pogi Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnny Ghost said: Nevertheless, I am asking if "spiritual" experience is valid if it is based on deceptive history? I would never think to suggest that the spiritual experiences of Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims are not valid because of deceptive history. The spirit which speaks to me is the same spirit which speaks to you. The difference is that we each interpret the spirit through the lens of culture. That is the beauty of Mormonism, we are not obliged to discredit the spiritual experiences of others. We encourage all to follow the light that they have and we will eventually meet in the same place. I imagine that we will both be surprised at our lack of understanding someday. 1
Gray Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, RevTestament said: No they don't. I will be happy to demonstrate that if you care to outline your charges. Very briefly, the anonymous author of Daniel made the following predictions: Quote Verses 40-45 finish the chapter with the prophecy that Antiochus would make war once again against Egypt, and would die in Judea.[20] In the event this did not happen: there was no third war and Antiochus died in Persia or in Babylon.[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel's_final_vision#Historical_background Off topic: The tradition of Daniel, by the way, is interestingly echoed by the Book of Mormon. Rather than creating a pseudepigraphal book based on a historical prophet, the author invents a prophet and places him in the distant past. This prophet is able to very accurately predict the future, because the writing comes after the events have already occurred. The accuracy stops once the predictions start to address the near future, from the point of view of the author. The intent seems to be a way of providing hope in troubled times. In both books there is even some self-aggrandizement going on on the part of the authors. One more reason that the Book of Mormon really is scripture, in the full Biblical tradition. But that's very off-topic. Edited January 12, 2017 by Gray 2
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnny Ghost said: I think you understand what I am driving at. Religion shouldn't get special privileges and be subject to special pleading in order to fit your narrative. Or do you believe that fraud and deception is impossible to show in all contexts because there is no way to objectively show what it is? If so, maybe the criminal law and the civil law concerning fraud and deception should be changed? Nevertheless, I am asking if "spiritual" experience is valid if it is based on deceptive history? Spiritual experience is what it is, and it is not "objective" by any standard, historical evidence is irrelevant to spiritual matters. No one can prove Jesus is the savior- billions upon billions have beleived that through the ages based on absolutely no evidence. Yes, perhaps a person named Jesus lived who allegedly said some of the things recorded in the gospels, as "recorded" perhaps if we are lucky 50 years after the alleged events happened. Perhaps the events unfolded as recorded, perhaps not- there is no way to know the generalities much less the details of what Pontius Pilate said, etc. But saying that the alleged crucifixion of this one allegedly historical individual caused YOUR sins and mine to be forgiven in any intelligible sense whatsoever is absurd on its face. Do I believe it? Of course or I would not be here if I did not believe it, and believe a lot more including on top of all this preposterous alleged history, golden plates, angels, allegedly fallen prophets, allegedly false prophets who prophecied things which did not or may not happen. It is based on my personal subjective spiritual confirmation that 1- there IS a "God" and that the 2) bible is "true" for the purposes of enriching my life spiritually I also believe that the philosopher Kant was "correct" about many things and I don't give a fig about his personal history. I believe many things that Plato said as well and virtually nothing exists about his personal history. I like aspects of the Ba'hai faith, Buddhism, and especially Zoroastrianism and other faiths as well based on my subjective intuitions about what is "right or wrong". I love people in my family who others would find unlovable. I believe that even soldiers who died under "friendly fire" in wars which never should have been started, died for an amorphous concept called "freedom" because they thought they were. I honor those "spiritual" beliefs because that is what they believed even though the entire concept of "freedom" and the circumstances of their deaths are incredibly vague and disconnected causally and could never be made "rational" under any objective standard, but I honor THEIR subjective beliefs that those deaths were not in vain. I guess in your opinion that makes me unreasonable, but many philosophers- even atheist philosophers like Rorty and Thomas Nagel would back me to the hilt. So if you want to take this line of argument forward, fine, but I think I have a pretty good foundation for my opinions. Like the turtles, I can take those opinions all the way down if you like.
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Johnny Ghost said: Religion shouldn't get special privileges and be subject to special pleading in order to fit your narrative. Religion is nothing BUT "special pleading" and is totally subjective. In fact I wonder about the epistemological basis of your statement In what sense of "should" should religion NOT get "special privileges" whatever THAT means? And how does any statement or evaluation "fit" or not "fit" any narrative? How does one show objectively what "fits" a given "narrative" (both terms need to be defined) or does not "fit" AND how could one know that objectively? What experiment would show that religion "Should" or should not get whatever "special privileges" you had in mind? Or how a "narrative" "fits" anything? Please read the Rorty quote below. Descriptions are not "out there"- whether or not they "fit" whatever they are supposed to describe is always debatable- based on community standards and context. Even science can be seen as "special pleading" for ignoring spiritual truth. They call miracles "the placebo effect" thereby degrading the religious context. EDIT: Also read the below post- it will help Edited January 11, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Gray said: The tradition of Daniel, by the way, is interestingly echoed by the Book of Mormon. Rather creating a pseudepigraphal book based on a historical prophet, the author invents a prophet and places him in the distant past. This prophet is able to very accurately predict the future, because the writing comes after the events have already occurred. The accuracy stops once the predictions start to address the near future, from the point of view of the author. The intent seems to be a way of providing hope in troubled times. In both books there is even some self-aggrandizement going on on the part of the authors. One more reason that the Book of Mormon really is scripture, in the full Biblical tradition. But that's very off-topic. Perhaps off topic but exactly what I was thinking the first time I read it. But don't tell anyone- they will think I am an apostate or something. Quote The intent seems to be a way of providing hope in troubled times. Certainly a valid role for scripture Edited January 11, 2017 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: I would never think to suggest that the spiritual experiences of Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims are not valid because of deceptive history. The spirit which speaks to me is the same spirit which speaks to you. The difference is that we each interpret the spirit through the lens of culture. That is the beauty of Mormonism, we are not obliged to discredit the spiritual experiences of others. We encourage all to follow the light that they have and we will eventually meet in the same place. I imagine that we will both be surprised at our lack of understanding someday. YES!!!!!
Yirgacheffe Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: We're that true the sciences would not exist, much less the social science or humanities. This kind of thinking is exactly the problem. I think there was no President Lincoln. But religion is not a true science, it's all a matter of personal experience, perception, interpretation and opinion. Which is beside my point anyway, a person saying they left, joined, are interested in a religion is entirely subjective and and if they say they did A, B or, C for a given reason than that is the reason they did it, they are the authority here.
Johnny Ghost Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: I would never think to suggest that the spiritual experiences of Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims are not valid because of deceptive history. The spirit which speaks to me is the same spirit which speaks to you. The difference is that we each interpret the spirit through the lens of culture. That is the beauty of Mormonism, we are not obliged to discredit the spiritual experiences of others. We encourage all to follow the light that they have and we will eventually meet in the same place. I imagine that we will both be surprised at our lack of understanding someday. I think that's great. I don't think the church feels that way, however. The missionaries seem to be encouraged to convert people from other religions to mormonism. Also, there is the PoGP first vision account where JS claims Jesus said all other churches were an abomination and instructed JS to join none of them.
Johnny Ghost Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Spiritual experience is what it is, and it is not "objective" by any standard, historical evidence is irrelevant to spiritual matters. No one can prove Jesus is the savior- billions upon billions have beleived that through the ages based on absolutely no evidence. Yes, perhaps a person named Jesus lived who allegedly said some of the things recorded in the gospels, as "recorded" perhaps if we are lucky 50 years after the alleged events happened. Perhaps the events unfolded as recorded, perhaps not- there is no way to know the generalities much less the details of what Pontius Pilate said, etc. But saying that the alleged crucifixion of this one allegedly historical individual caused YOUR sins and mine to be forgiven in any intelligible sense whatsoever is absurd on its face. Do I believe it? Of course or I would not be here if I did not believe it, and believe a lot more including on top of all this preposterous alleged history, golden plates, angels, allegedly fallen prophets, allegedly false prophets who prophecied things which did not or may not happen. It is based on my personal subjective spiritual confirmation that 1- there IS a "God" and that the 2) bible is "true" for the purposes of enriching my life spiritually I also believe that the philosopher Kant was "correct" about many things and I don't give a fig about his personal history. I believe many things that Plato said as well and virtually nothing exists about his personal history. I like aspects of the Ba'hai faith, Buddhism, and especially Zoroastrianism and other faiths as well based on my subjective intuitions about what is "right or wrong". I love people in my family who others would find unlovable. I believe that even soldiers who died under "friendly fire" in wars which never should have been started, died for an amorphous concept called "freedom" because they thought they were. I honor those "spiritual" beliefs because that is what they believed even though the entire concept of "freedom" and the circumstances of their deaths are incredibly vague and disconnected causally and could never be made "rational" under any objective standard, but I honor THEIR subjective beliefs that those deaths were not in vain. I guess in your opinion that makes me unreasonable, but many philosophers- even atheist philosophers like Rorty and Thomas Nagel would back me to the hilt. So if you want to take this line of argument forward, fine, but I think I have a pretty good foundation for my opinions. Like the turtles, I can take those opinions all the way down if you like. Mark, everyone is free to believe whatever they want and you certainly don't need to hear that from me. However, the topic of this post is one person's perception about so called anti-mormons and why people leave the church. This is why I posed the question about spiritual experiences based on false narratives. To some, it is a big deal when they find out that what they were told and taught all these years wasn't exactly what happened in history, and they leave as a result. It doesn't seem to matter to you and and that is fine.
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said: But religion is not a true science, it's all a matter of personal experience, perception, interpretation and opinion. Which is beside my point anyway, a person saying they left, joined, are interested in a religion is entirely subjective and and if they say they did A, B or, C for a given reason than that is the reason they did it, they are the authority here. OK but I think you did not understand the post. When a scientist looks at a guage and says "It reads 1723 degrees" that is a personal subjective experience. Perhaps he will call someone to verify his observation. That is two personal subjective observations and we define that though as "objective" because they are scientists. Perhaps those subjective observations, in their contexts, confirm that the "gizmo is at the right temperature" and "therefore whatsis is the case"- all based on the context which they are talkiing about, thereby "confirming" their INTERPRETATION of other data in the theory, which allegedly "corresponds to reality" The reality is the theory either works or it doesn't and it will work until further experience shows it doesn't. It's all opinions which work for awhile until something better comes along. So too with the church. That is why we have an open canon. Doctrines work until they do not, then they can be changed. As long as we behave in accordance with the mores the brethren establish, you are "Mormon". If you do not, then you are not "Mormon". Orthopraxis, not orthodoxy Now you will post that "Mormons don't believe that- I was not taught that" Sorry but irrelevant.
Gray Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Perhaps off topic but exactly what I was thinking the first time I read it. But don't tell anyone- they will think I am an apostate or something. Your secret is safe with me! 42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Certainly a valid role for scripture Indeed! Especially considering the persecutions endured by the Jewish people under Antiochus Epiphanes 2
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 15 minutes ago, Johnny Ghost said: Mark, everyone is free to believe whatever they want and you certainly don't need to hear that from me. However, the topic of this post is one person's perception about so called anti-mormons and why people leave the church. This is why I posed the question about spiritual experiences based on false narratives. To some, it is a big deal when they find out that what they were told and taught all these years wasn't exactly what happened in history, and they leave as a result. It doesn't seem to matter to you and and that is fine. No, it shows that they do not understand the problem and I am explaining the problem, and refuting the erroneous opinion of what postmodernism is and how it is useful to religion. Postmodernism affirms the justifiability of religious experience and religious truth within a religious context and in fact YOU are showing tacitly that there IS such thing as "false narratives" that somehow can "falsify" religion. THAT is the tacit assumption the OP is discussing - that postmodernism "falsifies" religion because it is a "false narrative" In fact it is in my opinion the only "narrative" which justifies religious propositions. So you are missing the point. My personal beliefs are irrelevant to the issue, the issue is whether or not postmodernism helps or hurts religion. For the reasons I am detailing, it most certainly helps. In fact most postmodernist atheists just leave religion alone because it is like trying to prove that the Democratic party is "true" and that Republicanism is "false" because one or the other is based on a "false historical narrative". As my buddy Bob would say, "Horsefeathers!"
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 16 minutes ago, Gray said: Your secret is safe with me! Indeed! Especially considering the persecutions endured by the Jewish people under Antiochus Epiphanes Yeah, but I REALLY want one of those coins! Gorgeous! 1
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 38 minutes ago, Johnny Ghost said: I think that's great. I don't think the church feels that way, however. The missionaries seem to be encouraged to convert people from other religions to mormonism. Also, there is the PoGP first vision account where JS claims Jesus said all other churches were an abomination and instructed JS to join none of them. "The church" is an abstract entity and doesn't feel anything. I would disagree with the semantics of those opinions and I am fully authorized - by church doctrine- to do so, since the only measure we have of faithfulness is honestly passing a temple recommend interview. But I do affirm that there is no other "religious theory" which contains anything like the power of this way of thinking, combining humanism (unity of mankind- humans must become they best they can become socially and morally) and materialism (spirit is matter only more refined) and personal revelation (you should follow your "gut" and not accept things without them feeling right) and explanations for continuing revelation (human "prophets" continue to receive intuitions about religious matters we should examine and receive our own spiritual confirmations of them) with the decentralized, local leadership and the use of volunteers to perform it's operations. It may not be the "one true church" whatever that is supposed to mean but I think by far it can be shown through pragmatic thought to be the best thing that this world has ever seen for that purpose.
pogi Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Johnny Ghost said: I think that's great. I don't think the church feels that way, however. The missionaries seem to be encouraged to convert people from other religions to mormonism. Also, there is the PoGP first vision account where JS claims Jesus said all other churches were an abomination and instructed JS to join none of them. We are a proselyting religion because we believe that we hold the keys and authority to perform the ordinances of the church which are necessary to salvation. The church does not discredit the spiritual experiences of others, the church discredits their "creeds". That is what God told Joseph, that their "creeds" were an abomination, not their spiritual experiences. Creeds are often cultural distortions to the pure message of the spirit. We believe that all will be led to Christ by following the light that is in them to the best of their ability. We perform baptisms for the dead because we believe that the light in other's is good, not because they are abominations. Edited January 11, 2017 by pogi 1
Teancum Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: I'm always caused to wonder why people who know very well the Church teaches the only way one can know if the Restored Gospel is true is by personal revelation still insist they be provided with the kind of non-revelatory proof that would hold up before the Supreme Court. And then when sufficient empirical evidence isn't provided they scoff. I'm trying to understand why people of this sort can be told the same thing a thousand times but still demand earthly evidence, as powerful and convincing as revelation, so they can ignore Moroni's challenge. I am now always surprised that people believe this is a reliable method to find truth and this in spite of evidence that it is tremendously unreliable . I am surprised I used to think this was a reliable method. Edited January 11, 2017 by Teancum
LittleNipper Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Perhaps you didn't read my comments. Your reply is irrelevant. Where is the rapture? You are still writing so I guess you are here? And for at least the fifth time how do you know the Bible is the word of God? Because you were raised to believe it and never questioned it? And whose hand wrote it? A human's? God provides prophetic insights into the mood and the attitudes "in the last days" . . . "Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue on as they were from the beginning of creation.’" (2 Peter 3:3-4) Yet, God graciously answers those who sincerely ask, "It’s been 2000 years, why hasn’t He returned yet?" "The Lord is not slack concerning His Promise, as some count slackness, but is patient toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) "And to wait for His Son from Heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivers us FROM the wrath to come." (1 Thessalonians 1:10) "For God did NOT appoint us (believers) to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him. Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing." (1 Thessalonians 5:9-11) The actual word "rapture" is not found in most Bibles. The original Greek word "harpazo" which was translated "caught up" in many English translations could have been, or should have been translated, "to seize, to pluck away, or to take by force." The original Greek word "harpazo" was later translated in the Latin as "raeptius" or in some cases "rapturo". So, the term "rapture" comes from the Latin translation. There are two precedents in the Bible ... Enoch (the 7th from Adam in the book of Genesis) and the prophet Elijah were both taken ('raptured') before they died . . . "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18) "For in the time of trouble ('Jacob's Trouble' ... the coming Apocalypse) He shall hide me in His pavilion; in the secret place of His tabernacle he shall hide me; he shall set me high upon a rock." (Psalm 27:5) "Come, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment, until the indignation (the great Tribulation) is past. For behold, the LORD comes out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the Earth for their iniquity (the coming Apocalypse); the Earth will also disclose her blood, and will no more cover her slain." (Isaiah 26:20 - 21) "Seek the LORD, all you meek of the Earth, Who have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility. It may be that you will be hidden in the day of the LORD'S anger." (Zephaniah 2:3) "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the Earth." "Behold, I come quickly!" (Revelation 3:10-11) "But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." (Matthew 24:36) "Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left." "Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming." (Matthew 24:40-42) "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (Luke 12:40) "But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2) WATCH therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming." (Matthew 25:13) Edited January 11, 2017 by LittleNipper
bluebell Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 24 minutes ago, Teancum said: I am now always surprised that people believe this is a reliable method to find truth and this in spite of evidence that it is tremendously unreliable . I am surprised I used to think this was a reliable method. You're surprised that you used to believe that God would tell you what was true? Is this because you no longer believe in God, or that you no longer believe He can/will answer such questions?
RevTestament Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Gray said: Very briefly, the anonymous author of Daniel made the following predictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel's_final_vision#Historical_background Actually, no Daniel didn't predict that. That is the Catholic interpretation which btw, you are right would cause the prophecy to fail. However, there are some big problems with that interpretation which clue the close reader into why it is an incorrect interpretation. You may note that the vile one has both the king of the north and the south come against him if you read it plainly. Therefore the vile one cannot be Antiochus Ephiphanes since he would be the king of the north. In actuality Antiochus Epiphanes figures much earlier in the prophecy. The vile one is the bishop of Rome who takes the estate of the raiser of taxes/Constantine who took the estate of the pontifex maximus, or Caesar. Rome is introduced into the prophecy by the general Pompey who is invited into the holy land and is figured in at verse 16. That is why the day of trouble has not happened yet - the prophecy didn't deal with the coming of our Savior - that is chapter 9. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: We are a proselyting religion because we believe that we hold the keys and authority to perform the ordinances of the church which are necessary to salvation. The church does not discredit the spiritual experiences of others, the church discredits their "creeds". That is what God told Joseph, that their "creeds" were an abomination, not their spiritual experiences. Creeds are often cultural distortions to the pure message of the spirit. We believe that all will be led to Christ by following the light that is in them to the best of their ability. We perform baptisms for the dead because we believe that the light in other's is good, not because they are abominations. I wanna be nice like you when I grow up. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 57 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: God provides prophetic insights into the mood and the attitudes "in the last days" . . . "Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue on as they were from the beginning of creation.’" (2 Peter 3:3-4) Yet, God graciously answers those who sincerely ask, "It’s been 2000 years, why hasn’t He returned yet?" "The Lord is not slack concerning His Promise, as some count slackness, but is patient toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) "And to wait for His Son from Heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivers us FROM the wrath to come." (1 Thessalonians 1:10) "For God did NOT appoint us (believers) to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him. Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing." (1 Thessalonians 5:9-11) The actual word "rapture" is not found in most Bibles. The original Greek word "harpazo" which was translated "caught up" in many English translations could have been, or should have been translated, "to seize, to pluck away, or to take by force." The original Greek word "harpazo" was later translated in the Latin as "raeptius" or in some cases "rapturo". So, the term "rapture" comes from the Latin translation. There are two precedents in the Bible ... Enoch (the 7th from Adam in the book of Genesis) and the prophet Elijah were both taken ('raptured') before they died . . . "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18) "For in the time of trouble ('Jacob's Trouble' ... the coming Apocalypse) He shall hide me in His pavilion; in the secret place of His tabernacle he shall hide me; he shall set me high upon a rock." (Psalm 27:5) "Come, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment, until the indignation (the great Tribulation) is past. For behold, the LORD comes out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the Earth for their iniquity (the coming Apocalypse); the Earth will also disclose her blood, and will no more cover her slain." (Isaiah 26:20 - 21) "Seek the LORD, all you meek of the Earth, Who have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility. It may be that you will be hidden in the day of the LORD'S anger." (Zephaniah 2:3) "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the Earth." "Behold, I come quickly!" (Revelation 3:10-11) "But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." (Matthew 24:36) "Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left." "Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming." (Matthew 24:40-42) "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (Luke 12:40) "But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2) WATCH therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming." (Matthew 25:13) So the Bible is true because you believe it is. You NEVER answer the question. Very sorry quite frankly if you find this threatening. I see you cannot answer so I will stop asking. I want to be nice like Pogi when I grow up, but I have a few books that say that they are true also and they are not. Sei gesund
pogi Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Teancum said: I am now always surprised that people believe this is a reliable method to find truth and this in spite of evidence that it is tremendously unreliable . I am surprised I used to think this was a reliable method. What is truth to you? How will you know when you find it? Can we know capital-T Truth, or is the interpretation of truth subject to our infinitely minuscule perspectives in this life?
cdowis Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, LittleNipper said: There are no false prophecies in the Bible. Mr. Smith was time specific -- the Civil War was certinally not the World War he had envisioned. You are misreading the prophecy. "The War to End all Wars" started less than 50 years after the Civil War, and many of the strategies and technology made a world war possible == specifically the movement of men and material by railroad and ships (logistics), air warfare, etc. It did NOT say that the Civil War would be the CAUSE of the Great War. Many of the Bible prophecies were fulfilled in a manner unanticipated by the unbelievers. Edited January 12, 2017 by cdowis 1
Calm Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, pogi said: I take it that you will not adhere to the spirit in the words of Krister Stendhal and Joseph Smith. Good day sir, I'm going to eat me some mangoes! I have recently developed an addiction to dried mangos. Curse my visiting teacher for bringing a healthy Christmas treat and Costco for their bulk packaging. Edited January 12, 2017 by Calm 2
Johnny Ghost Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: No, it shows that they do not understand the problem and I am explaining the problem, and refuting the erroneous opinion of what postmodernism is and how it is useful to religion. Postmodernism affirms the justifiability of religious experience and religious truth within a religious context and in fact YOU are showing tacitly that there IS such thing as "false narratives" that somehow can "falsify" religion. THAT is the tacit assumption the OP is discussing - that postmodernism "falsifies" religion because it is a "false narrative" In fact it is in my opinion the only "narrative" which justifies religious propositions. So you are missing the point. My personal beliefs are irrelevant to the issue, the issue is whether or not postmodernism helps or hurts religion. For the reasons I am detailing, it most certainly helps. In fact most postmodernist atheists just leave religion alone because it is like trying to prove that the Democratic party is "true" and that Republicanism is "false" because one or the other is based on a "false historical narrative". As my buddy Bob would say, "Horsefeathers!" I find post-modernism to be more of a defense for religious belief. Religion is being attacked and so one heads to the safety of saying that objective truth can't be proven. History can't be proven so is meaningless. One can't discount someone's belief because my understanding may be different from the other person so religious belief is justified. However, how does it fair when one wants to convert someone to their religious reality? Is that fair to do when post-modernism posits that we shouldn't judge another's subjective belief? So where is the justification in missionary work or judging someone who wants to leave? Is boundary maintenance justified? Should a post-modern adherent let their 18 or 19 year old spread his or her wings as long as the late teen doesn't hurt themselves or harm others? Is the 18 or 19 year old allowed to have their subjective belief system that differs from mormonism?
Recommended Posts