Miracle of the Five Loaves and Two Fish


Bini
 Share

Recommended Posts

The LDS believe that the Lord creates from existing matter and not from nothingness, correct? Would someone explain how Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? I understand He blessed the food before it was eaten. Did the loaves and fish transform into gigantic loaves and fish? Or did the blessing simply suppress everyone's appetites so that they felt "satisfied" from the few pieces they consumed? If that were the case, why not just bless the people to not know hunger? I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS believe that the Lord creates from existing matter and not from nothingness, correct? Would someone explain how Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? I understand He blessed the food before it was eaten. Did the loaves and fish transform into gigantic loaves and fish? Or did the blessing simply suppress everyone's appetites so that they felt "satisfied" from the few pieces they consumed? If that were the case, why not just bless the people to not know hunger? I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.

Yes, correct, we do not believe in the ex nihilo creation. The matter already existed with the fish, thus God was able to expand what was already there. The same principle applies with the widow and her flask of oil and meal. Although she was on her last portion, because she fed Elijah first, the Lord honored the prophets promise. It would be very easy to increase a substance if you know how that substance is created.

The same principle applies with Christ and the water turning into wine. The taste buds weren't changed, the water at a molecular level was changed from water to wine.

I would say it was very literal. Two fish and 5 loaves, God knowing the molecular structure, or atomic structure, could easily enhance the substance. Bread became more bread, fish became more fish, or the meat of the fish, became more meat.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matter can be converted to energy, and energy to matter. So, Jesus didn't necessarily have to covert some existing matter into fishes and loaves, but he could have converted energy into matter. Think of it as a pocket Star Trek Replicator.

Device like ?Star Trek? replicator is in the works - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - NBCNews.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS believe that the Lord creates from existing matter and not from nothingness, correct? Would someone explain how Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? I understand He blessed the food before it was eaten. Did the loaves and fish transform into gigantic loaves and fish? Or did the blessing simply suppress everyone's appetites so that they felt "satisfied" from the few pieces they consumed? If that were the case, why not just bless the people to not know hunger? I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.

From the account it appears that Jesus commanded the multitude to sit down by companies of 50 and 100 (see Mark 6:39-40). He then blessed and broke the loaves into pieces and gave the pieces to the disciples to distribute. After all had eaten and were full they gathered the remaining pieces. Upon gathering the pieces they filled twelve baskets.

The miracle is clearly one of multiplying the existing food. If not, there would not have been twelve baskets filled with the fragments. It also was likely more subtle than simply enlarging existing fish. It may be that once the food had been broken into pieces and placed in different baskets the individual pieces multiplied, perhaps almost imperceptibly, as they were eaten and passed. None of the accounts mention anything particularly miraculous until after the leftover pieces have been gathered together so individually perhaps nothing appeared spectacular but the entire result upon completion proved miraculous.

The increased loaves and fishes are in some respects similar to the manna gathered by the children of Israel during their sojourn in the wilderness. The multiplying of the food may have been meant to cite the minds of the multitude towards this event. Simply making them full without eating the food would not have had the same effect. For John provides a very deep and meaningful account of Jesus's teachings the following day which revolve around manna and Christ as the bread of life. The essence of the teaching can be found in these words, "I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:48-51)"

Edited by james12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS believe that the Lord creates from existing matter and not from nothingness, correct? Would someone explain how Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? I understand He blessed the food before it was eaten. Did the loaves and fish transform into gigantic loaves and fish? Or did the blessing simply suppress everyone's appetites so that they felt "satisfied" from the few pieces they consumed? If that were the case, why not just bless the people to not know hunger? I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.

I have always believed it to be literal. I can no more explain it than I can explain the healing of the sick or the raising of the dead. But I do reject ex nihilo creationism. I agree with what others have written on this thread.

Btw, seems like Rowling in her Harry Potter series included this limitation on her characters' magic, that they could multiply preexisting food but could not zap it into existence out of nothing or turn something nonfood into food. (But then, if you could transmute a teapot into a lizard, why not into a cow? Oh, no time to think about such things today.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS believe that the Lord creates from existing matter and not from nothingness, correct? Would someone explain how Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? I understand He blessed the food before it was eaten. Did the loaves and fish transform into gigantic loaves and fish? Or did the blessing simply suppress everyone's appetites so that they felt "satisfied" from the few pieces they consumed? If that were the case, why not just bless the people to not know hunger? I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.

Alma 37:11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The elements necessary to create the food of fish and bread was long ago created in stars that no longer exist but the elements they created has been made available to us in abundance here on earth.

I believe that even though this may have been a literal event that it is the symbolism that is important and what should be the center of our thinking. I believe we are not given the scientific details in scripture - not to keep us ignorant but because the symbolism is more rich and enlightening. Most likely if we understood the event we would not appreciate the blessing taking place but rather be concerned that such blessings are not currently taking place for us.

But many do not realize the complete context. Though Jesus showed such things - now many remained faithful? and how many turned against him when darker powers were taking control. Those that were converted to the miracle of the fishes and loaves missed the greater miracle of the Jesus Christ - as many do today. They no more understand the Christ than what they understand of his miracles.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS believe that the Lord creates from existing matter and not from nothingness, correct? Would someone explain how Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? I understand He blessed the food before it was eaten. Did the loaves and fish transform into gigantic loaves and fish? Or did the blessing simply suppress everyone's appetites so that they felt "satisfied" from the few pieces they consumed? If that were the case, why not just bless the people to not know hunger? I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.

I think a more amazing example of creating organic organized material from just the elements is the story of Lazarus. He was in the grave four days. Understanding neuroanatomy, the brain being dead for four days (we are not talking someone who is brain dead being kept alive on a ventilator and later recovering), neurons not receiving oxygen and other nutrients will completely destroy neuronal pathways. In other words, Lazarus was not Lazarus at that point. Jesus brought him back to life but in doing so had to "re-wire" his brain back to where it was before the moment he died. How did that happen? He had to know the exact connections of one neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons and where spatially as well to have him be himself again. The brain normally takes weeks in the womb to create those connections and is modified over years to be in full function. He recreated the structure of that brain and neuronal connections after they were completely destroyed into mush. This, as the book of John says, is so that they will believe of his power. The power is that Jesus can make a human body outside the method of procreation .... no sex involved. The human body does not have to be created via sexual reproduction. That is what that miracle shows. And the story of the loafs and fishes, in a lesser way, shows that He can make organic organized material out of the elements too without it having to come about via sexual reproduction.

Whether people believe that or not I guess is up to them, but if they don't then they don't really see what happened there. People still discuss the need for Adam and Eve to somehow be sexually procreated even though in these miracles we see the power of God. So the miracle is still denied even today.

John 11 " 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may abelieve; nevertheless let us go unto him.

16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

The power is that Jesus can make a human body outside the method of procreation .... no sex involved. The human body does not have to be created via sexual reproduction. That is what that miracle shows. And the story of the loafs and fishes, in a lesser way, shows that He can make organic organized material out of the elements too without it having to come about via sexual reproduction.

Whether people believe that or not I guess is up to them, but if they don't then they don't really see what happened there. People still discuss the need for Adam and Eve to somehow be sexually procreated even though in these miracles we see the power of God. So the miracle is still denied even today.

...

I think you have "created" meaning not intended in the miracle being discussed.

In addition the miracle of creation of man is not a "dead" corps that may somehow be animated but a temple for a divine spirit child of G-d. To assume that G-d would have such a sacred thing by any other means than by biological (cellular) reproduction initiated for humans from the divine female and divine male (in image and likeness) is, in my mind, very uncharacteristic of scripture (including scripture symbolism) as well as the reality of all we experience and see in the miracle of continuing creation.

I see no reason to assume that the miracle of any child born is any different or should be assumed any different than the miracle of Adam's creation or of the birth of Christ.

You went a little farther than I am willing to believe G-d intended we understand of his methods or of Jesus feeding the many on an occasion.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.

Many will say quite literal and it may have very well been. Fact of the matter is none of us were there so we really don't know how literal the story is.

matter replication (as seen in Star Trek) would be a possible explanation - many things that were once science fiction has become science fact as we learn more and more -- who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have "created" meaning not intended in the miracle being discussed.

In addition the miracle of creation of man is not a "dead" corps that may somehow be animated but a temple for a divine spirit child of G-d. To assume that G-d would have such a sacred thing by any other means than by biological (cellular) reproduction initiated for humans from the divine female and divine male (in image and likeness) is, in my mind, very uncharacteristic of scripture (including scripture symbolism) as well as the reality of all we experience and see in the miracle of continuing creation.

I see no reason to assume that the miracle of any child born is any different or should be assumed any different than the miracle of Adam's creation or of the birth of Christ.

You went a little farther than I am willing to believe G-d intended we understand of his methods or of Jesus feeding the many on an occasion.

The Traveler

This "temple" we find ourselves in now is corrupted, carnal and naturally an enemy to God. Our spirit was not "too good" for this body now. I don't think the quality of the "temple" at this point is an issue. It likely will be an issue when we receive a glorified body.

I realize the situation with Adam and Eve was different than what we are talking about here in this mortal existence but I wasn't talking about that creation necessarily.

What is your view of the raising of the dead Lazarus then?

After 4 days of being in the grave there would be no workings of the brain without it being reconstructed. In other words it is not just Jesus giving Lazarus body the spark of life and then it is back to the way it was. Lazarus' brain and likely many other tissues had to be re-constructed in the adult fully functioning form out of organic elements. Not only constructed but put back in the same way it was before his death so he could be himself again, his personality, mannerisms, etc. If the miracle of Lazarus was simply a rebirth, then Lazarus would have to go through all the steps of learning again as a child would, learn have to walk, talk, eat etc. This is why the raising of the dead Lazarus is one of the most amazing miracles in the Bible. Jesus purposely waited 4 days for a reason. There is a point being taught about God's ability to form life that was enhanced by Jesus waiting 4 days. I think one of the points is that when Jesus performed that miracle there was nothing there to work with but elements, this wasn't shocking someones heart with a defibrillator or waiting for non-dead neurons to pull out of "brain death" while a person is on a ventilator etc. This is a miracle of making dead organic material into live material without a birth being involved. Likewise, organic fish meat could also be made from elements that were not fish before.

I would like to hear what you think of that ability. Does God not have the ability to make a live body out of elements without the process of procreation? I am not asking if He did or not with Adam and Eve. I am simply asking if that is within His realm of ability based in the miracle of the raising of the dead Lazarus and the miracle of the fishes and loaves of bread.

As the OP questioned how this happened, we don't have to shut out the possibility that He simply made more fish meat out of elements that were not previously organized as fish. He has proven His ability to do such a thing with Lazarus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seiminary, You are most fun and interesting to converse with. This last question sparks a very interesting discussion that I have had in my work with colleagues in the field of artificial intelligence. It is interesting because Isaac Asimov in his fiction delved into the idea of “the ghost within the machine”. Most likely in your work you have witnessed “unexplainable” intelligence within the human physical presents that is not linked at all directly related to the brain or nervous system – such as immune responses and concentrations of specific white blood cells near infections.

There are other interesting things – of which you are expert and that is the limits of cognitive intelligence being limited by the condition of brain tissue and it construction. I had a most interesting experience with my grandmother who was always this mellow sweet person that suffered a stroke and suddenly became this laud cussing person that I did not recognize at all. A doctor explained to me that the stroke had cause damage to her brain and in response opened memory access to an area that he called the trash bin of her brain. He tried to explain that she was likely unable to realize that the words coming out were the words I was hearing. In other words my grandmother was dying in degrees – meaning that her spirit was losing means of cognitively reacting to our physical world. He implied that her essence of personality had not changed but physical hardware was breaking down - malfunctioning. I wondered if his explanation was complete because form time to time on rare occasions I believed I could recognize the grandmother I previously knew – but it was short lived and at other times – I wondered if her spirit was indeed present and the life force causing her to breathe and continue as what we call life. What was most interesting to me was the calming influence a priesthood blessing had.

The case of Lazarus is most problematic because we do not know if Lazarus was really dead or in some kind of coma resembling death. Jesus said that he was not dead but sleeping. But we do not know how literal or symbolic that statement was. We do not know if his brain was actually being starved of oxygen or not. All we know is that Lazarus arose with no recorded problems. The process from the given information to the results is insufficient for us to determine what happened.

Which brings up another point – and that is that many define this unknown or un-understandable process as a miracle. I do not like this limiting definition of a miracle just because if we do not understand the process of something does not preclude that it was a miracle. Some of the greatest miracles in my life are very easy to explain and to replicate. Such as the joy I have holding my wife’s hand.

Now back to what started this in the first place – you may be correct. G-d may be able to make a cyborg kind of thing from un-living stuff without the processes of being a fetus, child or teenager; that is in essence an adult man or a woman or something else kind of human. But that appears to be unwarranted speculation with no supporting evidence. I am not completely against it. I am just unwilling to go there without some semblance of reason or logic supported by reality. The main problem I have is intelligence – or if you will – artificial intelligence and the question is such an extension of my intelligence or some other intelligence or is the intelligence autonomous and independent – a ghost within the machine.

But there is another problem with the fish and bread thing. That is if G-d created more fish flesh - was it really fish flesh and did it ever belong to the fish (plural) that was a previously living thing or was it made to just appear to be similar? Was there some kind of trickery (bait and switch) - just an eatable substitute or how real was it? and in the end was the remains from the original fish? And there is the question - why does G-d not explain what he did and what happened - why does he keep us in ignorance? Why for example does he not want us to do these kind of things to end world hunger? There are a lot of good innocent people - even infants suffering from hunger - why?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it wasn't the fish and the bread that was changed or multiplied. Perhaps the real change was with those listening to Jesus. It is possible that through the power of the Spirit and because of their faith the multitude was able to be sustained with very little physical food.

Consider Jesus, when he fasted:

1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Surely Jesus was sustained by the Spirit while his physical body was without food.

It is possible that what happened with the multitude is tied in with this idea:

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The multitude had been with Jesus for three days and many of them had travelled from afar to be there. This demonstrates their faith.

In other places, God has also seemingly changed the person so that they can endure or are able to do things that a human normally could not do. For instance:

1. God made it possible for Lehi, his family, and those with him to be able to live off of raw meat only for several years. Furthermore, the women were able to provide plenty of breast milk to their babies even though the women weren't getting a "balanced diet." Yet, they were sustained because of their faith and the power of God.

2. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were temporarily changed, because of their faith, so that they could endure the furnace.

3. Abinadi was temporarily changed so that he could not be killed or touched by the wicked guards of king Noah.

So, my point is that perhaps because of their faith and through the power of the Spirit, the people with Jesus did not need so much food in order to be filled because for the last three days they had been nourished and filled by the word of God and His Spirit. As they relied more completely on God they had less need to rely on bread alone. Thus, the meager amount was plenty because the multitude did not need much food in order to be filled. Their faith had allowed God to temporarily cause a change in them.

In either case, it certainly is a "miracle" in the sense that it was as a result of faith and the power of God.

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it wasn't the fish and the bread that was changed or multiplied. Perhaps the real change was with those listening to Jesus. It is possible that through the power of the Spirit and because of their faith the multitude was able to be sustained with very little physical food.

I appreciate this thought. I suspect there is some deep truth here for how God often treats us and acts toward us: He doesn't worry so much about changing our environment as changing how we are and how we react to that environment.

But this is an insufficient explanation for the miracle under consideration, since it doesn't explain how they had twelve baskets of fragments left from five loaves and two fishes (note that fish from the Sea of Galilee are not especially large). If we believe the miracle as written, there was clearly some increase in quantity of food going on and not merely a general satiation with smaller amounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seiminary, You are most fun and interesting to converse with. This last question sparks a very interesting discussion that I have had in my work with colleagues in the field of artificial intelligence. It is interesting because Isaac Asimov in his fiction delved into the idea of “the ghost within the machine”. Most likely in your work you have witnessed “unexplainable” intelligence within the human physical presents that is not linked at all directly related to the brain or nervous system – such as immune responses and concentrations of specific white blood cells near infections.

There are other interesting things – of which you are expert and that is the limits of cognitive intelligence being limited by the condition of brain tissue and it construction. I had a most interesting experience with my grandmother who was always this mellow sweet person that suffered a stroke and suddenly became this laud cussing person that I did not recognize at all. A doctor explained to me that the stroke had cause damage to her brain and in response opened memory access to an area that he called the trash bin of her brain. He tried to explain that she was likely unable to realize that the words coming out were the words I was hearing. In other words my grandmother was dying in degrees – meaning that her spirit was losing means of cognitively reacting to our physical world. He implied that her essence of personality had not changed but physical hardware was breaking down - malfunctioning. I wondered if his explanation was complete because form time to time on rare occasions I believed I could recognize the grandmother I previously knew – but it was short lived and at other times – I wondered if her spirit was indeed present and the life force causing her to breathe and continue as what we call life. What was most interesting to me was the calming influence a priesthood blessing had.

The case of Lazarus is most problematic because we do not know if Lazarus was really dead or in some kind of coma resembling death. Jesus said that he was not dead but sleeping. But we do not know how literal or symbolic that statement was. We do not know if his brain was actually being starved of oxygen or not. All we know is that Lazarus arose with no recorded problems. The process from the given information to the results is insufficient for us to determine what happened.

Which brings up another point – and that is that many define this unknown or un-understandable process as a miracle. I do not like this limiting definition of a miracle just because if we do not understand the process of something does not preclude that it was a miracle. Some of the greatest miracles in my life are very easy to explain and to replicate. Such as the joy I have holding my wife’s hand.

Now back to what started this in the first place – you may be correct. G-d may be able to make a cyborg kind of thing from un-living stuff without the processes of being a fetus, child or teenager; that is in essence an adult man or a woman or something else kind of human. But that appears to be unwarranted speculation with no supporting evidence. I am not completely against it. I am just unwilling to go there without some semblance of reason or logic supported by reality. The main problem I have is intelligence – or if you will – artificial intelligence and the question is such an extension of my intelligence or some other intelligence or is the intelligence autonomous and independent – a ghost within the machine.

But there is another problem with the fish and bread thing. That is if G-d created more fish flesh - was it really fish flesh and did it ever belong to the fish (plural) that was a previously living thing or was it made to just appear to be similar? Was there some kind of trickery (bait and switch) - just an eatable substitute or how real was it? and in the end was the remains from the original fish? And there is the question - why does G-d not explain what he did and what happened - why does he keep us in ignorance? Why for example does he not want us to do these kind of things to end world hunger? There are a lot of good innocent people - even infants suffering from hunger - why?

The Traveler

Thanks for your response. I enjoy our conversations as well. You are one of the few that take the statements a little deeper than the surface meaning and I appreciate that.

I think here is where you and I might differ the most in our understanding of intelligence. I believe in the autonomy of the brain's "intelligence" that is separate but related and connected to our spirits input. I view this life, as David O. McKay explained it as well as others, as an existence of a dual being, both physical and spiritual. Each of those beings as a part of the "dual being" has its own input into our current "intelligence" or for purpose of this discussion, cognition. At times people are more carnal, meaning the body is driving things more than the spirit, and at times people can be more spiritual and usually it is some combination of the two with the stronger of the force being carnal as the natural man is an enemy to God. It takes effort and continued effort to let the spirit drive our thoughts. If nothing is done, then the "artificial intelligence" of the brain and body takes over making a person a "natural man". Even describing it as a "ghost within the machine" one would have to assume the machine has different "thoughts" than the ghost. So, it might be better stated as a "ghost in the computer". I wouldn't deny the artificial intelligence generated by the body's brain anatomy because that would deny the fact that we are dual beings. If the body is just a shell acting as the spirit would act, then we are not dual beings, we are a single being with a covering.

For example, when I am sitting in church in Sacrament meeting and I suddenly think "I am hungry, I can't wait to eat" where do you think that thought came from? My spirit? I don't think so. When I see a hot guy walk down the street and my momentary thought was "that guy is hot" even though I am happily married, you think that thought was generated by my spirit? I don't think so. When a person with Tourette's yells out some obscenities in the middle of a crowd, was that his spirit or his brain? It was his brain's caudate nucleus wiring not his spirit. When I momentarily feel angry when a person cuts me off on the freeway, is that my spirit generating that thought or my brain? It is in part the amygdala of my brain that generates such thoughts. When a person is depressed to the point of wanting to commit suicide, is that the person's spirit or their brain generating those thoughts? It is their brain. You may respond with, well those are examples of people that have diseased brains or malfunctioning brains. Then my question would be, who doesn't have a malfunctioning brain? I know of nobody in this world that has a perfect brain, but that is the way it is supposed to be, to be exposed to corruption. That is the purpose of being a dual being here, both spirit and carnal to give us choice.

The opposite is also true. When Franklin comes up with an invention, is that all spirit? No, he was blessed with an intelligent brain, it is, at least in part the spontaneous imagination of the frontal lobes that allowed such inventions. Knowing such would allow a person to give thanks where thanks is due, to the person that loaned us such a body. As opposed to thinking such intelligence is "me". Or when an athlete is able to push the envelope of everyone else in the world to run faster than anyone ever has, is that the spirit or the body? Probably a bit of both, but the motor circuits related to motor initiation and planning and balance have to be there too, to anticipate movements that the spirit is not generating. When a person is good at math, or artistically minded, or "good with people", is that the spirit or the way the brain is wired? That is probably both as well but mostly the brain's wiring - "left brain" "right brain" etc.

Whether we take these artificially generated thoughts to heart or learn to love them is determined by the spirit but the generation of such does not have to be from the spirit.

I appreciate your example of your grandmother's stroke but I think this is a better way to understand those changes in behaviors, it is caused by a disinhibition of the more primitive circuitry of the brain. Especially when medial frontal lobes or bilateral temporal poles are hurt, the remainder circuits are left unchecked and they reveal themselves stronger than when the reason parts of the brain cannot hold them back. In other words, they are there in you and I even now, but the logical and social restraint areas of the brain don't let them come to the surface or even the consciousness. It is not necessarily a damaged connection with the spirit but the self generating character of the thoughts are unbalanced within the physical brain.

As far as Lazarus being dead, I don't think there is any question about that, he was dead for four days. Jesus said he was dead in verse 14 of chapter 11. Many prophets have said such. President Kimball said "The mockery grows as the rabble walk alongside and look up, leering and blaspheming and mocking. “He saved others; himself he cannot save” (Mark 15:31). They had seen or heard of his miracles: how the winds and waves had yielded to his word, how lepers had been made clean, how the lame had walked and the sightless had seen, how the dead had been raised, how Lazarus had walked forth alive from the grave after he had been dead for days and his body already decomposing. And so the taunt came again: “He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him” (Matt. 27:42). "

For President, prophet and seer Kimball to say that he was "decomposing" and that he was dead "for days", I don't think I would question that.

Again, for Lazarus to be Lazarus after being dead for days or "four days", either way, the brain is mush at that point. Brain cells have been completely destroyed, not connected. It is not like the plug could be plugged back into the wall socket and pow he is back. It would be like if I took a computer and smashed all the circuits with a hammer and cut every wire I see and asked someone to make it like it was with the exact same files and programs on it without using any back-ups but millions of times harder than that.

I am not denying that it is an explainable thing at some point. But even if explained at some point, it is still a fact that Jesus, through God's power, made Lazarus brain and body come back to the way it was before it was destroyed in decomposition with the same wiring and connections that would make Lazarus recognizable as Lazarus and not some imitation. After Lazarus was brought back to life did he not know how to walk or speak the language or chew food. And all the quirky body related mannerisms of Lazarus had to be rewired to exactly how it was before, so that the nervous twitch he had when a bird was close by or whatever other quirky reflexive mannerism existed remained the same after he was brought back. Or the slurring of the letter "T" that he had. (Of course I am making these up, but there had to be individual mannerisms that Lazarus's body had) Or the wiring that causes him to get a migraine when someone yells in his left ear, obviously not something the spirit would induce, had to be recreated from the elements without going through the process of procreation and neuronal development.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intelligence is an interesting and elusive concept. Mostly in the scientific community intelligence is defined as the ability to learn and modify or change responses based on learning. But this definition has difficulty – especially in my field of artificial intelligence. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between a “per-determined” response and an intelligently modified learned response.

We see this problem especially in the plant kingdom of living things where plants seem to learn and respond with very intelligent learned behaviors. One striking example is a rather simple and primitive mold called slime mold. In essence this mold finds food sources and sets up very efficient network systems to centralize and distribute the nutrients in the organism. This living thing is a plant without a brain or nervous system but learns quickly and modifies itself to its environment.

An experiment was conducted where the food sources were distributed in an area set up to scale to replicate Tokyo Japan and the surrounding industrial complex. Keep in mind that several very intelligent engineers worked for several years to plot out and design what was determined to be the most efficient network distribution system for the area. The slim mold was able to solve (same solution) this sophisticated network system engineering problem in less than two days???

I can give other examples where simple artificial intelligent programs have “outsmarted” more sophisticated life forms. The interesting thing to me is how is such possible?

I would submit the brain is more along the idea of a radio station capable or receiving and processing “thoughts”. Having contemplated my own thoughts I am unable to determine what thoughts begin with me and what thoughts are foreign to me.

We know from revelation that the Holy Ghost is capable of initiating new thought as well as bringing back thoughts of remembrance. I am also inclined to believe that other (non-holy) spirits are capable of introducing and manipulating thoughts to us – replicating the same process of influence that the Holy Ghost has. One thing I find most interesting is that Jesus instructed his disciples that many of the problems experienced by individuals of his day were caused directly by the influence or being possessed of unclean spirits.

What is interesting to me is that it seems the brain (when functioning properly) becomes more efficient (wires itself) towards the thoughts we make interesting to ourselves. In other words – it seems to me we become influenced more by the spirits we entertain – I also realize there are some possible exceptions but I am not completely certain how to classify and identify such exceptions. However I am inclined to believe that our cognition is more of a playback like a radio playing a station being received.

Or as one of my friends said in observation – computers seem to be nothing more than a platform allowing programs to express themselves. What is interesting is not really the hardware – what makes computers interesting is software. And if the software does not want you to know what it is doing – it is possible you would never know in aggregate what is there from one computer to another.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my point is that perhaps because of their faith and through the power of the Spirit, the people with Jesus did not need so much food in order to be filled because for the last three days they had been nourished and filled by the word of God and His Spirit. As they relied more completely on God they had less need to rely on bread alone. Thus, the meager amount was plenty because the multitude did not need much food in order to be filled. Their faith had allowed God to temporarily cause a change in them.

The problem is that, in the account, the amount left over was more than what they had started with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intelligence is an interesting and elusive concept. Mostly in the scientific community intelligence is defined as the ability to learn and modify or change responses based on learning. But this definition has difficulty – especially in my field of artificial intelligence. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between a “per-determined” response and an intelligently modified learned response.

We see this problem especially in the plant kingdom of living things where plants seem to learn and respond with very intelligent learned behaviors. One striking example is a rather simple and primitive mold called slime mold. In essence this mold finds food sources and sets up very efficient network systems to centralize and distribute the nutrients in the organism. This living thing is a plant without a brain or nervous system but learns quickly and modifies itself to its environment.

An experiment was conducted where the food sources were distributed in an area set up to scale to replicate Tokyo Japan and the surrounding industrial complex. Keep in mind that several very intelligent engineers worked for several years to plot out and design what was determined to be the most efficient network distribution system for the area. The slim mold was able to solve (same solution) this sophisticated network system engineering problem in less than two days???

I can give other examples where simple artificial intelligent programs have “outsmarted” more sophisticated life forms. The interesting thing to me is how is such possible?

I would submit the brain is more along the idea of a radio station capable or receiving and processing “thoughts”. Having contemplated my own thoughts I am unable to determine what thoughts begin with me and what thoughts are foreign to me.

We know from revelation that the Holy Ghost is capable of initiating new thought as well as bringing back thoughts of remembrance. I am also inclined to believe that other (non-holy) spirits are capable of introducing and manipulating thoughts to us – replicating the same process of influence that the Holy Ghost has. One thing I find most interesting is that Jesus instructed his disciples that many of the problems experienced by individuals of his day were caused directly by the influence or being possessed of unclean spirits.

What is interesting to me is that it seems the brain (when functioning properly) becomes more efficient (wires itself) towards the thoughts we make interesting to ourselves. In other words – it seems to me we become influenced more by the spirits we entertain – I also realize there are some possible exceptions but I am not completely certain how to classify and identify such exceptions. However I am inclined to believe that our cognition is more of a playback like a radio playing a station being received.

Or as one of my friends said in observation – computers seem to be nothing more than a platform allowing programs to express themselves. What is interesting is not really the hardware – what makes computers interesting is software. And if the software does not want you to know what it is doing – it is possible you would never know in aggregate what is there from one computer to another.

The Traveler

Thanks.

I appreciate what you are saying but I think you are not wanting to grasp what is meant by being a "dual being". Even with the metaphor of a radio station or a computer just doing what is programed you are suggesting either thoughts and desires generated by one spirit, self or another. Where does "carnality" come into play then? Where does the corruption generated by the Fall of Adam come into play.

I think a better metaphor would be a plane with two pilots. At any point one pilot might be the main pilot and the other the copilot and they can oppose each other. This would be a better metaphor to the dual being state we find ourselves in right now. As we make choices we let one of the pilots take more control over the system and it progressively becomes harder for the other one to gain control. If nothing is done the carnal pilot naturally remains in control as that is the more dominant "pilot" of the two. I suppose we could also use the metaphor of a computer but with two users trying to access the computer at the same time.

What are the two pilots? The spirit and the body. I don't think there is any question about that, the prophets have stated this pretty clearly many times over. And these two natures oppose each other.

David O. McKay; "Teachings of David O. McKay

Each of us has two contrasting natures: the physical and the spiritual.

Man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. Man has a natural body and a spiritual body. .... Life is a test to see which of our two natures we will follow and develop. Man’s earthly existence is but a test as to whether he will concentrate his efforts, his mind, his soul, upon things which contribute to the comfort and gratification of his physical nature, or whether he will make as his life’s pursuit the acquisition of spiritual qualities."

It says here, in no uncertain terms that the body can lead, as this life is a test to see which of these two natures we will follow.

Paul outlines this struggle very well and specifically; 1 Corinthians 9 "27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."

To bring it into subjection suggests is has a life of his own. We wouldn't bring a pair of scissors under subjection, we wouldn't bring a wetsuit under subjection, so we are not talking about a tool or just a covering. We also wouldn't bring a "radio" under subjection, that is also just a tool. The radio doesn't move itself to a different station than what is wanted unless it is moved that way. Just like the apostles trying to stay awake in the Garden of Gethsemane wanted to tune the "radio" to stay vigilant and awake but the opposing force, the weakness of the flesh overpowered that spiritual pilot, the "radio" or the "computer" can't tune itself or program itself.

You want to say it is some other spirit tuning the radio or programing the computer. I honestly don't see the difference between that and simply saying that the brain, the body has been programed already to oppose. It is a corrupted body. This was the "programming" given it via the Fall. This is the thing Christ overcomes, He resurrects. He turns the corruption into in-corruption. This is the process of the resurrection, to receive a perfected body. It is not just to shun the evil spirits but to overcome the effects of the Fall.

You love science so much and yet in this area, for some reason, it is difficult for you to accept what is already scientifically proven and reproduced about the areas of the brain that drive all the things Paul said comes from carnality.

David O. Mckay "In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul specifically enumerates the “works of the flesh,” as he calls them, and the “fruits of the Spirit.” Note this classification: The works of the flesh are manifest as these:

“… Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

“Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

“Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

“Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

“And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

“If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:19–25.)"

As an example even with just the two first "works of the flesh" as Paul calls it, there have been many scientific studies by neuroscientists that have shown the differences between where in the brain neuronal circuits are activated when men versus women are shown erotic pictures. Why do men have such a hard time with pornography whereas women do not as much? You, I suppose, would like to say that the evil spirits that tempt with pornography are concentrated on men as oppose to women. Why does it have to be that when we know that the amygdala in men "lights up" more strongly when men see erotic images then it does with women even though both men and women would describe that same image as erotic.

What is our carnal nature as described in terms of our dual nature both spirit and body? How do you interpret what is meant by "our" carnal nature versus "our" spiritual nature? If "our" carnal nature comes from evil spirits giving us bad "radio" signals, then how is it "ours"?

You may respond to that by saying something along the lines of "it becomes ours because we tune into that signal". And to that response I would say 'boloney". It was the carnal nature of the weak flesh that pulls the apostles into struggling with that nature versus the nature of their spirit which is to remain vigilant. Could evil spirits enhance that pull? Sure, just in the same way the Holy Ghost can pull in the opposite direction via our spirits. But the tug-of-war is set up by our dual nature without necessarily having to have additional pulls such as evil spirits or the Holy Ghost. In the same way that everyone has the light of Christ in them when they are born, they also have the seeds of carnality when they are born. Who grabs onto either end of the rope is partly up to us. Satan does not have power and dominion over my spirit. He only has temporary dominion over earthly things, like our body and to the degree in which it is given. Satan has to tempt via the body. That is the test, as David O. McKay says it and Paul clearly outlines.

And (sorry this is so long) I think it would be perfectly acceptable in metaphoric terms to say that "evil spirits" are abnormal connections of the brain, or damages to the brain or carnal genetic predispositions etc. When they are taken out and reproduced even in some other animal, like pigs, we could easily say that the "evil spirit" was removed and put into the animal. For example, one of the clues to herpes encephalitis is not only confusion but a change in personality. As Jesus cured all sorts of diseases why could he not also cure herpes encephalitis and 16 other "evil spirits" out of someone's brain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS believe that the Lord creates from existing matter and not from nothingness, correct? Would someone explain how Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? I understand He blessed the food before it was eaten. Did the loaves and fish transform into gigantic loaves and fish? Or did the blessing simply suppress everyone's appetites so that they felt "satisfied" from the few pieces they consumed? If that were the case, why not just bless the people to not know hunger? I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.

energy to matter conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

I appreciate what you are saying but I think you are not wanting to grasp what is meant by being a "dual being". Even with the metaphor of a radio station or a computer just doing what is programed you are suggesting either thoughts and desires generated by one spirit, self or another. Where does "carnality" come into play then? Where does the corruption generated by the Fall of Adam come into play.

I think a better metaphor would be a plane with two pilots. At any point one pilot might be the main pilot and the other the copilot and they can oppose each other. This would be a better metaphor to the dual being state we find ourselves in right now. As we make choices we let one of the pilots take more control over the system and it progressively becomes harder for the other one to gain control. If nothing is done the carnal pilot naturally remains in control as that is the more dominant "pilot" of the two. I suppose we could also use the metaphor of a computer but with two users trying to access the computer at the same time.

What are the two pilots? The spirit and the body. I don't think there is any question about that, the prophets have stated this pretty clearly many times over. And these two natures oppose each other.

David O. McKay; "Teachings of David O. McKay

Each of us has two contrasting natures: the physical and the spiritual.

Man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. Man has a natural body and a spiritual body. .... Life is a test to see which of our two natures we will follow and develop. Man’s earthly existence is but a test as to whether he will concentrate his efforts, his mind, his soul, upon things which contribute to the comfort and gratification of his physical nature, or whether he will make as his life’s pursuit the acquisition of spiritual qualities."

It says here, in no uncertain terms that the body can lead, as this life is a test to see which of these two natures we will follow.

Paul outlines this struggle very well and specifically; 1 Corinthians 9 "27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."

To bring it into subjection suggests is has a life of his own. We wouldn't bring a pair of scissors under subjection, we wouldn't bring a wetsuit under subjection, so we are not talking about a tool or just a covering. We also wouldn't bring a "radio" under subjection, that is also just a tool. The radio doesn't move itself to a different station than what is wanted unless it is moved that way. Just like the apostles trying to stay awake in the Garden of Gethsemane wanted to tune the "radio" to stay vigilant and awake but the opposing force, the weakness of the flesh overpowered that spiritual pilot, the "radio" or the "computer" can't tune itself or program itself.

You want to say it is some other spirit tuning the radio or programing the computer. I honestly don't see the difference between that and simply saying that the brain, the body has been programed already to oppose. It is a corrupted body. This was the "programming" given it via the Fall. This is the thing Christ overcomes, He resurrects. He turns the corruption into in-corruption. This is the process of the resurrection, to receive a perfected body. It is not just to shun the evil spirits but to overcome the effects of the Fall.

You love science so much and yet in this area, for some reason, it is difficult for you to accept what is already scientifically proven and reproduced about the areas of the brain that drive all the things Paul said comes from carnality.

David O. Mckay "In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul specifically enumerates the “works of the flesh,” as he calls them, and the “fruits of the Spirit.” Note this classification: The works of the flesh are manifest as these:

“… Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

“Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

“Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

“Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

“And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

“If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:19–25.)"

As an example even with just the two first "works of the flesh" as Paul calls it, there have been many scientific studies by neuroscientists that have shown the differences between where in the brain neuronal circuits are activated when men versus women are shown erotic pictures. Why do men have such a hard time with pornography whereas women do not as much? You, I suppose, would like to say that the evil spirits that tempt with pornography are concentrated on men as oppose to women. Why does it have to be that when we know that the amygdala in men "lights up" more strongly when men see erotic images then it does with women even though both men and women would describe that same image as erotic.

What is our carnal nature as described in terms of our dual nature both spirit and body? How do you interpret what is meant by "our" carnal nature versus "our" spiritual nature? If "our" carnal nature comes from evil spirits giving us bad "radio" signals, then how is it "ours"?

You may respond to that by saying something along the lines of "it becomes ours because we tune into that signal". And to that response I would say 'boloney". It was the carnal nature of the weak flesh that pulls the apostles into struggling with that nature versus the nature of their spirit which is to remain vigilant. Could evil spirits enhance that pull? Sure, just in the same way the Holy Ghost can pull in the opposite direction via our spirits. But the tug-of-war is set up by our dual nature without necessarily having to have additional pulls such as evil spirits or the Holy Ghost. In the same way that everyone has the light of Christ in them when they are born, they also have the seeds of carnality when they are born. Who grabs onto either end of the rope is partly up to us. Satan does not have power and dominion over my spirit. He only has temporary dominion over earthly things, like our body and to the degree in which it is given. Satan has to tempt via the body. That is the test, as David O. McKay says it and Paul clearly outlines.

And (sorry this is so long) I think it would be perfectly acceptable in metaphoric terms to say that "evil spirits" are abnormal connections of the brain, or damages to the brain or carnal genetic predispositions etc. When they are taken out and reproduced even in some other animal, like pigs, we could easily say that the "evil spirit" was removed and put into the animal. For example, one of the clues to herpes encephalitis is not only confusion but a change in personality. As Jesus cured all sorts of diseases why could he not also cure herpes encephalitis and 16 other "evil spirits" out of someone's brain?

You are correct - I have difficulty with your concept of duality. For one I believe that if such was the case that one should not be held to account or rewarded for what the other determined.

I think more along the line that our dual nature is caused in essence by sensors of that which is physical and that which is spiritual but all is controlled by a single executive that is our eternal self. Thus through the fall and mortal existence we are eternal spirit beings having a temporary mortal physical experience. The body is in essence a physical device capable of sensing physical stimulus through the 5 senses and also capable of sensing spiritual stimulus through filtered - if you will; through the brain that acts as a vale filtering or causing spiritual forgetfulness - sort of a spiritual blindfold to our past.

Thus I see our spirit as somewhat in charge but also somewhat overwhelmed by physical stimulus and limited by our physical brain - which in some cases and times has input from other spiritual sources as well. So in the end - that which is our essence self, alone, is responsible with some exceptions when outside spiritual or physical influences overwhelm that spirit beyond its will or valed abilities.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, in The Robe, a skeptical character figures that the miracle was performed via the generosity of the multitude. The initial fish and loaves acted as a catalyst for others to add their excess to the baskets as they were passed around.

I still favor the "miraculous" interpretation.

* Edited to add, mass spontaneous consecration would certainly be miraculous.

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct - I have difficulty with your concept of duality. For one I believe that if such was the case that one should not be held to account or rewarded for what the other determined.

I think more along the line that our dual nature is caused in essence by sensors of that which is physical and that which is spiritual but all is controlled by a single executive that is our eternal self. Thus through the fall and mortal existence we are eternal spirit beings having a temporary mortal physical experience. The body is in essence a physical device capable of sensing physical stimulus through the 5 senses and also capable of sensing spiritual stimulus through filtered - if you will; through the brain that acts as a vale filtering or causing spiritual forgetfulness - sort of a spiritual blindfold to our past.

Thus I see our spirit as somewhat in charge but also somewhat overwhelmed by physical stimulus and limited by our physical brain - which in some cases and times has input from other spiritual sources as well. So in the end - that which is our essence self, alone, is responsible with some exceptions when outside spiritual or physical influences overwhelm that spirit beyond its will or valed abilities.

The Traveler

Your first sentence is right on the mark. We can think of many examples of such a thing. We know, for example that a person with Down's syndrome will not be held accountable. We know that those bellow the age of accountability will not be held accountable. What about the individual who has schizophrenia and in the middle of a psychotic attack pushes their child into moving traffic killing the child? What about the individual who has bipolar disease and has a severe episode of mania in the middle of which she goes out and is promiscuous and has a child outside of marriage? This is exactly why we are not able to lay judgement on other people. We do not understand all the variables, namely what is it that is not under the person's control and what is. This is for God to know and to use that information at final judgement.

You fail (which is amazing to me coming from someone who appreciates scientific discovery so much) to grasp the fact that our brain confabulates. It is great at imagination, coming up with ideas that are false and misleading and believing they are real. Consider how real a dream can seem. In the unconscious state of dreaming the brain is making up a stream of ideas and putting them together in a story like fashion, most of which is not true. Could you argue that some of it is true? Sure but then you are simply ignoring the fact that the brain has the ability to make up historical, current and future information that includes sensory modalities as if it is real. The brain imagines information without stimulus. How could you ignore such an important part of brain function? The ability to even have this conversation about these abstract ideas are in fact generated by the brain's ability to query.

I pray and hope I will not be held to every query my brain makes. I pray and hope I will not be held accountable for every time the transitory thought of eating during Fast Sunday spontaneously comes from my brain, not my spirit. Or the desire to doze off during the last hour of a long Sunday. I pray and hope that God knows that that is not really the desire of my heart, it is the desire of my brain often but not the desire of my "heart". I pray and hope that God doesn't judge the transitory thought of "wonder what it would be like to have sexual relations with that person ...." even though the spirit doesn't let the thought go any further by not acting on it. You would say that thought was always generated by the spirit? Moroni " 17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire."

Do you think Nephi was speaking of the weakness of his spirit or flesh when he said " 6 Nevertheless, I do not awrite anything upon plates save it be that I think it be bsacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself."

He is not speaking of any outside influence as to this "weakness". What about Paul, was he saying that the "thorn in the flesh" was really a "thorn in the spirit"? How can Christ say "forgive them for they know not what they do" if the spirit is always in charge. If the spirit is always in charge and always privy to every action then they actually did know what they were doing and Christ could not make such a statement. The only scenario in which he could make such a statement is to have that ability to see in any individual how much that comes out of their mouth and their actions is generated by their spirit (God sees the inward man) versus what is generated by their body (what is created by the body's own initiative, imagination and lies).

Stop denying that the body lies to you, you know this is a scientific fact. The blind spot, in your vision, for example is not perceived that way because the visual cortex makes up that information and your brain perceives it as not being a hole in the visual field. When a person gets a rapid heart rate after hearing a loud bang, the brain anticipates and even makes up information about it being dangerous, so there is a surge of adrenaline making the heart rate go faster. When people are asked to describe a crime scene, sometimes they are caught up in the moment and have a hard time remembering the details. Why, because the body (not the spirit) chose to pay more attention to the emotional significance of the event as opposed to the details of the crime .... the brain does that, not the spirit. The brain confabulates, imagines and holds on to false information. What do you think phantom limb pain is? The spirit wanting to feel that? Or some evil spirit putting those feelings into the brain? Really? Mr Science, come on.

I really differ with you too when you suggest the spirit is in charge in this life for most people. We are told by many that the natural man is an enemy to God. In other words the default is to drift away from things spiritual. It takes much effort for the spirit to exert itself over the body. I don't know if I can explain that in any other way than to bear you my testimony that that is true. Even in those that were once good in this life, that listened to spiritual influences, if they stopped their obedience, they would drift away from the truth. By letting go of the iron rod a person would drift off into the mist and to wandering pathways. The mist and the wandering pathways are powerful because it takes effort to hold onto the iron rod and without that focused effort the default is to fall away from it.

And in Ether, " 26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them."

Meekness and humility are a potential product of this situation of being driven by the body more so than the spirit, if recognized. Fools don't see that, as stated in Ether. Fools see what they see as if that is the person, they see the outside and so they mock. Sons and Daughters of Christ see the person for who they really are and their inherit potential, their spirit self which is hard to see for one giant reason, it is not easily seen in this world, why? because the body is mostly seen, it is the alpha of the two beings without great effort to pull it the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share