volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
So, apostles and prophets have repeatedly commented that the united order is not Communism, yet you disagree.
I agree that it isn't Communism, if by which you mean the Stalinist government of the USSR. The UO was however a form of the economic system communism. Apples and oranges, as I have said.
And dispite the fact that the UO is based upon private ownership of property, private ownership of the means of production,
Not entirely private.
voluntary entrance,
Most communist systems have voluntary entrance.
and equality according to needs and wants you still insist it is Communism.
Yes, that is still compatible with a form of communism.
Well then all I can say is that your definition of Communism is the strangest I have ever seen and does not accord with the commonly understood definition.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the commonly understood definition is baloney.
-
Dude, I totally need your email,
No problem. Just sent you a PM.
-
Joseph Smith in 1838 answered a number of commonly asked questions. Question number six was as follows, "'Do the Mormons believe in having all things in common?'" Joseph's answer, "No." (HC Vol 3: 28).
I've heard that rebuttal before. It is weak. Not all forms of communism have all things in common. In the UO members placed everything in the common fund and weregiven what they needed. Each had their own plot of land. Doesn't make it anything other than a form of communism. Other communist systems followed along the same lines.
-
Is Socialism the United Order? by Marion G. Romney
Is Socialism the United Order? – Marion G. Romney - Latter-day Conservative
if you scroll down to the "differences" area, that says it all I think.
Marion G. Romney was an apostle, but in this famous article it is quite clear that he is talking apples and oranges. Was the United Order the Stalinist government of the USSR? Of course not. Was the UO a form of the economic theory called communism, or as Arrington cautiously worded it, communalism? Of course!
-
maybe I just missunderstood. So then, to get this straight, Lord knows I done want to make this mistake again, the root word would be Melechi -Tsedek? So my spelling of it in the form of Malachi is what would be wrong?
And yes, you would be appalled by some of the professors here in utah valley.
The root word is mem-lamed-chaf. Pronounciation can vary. Spelling it as Malachi would relate it to the word mal'ach, which root is mem-lamed-alef-chaf. Two very different words.
-
THis is new to me, most scholars of Hebrew that I have met at UVU and BYU and the internet, yes I know the internet is not the greatest of sources but it can point you in the right direction, says that actual name is MOST likely Malachi/Melechi/Melekhi the Just/Rightous=Zedek/Sedek. This hypothesis would make the word melchizedek a bastardization and a confused term of the aforementioned name.
If that is what they teach in UVU and BYU then oy-va-avoy. To be perfectly blunt, if they teach that they are wrong. The actual name is most likely exactly as it is written. It is logical, requires no textual emendation, fits the context and has a similar form attested outside of the Bible. I laso was unable to find a credible source supporting the idea that Melchizedek is a bastardisation of Malachizedek.
I also lived with a Messianic Hebrew family (Jews that believe that Jesus was the Messiah), for an entire year, that believed the same way.
That is nice. Back in Israel a family of Messianic Jew was good friends and neighbours of mine. Perhaps a bit of biographical information, I was born and raised in Israel, and had lived there most of my life. We started Bible class in 2nd grade, so hopefully 11 years is equivalent to at least a couple of beginner classes at college.
But there is also the moderate chance that they are wrong, no ones perfect.
More than a moderate chance.
Even they say that there is no hard evidence only conjecture becuase the problem is in the linguistics of Hebrew itself, I did mention earlier that the pronunciation of concenance and vowels is somewhat interchangeable,
Very little to do with vowels. For it to read malachi one has to add an extra consonant.
a bad scribe may easily have missed/added a single character, which may be why there is a school of thought that says his historical name is actually Malachi-Zedek
I know of no manuscript which has Malalchi-Zedek. If there were, then the case would be slightly stronger.
(for instance, the difference between the words woman and fire is a small dot, the hebrew were a wise people )
More than a small dot. An entire letter: heh.
-
To continue the discussion of the Etymology of the Name
Melchi-Tsedek
Malk-i-sedek
That pronounciation doesn't make any difference, essentially.
Maybe Michel instead of Malachi, or Melek?Only if you were willing to commit unwarranted violence to the text. Otherwise there is no call to change the letters around.
Michael=Who is like GodOut of the question. It calls for changing the order of the letters and adding an extra letter.
Malachi=Messenger of GodAs I've already mentioned, Malachi and Melchizedek are spelled differently. The root of Malachi means angel, whereas the melchi in Melchizedek is from the root for king.
Melk=Applied meaning of king (by Josephus- not very well liked amongest the Jews)Its impotant to note that Melk is not a full word in Hebrew
You are right, melech means king, but it is a full word in Hebrew.
Melk-i-el (to make it a full word)= Michael?See above.
Melk-i-zedek= Who is like Righteousnous?That would have to be mi-ke-tzedek.
Melek = My father is KingMissing any component for father. My father is king would be Abimelech.
Melek-(i)-Tsedek = My father is King of Righteousnous not 'King of RighteousnousThat would have to be Abimelechtzedek, an impossible construct.
orMeleki- Tsedek = Mesenger of the God of Righteousnous
Back to where we started.
Malach, Melek, Malachi and Meleki, are somewhat interchangeable in Hebrew Linguistics and PronunciationMelech and mal'ach are not at all interchangeable. Even in the Modern Hebrew pronounciation, which is usually less distinct than older forms of Hebrew, there is a difference.
To fully understand the language (so I have been told), one has to know its context to know the meaning behind the spelling.I hope I'm not too shabby at it, or else most of my life as an Israeli would be a waste of time.
-
Malachi Zedek who may have actually of been Zarathustra
You can't separate Melchizedek into Malachi Zedek. Malachi is mem-lamed-alef-chaf-yod. Melchizedek is mem-lamed-chaf-yod-tzadi-daleth-qof.
-
Volgaddon, very good points, and I will attempt to explain. The documents for the new testament bible that we get a majority of our translations from are either writtin in greek or aramaic, not hebrew, so the word deriviation may not have been parush as much as it may have been pharis or pharsis which do mean mean of pharsia/persia (the language the speak in Iran/Aryan/Persia is 'Farsi/'Parsi, the spelling differences are due to the fact that in Farsi the concenance and vowels are somewhat interchangeable, not too much unlike the semetic languages where the vowel pronunciation is also somewhat interchangeable).
So the point MAY still stand as we do not know for sure which deriviation was being used for Pharisee. Assuming that there was no written Hebrew precursor to the New Testament documents we have (with the exception of SOME dead sea scrolls) the primary word usage was the Aramaic (Jesus would have presumably been able to speak both as Aramaic was the primary language in the reason he was in as well as the fact that he himself was a Jew, however, being the sun of God may mean he would have been able to speak all languages/depending on how you look at it I guess), and the deriviation only could have been Pharis/Pharsis and not Parush ??
But, for kicks and giggles, lets say that is was Parush. So they were seperated, but what were they seperated from? The Saducees? The Essenes? The Gentiles? The Scriptures?? Or, perhaps, why not Israel, their original homeland becuase they had been stuck in Babylon and Persia for so long? In which case, my point MAY (as the only thing I am claiming to do is seek knowledge/truth/enlightenment, not necissarily profess it as I truly believe I know nothing), once again, stand on its own two feet.
The derivation from Paras or Parsi leaves you with a substantial problem. You would need to show that your Parsim are a different group from the Perushim known to us from other Jewish sources in Hebrew.
What had they separated themselves from? Most likely from those Jews who did not observe the samerules of purity as they did. It is odd for a group to begin designating themselves as Persian quite a few generations after they had returned from the Babylonian captivity, as did the Sadducees.
-
As for the Pentateuch you mentioned, if I remember correctly??? (Must dooo moooor reaseeerrrch *convulses in seizure upon the floor*), regarding the named angels, many Jews viewed it as a babylonian/mithraic/zorastrian heresy (well, at least in the case of a saducee point of view) and was left out of the Torah for this reason..?. Named angels really dont appear in the old translations of the Torah (Let alone the Pentateuch) All other references I can think of to Angels are either after the occupation of Israel or have a very close proximity to Melchizedek and Abraham (Malachi Zedek who may have actually of been Zarathustra who openly proffessed about the Angels of God=or so my blatantly awesome and semi heretical theory is suggesting, I really dont take myself that seriously, and neiether should you guys), the exception of this (at least the only one I can think of) being the Angel of 'Death' in regards to the plagues of Egypt. Its almost always an 'Angel of the Lord'.
I would like to point out, that even after bringing up this fact about Angels in the old testament, the Saducees rejected them outright, at least, in regards to NAMED angels as the old testament does not name them and the saducees only excepted ABSOLUTELY literal interpretation of the Books of Moses. The Pharisee's, however, believed in the NAMED angels which dont really make their debut until during/after the occupation period.
Sorry for the mixup on the whole Angel thing, I went back and put in an edit note so as not to confuse others as to what I meant.
None of the sources indicate that the issue was named angels. That angels do have names could be shown in the Pentateuch, even though it might not record the names of the angels.
-
Angels as protectors of man and messengers of God appear many times in the Pentateuch.
-
I will start at the time of Jesus. We all know who the Pharisees and the Saducees were, but there was also a group called the Essenes/Hasidim as well. The word Pharisee originates as the word Pharis, which is the Aramaic term for "of Pharis/Persia". In other words, the Pharisee were a sect of Judaism from persia. The pharisee believed in the ressurection, a judgement of the soul, and in the angels of heaven. The Saducees however, did not, they only believed in the most literal interpretation of the books of moses, which makes no mention of angels, heaven, a hell or anything of that sort. The essenes did believe in much of what the pharisees did as well, but with some twists and extremes.
Umm, no. The word Pharisee- Parush (פרוש), spelled with a shin, stems from the Hebrew word for becoming separated from someone or something. Has nothing whatsoever to do with Persia- Paras (פרס), spelled with a samech.
-
Of course, this does not mention the non-religious, materialist/scientific minds of Stalin
Stalin was less of an atheist than you might suppose and certainly no scientist.
-
yes, the atrocities committed by mankind are horrific. I think it is still only a few fanatical leaders who are responsible for this though.
I wish it were true. Take for example the Volhynia massacres and Operation Vistula, the general population was very much involved.
-
Albert at first confuses (then sort of corrects himself) the existence of a model with the thing it is meant to model. Relativistic-QFT is an equation (model) used to calculate a probability density of certain states. Those actual states (physical) are not the math. They are not laws. They are stuff. Albert is not claiming that there is stuff. He's claiming that there's a model and that's something!! But the model wasn't/isn't there. Just the possibility of interaction in a probabilistic manner. When we say probabilistic manner, we mean, randomness with a normal-distribution in the limit of infinity. (that is, if things were to pop into existence, they would interact randomly and large groups of them would have interactions that fall under a modeled distribution which is a solution to Relativistic-QFT.)
Lawrence clarifies something Albert must have missed. I'll quote Krauss in reference to Albert's type of question (paraphrased as--A quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as nothing--at the least it has QFT):
"That would be a legitimate argument if that were all I was arguing. By the way it's a nebulous term to say that something is a quantum vacuum in this way. That's another term that these theologians and philosophers have started using because they don't know what the hell it is, but it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. When I talk about empty space, I am talking about a quantum vacuum, but when I'm talking about no space whatsoever (which is what the book argues), I don't see how you can call it a quantum vacuum. It's true that I'm applying (a model of) quantum mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws (random interactions) that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't exist "something" is beyond me. When you go to the level of creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum...Space didn't exist in the state I'm talking about, and of course then you'll say that the laws of quantum mechanics existed, and that those are something. But I don't know what laws existed then. In fact, most of the laws of nature didn't exist before the universe was created; they were created along with the universe...The forces of nature, the definition of particles---all these things come into existence with the universe, and in a different universe, different forces and different particles might exist."
Albert didn't understand Krauss' argument. His critique is invalid.
Actually, I think you don't understand Albert's argument, or else stopped reading before this paragraph. His point is that Krauss is wrong to talk of "nothing."
Krauss, mind you, has heard this kind of talk before, and it makes him crazy. A century ago, it seems to him, nobody would have made so much as a peep about referring to a stretch of space without any material particles in it as “nothing.” And now that he and his colleagues think they have a way of showing how everything there is could imaginably have emerged from a stretch of space like that, the nut cases are moving the goal posts. He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise.
-
It should also be noted that the most horrible genocides have been committed by atheists...
Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism..."
Vladimir Lenin "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion..."
North Korea is officially atheistic...
To be perfectly honest, sadly, there were probably just as many genocides perpetrated in the past century by religionists than by atheists. It is just that things like the Volhynia massacres and Operation Vistula aren't as well known as Communist atrocities are.
-
This is a pretty damning review.
What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain *arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-*quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-*theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.
-
Traveler, I don't think God is *completely* an external thing. Why else would the Kingdom of God be found within? (Luke 17:21) And Intelligence is what makes it so, IMO.
HiJolly
Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. Is he really saying that the kingdom of God is in their hearts?
Boring and Craddock's "The People's New Testament Commentary" makes the following pertinent observations. Really changes the whole picture:
(1) "Within you" (KJV,ASV) suggests that the kingdom is an internal, spiritual reality "in the believer's heart," a personal, indivualistic interpretation of the kingdom of God popular in American liberalism, but difficult to find in the Bible. There are no biblical texts that locate God's kingdom "in the heart" (see on 4:43). Jesus is here addressing the Pharisees, in this context it is unlikely that he would say to them that the kingdom is in their hearts. That the "you" is plural also argues against the individualistic interpretation.
(2) Thus the second interpretation "among you" (NRSV; REB) or "in the midst of you" (RSV) is better. It corresponds to Luke's own view that the kingdom was present in this world during the one-year ministry of Jesus (see introduction to Luke: "Jesus as the 'Midst of Time,'" and comments on 4:20-21;11:20). The kingdom of God is present in Jesus' ministry, but the Pharisees do not see it. The kingdom was not the kind of thing that objective observers could validate but a matter of having the believers' "eyes of faith."
http://books.google.... of God&f=false
This is not to say that there isn't an inner world, just that this verse doesn't relate to it.
-
Me.
No. You should have said "I."
-
This term means only begotten of mortal flesh.
Monogenes doesn't mean that. If it did, there would be no reason to add the qualifier "in the flesh."
-
I think it only makes sense that if God is going to appear to Joseph Smith after a simple prayer to know the truth, he do the same for all of us.
If everyone were to pray for the same thing with the same level of faith and intent as Joseph, and if God had the same role for everyone, then yes, he probably would appear to everyone in the same way. There are plenty of variables. Not everyone prays with the same level of faith, intent, concentration, not everyone responds to the same stimuli the same way, etc. God is an individual rather than an idea or natural phenomenon. He loves us all, but our relationship with him, an I-Thou dialogue if you will, is individual.
Even then how does that prove that is God, not Frank?
Yes, to validate it is God, not Frank, we have more issues. That was the point of my OP. Even if all of us get the same vision (why isn't it called a visitation?) then we still cannot verify that it isn't a trick.
I'm pretty sure that you would first have to provide some evidence that there is a Frank possesed with sufficient power, let alone the mptive to play practical jokes like that. Casting doubt on anything and everything is pretty easy. Try this. Validate science. Prove 100% epistemologically that science is not a massive, demonic subterfuge led by Satan to fool people.
-
Also, wouldn't you have to make the case for it being "Frank" rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ who appeared to Joseph?
-
Given the First Vision (if true) is a critical event--Hinckley stated that it was where it all rested upon--If I could get the same standard of evidence for the first vision that I have for any critical science theory (evolution, gravity, QM, DNA) then I would be ecstatic!
Why don't you specify what you are looking for.
-
Very good point. We can. The question is can you consistently and clearly move from the faith (trust) point to a clear, universally verifiable, independently validated knowledge of fact about the claim. The answer is, yes, there is a certain kind of consistency that everyone in the world has together. Science. The technologies we use everywhere in the world is based on sciences that do not have cultural typifications. There is no Muslim Quantum Mechanics. There is no Hindu Thermodynamics. There is no Mormon biology. There is just universal science with its attendant branches that are nondenominational. The evidence is so abundant, we manufacture diverse technologies in the billions & perhaps trillions each year, each a little testimony of the power of scientific methodology.
Therefore, I posit, the epistemic value of science is had by all in the world. It has a universal bias in its favor.
Of course Western science has valuable epistemology, but it is not 100%, undeniably true. Science is based upon the best current explanation for things, the explanation that allows for the best success rate in repeating the observed behaviour. You seem to demand a higher standard of the first vision than you do of science. Can you prove 100% that your best friend is who they say they are and not an agent planted by Albanian espionage services? Does not being able to prove that 100% keep you from trusting them or from being their friend?
Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?
in General Discussion
Posted
Has to do with stewardship. The order pools together property and resources, assigning to each a stewardshipaccording to their needs and abilities. Any surplus is redistributed according to the needs of the group. So while others have no right to take from someone's stewardship just like that, this isn't exactly the classic idea of private property.
The idea of communism isn't to have all starve alike. The community redistributes resource and property among the members. Naturally, a family of six will need more than a family of two.