twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Well not actually ignored. I responded to you but my post was axed.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Easter celebration
- Thread starter stealthyeliminator
- Start date
Well not actually ignored. I responded to you but my post was axed.
responded unkindly then...:shocker:
sorry to hear it got moderated as it might have changed the entire tone and tenor of this thread!!
ipse
and nightmare pray tell which illiterate 'baldly disparaged' anybody's belief in their faith?
semi-literate might be better expressed as a student of heresiology!!!
irreverence is definitely a much better choice of word!
congratulations on your chosen religious belief...written by a man who was upset with the Catholics in the 16th century!! (now that might be a tad disparaging...naw'lll historical fact based in the religions dogma!!)
ipse
semi-literate might be better expressed as a student of heresiology!!!
irreverence is definitely a much better choice of word!
congratulations on your chosen religious belief...written by a man who was upset with the Catholics in the 16th century!! (now that might be a tad disparaging...naw'lll historical fact based in the religions dogma!!)
ipse
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
It did even though it got chucked. Some folks are very easily upset when others "disparage" their supernatural beliefs. Their Christ-like charm can quickly turn to insults apparently.
It's seems if you're confident you're right, and you understand that people who do not believe as you do just can't understand until they do, then you wouldn't be driven to insults over being offended that they don't get it.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Don't you mean, "Stopped in on their way...umm...south to let us know which was the correct doctrine"?
I am reminded of one of Mark Twain's greatest zingers. The setting was a dinner held by a group who believed Francis Bacon was the real Shakespeare. There is apparently controversy over who actually wrote The Works that flairs up from time to time. Mark Twain, being internationally famous by this point, would be a prize catch if they could get Twain to agree that Bacon wrote The Works. After dinner, they worked on Twain for a good while, trying to get him to agree. Twain would not agree. He held fast to his position that he was convinced* Shakespeare did not write The Works, but that he did not know who did. Finally, to end off the conversation he said,
Twain: I guess I'll just have to wait until I get to heaven and ask him.
Baconian: Oh, you won't find him in heaven.
Twain: Fine. Then you ask him.
*Twain's arguments that the Bill Shakespeare from Stratford-on-Avon did not write The Works are pretty compelling. If you can find the text, its worth reading.
Last edited:
there are those pesky semantics again...but close enough...btw oh learned one, your apparent attempt at derogation didn't quite make it...
at least suuuuuggggg, let's let wiki help quantify your educational gap a smidgen further...
quote: Solipsism ((snip) Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self") is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. unquote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
you might wish to wait a bit longer for the duck to come down with the magic word so you can collect your your prize...
ipse
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Last edited:
citizen, i have enjoy that anecdote for years and the twain quote i use upon being approached by those who wish to lecture me on their religious cause de celebre:
quote:
But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most, our one fellow and brother who most needed a friend yet had not a single one, the one sinner among us all who had the highest and clearest right to every Christian's daily and nightly prayers, for the plain and unassailable reason that his was the first and greatest need, he being among sinners the supremest?
unquote
http://www.twainquotes.com/Satan.html
some read tomes interpreting them incorrectly, others read twain & rogers to maintain grasp of reality quote: There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves unquote.
ipse
quote:
But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most, our one fellow and brother who most needed a friend yet had not a single one, the one sinner among us all who had the highest and clearest right to every Christian's daily and nightly prayers, for the plain and unassailable reason that his was the first and greatest need, he being among sinners the supremest?
unquote
http://www.twainquotes.com/Satan.html
some read tomes interpreting them incorrectly, others read twain & rogers to maintain grasp of reality quote: There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves unquote.
ipse
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I got bored some years ago and went to the bookstore. Ended up buying a collected works of Twain's. That got me more interested. Within a few years I had read a bunch of his stuff.
For the longest time, I considered him a great humorist with a penetrating insight to human nature. Then one day I read the pray for Satan quote. That shot him up a few notches in my eyes. But, the thing that catapulted him to a whole new level in my mind was a comment he made on slavery.
Now, we all know Huckleberry Finn was written as a commentary against slavery. But, I was floored by a separate comment he made. Twain said he was glad for the end of slavery because it also freed the white man. Whoa!!! He was so totally right: you cannot enslave another, and be free yourself. You demean yourself, and cannot rise above that level of thinking easily. Certainly not while you're doing it. You've trapped yourself with your own thinking, your own justifications.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Thanks for posting that.
I think the dangerous aspect of that philosophy lies in its premise against certainty. It says in so many words I cannot be certain about anything outside my own mind. Worse, it forecloses the possibility of becoming able to directly perceive other minds if I do not already possess that ability.
Neither of those are particularly true. I can have a very high degree of certainty.
For example, I can observe other people--see them speaking, hear their words, observe their emotions. Now, even if I cannot directly perceive their mind, I can conclude they exist. And, the more observations I have, the greater my certainty. Part of solipsism (according to the wiki article anyway) seems to be that I may not be certain about my conclusions regardless of how much observation I have.
Regarding the ability to directly perceive another mind, there are tons and tons and tons of reports of people doing just exactly that. I'll bet many readers can actually feel it when their spouse is angry with them, meaning precisely, they can feel the angry emotion without having to be in physical contact with their spouse, or directly looking at their spouse, or hear negative words from their spouse.
In the other direction, I'll bet many readers can perceive admiration from their spouse--the emotion--without looking at them or being in physical contact.
Also, I am sure I am not the only person to whom this next has happened. I've lost count of the times I've been waiting at a traffic light, secretly admiring the cute girl in the car beside me, and suddenly she'll snap her head directly toward me, looking me right in the eye. Busted! Now, dang it, she perceived something.
On another occasion, I was visiting a friend and his wife, watching a movie. A really hot chick walked on screen, prompting me to stridently think to myself (insert masculine intention here). The instant I thunk that thought, my friend's wife sat bolt-upright from the couch, and looked right at me in surprise.
I've got too many direct personal observations contradicting solipsism. Its argument against certainty turns certainty on its head. Now, if it argued that certainty came from me, then I'd be willing to look a little more charitably to try to get at what they're talking about. But, that's not the angle stated in the wiki article. No, solipsism, as presented in the article anyway, looks like an attempt to undermine certainty, and limit a person. Can't go along with that.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
The Resurrection holds little wonder for me. Now, let me say this very, very carefully. Don't nobody go taking this as a reason to be offended.
I think everybody has, by the nature of the way they're created, the ability to resurrect or be resurrected, say, if they need a little help. It has to be a natural part of being a soul, a spirit. A given, if you will. So, for Christ to do it, seems natural to me that He did. This is no way meant to make less of the power and importance of His message for a people who did not already know. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if a person goes around most of his life thinking he's just a body, the message "you are an immortal soul" can be pretty life changing, especially if accompanied by a demonstration. These are just my personal thoughts, no offense intended.
Christ showing himself to the faithful after He had risen was noteworthy to me. I can see a superior being having the ability to project an image perceivable to others, or otherwise make himself perceivable to others. It doesn't seem far-fetched at all. Certainly not common-place, but not outside the realm of possibility.
But, the thing that really does it for me is something else. Taking the witness reports at face-value, how did He disappear his body? Big stone rolled aside, disappeared body. Now, that to me is amazing. A first class spiritual ability--the ability to transcend the laws of physics, and destroy matter, an entire body's worth of matter, without turning the Holy Land into a glass parking lot with the released energy. I have not heard of one other being in history who could do that. A first-class spiritual ability. No, that's not quite right. A divine spiritual ability.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying The Resurrection was unimportant. I am saying that based on my own observations and conclusions in life outside of the Bible, it seems to me that several aspects are already a given. It's what He did with the body that keeps me wondering about how high we can go, what our own spiritual abilities might be, created in God's image as we are.
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
No he didn't. He and you made a point to come into a social lounge thread wherein some Christians were sharing their Easter experiences and some beliefs about the Resurrection, take offense, and do your best to derail the thread. It isn't polite nor mature.
Funny, I haven't seen anyone claim his beliefs are "better". I've seen men of faith politely sharing their beliefs and discussing them. There has been discussion of which beliefs most closely match various observations. But I haven't seen anyone arguing, getting too hung up over semantics, nor using any rhetoric.
Maybe you're reading a different thread.
I'm afraid you won't find any such citation.
And were someone who has experienced such a miraculous visitation to be so careless with that experience as to cast his pearls before swine, I have no doubt you'd turn to trample and rend him.
It is with good reason that "faith" and "religion" are oft-times synonyms in the English language.
I don't know any Christians who "blindly" follow any creeds. The Christians (and Jews) I know are living their lives based on faith, confirmed by experiences including witnesses of the Holy Spirit.
That we have differences of opinion on what scriptures mean, on what books constitute scripture, or even on the exact nature of God or man, does not suggest that our beliefs are vain or wrong. Merely that our understanding is not yet perfect.
It is a very rare thing on this forum for anyone to bring up his particular religious beliefs or his Holy Writ as authority, evidence, or reason in any objective discussion. I don't believe I've ever seen any of the believers on this forum insult those who don't believe, except perhaps in response to an insult first hurled at religion, faith, or those who choose to believe.
It is a beautiful thing to see a couple of folks who so often disagree so strenuously on matters of public policy or law, have so much in common and be so polite in their minor disagreements when it comes to their religious beliefs.
Why do a couple of folks have to come into a thread and belittle, attack, insult, or otherwise attempt to derail the thread or just get it locked.
If we are delusional, it is happy and peaceful delusion that doesn't affect you. If we are correct, what a magnificent thing it is we celebrate. God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten son that those who believe on Him might be saved.
Please, if you care not for sincere religious beliefs, simply leave us in peace to enjoy some Christian fellowship among those who do believe.
Demonstrate that you truly believe an armed society is polite.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
+1. I completely agree.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Hmm, I dunno. I say this not as an argument, just as a musing, for conversation. I don't believe that humans are "spiritual beings" per se. We're indwelt with the holy spirit, but other than that, we're a soul and a body. Our spirituality might be defined as our submission to the holy spirit? Anyway, I don't believe that pursuing "our own spiritual abilities" will be a fruitful endeavor. We may be empowered by the holy spirit, for sure, but I think "our spirit" is dead and buried if we're believers and indwelt with the holy spirit. Like I said, just some thoughts, musings if you will. Unknown how consistent they are with Baptist doctrine.
Edit to add: Adam was created in the likeness of God, but when he sinned I believe he experienced spiritual death, and we are born in the likeness of Adam. Interesting that Jesus is referred to as the Second Adam.
Last edited:
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Piper, stealth, et al., not sure where your discussion of the Christian's creeds, Apostle or Nicene most appropriately, is limited to your perspectives alone. this is especially true Piper, since the Latter Day Saints do not follow these particular Creeds but rather the LDS sects follow Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith and Manifesto(s) which while similarly based on the canonized books that make up the Christian Bible but not the Book of Mormon. Further, those Christians who identify as Quakers or Baptists and others do not follow the Creeds I mentioned so apparently your private conversation is just that.
your perception of the 2.4 billions following Christian dogma thoroughly understanding their faith is apparently you showing your faith in branch which was constructed within the last 180 years shows the outstanding the Church's elders have assured the LDS' history is transparent and the Church's membership are well aware of the religion's history and constraints. this cannot be said of the vague history of the canonization of the books included into our current version of the Bible were assembled by men (Catholics. btw) based on political and religious constraints of the era.
Finally, I still find it quite interesting yet perplexing to be honest, that once again, you, Piper & Stealth once again fall into your standard modus operandi of whining against those member(s) who challenges your perception(s) of the material on any thread you participate in.
nowhere have I been disrespectful towards the religious dogma you profess to follow nor has anybody else's dogma been similarly, as nightmare stated been 'baldly disparaged'.
always remember, quote: In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. unquote. twain.
my question, which you may find offensive...you have expressed your opinion...noted, but the question remains unanswered and if you have the blind belief that if the xyz religion ever had someone with that kind of experience and not loudly broadcast it to any and everyone of the 2.4 billion followers to glean more bragging rights and $$$$ you live in a sheltered world.
ipse
Piper, stealth, et al., not sure where your discussion of the Christian's creeds, Apostle or Nicene most appropriately, is limited to your perspectives alone. this is especially true Piper, since the Latter Day Saints do not follow these particular Creeds but rather the LDS sects follow Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith and Manifesto(s) which while similarly based on the canonized books that make up the Christian Bible but not the Book of Mormon. Further, those Christians who identify as Quakers or Baptists and others do not follow the Creeds I mentioned so apparently your private conversation is just that.
your perception of the 2.4 billions following Christian dogma thoroughly understanding their faith is apparently you showing your faith in branch which was constructed within the last 180 years shows the outstanding the Church's elders have assured the LDS' history is transparent and the Church's membership are well aware of the religion's history and constraints. this cannot be said of the vague history of the canonization of the books included into our current version of the Bible were assembled by men (Catholics. btw) based on political and religious constraints of the era.
Finally, I still find it quite interesting yet perplexing to be honest, that once again, you, Piper & Stealth once again fall into your standard modus operandi of whining against those member(s) who challenges your perception(s) of the material on any thread you participate in.
nowhere have I been disrespectful towards the religious dogma you profess to follow nor has anybody else's dogma been similarly, as nightmare stated been 'baldly disparaged'.
always remember, quote: In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. unquote. twain.
my question, which you may find offensive...you have expressed your opinion...noted, but the question remains unanswered and if you have the blind belief that if the xyz religion ever had someone with that kind of experience and not loudly broadcast it to any and everyone of the 2.4 billion followers to glean more bragging rights and $$$$ you live in a sheltered world.
ipse
Last edited:
About 20 years ago we had the pleasure to have Dr John Huffman preach at our church. His sermon was quoting another famous preacher saying to his congregation..'I have no soul! I HAVE no soul! ... I AM a soul....that has a body." I think Huffman still preaches at Manhattan Beach Presby Church in Kalifornia.
Now you can find 'old' sermons on podcasts - technology opening up all sorts of new avenues to study. Have not looked, but bet I can find transcripts of famous sermons going back to Puritans and Great Awakening preachers....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
You just reminded me of an earlier post you made to which I forgot to reply--the post about triune beings.
I think an underlying point is how one defines a spiritual being. I am using it in the sense that the thing behind the eyes that is aware of itself is a spirit inhabiting a body. He's a spirit, not a rock, not a body, etc. So, anytime I say spiritual being I mean exactly the same thing as spirit aka soul. As far as I know that is the ancient, traditional meaning. If I recall, the Latin was psyche. And, (Thomas Aquinas?) and a few others were involved in something called faculty psychology--the study (-ology) of the senses and mental abilities (faculties) of the soul (psyche).
I think until we clear up what we're talking about, we might be just talking past each other.
On the other hand, even though we're using different meanings, I think I get what you're saying.
Let me respond to your words about the spiritual death of Adam. I would agree that falling short of the His glory is in a way a partial death of the spirit. Since we are talking about spirits, which are by definition immortal, then we cannot really be talking about death. We necessarily must be talking about a diminishment of ability, emotional state, or some aspect of state or condition of being/existing. I can go along with that.
Regarding "pursing our own spiritual abilities", I cannot see why not. Bhuddism makes it pretty plain that one can increase/improve his state of being/state of existence merely by introspection. Hindu's consider that [doing good works in this life] sets one up for a better life after reincarnation in a human body. Heck, we don't even have to look at philosophies to see that its possible. A Catholic goes to confession, gets his harms off his chest, and feels better. That right there is an improved state of being/state of existence. That alone says its possible. After that, its just a matter of degree.
Separately, the capacity to improve one's spiritual condition/state of existence necessarily must be a native characteristic of the human soul. Two points to support that conclusion. First, nowhere does the Bible mention His mechanism/method for doing it to us. And, that is a pretty gosh-darn big point. Second, how could He otherwise do it to us without fundamentally changing some essential characteristic of us? No. I think it is a native ability to improve our spiritual condition. Certainly it is a native ability to reduce our spiritual condition by committing harms against others; I see no rational limitation on our ability to go the other direction. I'll bet all the ingredients are already there.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I heard there are drugs that can make you feel like have had an apocalypse.
The best spiritual moment I had was the first time I got tubed. The crystal clear water totally surrounding me, sun shining through in bright diamond like spots the beach and the people on the end frozen in time. It moved me.
Then I got totally pounded into the sand. Immediately went about chasing that dragon over and over again.......those who surf know what I mean. It was my ressurection, I was born again baptized by the power of the sea.
The best spiritual moment I had was the first time I got tubed. The crystal clear water totally surrounding me, sun shining through in bright diamond like spots the beach and the people on the end frozen in time. It moved me.
Then I got totally pounded into the sand. Immediately went about chasing that dragon over and over again.......those who surf know what I mean. It was my ressurection, I was born again baptized by the power of the sea.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Wow! Moving story. Very cool.