Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[Jenyar]

It is a good analogy, IMHO. The doctrines and principles revealed to Joseph Smith were directly from revelation from Jesus Christ. Joseph restored the true church of Christ under Christ's direction, so the analogy is true.

Maybe you can explain why Joseph Smith revised his early visions to fit his later "revelations"? This wasn't necessary for anything Jesus or the first apostles said.

In the earliest "official" account of his first vision, given to the Church in 1832, he said he "saw the Lord" and was forgiven of his sins, but before that he told people (Willard Chase (1827), Martin Harris (1827) and Peter Bauder (1830)) only of a single spirit or angel. In a 1835 diary entry, he mentions two unidentified "personages" and many angels - the sonship of Jesus is affirmed, but he is not identified as any of the angels present. (In the same year he writes in his Lectures on Faith that God the Father is a spiritual presence, while Jesus Christ has a tangible body of flesh).

The version that is used today was written in 1838 but first published in 1842, and includes for the first time the fact that it was the Father and Son who appeared (despite his earlier revelation that "without [the authority of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live": D&C 84:22). Among all the first vision accounts, it is only Orson Pratt's 1840 account (and two later ones based on it) that includes the promise that "true doctrine the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him". Some of Orson Pratt's other writings were retracted because of "inaccuracies", as you know.

So not all Joseph Smith's revelations, by his own admission, came from Jesus himself. The Book of Mormon, revealed by the angel Mormoni, was supposedly translated (the translating ability being a gift from God). Revelations in the original Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price had been revised (i.e. words weren't added as new revelations, but into existing ones). Christians are not asked to pray about any other book than the Book of Mormon for accepting Mormonism.

The gospel of Jesus, on the other hand, came directly from God - Him being the Word of God..

So did Joseph Smith.

Then there is no reason to believe that the "restoration" he brought would be more successful than the church Jesus himself established.

Yes, they will not marry in the resurrection. If they are married while in mortality in the temple, then their marriage will last for time and all eternity.

Which is the age that will end when Jesus returns, and the living and the dead are gathered judgement. Hence: no "reinstatement" of marriage, or polygamy, after the resurrection. "That age" starts with the resurrection, and the resurrection starts when Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:16-17; Matt. 25:31-33).

 

[Nisus]

Maybe you can explain why Joseph Smith revised his early visions to fit his later "revelations"? This wasn't necessary for anything Jesus or the first apostles said.

You need to reference documentation of the said "early visions" so they can be compared in contrast with the "latter" visions. Else no one can plainly discern for themselves if any revisions were actually made.

Which is the age that will end when Jesus returns, and the living and the dead are gathered judgement. Hence: no "reinstatement" of marriage, or polygamy, after the resurrection. "That age" starts with the resurrection, and the resurrection starts when Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:16-17; Matt. 25:31-33).

Upon Jesus' arrival to the earth, there will be a First Ressurection.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

(1 thes 4:16)

This is part of the first ressurection--then also;

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we eever be with the Lord.

(1 thes 4:17)

Those that aren't dead but are living righteously, will take part in the First Ressurection also, only they will be changed into immortals, rather than rise from the dead.

Then Christ appears before all flesh still living on the earth, and Satan is bound one thousand years.

AND I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years

(Rev 20:1-2)

Only the righteous will dwell upon the earth with Christ...

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

(Rev. 20:4-5)

The wicked, are not ressurected till the thousand years are over; they have a separate ressurection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So for 1,000 years of peace, you think that no one can be married in this amount of time??

The Thousand years will be spent undoing, all the wickedness that Satan did. Cities, homes, nations will be rebuilt under a new Government, Christ's. People that didn't live with the gospel on earth, and didn't know Jesus, will be taught the gospel.

Families will be united, in everyway possible, not only through marriage but forgiveness. And spirits will progressively be released from torment and prison as they accept and learn the commandments.

 

[TruthSeeker]

So the Mormons are sinners if they practice polygamy, and "no fun" when they outlaw the practice?

Doo, indeed.

Yes! Ugly Mormons! They make no sense!

Yaba Daba! :m:

 

[Marlin]

Maybe you can explain why Joseph Smith revised his early visions to fit his later "revelations"? This wasn't necessary for anything Jesus or the first apostles said.

In the earliest "official" account of his first vision, given to the Church in 1832, he said he "saw the Lord" and was forgiven of his sins, but before that he told people (Willard Chase (1827), Martin Harris (1827) and Peter Bauder (1830)) only of a single spirit or angel. In a 1835 diary entry, he mentions two unidentified "personages" and many angels - the sonship of Jesus is affirmed, but he is not identified as any of the angels present. (In the same year he writes in his Lectures on Faith that God the Father is a spiritual presence, while Jesus Christ has a tangible body of flesh).

The version that is used today was written in 1838 but first published in 1842, and includes for the first time the fact that it was the Father and Son who appeared (despite his earlier revelation that "without [the authority of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live": D&C 84:22). Among all the first vision accounts, it is only Orson Pratt's 1840 account (and two later ones based on it) that includes the promise that "true doctrine the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him". Some of Orson Pratt's other writings were retracted because of "inaccuracies", as you know.

So not all Joseph Smith's revelations, by his own admission, came from Jesus himself. The Book of Mormon, revealed by the angel Mormoni, was supposedly translated (the translating ability being a gift from God). Revelations in the original Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price had been revised (i.e. words weren't added as new revelations, but into existing ones).

Here is a website explaining the differences in the accounts of the First Vision:

The First Vision

Did you know that Paul related his vision of Christ in different versions at different times as well?

Christians are not asked to pray about any other book than the Book of Mormon for accepting Mormonism.

Sure they are. The standard works and the words of the modern prophets are some of the things we are to gain testimonies of through personal revelation, not just the Book of Mormon.

The gospel of Jesus, on the other hand, came directly from God - Him being the Word of God..

So did Mormonism.

Then there is no reason to believe that the "restoration" he brought would be more successful than the church Jesus himself established.

Except for the fact that God told Joseph Smith that the Restoration would endure and not be taken from the earth ever again until Christ returns.

Which is the age that will end when Jesus returns, and the living and the dead are gathered judgement. Hence: no "reinstatement" of marriage, or polygamy, after the resurrection. "That age" starts with the resurrection, and the resurrection starts when Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:16-17; Matt. 25:31-33).

Modern revelation makes it clear that celestial marriage will endure, if the parties are worthy of exaltation, throughout eternity.

 

[Nisus]

No, I was seeing this in terms of the entire human race. If everyone chose to believe that fantasies were true then that sounds like a recipe for extinction, or simple mass suicide, as some religions groups finally decide.

Anyhow people, many people find value in Faith and Religion. And the day the Entire Human Race agrees upon anyone thing; will be an interesting day indeed.

As for belief and faith being a recipe for extinction, or simple mass suicides; yea in some cases. In general however, people are comforted by their faith in afterlife, whatever form it may be. People are comforted by faith in Heaven, Nirvana, higher peace. Hoping for better things isn't going to prove our complete and utter destruction.

What you refer to as "Fantasy" you'd have to be more specific, but even in specific situations, you'll find you're unable to scientifically prove things like-- there is no God, or Christ never existed.

If you use the word fantasy to condescend, upon peoples faith in things not seen, that's just hypocritical.

Understood but it wasn’t a relative consideration. But I do fully appreciate that those who have trouble dealing with the stress of every day life, or who have trouble facing their inevitable non-existence will look to religion to give them a sense of hope. The effect can be soothing and can result in less stress. Others of course are racked by the guilt that religions often inspire.

But I wasn’t claiming a disproof on this. My point here is that your beliefs are fantasies. That is a factual observation and will remain so unless you can prove your claims as true. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings was a fantasy unless you can show it was true.

? You don't don't what my beliefs are. If you want to bring up a "claim" be specific, and we can address it. The Lord of the Rings was written as a fantasy, a tale for entertainment. And i've not requested you to accept any particular thing as Truth.

History is subject to change, until every last shred of possible evidence is disclosed that exists upon the foundations of this planet. Don't be suprised if many scientific theories or concepts you have of the past/present/future, are simply interpretations or fantasy of mortals.

I understand, but why not deal with life as it actually is rather than behave like a cripple?

You'd have to ask that question to the person that you perceive is subject to this application or being "cripple". It doesn't ride very well as a generalization since faith and hope and religion is ultimately very personal.

To a point. But while the religionist will accept this as inevitable and look to a supernatural exit, which I see as a defeatist and fatalistic perspective, I and many like me are actively looking to solve the problems of involuntary death through science and technology. It is the very real difference between “there is nothing we can do so let’s not try” and “how do we solve this problem”.

Well good luck in your endeavors. Everyone can benefit from good medicine and such.

There is nowhere that says that truth must be pleasant. But creating and believing in the fantasies of gods so you can feel happier is surely just simple delusion.

You could very well be very delusioned in many of your own beliefs/ideas. Fantasies of science so you can feel happier, or...? Is this not almost essentially the same hope as a thiest?

I understand. It takes tremendous courage to accept that the truth is not pleasant, and few people face that – hence two thirds of world take the perceived happier route and believe in gods instead.

Interesting perspective. Starting to feel that your condemnation upon the human race is much more vile than any misinterpreted passage from the Bible.
You honestly think that 2/3 of your human family are so mislead and deluded?

I understand it very well. I prefer to seek truth instead.

I don't think anyone person would tell you they honestly or earnestly seek to be deceived.

I am hopeful that through science and technology that will change and people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless as believing that the world is flat. The major breakthrough is likely to be the full understanding of how the brain operates and the final elimination of any doubt concerning the soul concept. Without that concept theism will simply be irrelevant.

You will not live to see a day when "people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless..." seeking after that hope, is about as rational as a suicide bomber strapped with c-4, in my opinion. The only result is self-destruction.

And you say we believe I believe in fantasies?

In Christianity it is necessary to demean each person so that they will accept the need for saving. It is a fundamental Christian tenet that everyone is a sinner. I’m sure you will agree with this. Having established that then the next phase is to offer a solution – hence the glowing wonderful loving Jesus with wondrous moral principles holding a heavenly paradise as a reward and solution to humanities sinful nature.

I don't know why you interpret it that way. You would probably find a more fruitful experience in considering Jesus' words for yourself rather than surrendering to any feeling that you are demeaned or worthless.

It is a sales trick. Create the illusion of a need and then sell an unnecessary solution. You have been hooked, stung, and sold.

That application is way too simple for me to consider it reasonable.

Because I sense there is a solution that we could realize sooner if religion wasn’t in the way.

...think how Aristotle felt. Now is the best time ever in the history of humanity to be heard. If you have an idea, now is the best time to teach it. If you think religion is that powerful right now, you've already been self-defeated, because it's nowhere as influencial over governments/science as it was in the dark ages.

Unfortunately no one has yet shown that anyone has ever survived death in any form. And given that countless billions of people have died one would think that if there was an afterlife that there would be some indication, although I agree that is not necessarily so.

There are many testimonies of after-life/near-death. You probably right them ALL OFF as delusions. My Grandfather had one as well as my sister. My grandfather was electrocuted with so much current knocked out the cities electricity, and burned holes through his shoes. And lived to tell a very interesting story. My sister was choked to death in an alley, and had a very interesting experience outside of her body. Those are people I know personally.

 

[(Q)]

Hoping for better things isn't going to prove our complete and utter destruction.

It most certainly will if those 'things' are pure fantasies.

you'll find you're unable to scientifically prove things like-- there is no God, or Christ never existed.

No, you are unable to show there IS a god or that Christ DID exist. If I told you I had an invisible flying pink dragon in my attic, you'll be demanding me to prove its existence, I wouldn't be asking you to disprove it.

The Lord of the Rings was written as a fantasy, a tale for entertainment.

It does not state that anywhere in the book, as it also does not state that anywhere in the bible.

Don't be suprised if many scientific theories or concepts you have of the past/present/future, are simply interpretations or fantasy of mortals.

Then we would also have to admit that computers, internet, fiber optics, medicines, etc. were also fantasies.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Hoping for better things isn't going to prove our complete and utter destruction.

But putting trust in imaginary gods to save us when the next asteroid hits will ensure our extinction. Putting trust in an imaginary afterlife rather than finding solutions to involuntary death is the greatest evil of religion.

What you refer to as "Fantasy" you'd have to be more specific, but even in specific situations, you'll find you're unable to scientifically prove things like-- there is no God, or Christ never existed.

You’ll find I don’t claim gods do not exist. But the concept of gods is fantasy because you cannot prove they are real. The default state for something so incredulous is “fantasy”. It is not opinion but simple factual observation. Similarly for a Christ although I do tend to assert that he is mythological based on the research I have read.

If you use the word fantasy to condescend, upon peoples faith in things not seen, that's just hypocritical.

No, just factual.

? You don't don't what my beliefs are. If you want to bring up a "claim" be specific, and we can address it.

You believe a god exists, true? If so then that belief is a fantasy, i.e. it is not based on observation or detection but on creative imagination only.

The Lord of the Rings was written as a fantasy, a tale for entertainment. And i've not requested you to accept any particular thing as Truth.

It was created from the imagination and so were the bible stories since there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

History is subject to change, until every last shred of possible evidence is disclosed that exists upon the foundations of this planet.

I think you mean the opposite surely. History cannot be changed – it’s been and gone. Our ability to investigate it though is something else.

Don't be suprised if many scientific theories or concepts you have of the past/present/future, are simply interpretations or fantasy of mortals.

It is part of science to accept that theories can adapt when new discoveries are made. Science begins by observations and detection – fantasies do not.

You could very well be very delusioned in many of your own beliefs/ideas. Fantasies of science so you can feel happier, or...? Is this not almost essentially the same hope as a thiest?

No because I don’t know they can be achieved or will ever be true. Whereas religions assert absolute truths and religionists believe them true, without any track record of any religious idea being shown truthful. That is the difference with believing in baseless religious fantasies and hoping that science can solve problems because of its past success rate. I have a basis for my hopes you do not.

You honestly think that 2/3 of your human family are so mislead and deluded?

Yes easily. Most believed the world was flat because they were told it was. Most people in the world do not think for themselves but accept ideas told to them by others. Just look at religious beliefs in any given country – they are not because of individual research or objective evaluation but primarily because of culture and customs. Had you been born in an Islamic country you would almost certainly be extolling the virtues of Allah right now.

I don't think anyone person would tell you they honestly or earnestly seek to be deceived.

But many are prepared to believe what the are told without any verification.

You will not live to see a day when "people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless..." seeking after that hope, is about as rational as a suicide bomber strapped with c-4, in my opinion. The only result is self-destruction.

And you say we believe I believe in fantasies?

Neuroscience is progressing at an exponential rate and Moore’s law is continuing unabated. We will have computing power equivalent to the human brain in a few years and after that it will double in power every 18 months or sooner. AI is not far away and artificial self-awareness soon after. I calculate these things should occur in my lifetime. These developments will place a serious dent in religious beliefs. Anti-aging research is also making great strides forward. A new book just published (The Fantastic Voyage, live long enough to live forever) indicates we have about twenty years further research before we can substantially slow and start reversing the aging processes. After that people will begin to experience longer and longer lifespans, and the longer they live then the more research will be conducted to make them live longer. To achieve this you simply need to stay healthy for a couple more decades.

Whatever you think about the timescales, technology and science are inexorably moving in these directions. The brain will be understood, the disease of aging will be resolved, brain implants and enhancements have begun already. The days of mankind as you know it are about to change. The fundamentals of religious beliefs are about to be swept aside – i.e. the inevitability of death, that consciousness comes from a spiritual soul, and that god is made in man’s image (or visa-versa).

“ Originally Posted by Cris
It is a sales trick. Create the illusion of a need and then sell an unnecessary solution. You have been hooked, stung, and sold.
”
That application is way too simple for me to consider it reasonable.

Understood. No one likes to admit they have been conned.

If you think religion is that powerful right now, you've already been self-defeated, because it's nowhere as influencial over governments/science as it was in the dark ages.

Agreed, except in the USA.

There are many testimonies of after-life/near-death. You probably right them ALL OFF as delusions.

None of them have been shown to be anything else.

My Grandfather had one as well as my sister. My grandfather was electrocuted with so much current knocked out the cities electricity, and burned holes through his shoes. And lived to tell a very interesting story. My sister was choked to death in an alley, and had a very interesting experience outside of her body. Those are people I know personally.

They didn’t die otherwise they would not be here to tell you. Anything claimed from the memories of a brain undergoing severe trauma is useless as meaningful or reliable testimony.

Quote me a story where someone’s brain had significantly decayed and then they came back to tell you what it felt like.

 

[Godless]

You believe a god exists, true? If so then that belief is a fantasy, i.e. it is not based on observation or detection but on creative imagination only.

Sorry to intrude Chris, but his beliefs are based on tradition. If he had been born in the times of Creek mythology his god would be Zeus. His beliefs are derived from his upbringing, the traditional familiar religion parents followed. I.E. I was born into a Catholic family, my first experience with religion was Catholism. I moved on, others just accept their religious enviorenment without question or research to its claims.

Anyhow people, many people find value in Faith and Religion. And the day the Entire Human Race agrees upon anyone thing; will be an interesting day indeed.

The hole of human race agrees on surviving. Faith & Religion have histrorically shown to be more harm to the world than any good. Many of your mayor wars were based on religion, the scape from the Dark Ages, were the scape of religious political power over science n politics.

Faith is nothing more than false allegations believed by ingnorant masses.

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
Napoleon Bonaparte

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that may never be questioned. ."
Unknown

Godless

 

[Cris]

Godless - well OK - then the original idea was the fantasy and the followers are simply lemmings then.

 

[Godless]

I think that religions and the god concept are derived from our ancestral evolution, these people are lemmings in our oppinion perhaps. But in reality they are just mentally ill. Mysticism is a desease of the mind, those whom still believe in what we today consider fary tales are being mislead by the one's who make a living supporting these fary tales. Mysticism exist today still because the bicameral mind still has not fully developed in many of these individuals. Thus the belief in gods, ghosts, devils and the such are remnants of the bicameral mentality.

Ever hear of Dr. Julian Jaynes?

click

'this way you'l understand where I'm coming from with "bicameral mind" Ok'

Godless

 

[Nisus]

But putting trust in imaginary gods to save us when the next asteroid hits will ensure our extinction. Putting trust in an imaginary afterlife rather than finding solutions to involuntary death is the greatest evil of religion.

Mass extinction, asteroids, the more and more you speak you sound like a religion. Are you "Creating the illusion of a need and then selling an unnecessary solution"? So now we have cause to fear over a hypothetical situation?

Your thought processes implimented to anticipate the future are identical to religion. Much of it based in what you do not see. Don't worry about asteroids too much I think NASA and other people have that covered.

Since you want to "eradicate" theism... rather than purposing that we could co-exist, I'm really starting to see you as a scientific radical. A little faith would help you realize we are more than capable of existing together and fighting off challenges together.

The beauty of being able to believe and think what we want is a huge part of being free. Anyone that opposes freedom of thought and faith, is in opposition to true freedom.

You’ll find I don’t claim gods do not exist. But the concept of gods is fantasy because you cannot prove they are real. The default state for something so incredulous is “fantasy”. It is not opinion but simple factual observation. Similarly for a Christ although I do tend to assert that he is mythological based on the research I have read.

Well then under that description of fantasy, you should know, A good duration of human life is spent in fantasy. Fantasy of the future, of the unseen. Both in the scientific world and amongs laymen. Living every moment to the next only proceeding forth as long as I have "factual observations" seems way too tedious of a lifestyle for me. Thank heavens for freedom.

No, just factual.

I said condescending on people's faith in the unseen is hypocritical. Because when brought under the same scrutiny, I see your beliefs as fantasy, and also your hopes for a world where people aren't free to be religious, without your persecution; I see that as hypocritical. Live and let live.

You believe a god exists, true? If so then that belief is a fantasy, i.e. it is not based on observation or detection but on creative imagination only.

As I've alluded to before, a great part of your life is based on "creative imagination only" it's part of the wonders of the human mind. From things as simple as leaving your house and imagining your job is still there when you arrive, to Archetecture, Books, Fantasy is wonderful.

Are you opposed to the fact that people believed they could fly before it was actually possible? Or is it only when they believe in a "god" that it becomes so ludicrous to you?

I see how accepting faith is difficult for you. But just because it's difficult for you doesn't mean it's hazardous to the human race, and needs to be annihalated.

Religion/spirituality/idea, has always existed and will always exist so long as we have freedom to think for ourselves and govern ourselves. Which governing oneself is really the first and last great responsibility in every individual human life.

It was created from the imagination and so were the bible stories since there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

There are many indications. All of which you fail to receive on every hand. There are historical sites as well as multiple testimonies, but you write them all off. That's your choice. Your opinion. With so much historical evidence of where these people lived out there lives, you have no way to disprove their testimonies either. Testimonies which in the first case weren't meant to be left as scientific evidence. They weren't thinking-- "oh and by the way make sure you gather all the physical evidence from the scene so that when it's brought up under critisism 2,000+ years from now it's more credible". They are a compilation of events that in a simple sense, any normal person would say "wow you'd have to see that to believe it". You totally miss the point. At any rate-- I can't convince you of it's value.

I think you mean the opposite surely. History cannot be changed – it’s been and gone. Our ability to investigate it though is something else.

What? History always changes right along with new evidence that is brought forth. Same with science. That's why there are revisions of text books every year, to keep them up to date with current knowledge and information. As for the actual occurences, now those are completed yes. But the knowledge of them-- and the knowledge of their influence-- and the cyclical consequence-- That is always new/changing.

It is part of science to accept that theories can adapt when new discoveries are made. Science begins by observations and detection – fantasies do not.

You are greatly mistaken. Most faith is a living thing. A inspiration invoked in the face of adversity to overcome challenges. As new and original as fresh thought itself. Why do we push ourselves through this ? Because we believe in X-- or X --- or X----many instances circumstantial. It's not oh, because I believe in Frodo, or Dumbo, or obvious fantasy.

Seems to me you've never experienced true faith. Most the times it's never even in an object or God, just hope you can make it, to something better.

Granted, I see your perspective that human imagination has invented dogma after dogma, precept after precept, god after god; don't be mistaken into thinking I don't acknowledge this. But people really fundamentally are more attracted to the ASPIRATION, than they are details. The hope in a better world really.

No because I don’t know they can be achieved or will ever be true. Whereas religions assert absolute truths and religionists believe them true, without any track record of any religious idea being shown truthful. That is the difference with believing in baseless religious fantasies and hoping that science can solve problems because of its past success rate. I have a basis for my hopes you do not.

Once again you don't even know what I hope in. And that it's capable of changing according to circumstance and need. I have no desire to cover this ground again. Alot of what you call "baseless religious fantasies" stems to actual historical figures. Some having such a great influence in their societies that they are in a sense "deified". No need to completely right off every one of these cases. But no need to blindly accept it either. Look for the truth you can gain.

Had you been born in an Islamic country you would almost certainly be extolling the virtues of Allah right now.

I grew up an athiest/agnostic. I'm sure if I was born in an Islamic country I would have grown up an athiest as well.

But many are prepared to believe what the are told without any verification.

Well we're on the dawn of a new age. Where education and information is becoming more readily available. It's not that many people in the past didn't want to verify things, it's they didn't have the opportunity such as we have now. Time are changing though.

AI is not far away and artificial self-awareness soon after. I calculate these things should occur in my lifetime. These developments will place a serious dent in religious beliefs.

I disagree. Religion has found a way to adapt to change, obviously. There will always be new spiritual / religious idea.

The fundamentals of religious beliefs are about to be swept aside – i.e. the inevitability of death, that consciousness comes from a spiritual soul, and that god is made in man’s image (or visa-versa).

Well I welcome change. Religion will also change. It already has ... but it won't cease to exist.

Understood. No one likes to admit they have been conned.

Once again you know nothing of my heart or beliefs. Jumping the gun again with your fingerpointing judgements.

Agreed, except in the USA.

What? I live in california, we've one of the greatest efforts in stem cell research. You should know that.

None of them have been shown to be anything else.

Oh many-a-soul sounded just like you before they had one of these experiences.

They didn’t die otherwise they would not be here to tell you. Anything claimed from the memories of a brain undergoing severe trauma is useless as meaningful or reliable testimony.

You work with too many absolute statements. And you are overly confindent and self-absorbed in your illusions of superiority.

It's a long fall from the Top.

And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matt. 23: 12 )

 

[Jenyar]

You need to reference documentation of the said "early visions" so they can be compared in contrast with the "latter" visions. Else no one can plainly discern for themselves if any revisions were actually made.

Sorry, I meant to include the following sources:

• Wikipedia: First Vision
• Joseph Smith's first vision: a harmony (harmony is assumed here)
• Institute for Religious Research (a critical site, but I couldn't find the text of the earliest accounts of the vision among Mormon sites)
• Saints without halos: Smith's First Vision (unafilliated site about Mormon history - very objective and unbiased, includes all relevant material)

Upon Jesus' arrival to the earth, there will be a First Ressurection.

(1 thes 4:16)

This is part of the first ressurection--then also;

The first resurrection is the resurrection (from the "first" death) of Christ's body (who is called the "firstborn from the dead" in Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5), in which a Christian takes part when he is baptized and takes communion. That's why Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die" (John 11:25-26).

1 Cor. 15:22-23
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.​

The second death (the "lake of fire", Rev. 20:14) has no power over "those who have part in the first resurrection" (Rev 20:6), because they're already dead! (Romans 6:5-8; Col. 3:3; 2 Cor. 4:10; 1 Cor. 15:20-22). These are the people who have been included in Christ when they believed the gospel that comes by hearing (Eph. 1:13-14). They bear the anointing of the Holy Spirit, God's seal of ownership (2 Cor. 1:21-22), and are those "who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:5). In Revelations they are represented by the 144 000 (12 tribes x 12 apostles x 1000 "completeness") marked by the Lamb and his Father (Rev. 7:4; 14:1), but not by the beast (Rev. 20:4) - they are revealed as being a great multitude who've had their robes cleansed by the blood of the Lamb.

(1 thes 4:17)
Those that aren't dead but are living righteously, will take part in the First Ressurection also, only they will be changed into immortals, rather than rise from the dead.

This refers to any Christian who is still alive at the time Jesus returns, "we ... who are left till the coming of the Lord" (Paul may have believed some of them would be alive to see it, but now it must obviously refer to anybody who is alive then). Those who have died in Christ will come with Jesus (or "rise first"), imperishable, and believers who are alive will meet them "in the air". So those who have not "slept" (a euphemism for physical death) will also be changed into spiritual, imperishable bodies (1 Cor. 15:52). At that moment death, the "last enemy", will finally have been destroyed - "swallowed up in victory".

Then Christ appears before all flesh still living on the earth, and Satan is bound one thousand years.

(Rev 20:1-2)

Only the righteous will dwell upon the earth with Christ...

(Rev. 20:4-5)

The wicked, are not ressurected till the thousand years are over; they have a separate ressurection.

Yes, the second resurrection is of everyone who has died without receiving God's mark of ownership. They are everyone who has been marked by the beast: everyone on earth, except those whose names have been written in the book of life (Rev. 13:8). They are resurrected to be judged along with the remaining enemies of God (Gog and Magog, who are unceremoniously defeated), and will be thrown in the lake of fire along with Satan, the beast and the false prophet.

In Rev. 20, the two resurrections coincide on what is usually called judgement day, the day of the Lord, or the last day. Jesus only returns once: to gather his people and judge mankind. Jesus first coming was to save from the world those who believe (John 12:47 and 1 Cor. 1:21) and announce its judgement (John 12:31); His second coming brings its final judgement (Acts 17:31; Matt. 25:31; John 16:8), when all will be resurrected by his voice - some will rise to live, some will rise to be condemned (John 5:29).

So for 1,000 years of peace, you think that no one can be married in this amount of time??

The Thousand years will be spent undoing, all the wickedness that Satan did. Cities, homes, nations will be rebuilt under a new Government, Christ's. People that didn't live with the gospel on earth, and didn't know Jesus, will be taught the gospel.

Families will be united, in everyway possible, not only through marriage but forgiveness. And spirits will progressively be released from torment and prison as they accept and learn the commandments.

There is nothing of this in the Scriptures, so I can't comment on it. I can only tell you what scripture says. Yes, people will live on as usual during the 1000 years, and there will be enough people left - in number "like the sand on the seashore" (Rev. 20:8) - to be deceived afterwards. You haven't accounted for that fact.

It is clear that after the 1000 years, judgement takes place, and that this is when death and hades is destroyed by the second death (Rev. 20:14). The event coincides with Jesus' second coming described above, when "the last enemy" is destroyed. I refer you back to 1 Cor. 15:

1 Cor. 15:22-26
"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.​

That means Christ is already reigning in heaven (his kingdom is not of this world), and everyone who belongs to Him already have part in that kingdom - the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 that will never be destroyed or left to other people. This is the kingdom that the first Christians were receiving (Heb. 12:28), that was preached since John (Luke 16:16), that came upon them (Matthew 12:28), and exists within us (Luke 17:21). Those who spread the gospel and serve God are the priests of the 1000 year reign, the "kingdom of priests" of Rev. 1:6, 5:10 and 1 Peter 2:5&9. The 1000 years reign belongs to Christ, and He is reigning even now in the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus returns, the last trumpet will sound, and He will give the kingdom of the world over to God, and rule over all as God (1 Cor. 15:28; Rev. 11:15-17; Matt. 24:30-31).

It's this heaven and earth that is being kept for judgement and destruction by fire, and it is during this time that a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day (2 Peter 3:7-8). The days between the Christ's coming and return are the last days (Hebrews 1:2), the time of the outpouring of his Spirit (Acts 2:17) and of the scoffers (2 Peter 3:3). The world will be frustrated and a prisoner of sin until death's sting is finally removed; It is "under the control of the evil one" (1 John 5:19), the prince of this world, until he is destroyed. Jesus was present when Satan was hurled down to earth (Luke 10:18), and since then the devil "is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short" (cf. Rev. 12:9-12). But once Satan and death have been destroyed, the new age will have begun - and there will be no more marriage. Even now, some "have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12).

Like in the days of Noah, people will be "eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage" as usual (Luke 17:24-35), until the day of the Lord surprises them like a thief.

 

[Nisus]

Jenyar,

I don't see any inconsitancies in Joseph's Testimony. I understand he didn't rehearse one account verbatim everytime he related his experience. But expounding upon certain aspects of the experience altogether, according to different circumstances he found himself in.

Granted they would be different use of words, because it wasn't a written testimony, it was the testimony of his heart.

Pity they killed him for claiming to have seen God, and for teaching and testifying of Jesus Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yea I feel we are in the same accord as far as the Millenium. There isn't a whole lot of scriptural data that relates all the details of what will happen.

Yes I know after 1,000 years satan will be loosed. For the battle of Gog and Magog. But that is after the work was completed in the 1,000 years. He is only loosed to gather his followers for the final confrontation.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Your thought processes implimented to anticipate the future are identical to religion.

No not really. Your expectation of doom is supernatural fantasy mine are based evidence, i.e. extinction of the dinosausr, we are bombarded with meteors of various sizes every day, it is inevitable that a large one will penetrate eventually. This has been published in science journals for some time. This is definitely nothing like religious fantasy.

Since you want to "eradicate" theism... rather than purposing that we could co-exist, I'm really starting to see you as a scientific radical. A little faith would help you realize we are more than capable of existing together and fighting off challenges together.

Faith is never required. Religionists only move forward when science shows them the way.

The beauty of being able to believe and think what we want is a huge part of being free. Anyone that opposes freedom of thought and faith, is in opposition to true freedom.

But believing fantasy is true and trying to convince others is intrusive upon others freedoms.

Well then under that description of fantasy, you should know, A good duration of human life is spent in fantasy. Fantasy of the future, of the unseen. Both in the scientific world and amongs laymen.

Not quite, while holding fantasies is fine, asserting them as true without evidence is irresponsible and certainly not science.

Living every moment to the next only proceeding forth as long as I have "factual observations" seems way too tedious of a lifestyle for me.

But asserting that your fantasies are actually true rather than understanding they are mere speculations is delusional.

I said condescending on people's faith in the unseen is hypocritical. Because when brought under the same scrutiny, I see your beliefs as fantasy, and also your hopes for a world where people aren't free to be religious, without your persecution; I see that as hypocritical.

You are making the same mistake again. I hold many speculations about what might or might not happen, it is often how science makes progress. But there is a significant difference between offering a speculation as a speculation and asserting that one is true without evidence as is the case for religions.

Live and let live.

Only if your activities do not interfere with my freedoms.

As I've alluded to before, a great part of your life is based on "creative imagination only" it's part of the wonders of the human mind. From things as simple as leaving your house and imagining your job is still there when you arrive, to Archetecture, Books, Fantasy is wonderful.

Fantasy is fine until you assert it is true, then you need some support, which religions do not offer.

Are you opposed to the fact that people believed they could fly before it was actually possible? Or is it only when they believe in a "god" that it becomes so ludicrous to you?

Same issue – speculation versus baseless assertions.

I see how accepting faith is difficult for you.

No I am quite sure you do not understand since you still insist your perspective is appropriate. Blind faith is simply irrational and I see no long term value to that perspective.

But just because it's difficult for you doesn't mean it's hazardous to the human race, and needs to be annihalated.

But yes it is. Our survival depends on rational actions. Faith is the opposite and is hence dangerous.

Religion/spirituality/idea, has always existed and will always exist so long as we have freedom to think for ourselves and govern ourselves.

Thinking for ourselves is one thing, thinking rationally is another. Irrational thought though has no place in government.

Which governing oneself is really the first and last great responsibility in every individual human life.

And fine if based on rational thinking. Religion does not qualify.

Most faith is a living thing. A inspiration invoked in the face of adversity to overcome challenges. As new and original as fresh thought itself. Why do we push ourselves through this ? Because we believe in X-- or X --- or X----many instances circumstantial.

Again you are confusing imaginative speculations which are the basis for future investigations and discoveries with religious faith and fantasy which is none of that. The religious perspective is that these fantasies are absolute truth now. This is radically and totally different to the investigative and imaginative aspects of science and discovery that do not begin by asserting their ideas are true at the outset.

It's not oh, because I believe in Frodo, or Dumbo, or obvious fantasy.

But you do say that you believe in a god which is an obvious fantasy equal to that of Frodo. Both ideas were written by men and neither has any factual basis. Both have equal weight as fantasies. And you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

Seems to me you've never experienced true faith.

Believing something as a certainty without any factual basis. Wow I certainly hope not. It’s such a dumb thing to do.

But people really fundamentally are more attracted to the ASPIRATION, than they are details. The hope in a better world really.

That’s fine, but don’t assert these imaginative ideas as truth until such claims can be demonstrated as such.

Alot of what you call "baseless religious fantasies" stems to actual historical figures. Some having such a great influence in their societies that they are in a sense "deified". No need to completely right off every one of these cases. But no need to blindly accept it either. Look for the truth you can gain.

But at the basis of all that are the assertions for the supernatural that remain without demonstrable substance. The underlying ideas are still baseless fantasy, despite whether there were historical figures or the many testimonies. To this date no one can demonstrate that anything supernatural has occurred, can occur, or will occur.

You work with too many absolute statements. And you are overly confindent and self-absorbed in your illusions of superiority.

No, I simply have an overwhelmingly strong case which you are unable to challenge effectively.

 

[Nisus]

No, I simply have an overwhelmingly strong case which you are unable to challenge effectively.

I'm not challenging you. The facts challenge you. Reason, logic, and humanity challenges you.

Christianity: 1.9 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 1 billion
Buddhism: 400 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Primal-Indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Bahá'í: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Sant Mat / Surat Shabd Yoga : 2 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Unification Movement: 1.5 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafari movement: 600 thousand

Cris 1

 

[Gustav]

damn, thats pathetic

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Meaningless. Truth isn't determined by a majority vote. Argumentum ad Populum. A logical fallacy.

And still not one of them can present a proof that anything supernatural exists, could exist, has ever existed, or will exist. Or can you show otherwise?

 

[Nisus]

What are you asking me for proof for? I'm not telling you to believe anything, and I havn't.

You're the one throwing a fit because you can't live in a world with religion. Now you wanna genocide it, or whatever. This is your burden not mine.

 

[Laika]

I haven't been following this thread and it's twenty pages long so I'm not going to catch up now. Please forgive me if I go over ground that's already been covered.

Nisus, are you arguing for the truth of Christianity on the basis of force of numbers? If so, that's the craziest thing I've read all day. Presumably you believe that at one time the Sun was actually pulled across the sky in a chariot, simply because of the beliefs of the majority.

If I've misinterpreted the thrust of your argument I am sorry.
If not... WOW!

 

[Nisus]

?? Read first, comment later.