No. He should have played golf, wherein you are actually fore-warned.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Chet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
Paul Osborne wrote:
Thomas Jefferson
You're saying there really are modern deists?
Stacy.
At 04:48 PM 12/18/2002 -0900, you wrote:
Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Thomas Jefferson was a deist; these days he would probably be a
Unitarian, and Benjamin Franklin was not an observing Christian, either,
from what
I remember. I'm
geez Paul - and I was beginning to have such confidence in your doctrinal
judgment.
George
- Original Message -
From: Paul Osborne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
Amen!
John, you and I
Jon Spencer favored us with:
And I'm not trying to be cute (only my wife sometimes makes the mistake of
thinking that I can be). I believe that there are laws that God must follow
or He ceases to be God.
That is correct. --JWR
It's hard to visualize something that transcends our physical experience, and
that's the problem here. God's time has also been likened to one eternal
round, and ANE peoples tended to think of time in cyclical form, rather than as a
one-way arrow like we do today.
Jon Spencer wrote:
Paul
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
Amen!
John, you and I see this thing eye to eye and agree. Isn't it
great? ;-)
Paul O
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:27:04 -0900 John W. Redelfs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
God
-Stephen-
I would be surprised if any man or woman can name something that
God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of natural
law or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of
false-by-definition.
-Chet-
He cannot lie.
He cannot disobey any of his own commandments.
He
-Jon-
God cannot rob justice to pay mercy.
How's that?
Nope. Another false-by-definition, as well as (I think) a misquotation
of scripture, which says that *mercy* cannot rob justice. I already
brought up the example that God cannot save people in their sins,
which is clearly a
At 02:05 12/19/2002 +, St Stephen wrote:
Probably so. I would weep for your pitiful, ignorant state, but you're
above my visual range.
Hey wait, those are my lines. John, Stephen's stealing my schtick. Can't
you make him play nice?
Till the crushed
Probably so. I would weep for your pitiful, ignorant state, but you're
above my visual range.
Hey wait, those are my lines. John, Stephen's stealing my schtick. Can't
you make him play nice?
Doggone it, would you folks just hold your horses please. Don't make me come down
Amen!
John, you and I see this thing eye to eye and agree. Isn't it great? ;-)
Paul O
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:27:04 -0900 John W. Redelfs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
God cannot sin. If he did, he would cease to be God. He cannot
create
something out of nothing. He cannot annihilate something in
God cannot rob justice to pay mercy.
How's that?
And I'm not trying to be cute (only my wife sometimes makes the mistake of
thinking that I can be). I believe that there are laws that God must follow
or He ceases to be God.
Jon
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
I would
be surprised if any man or
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
I would
be surprised if any man or woman can name something that God cannot do,
whether because of the limitations of natural law or anything else,
that doesn't fall into this class of false-by-definition.
He cannot lie.
He cannot disobey any of his own
Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Obviously yes because we know from the Doctrine and Covenants that the
Founding Fathers of the United States were inspired men raised up by God to
rebel against Britain.
It actually doesn't say this. See below.
But it does say that the US Founders were
Yeah, and I think I made it even worse when I was trying to figure out how I got
the two dates mixed up, and the only thing I was thinking of that could have made
a neural short like that was de Tocqueville, but later I recalled that he made his
famous tour *after* the Revolution. So, I guess it
John W. Redelfs wrote:
Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Obviously yes because we know from the Doctrine and Covenants that the
Founding Fathers of the United States were inspired men raised up by God to
rebel against Britain.
It actually doesn't say this. See below.
But it does
Nici o problema - as the Romanians are fond of saying.
Gepff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/02 01:53PM
Yeah, and I think I made it even worse when I was trying to figure out
how I got
the two dates mixed up, and the only thing I was thinking of that could
have made
a neural short like that was de
After intense thought, Marc favored us with:
This is also true, but it's a logical extension of the first, not
something that's said explicitly to be inspired. I know it's a nit,
but I think the Lord uses historical events, he doesn't cause
them, else we wouldn't have free will*. His plan is
Gepff!?
I have no idea who that is - apparently he speaks Romanian too.
Strange...
Geoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/02 02:16PM
Nici o problema - as the Romanians are fond of saying.
Gepff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/02 01:53PM
Yeah, and I think I made it even worse when I was trying to
, intentions, and policy. :-)
George
George
- Original Message -
From: Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
Yeah, and I think I made it even worse when I was trying to figure out
Be careful when you use Latinate terms: they are often more restrictive than LDS
doctrines. This is the problem with the term omnipotence. It's understood in a
mechanical way (that's one reason Latin is not a good language for religion; it
was better for armies and bureaucrats) ;-)
But that
Believe me, I don't mind being called to task when I'm wrong. Now, I have to
admit, sometimes I don't always agree I'm wrong, but that's a course of a
different holler.
George Cobabe wrote:
There was no misunderstanding - most everyone knew that you had erred. I
was just impolite enough to
Marc intelligently replied:
Be careful when you use Latinate terms: they are often
more restrictive than LDS doctrines. [...]
But that raises the philosophical dilemma of free will. We LDS
do *not* believe God is omnipotent in the sense the Romans
used this term -- we believe he's subject to
.
George
- Original Message -
From: Geoff FOWLER [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
Marc intelligently replied:
Be careful when you use Latinate terms: they are often
more restrictive than
-Marc-
We LDS do *not* believe God is omnipotent in the sense the Romans
used this term -- we believe he's subject to natural law,
Perhaps you believe so. I don't. God's word defines natural law. He is
the master, not the subject. That is why he is called the Lawgiver.
Stephen
Geoff FOWLER wrote:
I also agree that we do not understand *how* God's omniscience works.
However, any discussion of the attributes of God falls under what you
term as trying to fit God into a box we can understand. Since we are
not like Him yet, and hence do not understand everything He
Jim Cobabe wrote:
It is instructive that many of the revisionists who spin this deist
misinformation, primarily about Jefferson, are openly and dogmatically
promoting their own flavor of atheist or agnostic evangelism. There is
really no compelling documentation to support their arguments,
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
---
God's word defines natural law. He is the master, not the subject.
That is why he is called the Lawgiver.
---
Yes, I thought that was a significant point to emphasize.
Perhaps this is just another one of those silly, figurative notions that
unenlightened
-Stephen-
God's word defines natural law. He is the master, not the
subject. That is why he is called the Lawgiver.
-Jim-
Yes, I thought that was a significant point to emphasize.
Interesting that we independently arrived at a similar conclusion, even
using similar wording. Almost like we
Stephen Beecroft favored us with:
-Marc-
We LDS do *not* believe God is omnipotent in the sense the Romans
used this term -- we believe he's subject to natural law,
Perhaps you believe so. I don't. God's word defines natural law. He is
the master, not the subject. That is why he is called the
in the universe - I believe it.
George
- Original Message -
From: Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
I think we just need to be careful how we're using the terms. If I may be a
bit
Thanks for the additional insight. Looks like I was a bit out-of-date -- I was
stretching back to my bonehead philosophy class in university. But there must be
some kind of term for a belief in an *im*personal higher power. Any philosophers
on the list?
John W. Redelfs wrote:
This isn't quite
George Cobabe wrote:
Marc - it seems the question is not he definition of natural law, except as
it involves who created that law.
The question is: Did God, i.e. our God, create the natural law for his
creation or did He just transpose it from the overall eternal concept of
Natural Law.
-Marc-
The problem arises out of the word natural, and is a limitation
of our language. By natural are we referring to the corruptible
telestial world, or are we referring simply to the fact that
there are higher laws which are natural but which operate in
*their* realms, and which we by
I would be surprised if any man or woman can name something that
God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of natural
law or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of
false-by-definition.
Sorry for the weenie-speak. Let me try again:
I disbelieve that any man or woman can
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
I would be surprised if any man or woman can name something that
God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of natural
law or anything else, that doesn't fall
George Cobabe wrote:
---
Then the discussion might be more profitable if we separated our
existing universe fromwell, whatever it is that transcends it.
We must do so to even begin to understand, or for that matter argue
over, such matters. It is the only thing that we are concerned with
I understand that we would be wary of talking about God in any limiting way. But
if you will permit me a bit of spin latitude on this, you can always turn the
question around and say that it was those bad bad Catholics who ruined theology
with their martial language, fit only to order troops and
Jim Cobabe wrote:
I'm pretty clear on these particulars, and adding others day by day, as
I can manage.
One can't really ask for anything more. Good thing this is all good, clean fun,
eh?
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
“Knowledge may
There's an interesting matter of interpretation here. Is while a conditional
term here, or is it merely setting up the other party's side of the covenant? And
if one party breaks the covenant, is the other party free to break it as well?
John W. Redelfs wrote:
Jim Cobabe favored us with:
: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 10:02 PM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
Jim Cobabe favored us with:
Church members who seek to use LDS doctrine as a basis for concluding
that government infringements on inalienable rights
on their semi-annual
trip to the temple, I think that the US is OK for at least another year or
two.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 10:02 PM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
Jim Cobabe favored us
Stacy Smith favored us with:
What's this other list and why not have the same screening questionnaire?
The Moroni list is for Birchers and the like. I had to set it up to keep
from driving most of my best contributors from this list. --JWR
A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
John W. Redelfs wrote:
Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
There's an interesting matter of interpretation here. Is while a
conditional
term here
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
John W. Redelfs wrote:
Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
There's an interesting matter of interpretation here. Is while a
conditional
term here, or is it merely
Stacy Smith favored us with:
Can someone explain to me how there could be total freedom of religion
with people observing the Mosaic law? How can there have been a command
against blasphemy and a death sentence if conditions like Alma portrays
were true? How could there have been a climate
Well, since I can't give you liberty .
How do you want it?
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
If one is not economically or politically free can they really decide what
they should or should not do? Not really, in my opinion. This is where I
may draw the line with some conservatives. Give me
Stacy Smith wrote:
---
If one is not economically or politically free can they really decide
what they should or should not do? Not really, in my opinion. This is
where I may draw the line with some conservatives. Give me liberty or
give me death:!
---
Interestingly, we are able to enjoy
We are coming a long way for sure but aren't there yet. If we could have
the same chances to seek equal employment that other people have without
the discrimination, if we could have the same power to go anywhere we
wanted to at any time--we're getting closer to that one--and basically
What's this other list and why not have the same screening questionnaire?
Stacy.
At 06:02 PM 12/16/2002 -0900, you wrote:
Jim Cobabe favored us with:
Church members who seek to use LDS doctrine as a basis for concluding
that government infringements on inalienable rights have excused them
The Nephite nation by this time had separated its religious and political
spheres. There were many who did not belong to the Church and so were not
bound by the Mosaic Law, which is why Alma only had the power to
excommunicate. The death penalty was given only by the chief judge.
Death penalty
It had just occurred to me that it seemed that the Mosaic law, if properly
followed, never allowed for true freedom. Am I really right on that
one? If that is the case, wouldn't one say that that law was a law of force?
Stacy.
At 12:34 AM 12/16/2002 -0600, you wrote:
The Nephite nation by
Can someone explain to me how there could be total freedom of religion with
people observing the Mosaic law? How can there have been a command against
blasphemy and a death sentence if conditions like Alma portrays were
true? How could there have been a climate of religious freedom?
The
53 matches
Mail list logo
