

All the "temporal" commandments are spiritual, and relate to spiritual ends and growth.

As far as animism is concerned, it is the belief that all objects, trees, the earth, rocks, etc. have spirits. If God created everything spiritually before He created it physically, it would seem to follow that the earth, the trees, etc. do indeed have spirits and are alive in some sense.

The scriptures nowhere state that anything is "alive" that is not actually sentient, and nowhere does it make claims that rocks, water, copper, iron, or clumps of mud are sentient or "alive." Trees are living beings, and apparently have spirit bodies in some sense in the way animal life does, but these, again, are of a different ontological order than a salt crystal.

Loran

Edited July 16, 2012 by ShawFanX

[zerinus]

Perhaps you might at least look like you are trying to grasp the point by explaining back to me what you think I am saying. I don't think you are really trying very sincerely. And that is the symptom of everythinkg I have been trying to explain. Give it a shot - if you can be sincere I'll keep trying.

What you are saying is not pertinent to what I had posted. I do not see the connection.

[SamIam]

What you are saying is not pertinent to what I had posted. I do not see the connection.

Good enough, perhaps a future opportunity to explain will present itself with an additional example that you are able to more readily understand.

You are out of the thread for nannying, insults and earlier vulgarity.

[Bill Hamblin]

I believe "all things" refers to the totality of the cosmic order, not every single little thing within that order. Thus, the fact that cosmic order exists testifies of the creator = Christ.

[ShawFanX]

I believe "all things" refers to the totality of the cosmic order, not every single little thing within that order. Thus, the fact that cosmic order exists testifies of the creator = Christ.

Would this imply then that, for example, a butterfly would be something, a discreet example perhaps, of that which might testify of Christ, as over against, say, a trap door spider?

Edited July 17, 2012 by ShawFanX