Baptism Of The Earth? Gospel Topics Article

[thesometimesaint]

And yet to you, any chance to poke fun at either of them just makes your day.

 

Ken Ham is one that is a calling Pat Robertson a Pagan Secularist, and Pat Roberson is saying that Ken Ham is deaf, dumb and blind. Christians both calling each other such nice Christian names.

[thesometimesaint]

How can we know you are not an atheist like this guy? 

 

 

Just kidding We know you are not an atheist. 

 

and I do disagree with Edward Current 

 

It is a spoof.

[Rob Osborn]

Ken Ham is one that is a calling Pat Robertson a Pagan Secularist, and Pat Roberson is saying that Ken Ham is deaf, dumb and blind. Christians both calling each other such nice Christian names.

Well, at least we know they are no different than you and I then.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Classic. I loved it!

 

It is a parody, like I said, he is an atheist, not a Young Earth Creationist. 

 

Shared it because you keep saying that sometimewhat is an atheist. 

Edited May 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[CV75]

CV75, I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. The whole point of a baptism is the making of a covenant. It isn't about the dust. Baptism alone isn't capable of sanctifying a  person. Can the earth accept a covenant? I say that it cannot - any more than a part of it can - a rock or a tree. And there is no doctrinal justification for this sort of approach. Part of me sees a lot of these discussions as attempts to allow us to accept what Brigham Young said in some way (as opposed to seeing him as a man of many opinions as well as his revelations). But, not only do I not share that sort of compunction, I don't believe that Brigham Young meant any of these kinds of things that you suggest when he said what he said. I believe that he said it within the context that he brought with him to his Mormonism. And that is a bigger problem - because Brigham Young wasn't providing us with revelation (that he may not have adequately understood himself) or with scripture that he had to interpret (and thus might have misinterpreted), he was providing us with his personal understanding based on a whole host of issues. So there isn't a text for us to fall back on and say, see here is what Brigham Young was reading that he understood in this way, and here is how I am understanding that text to mean something different. When you provide an interpretation of a personal opinion, you only end up farther from a potential underlying reality, not closer.

I certainly appreciate what you've shared from your own studies, and granted I jumped into this thread very late without fully fleshing out my thoughts.

 

I really don’t know what Brigham Young meant by that quote, but my personal take-away in the context of this thread is that God ensured that the Earth was created and prepared, and that He ensures that it will be further prepared for our continued post-mortal habitation as celestial beings. I think everything God does for the Earth is by way of a priesthood ordinance of some kind, as that is how I believe He exercises His power in behalf of His children (and anything that acts) and the elements that support the cause of our advancement (those things that are acted upon).

 

My other views are simply part of the process of thinking this through; I don’t attribute them to Brigham Young at all. I am only using what he said as a springboard for assembling new thoughts for the sake of discussion.

 

I agree that human baptism is exactly what you say it is (I’m a strong proponent for the prime importance and role of agency), but I can also see how there might have been another kind of baptism of the Earth that correlates with its limited or lack of agency.

 

Whether the Earth was actually baptized or not, who knows; it doesn't really matter to me right now as a fact in and of itself, but I find it worth exploring and discussing as a means to consider and better understand other truths. If it was baptized, the reason that of all the flora and fauna that arise from its dust are not baptized could be that they, unlike humans, share the same level or lack of agency as the Earth, and its baptism covered them for the purpose of fulfilling the measure of their creation. I think this speaks to Adam’s (mankind’s) role as steward over everything on the Earth as a whole system.

 

All this is just my personal opinion and what-iffing of course, and hopefully some good will come out of it.

Edited May 16, 2014 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Well, at least we know they are no different than you and I then.

 

One difference, I never once have I said you were a Pagan Secularist of were blind, dumb, deaf. I simply disagree with your idea's, and your idiosyncratic use of words.

Edited May 16, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

One difference, I never once have I said you were a Pagan Secularist of were blind, dumb, deaf. I simply disagree with your idea's, and your idiosyncratic use of words.

So, basically you think I am an idiot. I think you are arrogant. I love you too.

[thesometimesaint]

So, basically you think I am an idiot. I think you are arrogant. I love you too.

 

I've never said you were an idiot. Nor do I believe you are an idiot. Misinformed, yes; some really silly ideas, yes; Idiot(one who lacks judgement), no.

I'm the most humble person you'll ever meet. Just ask me.

[Rob Osborn]

I've never said you were an idiot. Nor do I believe you are an idiot. Misinformed, yes; some really silly ideas, yes; Idiot(one who lacks judgement), no.

I'm the most humble person you'll ever meet. Just ask me.

So, basically you think I am an idiot. I still think you are arrogant.

[thesometimesaint]

So, basically you think I am an idiot. I still think you are arrogant.

 

CFR. That I've ever called you an idiot. Please provide evidence of your miraculous mind-reading abilities.

 

I fully admit to having strong opinions. However I'm not the Atheist that you have repeated called me.

[Calm]

I have a brilliant sister. She has a Ph.D. these days and writes the most beautiful prose. When we were younger she had a lot of silly ideas about how people relate to each other which I have no idea where she got them from save wishful thinking perhaps. Some rough experience has given her some greater insight and learning changing at least some of those ideas.

I would never call her an idiot just because she obviously had some messed up ideas. For one thing, I think we all have areas we've got significantly wrong in our lives being human.

TSS has quite clearly stated he doesn't think you are an idiot, you in his view just have some silly and misinformed and even individualistic (perhaps you will feel better if that word is substituted for "idiosyncratic" given it has a generally positive connotation) ideas.

Your insistence that he thinks you are an idiot is just demonstrating that he is right.

Edited May 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

CFR. That I've ever called you an idiot. Please provide evidence of your miraculous mind-reading abilities.

 

I fully admit to having strong opinions. However I'm not the Atheist that you have repeated called me.

Your constant belittling of mine and my fellow Christians views. Associating me with the "misinformed", the unlearned, lacking an education, etc etc. There are a few individuals who I dislike having dialogue with and you are one of them. You put yourself out as an arrogant person. Whenever I dilaohue with you on any scientific matter you constantly hit me with a barrage of anti-god videos, statements, etc, and then mock at me constantly as being the definition of an idiot. It gets old. The only reason I associate you with atheism is that whenever we debate these topics you constantly quote atheists, link to atheist videos and use them to mock time and time again my fellow Christians who believe the scriptures. As for the scriptures you also constantly bring up time and time again how its wrong in every manner and then you link to quotes and sites that are atheist that mock the bible and try to discredit it.

[Rob Osborn]

You are being obtuse.

Here is but one example. Here is the definition of obtuse-

" : stupid or unintelligent : not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple"

How many times have you called me as being this over the years?

[thesometimesaint]

The qualifier is "being". We are all obtuse on some things.

 

I've consistently linked to Theistic scientists. You are purposefully ignoring that I used Galileo, a Theist; Newton was a Theist; Darwin, a Theist; Eyring; a Theist, a link to Mormon Scholars Testify, all Theists; That 40% of all American scientists are Theists. I could have added in many more but what is the point?

[MormonFreeThinker]

The qualifier is "being". We are all obtuse on some things.

 

I've consistently linked to Theistic scientists. You are purposefully ignoring that I used Galileo, a Theist; Newton was a Theist; Darwin, a Theist; Eyring; a Theist, a link to Mormon Scholars Testify, all Theists; That 40% of all American scientists are Theists. I could have added in many more but what is the point?

 

about 40% believe in a God they can pray to,  the rest are other theist, deist, pantheist, Spinoza, agnostic, and atheist. Many don't even think about what they are. 

Edited May 17, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

The qualifier is "being". We are all obtuse on some things.

 

I've consistently linked to Theistic scientists. You are purposefully ignoring that I used Galileo, a Theist; Newton was a Theist; Darwin, a Theist; Eyring; a Theist, a link to Mormon Scholars Testify, all Theists; That 40% of all American scientists are Theists. I could have added in many more but what is the point?

If you want to have a real grown up conversation with me as I do with you then lest stop all the childish crap. You show me some respect and treat me as an intellectual being and I will do the same.

[thesometimesaint]

If you want to have a real grown up conversation with me as I do with you then lest stop all the childish crap. You show me some respect and treat me as an intellectual being and I will do the same.

 

Beats head against brick wall.

[Tacenda]

Beats head against brick wall.

Just like so many bang their heads on the wall when they hear that you might believe the BoM is historical with nearly zero evidence of it really ever happening. Why so hard on Ron, when he is faithful to what the leaders have taught?

[thesometimesaint]

Just like so many bang their heads on the wall when they hear that you might believe the BoM is historical with nearly zero evidence of it really ever happening. Why so hard on Ron, when he is faithful to what the leaders have taught?

 

Fair point. However I don't disbelieve the Book of Mormon based on its lack of evidence. What physical evidence would there be for God? What limited evidence there is is consistent with what is known about Mesoamerica. Though obviously we have a long way to go. There is no evidence consistent with a Global Flood and figuratively a flood against it

[Rob Osborn]

Fair point. However I don't disbelieve the Book of Mormon based on its lack of evidence. What physical evidence would there be for God? What limited evidence there is is consistent with what is known about Mesoamerica. Though obviously we have a long way to go. There is no evidence consistent with a Global Flood and figuratively a flood against it

What would the evidence look like for a global flood in your opinion?

[thesometimesaint]

What would the evidence look like for a global flood in your opinion?

 

I don't understand your question. How does one go about proving a negative? IE; How could I prove Jesus didn't walk upon water. What physical evidence would exist? Please don't misunderstand I fully accept that he did, but have no way to prove it outside of belief.

[Tacenda]

I don't understand your question. How does one go about proving a negative? IE; How could I prove Jesus didn't walk upon water. What physical evidence would exist? Please don't misunderstand I fully accept that he did, but have no way to prove it outside of belief.

Just like you don't understand Ron's question, I don't understand your answer, you said...."However I don't disbelieve the Book of Mormon based on its lack of evidence. What physical evidence would there be for God? What limited evidence there is is consistent with what is known about Mesoamerica. Though obviously we have a long way to go. There is no evidence consistent with a Global Flood and figuratively a flood against it"

 

IMO, there are just as many evidences against the BoM being true as there is against the Global Flood being true, or more evidences.  I'm not agreeing with Ron, just agreeing that it is what the church leaders have taught, in keeping with scripture.   

[thesometimesaint]

Just like you don't understand Ron's question, I don't understand your answer, you said...."However I don't disbelieve the Book of Mormon based on its lack of evidence. What physical evidence would there be for God? What limited evidence there is is consistent with what is known about Mesoamerica. Though obviously we have a long way to go. There is no evidence consistent with a Global Flood and figuratively a flood against it"

 

IMO, there are just as many evidences against the BoM being true as there is against the Global Flood being true, or more evidences.  I'm not agreeing with Ron, just agreeing that it is what the church leaders have taught, in keeping with scripture.   

 

I'll try a different way to say it. I believe all Scripture to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

 

If you are looking for the evidences of the Truth Claims of any religious writings. I can only say ask God. Unfortunately in this old world the answer is dependent on the person you ask what their answer was.

[Calm]

I don't understand your question. How does one go about proving a negative? IE; How could I prove Jesus didn't walk upon water. What physical evidence would exist? Please don't misunderstand I fully accept that he did, but have no way to prove it outside of belief.

I think he is asking what you believe the evidence would look like if there had been a global flood in your view...what evidence would demonstrate to you the reality of a global flood.

For example, evidence of global death of animal and plant life followed by evidence of at least animal life and human communities then spreading out from originally very small local areas (given it would take some time to repopulate the earth with animal life given a few couples producing even if they had unusually large amounts of children....plus those species that have large numbers of offspring whose population is controlled by predators that would take longer to reestablish themselves would likely show in the 'dirt' record a huge leap in population to begin with that might then suffer the results of overpopulation, etc.).

Edited May 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I think he is asking what you believe the evidence would look like if there had been a global flood in your view...what evidence would demonstrate to you the reality of a global flood.

For example, evidence of global death of animal and plant life followed by evidence of at least animal life and human communities then spreading out from originally very small local areas (given it would take some time to repopulate the earth with animal life given a few couples producing even if they had unusually large amounts of children....plus those species that have large numbers of offspring whose population is controlled by predators that would take longer to reestablish themselves would likely show in the 'dirt' record a huge leap in population to begin with that might then suffer the results of overpopulation, etc.).

 

I think I understand it now. I'm sure Rob will correct me if I am wrong. I agree with you on population spread. I would add in the problem of logistics. There are over a million different species of just insects. How did he go all over the planet and collect two of each? I won't get into the Praying Mantis which should more accurately be called the Preying Mantis. Physics presents another problem. Water has weight. Enough water to cover ALL the high hills on the planet from water vapor(clouds and rain) would superheat the planet to past boiling. Cooking Noah and any animals with him. So unless God somehow changed the laws of physics a Global Flood becomes problematic. Here is a more complete list of problems with a Global Flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

OTOH make it a massive albeit a regional flood and all those problems disappear.

Edited May 19, 2014 by thesometimesaint