Re: when Jesus became God?
- From: "Jeff Shirton" <jshirton@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 20:57:19 -0000
<joseph_daniel_zukiger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13dlqcjbjfitdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, I'm not going to tell you that you have to forgive your
students for choosing to put a higher priority on getting a
cup of coffee than on getting to your lecture on time.
I'm sorry that you have such a poor view of commitment,
and that you presume to give "advice" (which I never asked
for) in a situation you know far too little about.
I'm also sorry that in doing that, you have chosen (intentionally
or unintentionally, I don't know) to completely ignore the
*reason* I posted that little anecdote.
And I will also remind you as gently as I can that I do not
recognize your claim to be called of God to be my teacher.
And I will remind *you* as gently as *I* can that I never
*made* any claim "to be [your] teacher". That's not the point.
I've never (ever) demanded that anyone respond to my posts.
If you want to respond to my posts, fine. If you don't want to
respond to my posts, that's fine too. The choice is completely
up to the individual. But you miss the point that it is really
completely unimpressive for someone to respond to a post,
while *not* responding to the "meat" of the post, all the while
telling someone they don't have time to respond (when they
obviously do have time, since they are responding).
That is the point.
I don't have time. In fact, I'm cheating my family of time
they need from me right now as I type this.
I'm truly sorry to hear that.
Because based on what you have written (and it is very lengthy,
so you seem to have spent a great deal of time writing it), you
would have been much wiser (IMO) spending that time with
your family.
You completely ignored the issue, and I don't see any productive
result for you having wasted the time writing that post when you
could have instead spent the time with your family. But ultimately,
the decision and evaluation is up to you, perhaps you found it
more valuable to do so.
But again, you seem to have missed the point.
The issue is *not* deciding to spend the time responding rather
than not responding.
The issue is *once* you have decided to commit the time to
respond, to actually *address* the issues, rather than engaging
in such sophistry that appears only to engage in obfuscation.
Have you considered that the real answer, and not just the
quick attempt to point you in the right direction, would have
consumed even more time? Much more time, in my experience.
That seems improbable.
But even so, I don't see why you couldn't "begin" a response
(perhaps the "grade 1" response), and then continue building
on that at a later time. No one is demanding you give a
"complete" answer all at once, as long as you are working
toward it.
I simply don't understand why, once you've decided not to
invest the time for a "real answer", why you choose to respond
at all. I truly don't see any value in your response (IMO).
If you listened, it would be easier to justify the time,
That's a cop-out, IMO. I *do* listen.
But again, if you don't believe I listen, why do you choose
to "respond with a non-answer" in the first place? I don't
get it.
although there comes a time when it is the listener's duty
to go find the answers himself.
That seems to me to be a "cop-out" as well.
I *have* found the answers. They are at odds with LDS
claims. In the interest of fairness I'm giving LDS the opportunity
to show me where I'm mistaken. A claim of "go find the answers
yourself" only confirms to me that I'm not mistaken. If that's
the conclusion you wish me (and those reading this thread) to
walk away with, I'm fine with that.
Isaiah says it, you have seemed to like to use the scripture in the
past in your arguments, but I know that God's ways are
_above_ my ways. Therefore, I don't want to limit God at all.
Yes, but I don't take that revelation by God as a way to reject
other things God had told us about how He *is* defined (or
"limited", if you prefer the more derogatory term).
I do not believe in a hoiler-than-thou God.
An amazing statement, to be sure.
I have no qualms about asserting that I *do* believe in
a "holier-than-thou" God, since God *is* "holier than thou"
(holier than anyone, actually).
You seem to not understand the reason that being "holier than
thou" is a bad thing for us (sinful) *humans*. It is bearing
false witness against ourselves, for we are *not* holy. We
are sinners.
God has communicated to us through language.
According to the scriptures, God communicates to us
through the Holy Spirit.
False dichotomy.
God *also* communicates to us through the Scriptures.
Indeed, I would assert that God communicates to us through
both of them, in *concert*, rather than "sometimes through
Scripture, other times through the Spirit".
Language is sometimes described as a medium of communication.
It would be a more effective description to compare its function
to that of an antenna.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion.
However, I see no reason for accepting your personal opinion.
Mathematically, we are sure that language, by itself, is not
sufficient for communication.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion.
However, I see no reason for accepting your personal opinion.
And language conveys meaning,
No it does not.
I guess we can only agree to disagree, since you don't offer
(substantial) reasons for me to accept your view.
With all the myriad of religions out there, it seems interesting
that Mormonism seems to be the only one where its adherents
claim that language is insufficient to commicate its beliefs.
Can you blame the outsider for concluding that such
arguments is nothing more than evasion and obfuscation?
and language is dependent on logical constructs,
No, the logical constructs themselves are just another language
invented (and refined a bit) by mortal men and women.
I really don't see the point of you and David repeating
unsupported premises if you are unwilling to support them
with CFR's. After all, both you and David have both complained
of time constraints, and I cannot think of anything more wasteful
than spending time making claims which have already been
(repeatedly) made.
... by the power of the Holy Ghost ...
Nowhere does it mention in those verses that language is used to
convey the meaning.
It seems to me that the fact that it was *written* in a language (even
when it was allegedly written in "Reformed Egyptian") is a big
hint that "language is used to convey the meaning" (we are referring
of course, to the promise itself, not God's answer).
If language has *any* meaning at all, if the "Scriptures" are to
be useful to us, if God can communicate to us through their
language, then we need to be able to understand them according
to their natural meaning.
Which I have assured you that you are not doing.
You can "assure" me until you are blue in the face, Joseph. But
I see no reason to believe you, and *every* reason not to believe
you. It appears to me that the reason you are "assuring" me is
because the text itself is problematic for you. Now you are free
to try to explain to me why this is not the case. Or you are free
to use that time to spend it with your family.
Remember, Joseph, you are not *my* teacher, either.
Or, rather, I have assured you that you are understanding them
by the wrong nature and context.
You keep "assuring" me of things, Joseph. Why should I accept
that you are even in a position to "assure" me of anything?
You attempt to understand our scriptures outside the context
in which they were given (to us),
I'm sorry, but you are quite mistaken on that count.
You really have no way of making that judgment (and it is
a judgment).
But I tell you that you cannot understand the Book of Mormon
by trying to force it into the context in which you learned
religious philosophy.
I am not doing that at all.
It seems to me that you are simply (and vainly) trying to invent
"excuses" for why we disagree, but unfortunately, your
claims about me aren't based on reality.
I agree with Scott in wanting to see some external sources
which back up your assertions, which otherwise seem (IMO)
to simply be trying to avoid problems with your Scriptures.
Then get out the textbooks and learn the subject.
You're being evasive again (and insulting).
I *know* the subject, and that's why I know you are wrong.
Your response is full of logical fallacies, Joseph (appeal
to authority (yourself), and shifting the burden of proof).
You guys are making claims that you are unwilling to back
up with evidence. If you don't want to back up your claims,
then don't make them in the first place. Otherwise don't get
bent out of shape when the critics don't automatically bow
down to your ipse dixit.
IF (you ask God about these things)
THEN (He will manifest the truth to you)
Which, in my experience, is true.
And in the experience of many *others*, is false.
That's the point, Joseph.
Dad. Please. I. Want. The. Car. Keys. Now.
(A pregnant silence.)
Silence cannot convey meaning?
I never denied that silence can convey meaning.
That's not the point.
There is nothing in the Moroni Challenge about
offering an answer with "silence".
Does that paint a better picture of one possible case
which could be hidden by your description?
No, not at all.
Because you are forced to *alter* the promise in order
to account for its failure. I am sure you see no problem
with this due to your view that language is insufficient
in the first place.
But that simply begs the question.
But, no, language does not work that way unless you are glossing over
the actual function of language in the hope that the listener will
just understand anyway, and in the interest of saving time that one
really should be giving to one's family.
You seem to confuse the issues of whether language is insufficient,
vs. whether it can be abused or misused. These are two distinctly
separate issues.
(Ironically most criticisms of sola Scriptura are based on this
exact same confusion.)
Actually, I guess I better correct that. LDS assume the
logic of language when the answer to the Moroni Challenge
is a positive one. But when someone gets a negative answer,
then "all bets are off" (at least in my experience).
You seem to think that is a bad thing. Sometimes understanding
we are asking the wrong question is more important than getting
an answer to the question asked.
But that's the problem isn't it?
You are apparently unable to act charitably about anyone who
gets an answer of "no". You instead jump to unwarranted
assumptions such as:
"they asked the wrong question"; or
"they didn't ask with sincere intent";
etc.
You apparently refuse to even *consider* the possibility that
Mor. 10:4-5 could be false, so you have to discount or reject
any data point which points to that conclusion.
Now, I have just committed an error of testimony,
What you don't seem to understand is that "testimony" is
of very little use in apologetics. It is simply one person's
opinion, and your "testimony" is negated by my own testimony.
I could ge a thousand Reformed Baptists along with myself
to give our testimonies to you, and I doubt it would change
your belief in the slightest. Of course, I'm not so naive that
I would expect anything different. So if our testimonies don't
change your view one iota, why would you think it meaningful
to share *your* testimony, Joseph? I already know you're LDS.
(I fail to understand why LDS don't understand that a "testimony"
primarily has value only to the one possessing it, and little to
no value to any third party.)
(Me: I, erm, was arguing with a critic on s.r.m,)
(Bishop: Arguing with a critic when you should have been getting
yourself and your family ready for church?
Isn't that a bit like being late for class because you stopped
for a donut?)
For the record, I agree with your bishop. Wasting time posting a
non-answer was (IMO) a poor choice in contrast to spending time
with your family.
But the bishop does have some authority for such judgements,
considering that I recognize him as being called of God to be my
bishop at this time.
And I never claimed to have any authority over you.
And I never asked you to invest time with a non-answer.
(Indeed, I don't recall asking you to respond at all.)
judanzuki
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
.
- Prev by Date: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Next by Date: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Previous by thread: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Next by thread: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
