Ray

Awww. Group hug? I think we need more moments like this. :) :hug:

I liked hearing what you said, and just so you know, I don't think you can ever be behind. Sometimes I'll even dig up an old thread we've talked about while hoping that someone else will share some of their own thoughts.Thank you very much for sharing yours. But how do you know if or when what you've been taught is not what you should keep on thinking? I think that relates to the topic, of being openminded and judmental. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing, and do you do it? And how do you know when you've done it enough? Sometimes there is more we don't think of. I don't think it is possible to be too rationalizing... in the sense that they can do that too much.But along with rationalizing, we also need... something else. More faith... more hope... more love... more patience... and/or more of something else... to know the truth. And btw, it has occured to me that many times it is an AND, instead of an OR, I should be thinking of as I think. All truth is like a chain that fits together when it's complete... when every link is put together to make it whole. And sometimes we do have every link of a strand... so we should then take that and keep on adding.

Because I know some people don't have the time, or the patience, or the desire to read a lot of words on a page, I'll summarize a shorter answer to the question that was asked, and I'll use the words that were used in that article. It is hard to know how the magi might have read "signs" in the heavens, but it has been noted that Jupiter/Zeus was the father god and was often associated with the birth of kings, that Venus was the mother, or goddess of fertility, and that Leo, with the bright king-star Regulus, was the "king" constellation associated with Judah and royalty. Thus, this combination seems to be a natural to be interpreted as the coming of the "King of the Jews" (Mat. 2:2). It has also been noted that when the two planets "fused into one" they would have appeared to be in a "marriage union" with each other. Associating that conjunction with the time of the conception of Christ not only fits his proposed birth in 1 B.C., it also dovetails with two ancient traditions mentioned by the fourth century Christian father Epiphanius. First, he held that the conception of Christ occurred on June 20, which is very close to the June 17 conjunction. Secondly, he also noted a tradition that the pregnancy lasted ten months, which is a perfect fit because the conjunction occurred near the full moon ten lunar months before the following Passover. If this conjunction occurred near the time of conception,it may have been part of a series of signs that were recorded simply as a star (Mat. 2:9). Note that the magi found Jesus at Bethlehem, which means they probably arrived within 50 days of Jesus' birth because Joseph and Mary would have stayed in Bethlehem that long to present Jesus at the temple after 40 days (Luke 2:22) and to attend Pentecost after 50 days, but then would have returned to Nazareth. Yet Herod slew the infants from two years and under according to the time the star had appeared (Mat. 2:7,16). Why two years, if the star had appeared less than two months before? It seems to imply that the magi mentioned a sign of the conception and Herod was making sure they had not mistaken the birth for conception. The proposal that Christ was born at Passover of 1 B.C. is also compatible with other traditional dates for his birth date, as will now be discussed. ... The eastern church put the birth of Christ on January 6, which they said was based on a tradition that Christ was born not on the winter solstice, but twelve days afterward.[44] Note that if these "twelve days of Christmas" had been counted from the spring equinox (March 25) instead, the result would have been April 6. Duchesne proposed a possible origin of the January 6 tradition. He noted that Sozomen (A.D. 440) mentions that one early Christian sect, the Montanists (c. A.D. 170), celebrated Easter on [the Sunday on or after] April 6.[45] If the eastern fathers counted back as they did in Rome from April 6 (instead of March 25), they would have arrived at April 6 for the conception and January 6 for the birth of Christ. Duchesne's argument can now be slightly modified: if they had counted back to the birth instead of the conception, the result would have been April 6, in agreement with the conclusion of this study.

Maybe Mary went to visit her uncle in the temple, while he was living there to serve his course. Or maybe Mary never did live in the temple in Jerusalem, even though someone once said she lived in a temple. As Traveler suggested, they may have been referring to another "building" and they called that building a temple... maybe because it really was another temple... or maybe they just "called" it a temple. All I am saying is that we don't know all the details, or at least it appears that we don't, so how can we make an analysis of probabilities when we don't even know what was possible? At this point, why not just say that it is possible? I'm thinking that maybe I should start a thread on HOPE, and how it can lead us to FAITH. And yes, I do know the greatest gift from God is CHARITY, but HOPE and FAITH are also important. And I try to keep that in mind when I think of anything and I'm sharing my thoughts with other people. To say... that is impossible... sometimes only means that some people can't think of how that is really possible. And if ever in doubt, I ask God. And if God doesn't tell me... it doesn't mean God doesn't know... it may be that I just need to keep asking. ... and keep thinking while I keep listening for His assurance.

Okay, that's what you think. I can see you think that. But how did you compute the possibilities?Was Mary's father a priest? Did he serve in the temple? Did Mary have the opportunity to live with him? How old was Mary when Gabriel came to her? What would it mean to say she lived in the temple? How do you compute whether or not it was probable until you know what you are dealing with, Crimson? And that's just some of the possibilities. There may be others I'm not thinking of now. At this point I am open to all of the possibilities. At this point I won't make a decision. I know what I know by an assurance from God. Until then I try to see what is possible.

Yes, I know it was supposed to be a place for all that, but who is to say more wasn't done at one time?You seem to be limiting the possibilities. What do you mean by that?A lot of those sacrifices were given back to be eaten by the people who had come to worship there... and they were eaten by women as well as the men. I know they didn't offer them, but they participated. And at least most priests who lived in the temple were married, and they lived there with their children, on occasion, so who is to say Mary's father wasn't a priest in the temple and that Mary didn't live there with him? Or in other words, why would women be allowed to live in the temple? Right?I get the question. My answer is to ask why it isn't possible. I just gave you some reasons for how it is possible, and who is to say there isn't more I'm not thinking of. Yes, the temple is supposed to be a place where only certain things are done, with all things in harmony with God's will, but who is to say that all they ever did was only what God wanted them to do? And who here will say they definitely didn't have a custom that allowed women to live in the temple, on occasion? I'm not saying they did. I'm just saying that it's possible, either with or without an official custom. And I think Maureen is saying that she doesn't think so.

I grew up in Texas and still go back on occasions and it's not as Fiannan tries to make it appear. But there are quite a few hispanics, which is totally fine with me, because I enjoy eating the food they like to make. And btw, in Texas, they are big on eating beef, and a lot of cows like to dress up like chickens. And there aren't a lot of veggies like around here where I live now, and a lot fewer good Asian restaurants. I have more diversity to add more spice to my life here. :)

You like these dipsy-doodles, don't you Ray. Heh, dipsy-doodles? :) That sounds nifty. What are those, pray tell? I do like to clarify what I am talking about. Is that what you are calling "dispy-doodles"? I'm trying to see the big logical picture Ray. If Jewish custom made it not important for women to attend feasts and festivals, what kind of Jewish custom existed at that time that would make it possible for women to live in the Temple. The fact that Jewish custom did not require women to attend all the feasts and festivals doesn't mean it wasn't customary to allow women to live in the temple, on occasions, whatever those occasions may have been. But I'm not saying they did. I'm just saying it is possible. What are your reasons for believing that was not possible? I hope you understand my question this time.

I think you really do believe that is true.

I think most of the problems with illegal immigrants would be solved if we easily allowed them to become legal citizens. ... no limits on how many can come to our country ... no fees to pay for the process ... no test to take to see how much American history they know ... just simply allow them to be citizens. The only thing they need to do is obey all our laws, as most of us do, in this country. Instead of spending so much money on building better fences just ask them to obey all our laws. ... except for the ones we have that make it harder for them to become legal American citizens. I think most of them obey our other laws, at least as well as we do, in this country.

Well for one thing, why would Mary even live in the Temple? With a little research, my understanding is that the basic lay-person would visit Jerusalem for Passover or other festivals during the year, but women were not required to come to any feasts or festivals, and the Mishnah says: "The observance of all the positive ordinances that depend on the time of year is incumbent on men but not on women…" In the Temple proper the females occupied, according to Jewish tradition, only a raised gallery along three sides of the court. They were allowed to observe the ceremonies but never to participate in them. http://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/women.html So Ray, explain to me why Mary would have lived in the Temple in Jerusalem, what would have been her purpose for being there? M. Just because she didn't have to go doesn't mean she didn't want to go. Nazareth was a very small town. ... and I've heard it wasn't very exciting. Maybe she just wanted to go... ... because she liked going to the temple... ... or because she liked to go to feasts and festivals... ... or because there were better stores for her to shop at... ... or because she liked the 'City of David'. Have you ever lived in a very small town? Can you imagine how she felt at the temple? Try to open your eyes to all the possibilities. ... and btw... ... I'm not trying to make you believe anything. :)

I have no problem with allowing them to become American citizens... ... as long as they will obey all the laws of our land... Just have them take an oath that they'll obey all our laws, or we'll ship them all back to Mexico. And if they try to come back, illegally, across our border, we should continue to keep shipping them back. End of story. We shouldn't shoot 'em ... or try to hurt 'em... ... so just keep shipping them all back to Mexico... ... unless they obey all the laws of our land, of course. ... or at least as well as we do.

Heh, nope, sorry, I can't make you do anything. And neither can God. It's your choice. :) You don't have to be there if you don't want to be. Others might. But not you. You are free. Or are you? Hmmm.

I think it's interesting that they think they can't pray while they are going about their business. ... that all shops must close, and the streets vacated, while they talk to God and God talks back to them. Maybe if they prayed all the time, like I try to do, they'd be a little less busy killing people? I wonder where they got the idea that all prayers need to be like they think they need to be? Very interesting.

You might want to get out more, Tommy. That was nothing. :)

Would you rephrase your question, please? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.Are you asking me what I would say or think if... ... I said something like... ... I am right because I know what I know about [something] is true... and somebody else said: ... I am right because I know what I know about [something] is true... ... about the same exact thing I was talking about... ... and what they said didn't agree with what I said? Is that what you are asking me, Scott? If so, I would respond to that by saying or thinking... ... some things are true, and some things are not true... ... it really doesn't matter what we think. We could say anything is really the truth... ... but that wouldn't mean it's the truth. I think we should all try to know what is true... ... regardless of what anyone tries to tell us... ... anyone other than God, I mean. Only God can tell us all what is really the truth... ... and only God will always tell us the truth. And if God doesn't know what is really the truth... ... then that is not truly my God. Please define what you mean by "closeminded" and "judgmental", and I'll tell you what that means to me.If someone tries to tell me what I know to be true is really a lie... I stop listening. I totally close my mind off to even a remote possibility that what they are saying is true. Of course, I do try to understand what they're saying, but once I really know what they mean, if what they are saying is a lie, and I know it, I will never think what they are saying is true... because I know it's a lie, and not true. And that is my judgment about that. This is true... that is not. That's called making a judgment. And I do it every day of my life. Now, if you are thinking something other than what I explained, I'd like you to share what you think. At this point I have explained what I think about that, but I'm still open to listening to you explain yourself.

I am LDS and I believe all LDS believe Jesus Christ is our Lord if and when we accept Him as our Lord. ... I don't say He's my Lord... or the Lord of other LDS... if I... or they... don't do or accept what He tells us... because I... or they... would then be our own Lords... because we'd then be doing our will... not His. And it is now my goal to do His will ALL the time. ... when I don't... I then repent... and do better. And the reason I repent is because He tells me to... and if I don't repent He will not be my Lord. And the reason I want Him to be my Lord is because I know He wants to do what is best for me. And btw, I also know His will is the will of my Father, and I want to be "at one" with them. And if I am "one" with them, then I know I am doing my best to do what I know is best for me. :)

Are you saying you don't believe there is any way to reconcile those two stories, now?... come on, now. Do I need to go through this again? Why couldn't Mary have lived in the temple in Jerusalem until she left to go to live with Elizabeth? Are you saying it's not possible that Elizabeth could have lived in another city that was in Judah, or Judeah? The account says that Mary went to a city in Judah, or Judeah... not that she did not go to Jerusalem.And btw, I'm not trying to convince you that these things are the truth, I'm just saying there are other possibilities... than the ideas you believe to be true. And if you believe it is really not possible, just understand that I will not agree. Many things you believe I simply disagree with while knowing they are in fact possible.

How about "read" about this instead? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation M. Thank you, Maureen. It sounds like a pretty good thing, if done wisely. Now if they would only come out with a system for the home... or I found out about one... that I could afford... I'd be set. :)

So, you agree with me, huh? That's nice. I like it when that happens.I was just going into more detail about what Jesus did when He did what He did on our behalf. :)

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement: In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. The angel came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:26-28) The Temple was located in Jerusalem. M. Are you saying you don't believe there is any way to reconcile those two stories? Can you Ray? M. Sure, piece of cake. In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And it was during this time that Gabriel, having been sent by God to comfort and watch over Mary, and more particularly, during the time that Mary went to Jerusalem to live in the temple for a while, that… The angel came to her (to where she could see him) and said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!”… … and told her a few other things, after which He disappeared from her sight while continuing to stay with her to comfort her and watch over her, as her “invisible” guardian angel. Of course, that may not be the way it really happened, but at least it is possible to reconcile the two accounts. :)

Okay. Then tell me if you agree with this summary. What is the atonement... how do we get it... and how does it work… from my perspective? The atonement simply refers to the will of our Father… and I’m referring to any Father who is God. We get it by getting His will… or God’s will. And it works because it is the will of our Father. What He wills He will do… because He works, it’s His work. There is nothing He wills to do He can’t do. And to be “at one” with God means to be in agreement with God. … it doesn’t mean we are or will become the same person. And it doesn’t mean He wills to do what we will because we will it. … we can do what God wills if God wills it. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were all in agreement? God is “one”, and God will always be “one”. Why do some not want to be truly “at one” with God? Who are they? Are they better than God? Heh, I don’t think so. That’s why I worship (adore and emulate) who is God. Any questions?

We grow a lot of our own foods and plan to raise chickens pretty soon, but I'm open to better alternatives to canning and freezing. We prefer freezing to canning, of most things, usually, but I don't like to be dependent on a freezer. Does radiating really add anything "bad" to the food? The sun is a radiator, you know. And we also use a radiator when we use our microwave. I'd like to hear more about this, if you know.

Heh, you're very kind, Doc. :)

Are you done yet?