Sergg

Truth... Whatever that word may convey, it certainly does not -just by virtue of its long use- relate to a fixed meaning. I myself like very much Heidegger's notion of truth as aletheia. But again, many thinkers have thought profoundly on this, Agustin, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Levinas, Lacan, Derrida, De Man, Deleuze, etc... I for one also hold fast to Ortega y Gasset's notion of truth. I do not subscribe to definite definitions of things, but at least to some big aspects. I suggest you all to read more on it and think about it.

I mean, looking at it from your angle T, it could reasonably (now that I look at it) be that 'light' and 'no man' refer to different aspects of the same epiphany and not essentially the whole* of the epiphany(which I hold it to be, and in which case a real contradiction arises), but that one instance -again- says that the men SAW a* light in the scene(as well as an indiscernible 'noise')but not the individual within the such light('no man', this is, the FIGURE of the Christ that appeared ONLY to Paul). Sure, now thinking of it, -even if I dont think the whole of the issue is resolved, and I want it to be a contradiction there, I accept it, lol- it could reasonably be acknowleged the strong(now stronger) possibility that it is just different aspects of the same epiphany and not negations of the assertions.

Wow, that is a great and responsible point. And I have looked it up in my Greek Version of the New Testment. Indeed, the word used for 'listened' or 'heard' is in both cases different (not only in its 'case' but alltogether another word, which might* strongly suggest T's point). But we ought to remember that this contradictions consists of TWO parts, P and Q and their respective negations. While now we have 'saved' the ambiguous 'heard' from contradiction in both cases, the fact is, that after ALSO looking for the words employed in the use of 'SAW' and 'SEE' (regarding the LIGHT in one instance, and a 'MAN'-Christ in the other) are the SAME word. Thus, while one verb (the action of hearing the epiphany) is saved from contradiction for they indeed HEARD but did'nt UNDERSTAND (and each version only ALLUDES to one or the other), still, whatever was it that they SAW, they SAW and didnt SEE at the same circumstances. And I regard the use of "light" in one instance to be a direct(if different) allusion to the epiphany itself of the 'Man(Christ)'. For even if we were to say that exactly the SAME as before occurs regarding the SIGHT of the seen(say, that one instance refers to they SEEING a blur or manifestation, the other saying that they although having seen this did not get to see CLEARLY the 'man' in it) we would have to draw the weird conclusion based on no difference in verbs. So, the thing remains, now even more clearly, that some forced use is at play. That something escapes us in our reading of these accounts, or(and?) that a partly-contradictory tension resides within it.

I stress this because a semantical turn can also be made on my favor: "paul was 'actually' speaking of the same things and simply contradicted himself". How? Why? Because just as you say, If I were Paul, I could get mistaken and actually narrate differently what happened at some time. Here, I could say "they saw no man but heard a voice" and later "saw a light but heard no man" and refer differently to the same things.

And that is a great guess at the problem; indeed a reasonable (as i mentioned above) route to explore. Its called a semantic* argument to rescue the such statements from contradiction. Thing is, after the analysis done, you would need more than the mere guess, and actual textual or hermeneutical proof, that suggests strongly your point.

1)Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing(A) a voice(A.1), but seeing no(B ) man(B.1 ). 2)Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed (A) the light(A.1), and were afraid; but they heard not (B ) the voice of him(B.1) that spake to me. Following this illustration (or trying to...), we can find various contradictions or at least several tensions*. There is, however, still left to decide whether both sentences are alluding to the same circumstances(or objects). We have two basic structures: Verbal: 1) P ("A": they heard x) and Q ("B": they saw no x) 2) P ("A": they saw x) and Q ("B": they heard no x) objective: 1) P("A.1": they 'x' a voice) and Q ("B.1": they 'x' no man) 2) P("A.1": they 'x' a light) and Q ("B.1": they 'x' no voice) Now, in its verbal structure, we have the same usage of verbs: 'saw' and 'heard'. In the siuch structure a contradiction in terms occurs. But in its objective structure, -though I personally claim there is not- a particular ambivalence in what actually is a 'light' in one instance and a 'man' in the other, or a 'voice' in one and a 'nothing' in the other, makes plausible that the (formal) verbal structure is not contradicting itself for it (reasonably) depends on the meaning of the latter. So this leaves us with defining what is Paul refering to when he speaks of 'man(Jesus)' and 'light(x?)' -which he verbally contradicts, and 'voice(of Jesus)' and 'nothing(x?)' which he again verbally counterposits. My bet is that he is speaking of the same thing, that whatever role 'man(Jesus)' played in the first instance, 'light(Epiphany -hence, Jesus!)' plays in the second -which obviously after verbal contradiction results also in objective contradiction. And whatever role 'voice(of Jesus!)' plays in the second instance is also the one portrayed in the first one in 'voice(of 'no man' -but the only man-epiphany there was Jesus! So its Him implied)' , which also, after verbally contradicting themselves , result in objective contradiction. Now, some scholars take them to be contradictions, others dont. Some lds scholars at Fairlds.org, acknowledge it as a contradiction to illustrate Joseph's Smith plausible(and justified) loss of memory(contradiction) in various of his different 'first visions'. But it doesnt matter, we can analize it by our lights. Does it actually contradict or not? I have tried to suggest that it does, trying to sketch its structures and positing probable semantic usage. I expect to see any 'attack' on this, rise to the same effort of illustration.

Well T, scholars(even evalgelical ones) on Paul acknowledge it as a contradiction... So, even without the such 'highly regarded' consent of the scholars, I find it also as contradictory to say that in the SAME event, T1, a and non-a occurred: 1st Account: "At T1 A and B occurred (A=people saw a light, B=People heard no sound) 2nd Account: "At T1 ALSO happened non-A and non-B (non-A= People saw nothing, but B=People heard a sound) Does'nt that sound contradictory?

One contradiction regarding creation, is that fowl is created in Gen.1 from WATER, and in Gen.2 from the EARTH. An interesting twist on it, is that the Pearl of Great Price reproduces this tension, and that includes even another: in the two books that comprise the PoGP, one posits Adam naming the animals ALONE, and Eve created later, and the other posits Adam and Eve created, and naming the animals. Chicken or egg?.... There are many tensions that are reproduced or reinterpreted by posterior writers or prophets precisely because originally they (such tensions) respond to a mythological consciousness and not a historical consciousness, and reflect the borrowing from other traditions and the heterogeneity of such sources (Gen.1 = egyptian, Gen.2 =babylonian, and so on). Posterior writers of more refined and 'historical' mentalities took the myths at the core of judaism to mean either allegorically or factually, historical events that took place.

What a religious text says, and what its actual praxis is, are two diferent things. It is a fact that jews built a Temple (waaaaaayyyyyy before christ) near Egypt in Alexandria: google it. So you should be rather asking the jews how is it possible that they (knowing that verse better than you*) make sense of their historical change in practices.

Misunderstanding is the root to all 'harm' in both your cases. I was clear*, that the gods DO consider themselves to be what they are: Gods, but that precisely because THEY are the ONLY gods, they are 'atheists' (say, under the dictionary definition: does not believe in God as the origin of the world,etc.) in that they do not consider what transcend them (the 'Laws' that some* here believe in -not I) as the result of another Intelligence, but that no other intelligence exists apart from the Gods themselves. In that sense, The gods are atheists in regard to those components of the universe that are not dependent on them (the 'Laws'). Again, I do not think this is the outcome of any theology, or mormon theology. I have been more than clear (in fact, ad nauseam), that it is only the ironical(but REAL) results from the beliefs that some members here share. End of all my participation regarding this thread.

Again, I do not subscribe to those premises on which the whole logical irony was built. It was intended to be read by those who subscribe to it, to let them see**** what logical conclusions could**** be derived from them****. Of course, I didnt expect that you would take it to be directed at you, and that you would (in a way I dont understand) take them to be what I**** believe. It was not a joke* in the sense of a common joke. It was an intellectual irony, which I have translated as 'joke' for the sake of remaining, you know, down to earth. But in fact it was a serious matter. Just presented colorfully, as a comment*** not an argument****(you do know the diference...). So it is not offensive in any way (for lets be honest and serious now, the God of the Bible -independently of what you as mormon may want* to believe, represents Himself as the ONLY God, so He, in regard to what co-exists around Him, is an atheist, for He himself does not believe in any Laws or Gods that made Him or his cosmos), it could be offensive though (but again, you would -like me- take it as childish) to call the God of theh Bible 'one among many', that 'once was a man', to other christians. So do not get sensitive over something that was a matter to give thinking to(plain 'jokes' are meaningless in the end, my comment was not) and part of what others may believe(as Tom, Justice or Vanhin), and you should just keep up to it, disregard it, prove it wrong, or not. But unless the manner**** of presenting some topic is*** unrespectful, whatever the content, if intellectual, must be regarded seriously and you must learn to live with it. Just as I live with your ideas.

At least somebody sees the point others tried to make. Now, what is of importance, is that this belief in 'Laws' saves God's acts from becoming 'arbitrary', but arise other questions: his ontological status, his epistemological status, and his moral status. What possible 'position' can he hold that prevents Him from being completely arbitrary; What possible conditions and status is he in in terms of knowledge -if he ignores the origin of such Laws-; What moral status does he enjoy, if he's ultimately constrained by compliance to laws. And many more.

But who's posts have you been reading? What I said, was that given the premises, the GODS themselves would be rightly defined as ATHEISTS. Not us! In such irony is that the joke (a rather profound one...) strives. Again, if you do not understand it, keep to yourself whatever value-judgements you might have on my person. It would not be of importance at all. The very value of ironic, funny and random comments(that can often be profound) is that they just 'flash', and if people get them, they become iconic, if not, no harm.

Lets go easy on this: D&C 88: 22, 22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. What is the meaning of this for you all? Think on it, but while you do, take into consideration the other 'granted' points of 'nonofficial' doctrine in mormon communities: that Elohim Himself progressed through complying to laws(say, was exalted through 'gospel' acceptance as 'we' will). Then it follows that whatever 'law' thi sverse refers to(which is, as verse 13 says, that law -light- that governs all things, 'even the power of god') cannot be one of Elohim's creations(for it is anterior to Him). What would beg the question as to -then- by which Laws did previous Gods became gods, and so on. We will end up with Laws that are ultimately previous to individual gods. Just as we end up with RAW unorganized "intelligences" that are precious to their actual organization as 'individuals' -which again, begs the question... So, -apart from faith- how can it be solved? It is a sort of 'chicken or the egg' question.

Well, I was refering to the only posts and members who (Tom and Vanhin*) have quoted D&C in regard to this notion of 'Laws' celestial. I thought you were following the thread. Then again... Well, of course it is stretched, lol. That's the point of a logical joke. But it must be acknowledged though, that if the premises are taken at face-value (as those who regard the "celestial Primordial-to-the-gods Laws" theory to be true may do) the conclusions (if ironic) remain valid. But of course, either you do not subscribe to the premises and the "Primordial-to-the-gods-Laws" theory, or you do but are unwilling (after glimpsing at consequences...) to accept the joke.