Traveler
-
Posts
15833 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Posts posted by Traveler
-
-
Snow also asked concerning learned verses wired that way. I believe that we as humans are intelligent creatures that have the ability to modify our behavior. The scientific term for the root of such modification is called the lowest cognitive level of learning. The next level is called the higher than lowest cognitive level of learning. Pavlov and Skinner did a lot of studies concerning cognitive learning. I know of no scientific study that indicates any cognitive response that cannot be modified through a learning or acquiring process.
For example, fear is a cognitively acquired response. We do not come wired with fear but with an amazing ability to learn fear (See National Geographic March issue this year). Some people may think they were born fearing spiders – but the truth is that they acquired that cognitive response to spiders. The exact process may have happened when they were very young but what ever triggered their response they made an adjustment that could be with them for life if they do not make an effort to undo the learning or acquiring process.
Likewise children are not born with sexual behaviors. I am quite concerned when someone implies that children are born ready wired for sex. I do not buy the pre-wired come ready packaged propaganda. I believe very strongly that society has the obligation and the need to protect children from such absurd ideas especially those that think to use such things to take advantage of them.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Snow+Aug 29 2005, 10:53 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Aug 29 2005, 04:11 PM
1. Homosexuality does not benefit society. I see no reason to support it until someone can demonstrate the need for it in society. I am not talking about respect for individuals - I am talking about a need for society to support that behavior.
2. As a scientist I take a scientific aproach. Sexual preference is a cognitive behavior. I do not understand the reason to cloud this issue.
The Traveler
1. That's about as silly an argument on the matter I've ever heard. I see no need for Jessica Simpson in society nor any "benefit" that she provides but I don't oppose others in society for supporting her.
2. I would guess that is about an UNscientific an opinion as any. What evidence do you know of that sexual preference is determined by "mental action of processes of acquiring knowledge... " and not some other way?
Do you dig chicks cuz you learned to dig em, or do you just dig em cuz you are wired that way?
1. Jessica Simpson is not a behavior. I do not mind you using examples but I could say that because dogs wag their tails your point is disproved. I stated that I do not support homosexuality because there is no reason to do so. No one will even attempt to show any benefit. I assume that since you will not or cannot demonstrate benefit you know of none. Now, can you specify a behavior that does not benefit society that you believe society should indorse or be punished?
Which bring up another problem on the subject? If someone questions homosexuality and asks for an accounting lets attack them - how dare they question such a noble thing? Because it is not noble - the best we can hope for is that it will not cause great harm for society. No one and I mean no one has ever tried to respond to my above question by showing a benefit. I wonder why that is?
2. Do you have any idea what cognitive means? Please explain to me how someone is aware they are a homosexual if they are not "cognitive" of their preference. I assume you have no idea what a cognitive response verses a non-cognitive response is.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by carlotta@Aug 29 2005, 12:32 PM
I also don't share the church's position on homosexualtiy. I realize that what I'm saying may seem insulting but I don't mean it that way at all. Can anyone help?
I agree very much on the Church's position on homosexuality. I also do not mean any insult but I have two problems on this subject
1. Homosexuality does not benefit society. I see no reason to support it until someone can demonstrate the need for it in society. I am not talking about respect for individuals - I am talking about a need for society to support that behavior.
2. As a scientist I take a scientific aproach. Sexual preference is a cognitive behavior. I do not understand the reason to cloud this issue.
The Traveler
-
Funny but I have never thought the discussion about attending church had anything to do with judging others. I thought it was all about who we really are and what we really believe - not the type of belief we say in a croud so that others can hear but the type that sticks with you when the storms of life are about you and you are alone.
I like what a GA once said at a BYU devotional. He said that reading the scriptures is not really necessary every day. You can skip when ever it is not convenient or does not work out in your schedule. He suggested that we only consider reading the scriptures on the days we eat.
The Traveler
-
Dear Winnie: There is no offense intended and you do not need to justify a single thing with me. I have a bipolar mother-in-law. When she is not on her medication she is impossible to deal with. When she is - she can be sweet and wonderful. It has taken me many years to learn how to deal with this lady and help my wife maintain a relationship as her daughter.Originally posted by Winnie G@Aug 19 2005, 05:08 PM
Dear Traveler,
I have not made a big deal over my ex in years the ones who hear me vent are your guys and my husband.
When I see them hurt I try to let them know how important they are and I try to pump them up as to what great kids they are. I have never said how sick I am of saying sorry for their father.
He can not say I did not keep him informed.
Your right this is a chance to come though for his son, if he does not I am the only one who will know, well you guys and my long suffering husband.
A few things I have learned. It really does not help to vent my feelings when I am upset. I have found that venting does not help me. In fact it only makes coping with what I have to worse. I have also discovered that there is nothing I can say or do that will have any effect on my Mother-in-law. I have discovered that there are times I cannot deal with the problem and that I must remove myself from having to deal with it. Sometimes she seems to have a spirit with the one desire to make me angry. When this occurs I cannot allow that spirit control and sometimes the only other choice is to end our current interface - without getting angry, ever, even later on. I have learned to only deal with her when I can be kind and loving towards her.
I also understand that there are mistakes - I once called the police to have my mother-in-law removed from my home but over time I have been able to establish a loving relationship. Several times she has expressed to me that sometimes she does not feel loved by me but even among her children that I am the only one that can always be trusted. In those cases I tell her that I do not like her very much but that I love her with every fiber of my being and then I give her a hug, which is very hard for me because I did not come from a touchie feely huggy family .
Anyway Winnie - someday the L-rd will have to set this stuff straight, until then you might as well figure out the best way to get some joy and happiness out of it (as little of it as there is) because anything else will make you miserable and there are too many other good people around that do not deserve a miserable Winnie.
The Traveler
-
I think I agree with some of your thoughts. I personally believe that no religion should be discussed (especially in a critical manner) when there is no one qualified (devout member) that can and will speak for them. I can allow someone to be on a "hot seat" for some questions and I think honest questions are good. I also believe the questions should be from personal studying their opinions, point of view etc. and not from opposition.Originally posted by Ray@Aug 19 2005, 11:22 AM
As a point of fact, I said I don’t believe we should criticize other people for their beliefs, I didn’t say that I think we should never let someone know when we don’t agree with them.
Or in other words, when I think of someone criticizing someone else for a belief, I think about someone making snide remarks while trying to make that someone else look bad or feel bad for having a certain belief. And I don't ever do that intentionally.
I use to sponsor a religious topic luncheon in the SLC area. Several of us representing different religions would meet for lunch once a month. We would take turns presenting a doctrine and then have an open question session. It got to be quite popular and we would have about 20 or so attending. One of the more popular presenters was a lay Buddhist monk that is a good friend of mine. Many that attended were surprised to discover that SLC is the world center for Zen Buddhism for Buddhist outside of Asia.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Snow+Aug 18 2005, 05:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 18 2005, 05:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Aug 18 2005, 11:39 AM
DA,
I agree that nobody should be criticized for their religious beliefs, and I think anyone who criticizes someone or a group of people for their religious beliefs is simply without the love of God in their heart.
Oh come now...
Of course we can criticize. Should we ignore extremists fundamentalists and their beliefs? Can you not observe that snake handlers are a bit off their rockers, that Benny Hinn followers are... well, Benny Hinn followers, that Jim Jones cultists are up to no good? What about the Church of Body modification?
The key is not to criticize unfairly, not to avoid judgement calls.
I both agree and disagree with your points, Snow. I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. Where we may differ is in the what to do about it catagory. I think if you disagree with someone you should take it up with them (if at all) - directly like I am doing with you now. I do not think that snide remarks to the peenut galary solves anything. :) BTW I believe the D&C makes some suggestions about what to do when you do not see eye to eye with someone.
Have a nice day :)
The Traveler
-
Winnie: I am no expert on this subject so pardon my unformed ideas but I sense what I think is a problem.
First: You should not feel bad contacting your x. I think you should have the attidude - here is an opportunity. If he does not take it don't make a big deal about it - especially to your children. Maybe just say he does not know you like I do.
Second: Is that I do not think you should wait to contact your x except in times of need or frustration. Send him some good stuff once in a while.
Third: your children should have the opportunity to do some things on their own. Having contact or relationship with their father should not require your help. You should not allow yourself to be drawn into assisting in anything of that relationship - but you should encourage it at every opportunity.
Forth: If it is a burdon to go into debt you should tell your child that the debt will need to be paid back someday. Give them a chance to be the responsible one and if necessary you and your current hubby can take a helping and support role - not a take over and do it role.
You are not just sending your youngest child to school - you are building a responsible and strong man for the future good of society.
My thoughts - friend to friend. Never give up on the good stuff Winnie. :)
The Traveler
-
I am a bit concerned about posting on the subject of angles. I realize that other’s have experiences that I have not. I can only comment according to my own experience and from my own experience I do not feel a compelling need to give details except that the details seem to be quite different than what has been expressed.
One experience I believe is worthy of some details: About 4 years ago I was in Japan working. Late one night after work, 5 of us (all foreigners to Japan, men and not all USA) decided to walk about 4 miles to a restaurant to eat. We took a short cut through a dark and run down part of town. On one side of our path (about 8 feet wide and paved) was an open sewer ditch (about 10 feet across and smelled bad); on the other side was an 8 foot chain link fence. The path went for about a mile with lots of brush for hiding and no lights but the moon and stars.
As we got about 1/3 the way down the path I saw a girl walking towards us. She was young, perhaps junior High age or High School age. I knew she was a student because students in Japan all wear uniforms – they are in school from early morning to late night. This young girl was later than usual. With 5 foreigners coming toward her in a place where her screams could not be heard I felt concerned for her and her fears. But she kept walking and did not seem concerned. As we drew close in the starlight I could see her eyes and to my surprise there was no sign of fear. I tried to say something of a greeting in Japanese and she just giggled – still showing no sign of fear. My comrades said I blew the greeting horribly. If the same event had taken place in the USA the girl would have experienced great fear – even in a strong Christian (including LDS) community (full of angles???)
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Ray+Aug 18 2005, 08:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Aug 18 2005, 08:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Aug 17 2005, 04:46 PM
Ray: Help me a little here. Are you LDS or what?
The Traveler
Yes, I am LDS. Why do you ask?
If you’re wondering how I answer the TR question concerning whether or not I attend all of my meetings, I usually say Yes with the understanding that that is what I usually do, and if something unusual came up I then shared my story with members of the bishopric and stake presidency, if I hadn’t done so already.
(I’m the Exec Sec in my ward so I usually talk with members of the bishopric and stake presidency regularly.)
And btw, next time, please just ask me to clarify something you don’t understand from what I said, because whether or not I am speaking the truth has nothing to do with whether or not I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... except that by having received the Holy Ghost, Who I was told to receive by some men with that authority, I now have access to His gift of truth, which I otherwise would not have received unless God so desired to bless me.
The reason I asked if you were LDS was not so much to judge you or what you were saying. I thought to persue some ideas with you but I was not sure how to go about it. You could call this a pre-assement to get an idea of where you are coming from.
Knowing that you are LDS does not change the truth but it does color a little how I might attempt to present some thoughts. I am also LDS. Unlike yourself I do not do well in presidency possitions (execitive secretary - bishiprics etc..) though for some reason I keep getting called to them. Maybe if I could get it right just once and pass the test I could be called to something I am more suited to do.
By profession I am an scientist and engineer so I am not known for my communication skills. Currently I work in the automation and robotics industry.
I have several non internet things I must take care of at this time. If I get them done I will come back tonight and add some thoughts. If not - later.
The Traveler
-
In a conversation with Ray I have wondered about an old question I once posted on this board. I have found my discussions with Ray delightful and interesting. I am particular pleased with his efforts to communicate good things in a clear manner.
There are a few concepts I would like to ask and open up to the forum. These have the form of which is more important. These conceptual questions are asked to probe individual concepts and how the individual envisions how their ideas will affect others according to immediate impact as well as eternal consequences. As you consider the questions, please respond with your best insight. The questions concern informing others about your belief in G-d, his covenants, commandments, work blessings and anything else:
Is it more important to understand correct doctrine concerning G-d or to demonstrate and be an example of some portions of G-d’s attributes?
Is it more important to believe in G-d’s grace or to be gracious as he is?
Is it more important to believe in G-d’s love or to love others as he does?
Is it more important to believe in G-d’s kindness or to share G-dly kindness with others?
As best as can be understood:
Is it better to believe in G-d or is it better to be loyal (blindly loyal if you have to) to G-d?
Finely is there something about G-d (such as his power) that we should believe in but should not emulate him (do as he would do) in any such manner?
The Traveler
-
Ray: Help me a little here. Are you LDS or what?
The Traveler
-
I hope no one takes offense or thinks that I am trying to force my ideals on anybody. But I have a personal covenant when it comes to Sunday worship. Often when I am involved in discussions of keeping the Sabbath holy I try to avoid the common do’s and don’t’s. The question I as is, what is your personal Sabbath covenant and do you keep your covenant?
I do not think everybody has to have the same Sabbath covenants that I do but it is my opinion that you cannot keep the Sabbath holy unless you have a covenant and honor that covenant. Personally I believe you ought to include worship attendance in your covenant. For example one of my covenants is to attend all meeting of the block to which the L-rd has provided opportunity. Sometimes it is difficult and I am tempted to break my covenant. When my nephew had his mission farewell several friends and family came to his sacrament meeting. After sacrament meeting most went to my brother’s house for an open house thing – I attended the other meetings and was accused of being anti-social.
Again our family was on vacation at Bear Lake. When we went to church there were so many visitors they asked that the visitors do not attend the other meetings and allow the local’s to attend because they could not accommodate the numbers visitors (it was like stake conference). In that case I do not feel any covenant was broken by not attending meeting not provided.
What I do not understand about some attitudes concerning covenants:
1. When others feel they must force their personal covenants on others.
2. When someone does not think they (or anyone else) should have personal covenants. Prove it by scripture attitude.
3. When someone makes light of other’s covenants.
If you have not considered making personal covenants - you might want to consider it. I suggest you try living by covenant - a line upon line upon line - concept upon concept upon concept - covenant upon covenant upon covenant - All according to your heart, might, mind and strength.
Let us learn to respect covenants and encourage anyone that has a personal covenant to be loyal to their covenant. If you do not covenant I am not sure you have much to offer. If you do and feel you ought – please share some of your thoughts.
The Traveler
-
Indy: Do not think I am looking down on anybody about anything. I realize that everybody has their struggles. But what I am trying to get a cross is that we struggle simply because we struggle. Sometimes I step back from problems I cause my good wife and ask myself - why did I do that? The simple reason is because I let myself do it.Originally posted by lindy9556@Aug 16 2005, 05:20 PM
You know Trav~
Sometimes it's hard for anyone else to know the covenant that another person makes with God, and what bearing does that have on anyone else anyway? I don't think that anyone should look down on those that struggle with any kind of commitment period. Regular attendance, irregular attendance...if someone is trying to do what they can, when they can....why question their motives?
What I am trying to say is that it can be done - I know it can be done because I've done it and I am nobody great. I not the prophet, I'm not the bishop or the stake president, I a real regular person that is no better than anyone else - that is why I know it can be done. But more than just knowing it can be done - I also know that it is worth it.
Why? Well for one thing I have walked through the valley of death, I have held someone injured while they died - I been there when the world has fallen apart and I am thankful that I was taught commitment and been trained in understanding that what you regullarly do is who and what you really are. If you want to change yourself - change what you do on a regular basis. Where do people turn when there is real trouble? They turn to G-d - it's just better when you do in trouble what you have learned to do on a regular basis. But Indy I see you as a regular friend - not a sometime kind of friend - I'm quit sure you are very regular at what is important to you.
The Traveler
-
Please do not think I am trying to give you a bad time. I just want to make sure I understand what you are trying to say.Originally posted by Ray@Aug 16 2005, 05:12 PM
And without His help, or inspiration, there are some things we will simply never know.
When you say there are some things we will not understand without his help; what are you implying? My point is that we already have his help - everybody does. If there is something we do not know it is not because he is not allready helping us. It is because we are not paying attention and helping ourself to what he willing gives to everybody.
Preaching the Gosple of Jesus Christ is not so much about telling as it is about doing. Don't tell about being merciful and kind demonstrate mercy and kindness. Don't tell about love demonstrate love.
Sometimes I think devout people are like a bunch of geese that waddle through the mud every week to get to church to talk about flying and then waddle back home through the mud.
The Traveler
-
Just a thought: I use to teach the HP group in our ward. I asked the members why they came to church. One member of the stake presidency that lived in our ward responded by saying "I come to be inspired and uplifted". So I asked "Then if you are not inspired and uplifted some week you will not come anymore?"
He was quite taken back by my question.
There is another member that has struggled with his membership. He had been excommunicated and was trying to get himself back together. I asked him why he came to church. He replied that he made a promise to G-d that he would do it and in turn hoped that G-d would help him with putting his life back together. BINGO
Regular attendance is a covenant between you and G-d. Who wants an agreement with anybody that does not feel a need for consistent commitment?
For those of you that do not feel that regular commitment is needed – I would really like to borrow $100,000.00 from you with the promise that I will pay it all back with interest and see if your really mean what you say or if you will expect a regular commitment.
The Traveler
-
I offer you 5 points (testable) of G-d dealing with man:Originally posted by Ray+Aug 16 2005, 12:47 PM-->
Heh, I think I “post” for the same reasons that all the prophets have “preached” the gospel… because I know the joy (or at least some of the joy) that comes from knowing God and the blessings He desires to share with all of us, and I want to share “this” with others.<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@ Aug 16 2005, 12:29 PM
Then why post?
My father, in talking about investing, (he did very well) use to say that the point is to get other people to invest their own money. When they do they catch on very quickly. It is not a matter of how to invest it is a matter of investing. I think the point is to become invested. Someone may think they trust in G-d but there is a connection between G-d and our fellow men. Jesus said if you cannot love those you have seen how can you love G-d who is unseen?
Do you suppose that all the prophets “preached” or are now “preaching” because they wanted or want everyone to follow them?
I think I can identify that which is divine among man, I simply do not preach about man...at least not to the point of suggesting that a man should be worshipped.Let me put it this way - if you cannot identify that which is divine among man why do you think you can identify that which is divine?
Do you think I would better serve God and my fellow man by suggesting that other people seek wisdom or approval or an assurance of truth from President Hinckley?...or Joseph Smith??... or any other prophet of God???
And btw, your point about investing is well taken, but there is only One being which can make us truly rich.
1. G-d will not do anything for you that you can do for yourself.
2. G-d will do for you what you cannot do for yourself.
3. G-d will not do anything for you that results in your eternal detriment.
4. G-d will do for you that which is of eternal benefit for you.
5. G-d will not do anything for you without your concurrence and approval.
You will note that the variable in these points is you (me or us) and that the constant is G-d. In short my friend I think you are wasting your time (as well as everybody else’s) suggesting that G-d will change what he is doing for them – if they will just ask. What I suggest is that what is really required to obtain anything from G-d is a change in the individual.
How does an individual change? Quite simple. They must stop doing something (on a regular basis) that they have always done before and start doing something (on a regular basis) they have not done before.
What I am trying to get across is the process of seeking and finding, asking and receiving, knocking and having a door opened. I think the main difference in our point of view is the concept of process that assumes you are the only variable that needs change. I may have misunderstood you but you appear to me to be suggesting that G-d changes what he is doing if we make a big enough fuss about it. That has not been my experience but if it works for you that is fine – just letting you know it has not worked for me – if I’m not willing to walk a mile with someone’s burden I will never learn what happens when I walk a mile carrying someone else’s burden. I can call (trust and rely) on G-d for years and years and never learn a thing about carrying burdens till I change me and actually do it.
The Traveler
-
Then why post?Originally posted by Ray@Aug 16 2005, 08:46 AM
Traveler,
Your post is interesting and you make some good points, but I think we’re talking about 2 different things. I was talking about how we need Faith or an assurance from God to be able to know the truth, and you seem to be talking about how we need to set a good example so other people might learn that we are willing to practice what we preach.
And frankly, I prefer to talk about how we should put our trust in God and seek answers from Him, instead of talking about how we should be good examples so other people might be more willing to learn from us… because I don’t want people to put their trust in me or you or anybody else but God.
My father, in talking about investing, (he did very well) use to say that the point is to get other people to invest their own money. When they do they catch on very quickly. It is not a matter of how to invest it is a matter of investing. I think the point is to become invested. Someone may think they trust in G-d but there is a connection between G-d and our fellow men. Jesus said if you cannot love those you have seen how can you love G-d who is unseen?
Let me put it this way - if you cannot identify that which is divine among man why do you think you can identify that which is divine?
The Traveler
-
Sorry for the confusion - I was refering to myself and my post. The finger was pointed at me and no one else. I believe the problem of pride is when we try to convince someone else that the pride problem is for them and not for me. Sorry again - as you were.Originally posted by pushka@Aug 15 2005, 05:26 AM
I've been reading and re-reading Traveller's and the original post on this thread today, trying to figure out where Traveller is coming from in his reply...
I hope that I am on the right track in assuming that he is not referring to SF's post as being 'this post', and is actually referring to K Anderson's post instead. That he is thinking that perhaps K Anderson may have become too proud of his own church attendance, and is therefore judging the others in the congregation, who he assumes will become complacent and stop attending church, due to their own pride...hope this is making sense, btw. So, Traveller, can you confirm that you think it is K Anderson who thinks he is not part of this problem of 'pride'?
To me, there is a difference between being genuinely proud of something you or someone else has achieved, and being boastful and I think that is the difference that Traveller was also pointing out...
The Traveler
-
There is an old saying - "What you do thunders so loud in my ears I cannot hear a word you are saying."
The ancient word for saying or claiming to believe one thing but doing something else is hypocrisy. Jesus called many of the religious leaders of his day hypocrites because they taught ideals that they would not live.
We have our hypocrites in our day. They say Jesus is merciful and kind, but in reality they think Jesus is only merciful and kind to them. They think he will damn anyone that does not believe correct doctrine. Yet Jesus said if you do not forgive others you will not be forgiven by him. Jesus also said if you are only merciful and kind to your friends you are no better than robbers and thieves – that you should love your enemies and do good to those that curse you. But Jesus would not do what he asks us to do? Is Jesus a hypocrite?
Gandhi said he is the example of what he believes –Jesus is as well. If you are not an example as Jesus is an example you have not taken upon yourself his name – the name you have taken upon yourself is that of an imposter.
My opinion – and I am always looking for someone willing to be an example.
The Traveler
-
I believe pride is an effort to increas one's importance or to diminish the importance of others. It is an effort to justify one's self or actions over that of others.
Pride is thinking that what we do is okay but what someone else does is not okay.
Pride is shelfishness
The worse thing about pride is - any attempt to over come pride only results in one becoming over come by pride.
Pride is pointing out what is wrong with others.
Pride is what happens when an effort is made (like this post) to excempt one's self from being a problem.
The Traveler
-
One of the interesting terms of both the Old and New Testament has never been translated in any modern tongue and therefore is somewhat lost in our modern era. We are basically left with speculation as to the meaning? Or so it would seem. When Jesus entered into Jerusalem on what is sometimes called palm Sunday the Jews shouted a most curious phrase. In our current Bibles we see the following: “Hosanna in the highest” and “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the L-rd” (with specific reference to YHWH. If one looks up hosanna in an unabridged dictionary the evolution is given. We see that in the Latin evolution the meaning was changed along with the word “osanna”.
Because of the Dead Sea Scriptures we now know that the meaning was changed late in the first century of the Christian era (sometime shortly after 74 AD). Most likely this is when the Latin influence began to change the meaning and the manner in which it was spoken. Among the scrolls preserved near the Dead Sea, Hosanna is carefully explained and we are given additional meaning of this phrase that has been lost for generations. The explanation is given in 3 different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The scrolls that preserve this understanding predate Christ and the Christian era by over 300 years which gives indication that this was not a passing fancy of an Essen culture but a deep and significant part of Jewish theology.
When the Dead Sea Scriptures were found there were great effort to prevent exposing the scrolls that referenced “Hosanna” from modern Christians and Jews. What we find in the Dead Sea Scriptures is specific reference to the Messiah of Israel and the G-d of the Old Testament. This is a recognition of the Messiah and a plea for deliverance from YHWH. But there is more, Hosanna is a plea or prayer to YHWH, the very G-d of the Old Testament to save, redeem and deliver. The word “Hosanna” implies recognition of YHWH as the savior and redeemer or in other words YHWH is the name given by which men are saved. Contrast this with Acts 4:12 where most Christians think that Jesus in the name by which man is saved. But Hosanna is a call to YHWH to save. This presents a significant problem for the Trinitarian concept of G-d and the three persons that comprise the one G-d. The problem is two fold. First that the person Jesus is the very YHWH (singular G-d) and second that the meaning of Hosanna (to osanna) was changed at the very time the Trinity was being formulated.
This also presents a problem to the critics of the LDS doctrine that Jesus is YHWH and is distinct and different from G-d the Father. Since man is fallen, G-d the Father cannot save man and one and only one G-d - YHWH that is the same person as Jesus and is the only savior - ever (OT or NT).
The Traveler
-
My friends of the forum. Obviously our friend is not aware of Tetragrammaton or the effect of textual variation in the ancient scripture. Nor is our friend able to understand the ancient manners of symbolism, and respect for speaking in reference to G-d. It is also obvious to me that he has little or no understanding of the ancient languages that G-d chose to speak to his word. There is not a single example in any ancient scriptural text where any reference to G-d (title or name) where the text provided complete text to speak or pronounce any reference to G-d (title or name). The casual reference to divine title and name is a development that has occurred after all Biblical scripture was complete.
The criticism of indirect reference to divine name and title is ill placed and is a criticism of scripture itself. Never once did Jesus criticize the scriptural text referencing divine name or title in a manner that could not be spoken. Tetragrammation or the altering of text in reference to G-d’s name or title dates back to well before the Babylonian captivity. Because of the sacredness of reference to divine name and title I avoid getting involved in arguments of this kind. I ask the forum to end this discussion. If there is any blame for this - let it now be upon me.
The Traveler
-
When Jesus was a Jew and walked the earth he was respectful of Jewish law. But there was a group of religious people that were the scum of the earth. In fact, of all religions that existed in that era it was considered the most corrupt, more corrupt than pagans or if you will devil worshipers. The group was the Samaritans. Even in our day the Samaritan scriptures have been ridiculed for deliberate changes in doctrine and examples of corruptness.
Yet Jesus singled out the Samaritans – not for their doctrine or care in attending to religion or even the mercies or grace of G-d. The parable of the Good Samaritan was given as an example of how Christians of even our modern era should treat other whose faith is different from their own.
Am I less rightious because out of person care I write G-d? I have never criticized anyone or felt they must write G-d as I do.
The Traveler
Katrina
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
There are three basic promises G-d makes to the righteous that covenant with him.
1. A promised land to inherit. (heaven)
2. Protection from enemies and destruction. (redemption from sin)
3. Enduring posterity. (eternal life and family)
As I listed the promises issued in scripture I have included both the temporal and the spiritual or eternal rewards of covenant. In scripture we see these elements emphasized especially with Abraham, which is the prototype (type and shadow) of all covenants. Counter to the covenant is what is called the wicked or anti-covenant – The result is the anti-thesis of the first three:
1. Driven from land of inheritance. (hell)
2. At the mercy of enemies and destruction. (No assistance in time of need – thus one is weakened in confrontations with enemies and decimated when destruction hits)
3. Cut off from posterity. (divorcement and loss or void of family and posterity)
It is my belief that scriptures are a hand book of covenant explanations and examples. Though some view scriptures as literal and historical I believe they are symbolic of covenants – both those that keep and honor covenants and those that reject and break covenants.
Now concerning the righteous. The covenant promise is not that there will never be obstacles regarding that attainment of covenant blessings but that G-d will stand by and assist the righteous in their trials. In other words the rain falls on both the righteous and the wicked (as well as the sun shins on the righteous and the wicked). The difference is that G-d stands by, is mindful and helps the righteous – the wicked deal with it on their own.
It is interesting to me that in time of disaster some will complain that they were abandoned while other will say that G-d assisted them in their ordeal. This is the very difference between the righteous and the wicked. We are told in this regard that “The righteous need not fear” and “Have faith and be believing and all things will turn for your good.”
I do not post so we can point at others but in tragedy we may know ourselves.
The Traveler