The Vision for the Prophet

[AtonementWas4U]

Please, I encourage you, watch the videos. Then pray to Heavenly Father, with faith in Christ, with real intent, and a sincere heart, if these videos are indeed true. If you do these things by the power of the Holy Ghost truth will manifest itself unto you, and truth in all things will be made known unto you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaKIDXkVvLo part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghYCq...eature=related part 2

[resnor]

Please, I encourage you, watch the videos. Then pray to Heavenly Father, with faith in Christ, with real intent, and a sincere heart, if these videos are indeed true. If you do these things by the power of the Holy Ghost truth will manifest itself unto you, and truth in all things will be made known unto you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaKIDXkVvLo part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghYCq...eature=related part 2

Not everyone has the Holy Spirit in them. The Holy Sprit only comes when someone accepts Christ as their Saviour.

[AtonementWas4U]

Not everyone has the Holy Spirit in them. The Holy Sprit only comes when someone accepts Christ as their Saviour.
Well actually resnor you receive the Holy Ghost after baptism in water and laying on of the hands by the Priesthood, then through fire by the Holy Ghost you may receive remission for your sins:

"For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 31:17.)

[resnor]

Well actually resnor you receive the Holy Ghost after baptism in water and laying on of the hands by the Priesthood, then through fire by the Holy Ghost you may receive remission for your sins:

"For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 31:17.)

That is false. Baptism is an outward sign that someone has accepted Christ as their Saviour. When one accepts Christ as his Saviour, he Holy Spirit comes. The differnet signs, like healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues, etc, of the apostles, were also signs that those men were truly filled with the Holy Spirit. Keep on quoting the Book of Mormon all you want, it holds no validity with me, especially when it contradicts the Bible.

[resnor]

Also, that passage you quoted seems to indicate that to be saved, you must repent AND be baptised. As baptism is a work that a person must do, you now have a woros based salvation, and that is not what the Bible teaches.

[sanantonio]

Also, that passage you quoted seems to indicate that to be saved, you must repent AND be baptised. As baptism is a work that a person must do, you now have a woros based salvation, and that is not what the Bible teaches.

Looks like you got this so I will step off.

[Gtrght77]

Also, that passage you quoted seems to indicate that to be saved, you must repent AND be baptised. As baptism is a work that a person must do, you now have a woros based salvation, and that is not what the Bible teaches.

Says you.......

I noticed you completely just skipped over my post in the other thread when you tried to claim Smith a false prophet but when I used the same standards on Christ all I heard was crickets. :p

[resnor]

Says you.......

I noticed you completely just skipped over my post in the other thread when you tried to claim Smith a false prophet but when I used the same standards on Christ all I heard was crickets. :p

I see no point in continuing a discussion with you where you try to compare Christ and Joseph Smith, putting the two on equal footing.

[Gtrght77]

I see no point in continuing a discussion with you where you try to compare Christ and Joseph Smith, putting the two on equal footing.

You mean Jesus failed your litmus test and you had nothing to respond with. :p

[resnor]

You mean Jesus failed your litmus test and you had nothing to respond with. :p

False. Just because you try to pull Scriptures, and not look at them in the light of other Scriptures to understand them, doesn't make them false. It makes you lacking in understanding.

If Christ was false, then so was Joseph Smith, so you're proving my point.

[Gtrght77]

False. Just because you try to pull Scriptures, and not look at them in the light of other Scriptures to understand them, doesn't make them false. It makes you lacking in understanding.

If Christ was false, then so was Joseph Smith, so you're proving my point.

I don't think either of them are false but anyone can use scripture to make any argument.

Matthew 19:27-28
Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 26:24, "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".

So does Judas get to sit on the throne or burn in hell? I guess both since both are said of him.

[resnor]

I don't think either of them are false but anyone can use scripture to make any argument.

Matthew 19:27-28
Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 26:24, "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".

So does Judas get to sit on the throne or burn in hell? I guess both since both are said of him.

At the time of the prophecy, Judas had not yet betrayed Jesus, and he could have judged with him. However, once he betrayed Jesus, he lost out on that. Mormon defense of Smith's prophecies say the outcome changong doesn't invalidate that the prophecy was right at the time it was made. It's kinda like Ninevah not being destroyed once they repented.

[AtonementWas4U]

That is false. Baptism is an outward sign that someone has accepted Christ as their Saviour. When one accepts Christ as his Saviour, he Holy Spirit comes. The differnet signs, like healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues, etc, of the apostles, were also signs that those men were truly filled with the Holy Spirit. Keep on quoting the Book of Mormon all you want, it holds no validity with me, especially when it contradicts the Bible.You need to have full immersion in water and be baptized by someone who has Priesthood Authority in order for it to count:

Matt 3: 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1: 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

John 3: 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much awater there: and they came, and were bbaptized.

Acts 8: 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

[resnor]

You need to have full immersion in water and be baptized by someone who has Priesthood Authority in order for it to count:

Matt 3: 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1: 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

John 3: 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much awater there: and they came, and were bbaptized.

Acts 8: 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

All that proves is that you are to be baptized after getting saved...it was a little different with Christ, as he already was God, and thus the Holy Spirit coming onto Him was a sign to others.

I noticed you left out John 3:16 which clearly indicates salvation is through faith. You also left out the thief on the cross, who Christ said would be with him that day in paradise, even though he wasn't baptized. Baptism is a work, and works are not necessary for salvation. In fact, works are completely separate from salvation.

Baptism always follows salvation, and is merely an outward expression of one's acceptance of the gift of salvatiom.

[Gtrght77]

All that proves is that you are to be baptized after getting saved...it was a little different with Christ, as he already was God, and thus the Holy Spirit coming onto Him was a sign to others.

I noticed you left out John 3:16 which clearly indicates salvation is through faith. You also left out the thief on the cross, who Christ said would be with him that day in paradise, even though he wasn't baptized. Baptism is a work, and works are not necessary for salvation. In fact, works are completely separate from salvation.

Baptism always follows salvation, and is merely an outward expression of one's acceptance of the gift of salvatiom.

Sorry WRONG and Millions feel the same way I do.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Acts 2:37-38
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[resnor]

Sorry WRONG and Millions feel the same way I do.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Acts 2:37-38
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Being born of water has nothing to do with baptism.

The second two verse show exactly what I am saying. Baptism follows repentance. Once again, if baptism were required for salvation, then the thief on the cross would not have been able to go to heaven. Christ said thatbthe thief would be with Him that day in paradise. So, either Christ lied, or baptism is not a requirement.

By the way...millions agreeing with you has nothing tondo with whether or not you are correct. Millions believe that the Bible is false. The Bible says that the way to hell is broad...that tells me that more people are going to believe things contrary to the Bible and go to hell, than are going to believe the Bible and go to heaven.

[Gtrght77]

Being born of water has nothing to do with baptism.

The second two verse show exactly what I am saying. Baptism follows repentance. Once again, if baptism were required for salvation, then the thief on the cross would not have been able to go to heaven. Christ said thatbthe thief would be with Him that day in paradise. So, either Christ lied, or baptism is not a requirement.

By the way...millions agreeing with you has nothing tondo with whether or not you are correct. Millions believe that the Bible is false. The Bible says that the way to hell is broad...that tells me that more people are going to believe things contrary to the Bible and go to hell, than are going to believe the Bible and go to heaven.

Says you and you have nothing to prove your point other then your interpretation of the Bible which is pretty screwed up IMO.

What exactly do you think being born of water would be?

And Peter says be baptized FOR the remission of your sins not repent first then be baptized. You seem to only interpret the bible literally when it is something you agree with, other then that you are all over the place.

[RicoVacilon]

Baptism is not a requierement for salvation. And baptism neither precedes nor comes after repentance. They go together. Baptism is a sign of repentance. Both the Hebrew and the Greek terms for repentance mean "turn around." Repentance is about turning around 360 and seeing the world differently. About turning inside, examining yourself, and then turning back to the world. Metanoiate.

[Gtrght77]

Baptism is not a requierement for salvation. And baptism neither precedes nor comes after repentance. They go together. Baptism is a sign of repentance. Both the Hebrew and the Greek terms for repentance mean "turn around." Repentance is about turning around 360 and seeing the world differently. About turning inside, examining yourself, and then turning back to the world. Metanoiate.

Problem is Baptism is a requirement for many faiths, to say it isn't needed is a personal point of view and depends on what you believe in.

[RicoVacilon]

Problem is Baptism is a requirement for many faiths, to say it isn't needed is a personal point of view and depends on what you believe in.

Baptism isn't a requirement for salvation. That's all I said and I'm sticking to it. Find me anything scriptural that contradicts that statement.

[Gtrght77]

Baptism isn't a requirement for salvation. That's all I said and I'm sticking to it. Find me anything scriptural that contradicts that statement.

I already have in this thread.

As you can tell everyone interprets the bible differently so my evidence may not be evidence for you. My belief does not require you to believe.

[resnor]

Says you and you have nothing to prove your point other then your interpretation of the Bible which is pretty screwed up IMO.

What exactly do you think being born of water would be?

And Peter says be baptized FOR the remission of your sins not repent first then be baptized. You seem to only interpret the bible literally when it is something you agree with, other then that you are all over the place.

Um...the FIRST thing Peter says is REPENT. The part of being baptized is AFTER the repentance. Once again, you are pulling Scripture, and instead of looking at all Scripture, you're looking at one part of a verse to try to prove your point.

Rico, I have said all along that baptism is an outward sign that someone has accepted Christ. Baptism has to follow the acceptance, though. Otherwise, it would precede. I don't know of anyone who accepts Christ as they're being baptised.

[resnor]

Oh, and once again, how do you explain the theif on the cross going to heaven if baptism is a requirement for salvation?

[resnor]

John Macarthur on "born of water:"


There was a very famous passage in Ezekiel that every teacher in Israel knew, because it was the promise of the new covenant. In Ezekiel 36:25, God made this promise to Israel about a new covenant. He said, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all you idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances or my commandments.”

Now what Ezekiel is writing there is, that the day is going to come when the Lord will wash your heart, he’ll wash your life; he’ll wash your inner man. He’ll put a new heart in you and he’ll put his Spirit in you.

So when Jesus talks to Nicodemus and says, "you must be born of the water and the Spirit," Nicodemus knows immediately that he is saying, "I am come to bring the fulfillment of the promised new covenant, promised to and through Ezekiel." Okay? See his is a Jewish Old Testament context, and so it would be actually what the apostle Paul calls, “The washing of regeneration.” The washing, the internal washing of regeneration, and the renewing that comes by the Holy Spirit, that’s Titus 3:5 where you have both the water and the Spirit.

[Gtrght77]

John Macarthur on "born of water:"


I totally disagree with whoever that is. Sounds super Evangelist though. :p

[resnor]

I totally disagree with whoever that is. Sounds super Evangelist though. :p

I see how this goes with you. You disagree, but give no reasons why. Very intelligent of you.

For the record, I don't agree with everything he says...but most people in Christian circles know who Macarthur is.

[Gtrght77]

I see how this goes with you. You disagree, but give no reasons why. Very intelligent of you.

For the record, I don't agree with everything he says...but most people in Christian circles know who Macarthur is.

I guess, I don't read a lot of Christian books because they are mostly opinionated crap. :p

As for proof, I have none that you will accept so again refer to the scripture below.


(1 Cor. 2:14)
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I don't get your deal, it is obvious we believe in different things but you can't say yours is proven and mine is crap. You seem to be highly threatened by any talk that is different from what you believe. I have no idea how you teach with that attitude.

[RicoVacilon]

I already have in this thread.

As you can tell everyone interprets the bible differently so my evidence may not be evidence for you. My belief does not require you to believe.

No you haven't. Nothing you quoted made baptism a prerequisite for salvation.

[Gtrght77]

No you haven't. Nothing you quoted made baptism a prerequisite for salvation.

To you...........


We have more then the Bible to use.

[XxsourdieselxX]

bla bla bla bla

[RicoVacilon]

To you...........

Or to anyone. Go back and read what you quoted if you don't believe me. The archival nature of this thread is convenient.



We have more then the Bible to use.

Perhaps you do. I don't.

[Gtrght77]

Or to anyone. Go back and read what you quoted if you don't believe me. The archival nature of this thread is convenient.




Perhaps you do. I don't.

Thanks Resnor.

[RicoVacilon]

Thanks Resnor.

Is everyone who isn't Mormon Resnor now? A very mature argument there!

[Gtrght77]

Is everyone who isn't Mormon Resnor now? A very mature argument there!

No but your attitude is just like his, we don't have the same beliefs how can you say I am wrong? You can't be wrong in this situation because we don't believe the same thing.

You are arguing apples and oranges and telling me I am immature? :p

[RicoVacilon]

No but your attitude is just like his, we don't have the same beliefs how can you say I am wrong?

Because it's cut and dried. If you can't see that you suck at logic. You quoted several passages, none of which said baptism was a requirement for salvation, and then expected everyone just to take your word for it?

[Gtrght77]

Because it's cut and dried. If you can't see that you suck at logic. You quoted several passages, none of which said baptism was a requirement for salvation, and then expected everyone just to take your word for it?

I can't argue with that stupidity. :p

[RicoVacilon]

I can't argue with that stupidity. :p

They're your own words. If you think they're stupid I can't argue with you there.

[Gtrght77]

They're your own words. If you think they're stupid I can't argue with you there.

Do you want Book of Mormon scriptures as my proof that we believe this? :p


Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I believe being "Born of Water" means Baptized, if you don't then what else can be argued other then we don't share the same beliefs? Baptism by immersion was another lost truth that Smith was able to restore, it was a important practice of the Jews and was not new when John the Baptist showed up. It is strange that such an important ordinance is not mentioned in the Old Testament but since no original Bible exist it may have been edited out later by the Christian scholars who mistranslated or just left out scripture during the retranslation. Another reason it could not be mentioned is that Baptism is from a greek word and the Bible was translated from Hebrew.

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/mikveh.html


Jesus said everyone must be born of the water and of the Spirit. Most Christians argue about being born of the water; does it mean being born of the birth water of a mother; or does it mean water baptism? For the most part, Christians are ignorant of the Jewish connection to water baptism. They see it as a new invention beginning with John the Baptist. This gives many to reject water and Spirit baptisms as two parts to being born again. For Apostolics, we see in Acts 2:38 the verification of water and Spirit baptisms as the born again experience. We do not need nor do we look for any other validation or proof to the meaning of Jesus in John 3:3-5. However, for those not convinced in water and Spirit baptisms of the one new birth, especially that being born of the water is water baptism: I offer the Jewish source as proof.

The LDS church takes the Christian belief back to it's early days instead of following the more recent protestant beliefs.

http://www.mormonfortress.com/bap.html


In 1955 Time magazine wrote that the most “‘startling disclosure of the Essene documents [Dead Sea Scrolls] so far published is that the sect possessed, years before Christ, a terminology and practice that have always been considered uniquely Christian. The Essenes practiced baptism and shared in a liturgical repast of bread and wine presided over by a priest. They believed in redemption and in the immortality of the soul. Their most important leader was... a Messianic prophet-priest blessed with divine revelation.... Many phrases, symbols and precepts similar to those in Essene literature are used in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles....’”(quoted in Nibley, 1956, 71.) This discovery has been so startling and disturbing to most churches that “concerted efforts have... been made by some religionists to literally sweep the contents of the old manuscripts under ecclesiastical ‘rugs’ and firmly nail down the edges.” (Robinson and Robinson, 2.)

When it was first realized that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained pre-Christian, Christian doctrines, those who opposed Christianity took advantage of the confusion to support their beliefs that Christianity was not unique as the Christians claimed, but merely a Jewish copy-cat sect. Indeed, it is an undeniable fact that many Christian doctrines, once believed to be unique to Christianity, were practiced by pre-Christian Jews. To most of those who realize this fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been either the proof that Christianity is a fraud, or that Christ and his followers, though correct in claiming who they are, borrowed their teachings from already existing sources.

For the Mormons, this disclosure is simply another vindication for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the prophetic powers of Joseph Smith. Jesus did not borrow teachings from contemporary Jews, but rather he restored to their purity teachings which had been lost. Just as the Lord restored the fullness of the gospel through Joseph Smith, so likewise, Jesus restored teachings to His Church which had previously been taught prior to the apostasy of the Jews. The same thing had happened centuries before with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses-- each of whom restored truth to their dispensation (the ancient Apocalypse of Adam, claims that Adam was baptized [Apocalypse of Adam 3-5, as cited in Ostler, 39.]). And just as many Christians Churches still retained certain truths when the LDS Church was restored, likewise when Jesus restored the gospel, some contemporary Jews still clung to authentic beliefs which had been revealed to their ancestors ages ago. But just as Joseph Smith was persecuted for teaching what many believed to be strange, or new, doctrines, so likewise was Jesus persecuted for supposedly teaching strange, or new, doctrines.

[conviction]

Because it's cut and dried. If you can't see that you suck at logic. You quoted several passages, none of which said baptism was a requirement for salvation, and then expected everyone just to take your word for it?

I really want to have a discussion on how a logical mind can be a Christian. Would you care to enlighten me on your logic Rico.

Sorry if I'm hijacking

[Gtrght77]

I really want to have a discussion on how a logical mind can be a Christian. Would you care to enlighten me on your logic Rico.

Sorry if I'm hijacking

I can have one with you probably, I seem to be the only one not threatened by others beliefs.

[RicoVacilon]

Do you want Book of Mormon scriptures as my proof that we believe this? :p

Sure, go for it. I'm not arguing what you believe. I'm arguing that the quotations you used do not agree with what you believe.


I believe being "Born of Water" means Baptized

Jesus used the Greek word for "baptized" many times. Why he would choose to get poetic with it on a subject as important as salvation is unknown to me. You also assume "Kingdom of God" means "salvation." So you're making two assumptions in that argument which could or couldn't be true. I would say on a probability scale that your interpretation of that verse meaning baptism is required for salvation is improbable.

As for the BOM verses and LDS doctrine, I can't argue with that.

[RicoVacilon]

I really want to have a discussion on how a logical mind can be a Christian. Would you care to enlighten me on your logic Rico.

Very easily. You start by not reading the Bible literally, but rather poetically and metaphorically as it was intended. :)

[RicoVacilon]

I can have one with you probably, I seem to be the only one not threatened by others beliefs.

I'm not threatened by your beleifs or anyone else's. You, however, seem to be threatened by my requests that you actually substantiate your statements with either facts or faith.

[resnor]

I'm not threatened by your beliefs, Gtrght. I simply believe that you're following a false religion, and in doing so, going to hell. You follow things not taught by the Bible. I am concerned for you, not threatened.

[conviction]

Very easily. You start by not reading the Bible literally, but rather poetically and metaphorically as it was intended. :)

Of course but don't you think it is a high possibility that the Bible was just written by a bunch of elderly wise men who got together to comprise a series of stories to educate their people or do you believe that God spoke to these people to write the Bible?

I am not arguing the validity of the scriptures, what I am arguing is the validity of deity and he his so called actions.

[WWIII]

In the mist of death, Life seems wise.

[RicoVacilon]

Of course but don't you think it is a high possibility that the Bible was just written by a bunch of elderly wise men who got together to comprise a series of stories to educate their people or do you believe that God spoke to these people to write the Bible?

Sure, that's possible. I'm a consequentialist though--following the teachings of Jesus has positive consequences regardless of whether Jesus God incarnate, some Indian guru, or a mythical being.


I am not arguing the validity of the scriptures, what I am arguing is the validity of deity and he his so called actions.

I don't apply genderized pronouns to God for starters. And I don't know if God actually exists. But I believe in God, whether its a personal one or not. I don't find this faith "illogical."

[conviction]

Sure, that's possible. I'm a consequentialist though--following the teachings of Jesus has positive consequences regardless of whether Jesus God incarnate, some Indian guru, or a mythical being.



I don't apply genderized pronouns to God for starters. And I don't know if God actually exists. But I believe in God, whether its a personal one or not. I don't find this faith "illogical."

Fair enough, considering the emptiness answers we humans find in the quest for fundamental answers, perhaps the best answer is that which consequently effects you the best.

I wouldn't call the faith logical, would you? Then again, just like everything else, it all depends on what your working with and your point of perception.

[RicoVacilon]

I wouldn't call the faith logical, would you?

Sure I would. Just because something doesn't have an empirical solution doesn't mean there's no solution. There are quite a few pragmatic people of faith.

[conviction]

Sure I would. Just because something doesn't have an empirical solution doesn't mean there's no solution. There are quite a few pragmatic people of faith.

So people made a solution out of thin air, okay. I think a grizzly monster stole my shoes.

[WWIII]

So people made a solution out of thin air, okay. I think a grizzly monster stole my shoes.

The death of a grizzly monster will not slow the cycle much. Cleanse your soul and destroy the hate.

[conviction]

The death of a grizzly monster will not slow the cycle much. Cleanse your soul and destroy the hate.

I have no problem with you and you can practice at your own free will. I am just making a point, I mentally can't capacitate the reasoning behind an interventionist(as in the character of God) monotheist belief system.

[WWIII]

I have no problem with you and you can practice at your own free will. I am just making a point, I mentally can't capacitate the reasoning behind an interventionist(as in the character of God) monotheist belief system.

Neither do I have a problem with you kind sir. I do not practice (the religion) what is being preached in this thread. However, I believe we all follow some of the rules that are written in most religious scribble. Therefore, religion is necessary in the Grand Scheme of things.

I made a mistake in my previous post. I should have stated destroy with hate (the grizzly monster of course).

[RicoVacilon]

So people made a solution out of thin air, okay. I think a grizzly monster stole my shoes.

If you think the philosophy of religion is creating solutions out of thin air I'm guessing you haven't read much of it. :)

[conviction]

If you think the philosophy of religion is creating solutions out of thin air I'm guessing you haven't read much of it. :)

Do you believe you are guided by an external spirit?

Only in a few sermons worth.

Trust me dude, I've fiddled a lot in spirituality and it led me to some strange, scary ****.

[WWIII]

Mayhem always comes before the light.

[conviction]

Would religious believers explain to me what God embodies to them?

Only embodiment it could mean to me would be the mind of nature. The representation of all the chaotic and usually unexplainable dynamics of nature and its ever transformation towards something we can't comprehend.

[RicoVacilon]

Do you believe you are guided by an external spirit?

I'm not sure what you mean by "external spirit." If you mean "God" but are trying to be vague in order to be inclusive, then yes--I believe in God. But I also admit I could be completely wrong. The factual existence of God is not important to me because whether God exists or not wouldn't change the beneficial consequences in THIS life that can be had by living a religious life. If we actually get life after death for living a religious life that's just a bonus. :)

[RicoVacilon]

Would religious believers explain to me what God embodies to them?

I believe in a personal God. But I often think that is just because it's 1) the easiest to imagine and 2) the most emotionally satisfying. God could easily be an impersonal Prime Mover. At the end of the day it doesn't much matter to me. However, I do think it's important to be aware of anthropomorphizing God. We do it because it's natural, but we also need to realize any description of God will be inherently limiting and inaccurate.


Only embodiment it could mean to me would be the mind of nature. The representation of all the chaotic and usually unexplainable dynamics of nature and its ever transformation towards something we can't comprehend.

That would be a pantheistic God. I'm probably more of a panentheist where God is present in every bit of Nature, not just the "mind of Nature." Kind of like the descriptiong of The Force in episode 4 by Obi Wan. Splitting hairs for sure, but fwiw.

[conviction]

I'm not sure what you mean by "external spirit." If you mean "God" but are trying to be vague in order to be inclusive, then yes--I believe in God. But I also admit I could be completely wrong. The factual existence of God is not important to me because whether God exists or not wouldn't change the beneficial consequences in THIS life that can be had by living a religious life. If we actually get life after death for living a religious life that's just a bonus. :)

It seems we stand on different grounds on logic. I respect your reasoning, perhaps as I grow in experience I will have the same slant.

[conviction]

I believe in a personal God. But I often think that is just because it's 1) the easiest to imagine and 2) the most emotionally satisfying. God could easily be an impersonal Prime Mover. At the end of the day it doesn't much matter to me. However, I do think it's important to be aware of anthropomorphizing God. We do it because it's natural, but we also need to realize any description of God will be inherently limiting and inaccurate.



That would be a pantheistic God. I'm probably more of a panentheist where God is present in every bit of Nature, not just the "mind of Nature." Kind of like the descriptiong of The Force in episode 4 by Obi Wan. Splitting hairs for sure, but fwiw.



Understandable.

I've looked into pantheistic beliefs myself.

In my experiences point me to this: That there is a sort of "identity" or "mind" of our reality which is represented by instinctual reactions and as I pointed to earlier, the dynamics of life itself: the constant convergence, instilling new properties and the ambiguous behavior in the context of action/reaction(if that makes sense). I have had points in my life that I felt I was being directed by an external source but I think it may have been my mind playing tricks on me but I don't have a conclusion on that yet. Life is a strange thing is all I know :p

[RicoVacilon]

In my experiences point me to this: That there is a sort of "identity" or "mind" of our reality which is represented by instinctual reactions and as I pointed to earlier, the dynamics of life itself: the constant convergence, instilling new properties and the ambiguous behavior in the context of action/reaction(if that makes sense). I have had points in my life that I felt I was being directed by an external source but I think it may have been my mind playing tricks on me but I don't have a conclusion on that yet. Life is a strange thing is all I know :p

Have you checked out any Ralph Waldo Emerson or Joseph campbell?

[conviction]

Have you checked out any Ralph Waldo Emerson or Joseph campbell?

I like Emerson and transcendentals a lot but I haven't heard of Campbell.

[RicoVacilon]

I like Emerson and transcendentals a lot but I haven't heard of Campbell.

Well there's a cheap way to see if you like Campbell--you can stream The Power of Myth on Netflix. Or you can just rent it somewhere. He has a pretty famous quote about . . . well let me just find it. . . it's Bill Moyers interviewing him:

Moyers: Do you ever have the sense of... being helped by hidden hands?
Campbell: All the time. It is miraculous. I even have a superstition that has grown on me as a result of invisible hands coming all the time

wtf it didn't paste the whole quote? here's the rest:

namely, that if you do follow your bliss you put yourself on a kind of track that has been there all the while, waiting for you, and the life that you ought to be living is the one you are living. When you can see that, you begin to meet people who are in your field of bliss, and they open doors to you. I say, follow your bliss and don't be afraid, and doors will open where you didn't know they were going to be

[conviction]

Well there's a cheap way to see if you like Campbell--you can stream The Power of Myth on Netflix. Or you can just rent it somewhere. He has a pretty famous quote about . . . well let me just find it. . . it's Bill Moyers interviewing him:

Moyers: Do you ever have the sense of... being helped by hidden hands?
Campbell: All the time. It is miraculous. I even have a superstition that has grown on me as a result of invisible hands coming all the time

wtf it didn't paste the whole quote? here's the rest:

namely, that if you do follow your bliss you put yourself on a kind of track that has been there all the while, waiting for you, and the life that you ought to be living is the one you are living. When you can see that, you begin to meet people who are in your field of bliss, and they open doors to you. I say, follow your bliss and don't be afraid, and doors will open where you didn't know they were going to be

I felt the same way Campbell did for a while but it ended up just leading me to a cluster ****.... I put alot of my decision making in the past to this 'power' and in the end it just scared me because of the lack of control I felt. It was a very dramatic time period for me. First I became engulfed with conspiracy fantasy, then I meditated a lot, I went through a period where I detached myself from everything, I relied primarily on my this 'power' but I tend to think now I was just relying on my implicit memory. I started following patterns in the external world and I thought that God spoke to me through them. I took LSD which completely obliterated everything I knew and I had to start from scratch rebuilding what I knew, the presence of God disappeared subsequently even though the presence was stronger than ever in my trip. Then I took shrooms over Christmas break and I started to enjoy life again in light of its beautiful displays and sense of optimism.

Now I kind of wish I never opened up this magical box. I really don't understand what life is all about and what's the point. What worries me the most is that I don't feel I have a niche in society, I feel like I've lost some of my identity, but perhaps its because I lost my innocence and that there is very little comfort in this world and not enough to go around with the attitude of the general public or perhaps its all me and my ability to assimilate or lack thereof.

Yet as I type these words I don't mean them now, I just go back to work and see what was wrong, I fix and watch life go by. I also feel that perhaps all this was necessary, that it was meant for me to carry out the extremities of life so to understand the moderation of which everything exists in. Right now I'm in the processing of understanding how much control we actually have in our life and particularly of our perception. For instance can I go back to the perception of which I had at previous times, even though I know its wrong? I want to know how moldable my consciousness is: can I shape the world through my mind, or does my unconscious mind hold precedence over my conscious mind?

[RicoVacilon]

can I shape the world through my mind, or does my unconscious mind hold precedence over my conscious mind?

Yes.

A purposefully smart alleck answer. :)

I've never taken mind altering drugs so I have no experience with that. I know that in the religious traditions where it is done, it is treated with great respect and a sense of danger. People don't just drop peyote willy nilly. There's a ritual to it. It's used didactically and one should have a mentor etc. That holds true for almost all the traditions I've encountered drug use in. Meditation is a similar thing--both take you to places in your mind that your unconscious marks as "off limits" for some of the reasons you mention.

[conviction]

Yes.

A purposefully smart alleck answer. :)

I've never taken mind altering drugs so I have no experience with that. I know that in the religious traditions where it is done, it is treated with great respect and a sense of danger. People don't just drop peyote willy nilly. There's a ritual to it. It's used didactically and one should have a mentor etc. That holds true for almost all the traditions I've encountered drug use in. Meditation is a similar thing--both take you to places in your mind that your unconscious marks as "off limits" for some of the reasons you mention.

Haha possibly but notice I consider both extremities, I think there is a little middle ground and I want to see it for myself.

I respect the drugs I take, I'm just fascinated in the psychedelic experience. I took shrooms alone, in a simple room and observed it's effects. LSD I went out on a lake and spent the whole day in nature, in both trips I fasted for.

Psychedelics are powerful drugs and It is the frontier human consciousness in my opinion

Going into the off-limits is just not in the interest of society at the moment but I think it is also the platform for tremendous growth if you have the mind for it.