Key to the Science of Theology-
Art Bulla
Chapter 1
Theology-Its Definition-Historical Illustration
Eternal Science! who would fathom thee
Must launch his hark upon a shoreless sea.
Thy knowledge yet shall overwhelm the earth;
Thy truth to immortality give birth,
Thy dawn shall kindle to eternal day,
And man, immortal, still shall own thy sway.
First. Theology is the science of communication, or of correspondence,
between God, angels, spirits, and men, by means of visions, dreams,
interpretations, conversations, inspirations, or the spirit of prophecy and
revelation.
Second. It is the science by which worlds are organized, sustained, and
directed, and the elements controlled.
Third. It is the science of knowledge, and the key and power thereof, by
which the heavens are opened, and lawful access is obtained to the treasures
of wisdom and intelligence-inexhaustible, infinite, embracing the past, the
present, and the future.
Fourth. It is the science of life-endless and eternal, by which the living
are changed or translated, and the dead raised.
Fifth. It is the science of faith, reformation, and remission of sins,
whereby a fallen race of mortals may be justified, cleansed, and restored to
the communion and fellowship of that Holy Spirit which is the light of the
world, and of every intelligence therein.
Sixth. It is the science of spiritual gifts, by which the blind see, the
deaf hear, the lame walk, the sick are healed, and demons are expelled from
the human system.
Seventh. It is the science of all other sciences and useful arts, being in
fact, the very fountain from which they emanate. It includes philosophy,
astronomy, history, mathematics, geography, languages, the science of
letters; and blends the knowledge of all matters of fact, in every branch of
art, or of research. It includes, also, all the scientific discoveries and
inventions-agriculture, the mechanical arts, architecture, shipbuilding, the
properties and applications of the mariner's compass, navigation and music.
All that is useful, great, and good; all that is calculated to sustain,
comfort, instruct, edify, purify, refine or exalt intelligences; originated
by this science, and this science alone, all other sciences being but
branches growing out of this-the root.
Some of the facts stated in the foregoing, are beautifully illustrated in
Theological history, of which the following is an imperfect summary-
God spake, and the worlds were framed by his word.
He spake, darkness dispersed, and light prevailed.
He commanded, and the elements-water and earth, separated, and assumed their
proper bounds.
He commanded, and the earth brought forth vegetable and animal life in
countless variety.
He commanded, and man, male and female, took upon them a tabernacle of
flesh, and prepared to multiply and perpetuate their species in the new
creation.
"The Lord God planted a garden," and thus introduced agriculture.
"He made coats of skins," hence the tailor's art.
The Lord God commanded and gave pattern for Noah's Ark, thus introducing the
art of shipbuilding.
He revealed the patterns for the Tabernacle in the wilderness, with all its
arrangements and furniture; and afterwards developed the entire plan and all
the designs of that most stupendous of all works of art-the great Temple of
Solomon, with all its furniture; thus developing and improving the art of
architecture.
The Lord God wrote with his own finger on the "tables of Stone," on Mount
Sinai; thus showing that the science of letters was cultivated and used by
the highest Intelligence of the eternal heavens.
The Lord God has revealed by Ezekiel the Prophet, a plan for the survey and
division of Palestine to the Twelve Tribes of Israel, on their return to the
land of their fathers; also for laying out the new city of Jerusalem, with
its squares, blocks, public grounds and suburbs, and its temple.
Thus Theology includes the surveyor's art, and the planning of cities, as
well as temples, and shows that these arts are cultivated in heaven, and
that the very highest Intelligence of the Heaven of heavens, stoops, or
condescends, to grace these arts by his own particular attention and
example.
In the Revelation of John the Apostle, on the Isle of Patmos, we have a
specimen, a masterpiece, a climax of all that is great and grand in design,
and splendid and glorious in execution, in cities, thrones, palaces,
streets, pavements, outgrounds, gates, walks, squares, fountains, rivulets,
gardens, fruits, groves, specimens or dress, poetry, song, music, marriage,
bridal dress, feasting, books, literature, public worship, prophesying,
prayer and praise, as existing in, and around the palaces of the New
Jerusalem, the capital of heaven, the seat of government of the Eternal
King.
The very gates of the city are numbered and named, together with the
particular names of the precious stones forming the foundations thereof; the
gold which composed the pavement of the streets-all are portrayed in the
description.
And what is still more marvelous, all this surpassing grandeur of design,
and stupendous wisdom and display in execution, were explored, comprehended,
and described by a poor, illiterate fisherman, by the aid of the science and
arts of Theology.
Having reviewed some of the works of the great Head-the President or First
Teacher in the school of Theology, we will still continue the historic
illustrations of this wonderful science, as developed and exemplified by the
most eminent students and professors of the same.
By this science Adam obtained from his Father, the promise of the eternal
dominion over the planet on which he was placed.
By this science Enoch overcame death, and ascended to a higher sphere of
immortality and eternal life, without even being separated from his fleshly
tabernacle.
By this science Noah foretold the flood, prepared to meet the event, and,
with his family, survived the same, and became the greatest landed
proprietor since Adam.
By the perversion and unlawful use of this science, King Nimrod built the
stupendous Tower of Babel, but was frustrated, and his works were destroyed
before their completion.
By this science various tongues and languages were instituted, and
colonies-the germs of nations, planted beyond the seas and in all the earth.
By this science Abraham escaped the idolatry and priestcraft of the
Egyptians, and of the world around him; obtained a good land secured to him
and his seed by an immutable oath, covenant, and an everlasting,
unchangeable title.
By this science he conversed with angels, and was favored with a personal
interview with the Great Head and Founder of the science, who became his
guest, and, after eating and drinking with him, blessed him and his wife,
promised them an heir in their old age, and, finally, on parting, told him
His design on Sodom and its neighborhood.
By this science Lot escaped the flames of Sodom, the knowledge being
communicated by two angels.
By this science Isaac and Jacob also obtained promises and conversed with
angels.
By it Joseph was exalted from a dungeon to a palace, for the salvation, from
famine, of a nation and of his father's house.
By this science Moses performed his wonders in Egypt, in the Red Sea, and in
the wilderness.
By the perversion and unlawful use of this science the magicians of Egypt
withstood Moses for a time, and performed their enchantments.
By this science Joshua controlled the motions of the earth, and lengthened
out the day by a simple command.
By this science the walls of Jericho were leveled with the earth, and the
city was taken.
By this science the Jordan river was divided, while a nation crossed dry
shod, to take possession of the promised land.
By this science Elijah controlled the heavens, that it rained not for three
years and six months in Palestine. And by it he called forth and restored
rain.
By it he overthrew the priests of Baal, and the kingdom of Ahab; put an end
to the royal family of this idolatrous king, and placed Jehu on the throne.
By it he arose, like Enoch, to a higher sphere, without returning to dust.
By this science Samuel prophesied, raised up a mighty king and nation, and
afterwards dethroned Saul and exalted an obscure shepherd boy to the throne
of Israel.
By this science Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others, foretold the
fate of Babylon, Egypt, Tyre, Jerusalem, and other cities and nations; and
the exact career and final doom of Nebuchadnezzar, Belteshazzar, Cyrus, and
other great and important personages, who were destined in turn to influence
and decide the fate of nations.
By this science the furnace of fire was overcome, and the mouths of lions
were closed, that no harm should befall the holy men of God.
By this science Zachariah, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Simeon, Anna,
Joseph, Mary, the wise men from the east, and the shepherds of Judea,
enjoyed visions, communion with angels and the spirit of prophecy, so as to
understand and welcome with joy the events of the birth and approaching
ministry of Jesus Christ, when, as yet, all those not versed in this
science, were in darkness on the subject, and as liable to reject the Savior
as to receive Him.
Dreams and visions, enjoyed by means of this science, led and protected the
Son of God in all his career of mortal life.
Finally-by this same power, a mighty angel descended, shook the earth,
frightened the Roman guards, rolled away the great stone, broke the seal of
the tomb, and called to life the sleeping body of Jesus Christ.
By this power the risen Jesus, eating, drinking, and conversing with his
disciples, after his resurrection, commissioned and instructed them in the
same science, ordained them to act in the same, and to impart its power to
others, in all the world, with signs following them that believed.
By this science He ascended to the Father, and lives forever in the flesh,
to shed forth the gifts and powers of the same science, according to his own
will, and the will of his Father, to reign henceforth until He descends to
the earth, conquers death in a last great conflict and puts all enemies
under his feet.
By this same power his Apostles, being clothed with the full powers of the
same on the day of Pentecost, ministered the powers and knowledge of this
science to others, both Jew and Gentile, insomuch that the sick were healed,
the blind saw, the dumb spake, the deaf heard, the lame walked, devils were
cast out, and the dead were raised, while everywhere dreams, visions, the
ministering of angels and the gift of prophecy were enjoyed.
--
"I am like a huge rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the
only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in
contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against
religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors,
suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed
by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and womenall hell knocking
off a corner here and a corner there. Thus will I become a smooth and
polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty." (Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, p. 304.)
(President Harold B. Lee, May the Kingdom of God Go Forth, Ensign (CR),
January 1973, p.23)
"I just tell em the truth, and they think it's hell." Harry Truman
Concerning quotes (out of context): these are distortions, taken out of the
context of
the blasphemies and insults placed upon me by the vilest of traitors and
foul wretches
imagineable. Jesus kicked their asses out of the Temple and I do the same to
all god damned liars and hypocrites. I make no apology. God is my judge. If
this fellow (Manning) were honest he would include these, and all would see
that I am
justified by the Lord in my responses. The word of the Lord is given on
the matter in the following:
Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice,
and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys
of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according
to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.
Let no one, therefore, set on my servant for I will justify him. saith the
Lord your God.
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:
Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition
of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they do not understand."
Dr.Samuel Johnson.
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
<http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3>
Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.68
As it has always been, and will be yet for some time, when the sons
of God assemble together Satan will be on hand as an accuser of the
brethren, to find fault with those who are trying to do good.
"But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call
down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are
indebted
to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God
has
spoken and how much He has not spoken?" Joseph Smith
"Every generation has flattered itself that it is a little better than the
one that preceded it. Every generation has prided itself in its knowledge
and great advancement in the arts and sciences and its superiority over
preceding generations; yet the power of the adversary and his hatred of
righteousness and truth are as great to-day as they ever were since the
creation of the earth." Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.228 - Pg.229,
George Q. Cannon, May 6, 1866
"Some men are natural born saints; whenever a principle is advanced they
understand it, and drink it in; * * * while there are others who do not
understand and oppose every principle that is not clear to their mind. This
can be accounted for, that we are not all pure blooded, for Ephraim became
foolish and mixed up with the gentiles. When we find the pure blood of
Ephraim, we find a natural born child of God and there is nothing in the
gospel that is objectionable to them, but the others have to exercise faith
in God and humble themselves before Him and live for it." (Deseret Weekly,
50:250-251)
35 And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall
be sent away, and shall not inherit the land.
36 For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim,
wherefore they shall be plucked out.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 64:35 - 36)
Josh M.
"Art Bulla" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:40mrtjF...@individual.net...
> Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt
>
> Chapter 1
>
> Theology-Its Definition-Historical Illustration
> Eternal Science! who would fathom thee
> Must launch his hark upon a shoreless sea.
> Thy knowledge yet shall overwhelm the earth;
> Thy truth to immortality give birth,
> Thy dawn shall kindle to eternal day,
> And man, immortal, still shall own thy sway.
>
> First. Theology is the science of communication, or of correspondence,
> between God, angels, spirits, and men, by means of visions, dreams,
> interpretations, conversations, inspirations, or the spirit of prophecy
> and
Theology is not science. None of the things you mention here can be studied
scientifically.
Oh, and brevity is your friend.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Key to the Science of Theology
There is no science involved - just fairy stories.
--
Bob.
Sanity's little helper
>Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt
Apt name.
------------------------------------------------
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
Wakboth
Art Bulla kirjoitti:
> First. Theology is the science of communication, or of correspondence,
> between God, angels, spirits, and men, by means of visions, dreams,
> interpretations, conversations, inspirations, or the spirit of prophecy and
> revelation.
Nope. Theology, as far as it can be considered a science (and I think
it is a science in the same sense as history, for example; not a
"hard", natural science, but still), is the science of religious
beliefs, of religious organisations, and of the history of those two,
in the context of some particular religion.
Theology is not the same as religion, or faith, or mysticism; it
certainly isn't natural science, and has nothing to give to us on such
issues as the history of biological life, astronomy or thermodynamics.
-- Wakboth
Jong Kim
news:vg4dq1ddv3gb9nbj1...@4ax.com...
Blind faith in Evolution, now that's magic thinking!
No, it is the late Douglas Adams (a friend of Dr. Richard Dawkins, a.k.a.
the Dr. Strangelove of Evolutionism) that told fairy stories. For example,
in the middle of the film version of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy",
the narrator asserts that interstellar space is vacuum! Physicists now admit
of the existence of what they call "dark matter" throughout the Universe.
This was known to Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell as "aether". Even
Aristotle got this one right, even though he also taught Geocentrism and
Evolutionism. It is no wonder the mind of Alexander the Great (who is
prophesied in the Book of Daniel) was both edified and corrupted by his
famous teacher, Aristotle.
"And when the book of Daniel was showed him(1) wherein Daniel declared that
one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed
that he himself was the person intended. ... (1) The place showed Alexander
might be Daniel 7:6; 8:3-8, 20-22; 11:3; some or all of them very plain
predictions of Alexander's conquests and successors." Josephus.
"Antiquities of the Jews"
"Let us explain again that there is no void existing separately, as some
maintain. ... If people say that the void must exist, as being necessary if
there is to be movement, what rather turns out to be the case, if one
studies the matter, is the opposite, that not a single thing can be moved if
there is a void; for as with those who for a like reason say the earth is at
rest, so, too, in the void things must be at rest; for there is no place to
which things can move more or less than to another; since the void in so far
as it is void admits no difference. ... Either, then, nothing has a natural
locomotion, or else there is no void." Aristotle. "Physica"
"Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the
constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary
and interstellar spaces are occupied by a material substance of body."
James Clerk Maxwell. "1878 Encyclopaedia Britannica"
Parley P. Pratt understood these things many years before James Clerk
Maxwell formulated the twenty equations of electrodynamics:
Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, Ch.5, Pg.39
There are several of these subtle, invisible substances but little
understood as yet by man, and their existence is only demonstrated by their
effects. Some of them are recognized under several terms, electricity,
galvanism, magnetism, animal magnetism, spiritual magnetism, essence,
spirit, &c.
History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.3, Pg.54
Elders Taylor, Woodruff, and Turley sailed for Liverpool, December 18th,
while I was in Pennsylvania. None of the rest of the Twelve have yet
arrived. Parley P. Pratt has another book printed, larger than the "Voice of
Warning", entitled "The Millennium and other Poems", and a piece on the
"Eternal Duration of Matter".
History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.10, Pg.182
* Again from the journal of "Uncle" John Smith we learn that on the 30th day
of August, the Prophet Joseph was in Nashville and preached on "Eternal
Judgment and the Eternal Duration of Matter".
***
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.301
Eternal Duration of Matter
Speaking of eternal duration of matter, I said: There is no such thing as
immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can
only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are
purified, we shall see that it is all matter. (May 17, 1843.) DHC 5:392-3.
***
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is
no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a
greater or a lesser kingdom.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:37)
I testify that the following is the truth concerning the origin of man,
though many here will call it a fairy tale:
***
"They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the
herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and
every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought
from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the
brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was
cursed." Brigham Young. "Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1"
"God took seeds from different worlds and sowed them on this earth, and His
garden grew up and everything came up that could come up, but what grows
lives and is alive only through the feeling of its contact with other
mysterious worlds. If that feeling grows weak or is destroyed in you, the
heavenly growth will die away in you. Then you will be indifferent to life
and even grow to hate it. That's what I think." Fyodor Dostoevsky. "The
Brothers Karamazov"
"Adam came into the garden with a celestial body, which had been resurrected
from an older earth. He and Eve, one of his wives, along with plants and
animals were brought here by his Father and his Jehovah and planted in a
garden eastward in Eden after the former creation had been made desolate,
saith the Lord, by a mighty convulsion, hence the fossils in the ground, but
we are not descended from them. This occurred only six thousand years ago.
The geologists make a tremdously egregious error is estimating the age of
creation. It would be comparable to saying the city building in Salt Lake
was billions of years old because the stones which comprise this building
are timeless." Art Bulla. http://www.artbulla.com/zion/adam.html
***
1 ... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be
established.
(New Testament | 2 Corinthians 13:1)
>
> --
> Bob.
>
--
117 Therefore, verily I say unto you, my friends, call your solemn assembly,
as I have commanded you.
118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another
words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek
learning, even by study and also by faith.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:117 - 118)
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3
Jong Kim
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Jong Kim" <rh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11qdfqb...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> news:vg4dq1ddv3gb9nbj1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:40:14 -0800, "Art Bulla" <a...@artbulla.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >Key to the Science of Theology
>>
>>
>> There is no science involved - just fairy stories.
>>
>
> Blind faith in Evolution, now that's magic thinking!
I will say this about your Thermodynamics argument Jong Kim:
With every post your entropy is increasing.
JR
>
>snip<
RetroProphet
>> There is no science involved - just fairy stories.
>>
>
>Blind faith in Evolution, now that's magic thinking!
>
>No, it is the late Douglas Adams (a friend of Dr. Richard
>Dawkins, a.k.a. the Dr. Strangelove of Evolutionism) that
>told fairy stories. For example, in the middle of the film
>version of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", the
>narrator asserts that interstellar space is vacuum!
>Physicists now admit of the existence of what they call
>"dark matter" throughout the Universe. This was known to
>Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell as "aether". Even
>Aristotle got this one right, even though he also taught
>Geocentrism and Evolutionism. It is no wonder the mind
>of Alexander the Great (who is prophesied in the Book
>of Daniel) was both edified and corrupted by his famous
>teacher, Aristotle.
Speaking of magical thinking and fairy stories,
the only person in the world who posits that
"dark matter" is what used to be called "aether"
is you.
It's all about reading comprehension.
I'll bet you misunderstood this sentence on the web
at http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40075:
"One of the most interesting shifts came in the battle
about the (not totally forgotten) aether. A modern day
equivalent might be "dark matter," an undetected form
of matter that explains some of the quirky behavior
of gravity."
Of course, the equivalence referred to is between the
two instances of "paradigm shift," not aether and
dark matter themselves.
Come clean -- where did you get your B.S. in Physics?
Jong Kim
news:1134991255....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou
[art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy
belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
(Old Testament | Genesis 3:14)
Moses wrote the above, as given him by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. I
testify that the above and below are true accounts.
"Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?
And everything comes in this way." Joseph the Seer. "Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith", p. 373
"They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the
herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and
every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought
from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the
brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was
cursed." Brigham Young the Lion of the Lord. "Journal of Discourses, Vol.
1"
"Adam came into the garden with a celestial body, which had been resurrected
from an older earth. He and Eve, one of his wives, along with plants and
animals were brought here by his Father and his Jehovah and planted in a
garden eastward in Eden after the former creation had been made desolate,
saith the Lord, by a mighty convulsion, hence the fossils in the ground, but
we are not descended from them. This occurred only six thousand years ago.
The geologists make a tremdously egregious error is estimating the age of
creation. It would be comparable to saying the city building in Salt Lake
was billions of years old because the stones which comprise this building
are timeless." Art Bulla the One Mighty and Strong.
http://www.artbulla.com/zion/adam.html
> astronomy
"For whereas the Egyptians were formerly addicted to different customs, and
despised one another's sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one
with another on that account, Abram conferred with each of them, and,
confuting the reasonings they made use of, every one for their own
practices, demonstrated that such reasonings were vain and void of truth:
whereupon he was admired by them in those conferences as a very wise man,
and one of great sagacity, when he discoursed on any subject he undertook;
and this not only in understanding it, but in persuading other men also to
assent to him. He communicated to them ARITHMETIC, and delivered to them the
SCIENCE of ASTRONOMY; for before Abram came into Egypt they were
unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the
Chaldeans into EGYPT, and FROM THENCE to the GREEKS also." Josephus.
"Antiquities of the Jews"
Some Greeks not in agreement with Aristotle and Ptolemy taught the correct
doctrine of Heliocentrism, many centuries before Copernicus and Galileo.
(Historians and physicists openly acknowledge this fact.) Euclid taught
geometry. And then you've got Archimedes. Mathematics did NOT originate from
the ancient Greeks. Neither did astronomy, correct or incorrect.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of
turning.
(New Testament | James 1:17)
> or thermodynamics.
>
19 ś Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust
doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(New Testament | Matthew 6:19 - 21)
Jesus of Nazareth knew thermodynamics many centuries before Rudolf Clausius
was born.
> -- Wakboth
>
--
9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is
done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the
sun.
10 Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath
been already of old time, which was before us.
11 [There is] no remembrance of former [things]; neither shall there be
[any] remembrance of [things] that are to come with [those] that shall come
after.
(Old Testament | Ecclesiastes 1:9 - 11)
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3
Jong Kim
JOSHUA <'}}}><
>How can you testify, were you there at the beginning of time to hear this
>God of yours speak to the snake? How is your testimony worth anything?
It was revealed to me by God, that the name "Satan" is in the language
of Adam, and "Satan" means "serpent".
The name Serpent in ancient times came to represent "wise one",
because of this very fact: (Gen. 3:1) "NOW the serpent was more
[wiser] than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." [For
Satan used his priesthood to tempt woman whom I had made to become
wise like God, and receive her priesthood, which thing I had forbidden
until I authorized it should come t past.]
Thus we have the Lord using it this way, "Behold, I send you forth as
sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and
harmless as doves. (Matt. 10:16)
And it was reconfirmed in modern revelation:
"Therefore, be ye as wise as serpents and yet without sin; and I will
order all things for your good, as fast as ye are able to receive
them. Amen." (D&C 111:11)
JOSHUA
Josh M.
> news:vg4dq1ddv3gb9nbj1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:40:14 -0800, "Art Bulla" <a...@artbulla.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >Key to the Science of Theology
>>
>>
>> There is no science involved - just fairy stories.
>>
>
> Blind faith in Evolution, now that's magic thinking!
The theory of evolution is accepted because there's a mountain of evidence
that supports it. Faith has nothing to do with it.
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>
>Art Bulla......
Thus Saith the Lord Our Righteousness: My son Jong Kim was given the
gift of revelation before he was born, if he fails to exert the faith
required to use his gift he has only himself to blame. However, you
have not been given this gift, but you shall have the gift of faith to
learn what Jong reveals, you exert the faith required to use your
gift.
Thus Saith the Lord Our Righteousness: My son Jong Kim was given the
gift of revelation before he was born, if he fails to exert the faith
required to use his gift he has only himself to blame. However, you
have not been given this gift, but you shall have the gift of faith to
learn what Jong reveals, you exert the faith required to use your
gift.
Wakboth your intelligence to exert faith has failed you, you need to
go back and learn the basic principle of the gospel, first principle
of intelligence is FAITH!
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye [Wakboth] have need
that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles
of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong
meat. (Heb. 5:12)
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
first, FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third,
Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of
hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. AND without the study of
"Theology" man could not approach the Lord in confidence expecting an
answer to the questions of FAITH, Repentance, Baptism, and the answer
to quest the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, I, find you unread in the things of God, and need that
basic milk, and not the deeper things which Art Bulla preaches, and
Jong testifies.
Just because Art and I disagree on prophetic utterances of the coming
of the One Mighty and Strong, it doesn't mean that his teachings about
the concept of immortality and principles of the gospel are wrong. You
are too critical of things you know nothing about, you don't even know
how contected Art Bulla is to end times prophecy, now do you? Learn to
connect the dots, like a child, before setting out to blame other for
your failure to understand the scriptures.
JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
Richard Smol
Art Bulla wrote:
> Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt
Theology is not a science.
RS
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>On 19 Dec 2005 03:20:55 -0800, "Wakboth" <Wakbo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Art Bulla......
>>
>>> First. Theology is the science of communication, or of correspondence,
>>> between God, angels, spirits, and men, by means of visions, dreams,
>>> interpretations, conversations, inspirations, or the spirit of prophecy and
>>> revelation.
>>
>>Nope. Theology, as far as it can be considered a science (and I think
>>it is a science in the same sense as history, for example; not a
>>"hard", natural science, but still), is the science of religious
>>beliefs, of religious organisations, and of the history of those two,
>>in the context of some particular religion.
>>
>>Theology is not the same as religion, or faith, or mysticism; it
>>certainly isn't natural science, and has nothing to give to us on such
>>issues as the history of biological life, astronomy or thermodynamics.
>>
>>-- Wakboth
>
corrections:
are too critical of things you know nothing about; you don't even know
how [connected] Art Bulla is to end times prophecy, now do you? Learn
how to connect the dots of prophecy, like a child, before setting out
to blame [another] for your failure to understand the scriptures.
>
>JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
Taoshan
> 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
> thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
> upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
> thy life:
> (Old Testament | Genesis 3:14)
Jong Kim then asserts:
> Moses wrote the above, as given him by the inspiration of the Holy
> Ghost. I testify that the above and below are true accounts.
It is your testimony, then, that snakes eat dust.
Thank you for providing a falsifiable assertion. We may now assess the
scientific worth of this testimony by comparing it with the results of
research.
-
Taoshan
_
VoiceOfReason
Art Bulla wrote:
> Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt
Learning to use a dictionary would help. From Webster's:
the·ol·o·gy
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially
: the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of
atonement> b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic
theology>
3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a
Roman Catholic major seminary
<sniparoni>
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>It is your testimony, then, that snakes eat dust.
>
>Thank you for providing a falsifiable assertion. We may now assess the
>scientific worth of this testimony by comparing it with the results of
>research.
>
>-
>Taoshan
Taoshan you evil toad, when the fires of eternal knowledge get too hot
for you, you jump out of the pot into the fire!
With a name like "Tao Shan" we all know what you're into, it's Taoism,
and your backwards simplicity, you do you simple gods no honor,
neither does "Shan" help you to recover that honor. For we believe
that God can make things simple, but we disagree with Taoism unnatural
concepts that God is Simple Simon going to the fair of Wonderland. For
the real God is beyond the understanding of Toaism, for in nature all
thing go toward the complex, and not the simple. And God is an exalted
man, not the break down of simplicity that is preached in humanistic
writings like "Toaism."
JOSHUA
"And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of
the dragon [of CHINA - Toaism], and out of the mouth of the beast [of
Rome], and out of the mouth of the false prophet [of middle east] .
JOSHUA <'}}}><
>But how do we check anything was revealed to you by any god, if we don't
>take your word for it?
>
>> that the name "Satan" is in the language
>> of Adam, and "Satan" means "serpent".
>
>This you must be able to proof.
>
You have it all wrong, the mission of a prophet is not to prove it,
but to reveal it. It's your mission to prove it, but then however in
the world can you accomplish this task without having faith?
Do you know what faith is?
Joshua
OvC
<1135012777.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ...
Obviously, a transcription error stemming from a slip of Moses'
chisel, and snakes ever after got a bad rap. It's really worms that
should be reviled for tempting Eve.
--
OvC
Taoshan
> Therefore I, find you unread in the things of God, and need that basic milk,
> and not the deeper things which Art Bulla preaches, and Jong testifies.
Joshua attributes this statement to 'the Lord Our Righteousness.' He
intends that we take this as a divine utterance from a deity for whom
is is only the messenger.
Very well. Let's take a look at the divinely inspired grammar.
The verb 'need' modifies the subject 'I.' The speaker is saying 'I need
basic milk.'
Deep waters indeed.
-
Taoshan
_
unrestra...@hotmail.com
<snicker>
You're joshin' me, right?
Is this Jong Kim, or Art, pretending to be the Carpenter?
You indulge in self-delusion. Taoism teaches that he who knows, does
not speak, and he who speaks, does not know. Judging you guys by the
amount of nonsense you spew, and the inflated view you have of
yourselves, and the tenacity to which you cling to your delusions,
there is no hope of you reaching even an ordinary level of confusion -
not if you lived a thousand years.
Kermit
Eric Gill
news:9dsdq1hm8dfvhf5cd...@4ax.com:
> On 19 Dec 2005 09:19:38 -0800, "Taoshan" <taosh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It is your testimony, then, that snakes eat dust.
>>
>>Thank you for providing a falsifiable assertion. We may now assess the
>>scientific worth of this testimony by comparing it with the results of
>>research.
>>
>>-
>>Taoshan
>
> Taoshan you evil toad, when the fires of eternal knowledge get too hot
> for you, you jump out of the pot into the fire!
Do you have a rebuttal or not?
<snip>
Taoshan
> Just because Art and I disagree on prophetic utterances of the coming
> of the One Mighty and Strong [...]
But how is it possible for two divinely inspired guys to disagree?
You have insisted that divine inspiration means inerrancy. You demand
that everyone around you take Genesis literally for this reason. No
disagreements allowed. No multiple points of view.
You and Art and Jong Kim have also claimed divine inspiration for
yourselves. You ask us to regard your pronouncements as similarly
inerrant. No contradictions tolerated. Lest we miss this point, you
emphasize it with Bibley-looking posts full of versey-looking numbers
and ersatz King James English.
On that premise you chastise us for not acknowledging that Art is
'connected... to end times prophecy.' Yet in the same breath you
indicate that, when it comes to some important ideas about those times,
you believe Art to be mistaken. His connection to end times prophecy is
not, you admit, 100% solid.
How does this happen? How can divinely inspired messengers make
mistakes?
-
Taoshan
_
Taoshan
> Taoshan you evil toad, when the fires of eternal knowledge get too hot
> for you, you jump out of the pot into the fire!
Try to concentrate. The subject is a reptile, not an amphibian, and the
element is earth, not fire.
Jong Kim said snakes eat dirt.
What do you think? They eat dirt? Or they don't eat dirt?
-
Taoshan
_
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>Obviously, a transcription error stemming from a slip of Moses'
>chisel, and snakes ever after got a bad rap. It's really worms that
>should be reviled for tempting Eve.
>
>--
>OvC
Science fiction and scientific fact obviously not in your vocabulary,
but like the primate you are, you should not dream of understanding,
so why then try?
Why do you foolishly attack your own creeds, don't you follow the
recent discoveries of science better?
Yes, your deal with the unknown here, but you why have forgotten so
quickly what your science has recently discovered?
Whether it's known or unknown is something which scientific mind like
yourself has sought to buried and forget; for they are in the bad
habit of putting their foots in their mouth a bit too often in dealing
with prophets. Howbeit, that scientific fact changes from age to age,
tailored to their schisms of the past, and their biases thoughts about
God, but all prophets are always firm upon the ground, and always base
their revelations upon an absolute truth.
You see you fallen soul of endless quests to understand the truth that
saves, science did not discover this in the past, but in modern times,
that 'snake once had legs like chicken, but that they lost their
legs', now, who discovered this first?
Was it Scientist with primate journals or the Prophets with Holy
Scriptures who revealed it first to mankind?
Yes, it is for you an unknown, since you're too lazy to learn,
however, I will post it for you:
It was the Prophets of God who first make this scientific fact known
to the world, and science has only made this known in modern times.
Here it is in the Holy Scriptures, the fact that God curse the snake
to lose it legs, which science has confirmed to be true:
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; he [Joshua] shall bruise thy [authority
over mankind Satan and put you away for a thousand years], and thou
shalt bruise his [right] heel." (Gen. 3:14-15)
My Sphere of Understand is beyond yours, but why not pick up the sword
of Truth and join forces with the God of lights, then you can
understand the things of God, like Art Bulla does.
JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
Taoshan
> "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon
> [of CHINA - Toaism], and out of the mouth of the beast [of Rome], and out of the
> mouth of the false prophet [of middle east]
I see. Three unclean spirits.
What part of the world did you say Jong Kim was from?
-
Taoshan
_
JOSHUA <'}}}><
>> Do you know what faith is?
>
>I expect my definition to differ completely from yours.
>
>But you may as well surprise me. So tell me.
Nothing pleases God without faith, for faith belongs to the living, it
is not found among the dead scientists.
For our God of the bible is a God of the living, but you have made him
someone found among the dead scientists, like all the scientists who
now sleep, waiting for God's servants to rise them from their graves.
Have you no understanding, prophets preach the Lord Jesus Christ who
has risen from the grave, and he is not just anyone as you have
claimed, for who else among the dead has risen?
Among the graves of time do we know of any that has risen?
Don't you know, that in all the history of the world there has only
been ONE who has risen up from the grave before witnesses, and his
name is Jesus Christ?
So you ask to know what faith is, but if you knew the real Jesus you
would have known what faith is, so it takes me, a prophet to make it
known, or can you be first to tell us in your own words?
If you are first tell us, then I will not disappoint you either, for I
will show you the power of a real prophet to make it known.
However, I will play games with you, let us see thy wisdom in this
first, and then I shall show you the wisdom of prophets.
JOSHUA <'}}}>< {ZECH. 3 speaks of me.}
JOSHUA <'}}}><
<RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Speaking of magical thinking and fairy stories,
>the only person in the world who posits that
>"dark matter" is what used to be called "aether"
>is you.
Wait just one minute, "ether" is something real, and thank God that
you know nothing of it, for it is dangerous in the wrong hands.
Don't you understand, RetroProphet, that if "ether" were real, then it
would be dangerous for someone like you, who has doubts about the
existence of God to know its secrets?
Eternal knowledge is not for the faint of heart, it takes courage to
want and face the Truth.
JUST take a look at what men of courage have recent discovered about
ether:
They met only once. During the New Year's holiday season of 1927,
Albert Einstein called on Sigmund Freud, who was staying at the home
of one of his sons in Berlin. Einstein, at forty-seven, was the
foremost living symbol of the physical sciences, while Freud, at
seventy, was his equal in the social sciences, but the evening was
hardly a meeting of the minds. When a friend wrote Einstein just a few
months later suggesting that he allow himself to undergo
psychoanalysis, Einstein answered, "I regret that I cannot accede to
your request, because I should like very much to remain in the
darkness of not having been analyzed." Or, as Freud wrote to a friend
regarding Einstein immediately after their meeting in Berlin, "He
understands as much about psychology as I do about physics, so we had
a very pleasant talk."
Freud and Einstein shared a native language, German, but their
respective professional vocabularies had long since diverged, to the
point that they now seemed virtually irreconcilable. Even so, Freud
and Einstein had more in common than they might have imagined. Many
years earlier, at the beginning of their respective scientific
investigations, they both had reached what would prove to be the same
pivotal juncture. Each had been exploring one of the foremost problems
in his field. Each had found himself confronting an obstacle that had
defeated everyone else exploring the problem. In both their cases,
this obstacle was the same: a lack of more evidence. Yet rather than
retreat from this absence and look elsewhere or concede defeat and
stop looking, Einstein and Freud had kept looking anyway.
Looking, after all, was what scientists did. It was what defined the
scientific method. It was what had precipitated the Scientific
Revolution, some three centuries earlier. In 1610, Galileo Galilei
reported that upon looking through a new instrument into the celestial
realm he saw forty stars in the Pleiades cluster where previously
everyone else had seen only six, five hundred new stars in the
constellation of Orion, "a congeries of innumerable stars" in another
stretch of the night sky, and then, around Jupiter, moons. Beginning
in 1674, Antonius von Leeuwenhoek reported that upon looking at
terrestrial objects through another new instrument he saw "upwards of
one million living creatures" in a drop of water, "animals" numbering
more than "there were human beings in the united Netherlands" in the
white matter on his gums, and then, in the plaque from the mouth of an
old man who'd never cleaned his teeth, "an unbelievably great number
of living animalcules, a-swimming more nimbly than any I had ever seen
up to this time."
Such discoveries were not without precedent. They came, in fact, at
the end of the Age of Discovery. If an explorer of the seas could
discover a New World, then why should an explorer of the heavens not
discover new worlds? And if those same sea voyages proved that the
Earth could house innumerable creatures previously unknown, then why
not earth itself or water or flesh?
What was without precedent in the discoveries of Galileo and
Leeuwenhoek, however, was the means by which they reached them.
Between 1595 and 1609, spectacle makers in the Netherlands had fit
combinations of lenses together in two new instruments that performed
similar, though distinct, optical tricks. The combination of lenses in
one instrument made distant objects appear nearer, the combination in
the other made small objects appear larger; and for the first time in
history investigators of nature had at their disposal tools that
served as an extension of one of the five human senses. As much as the
discoveries themselves, what revolutionized science over the course of
the seventeenth century was a new means of discovery and what it
signified: There is more to the universe than meets the naked eye.
Who knew? After all, these instruments might easily have revealed
nothing beyond what we already knew to be there, and what we already
knew to be there might easily have been all there was to know. The
naked eye alone didn't have to be inadequate as a means of
investigating nature; the invention of these instruments didn't have
to open two new frontiers. But it was; and they did.
For thousands of years, the number of objects in the heavens had been
fixed at six thousand or so. Now, there were...more. Since the
Creation, or at least since the Flood, the number of kinds of
creatures on Earth, however incalculable as a practical matter, had
nonetheless been fixed. Now, there were...more. "There are more things
in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy":
When Shakespeare wrote these words in 1598 or 1599, at the very cusp
of the turn of the seventeenth century, he was referring to the
understandable assumption among practitioners of what would soon
become the old philosophy that much of what was as yet unknown must
remain unknown forever, and for the next three hundred years the
practitioners of what they themselves came to call the New Philosophy
frequently cited it as the last time in history that someone could
have written so confidently about civilization's continuing ignorance
of, and estrangement from, the universe.
Because now all you had to do was look. Through the telescope you
could see farther than with the naked eye alone and, by seeing
farther, discover new worlds without. Through the microscope you could
see deeper than with the naked eye alone and, by seeing deeper,
discover new worlds within. By seeing more than meets the naked eye
and then seeing yet more, you could discover more.
How much more? It was a logical question for natural philosophers to
ask themselves, and the search for an answer that ensued over the next
three centuries was nothing if not logical: a systematic pursuit of
the truths of nature to the outermost and innermost realms of the
universe, until by the turn of the twentieth century the search had
reached the very limits of human perception even with the aid of
optical instruments, and investigators of nature had begun to wonder:
What now? What if there was no more more?
Specifically: Was the great scientific program that had begun three
centuries earlier coming to a close? Or would an increasingly
fractional examination of the existing evidence continue to reward
investigators with further truths?
Some researchers, however, unexpectedly found themselves confronting a
third option. Pushing the twin frontiers of scientific research-the
inner universe and the outer-they had arrived at an impasse. Then,
they'd spanned it. They'd kept looking until they discovered an
entirely new kind of scientific evidence: evidence that no manner of
mere looking was going to reveal; evidence that lay beyond the realm
of the visible; evidence that was, to all appearances, invisible.
The invisible had always been part of humanity's interactions with
nature. Attempting to explain otherwise inexplicable phenomena, the
ancients had invented spirits, forms and gods [because the legends of
the prophets spoke of them as revelations]. In the Western world
during the medieval era, those various causes of mysterious effects
had coalesced into the idea of one God [also taken by the teaching of
Prophet Moses]. Even after the inception of the modern era and the
inauguration of the scientific method, investigators working at the
two extremes of the universe had resorted to two new forms of the
invisible. When Isaac Newton reached the limits of his understanding
of the outer universe, he had invoked the concept of gravity [which
was a mystery to mankind, for it spoke of the Holy Ghost who controls
the forces of gravity]. When René Descartes reached the limits of his
understanding of the inner universe, he had invoked the concept of
consciousness [in a human attempt to understand the mysteries of the
spirit mind].
But by the turn of the twentieth century the kind of invisibility that
certain investigators were beginning to invoke was new. These were
scientists for whom any appeal to the supernatural, superstitious, or
metaphysical would have been anathema. But now, here it was: evidence
that was invisible yet scientifically incontrovertible, to their
minds, anyway.
Although Einstein and Freud didn't initiate this second scientific
revolution all by themselves, they did come to represent it and in
large measure embody it. This is the story of how their respective
investigations reached unprecedented realms, relativity and the
unconscious; how their further pursuits led to the somewhat
inadvertent creation of two new sciences, cosmology and
psychoanalysis; and how in Einstein's case, a new way of doing science
has become the dominant methodology throughout the sciences, while in
Freud's case, an alternative way of doing science has become the
dominant exception, the key to the very question of what qualifies an
intellectual endeavor as a science. This is also the story of what
cosmology and psychoanalysis have allowed us to explore: universes,
without and within, as vast in comparison to the ones they replaced as
those had been to the ones they replaced.
And in that regard Einstein and Freud's is a story, just as Galileo
and Leeuwenhoek's was, of a revolution in thought. The difference
between our vision of the universe and its nineteenth- century
counterpart has turned out to be not a question of what had
distinguished each previous era from the preceding one for nearly
three hundred years: of seeing farther or deeper, of seeing more-of
perspective, of how much we see. Instead, it is a question of seeing
itself-of perception, of how we see. It is also, then, a question of
thinking about seeing- of conception, of how we think about how we
see. As much as any discovery, this is what has changed the way we try
to make sense of our existence in the twenty-first century-the way we
struggle to investigate our circumstances as sentient creatures in a
particular setting: Who are these creatures? What is this setting? It
is a new means of discovery-the significance of which, a hundred years
later, we are still only beginning to comprehend: that there is more
to the universe than we would ever find, if all we ever did was look
[without the aid of prophets and Over-seers].
Chapter One: -[Here is where it get juicy RetroProphet, it where
'ether' is mention.]
MORE THINGS IN HEAVEN
LOOK.
And so the boy looked. His father had something to show him. It was
small and round like a miniature clock, the boy saw, but instead of
two hands pointing outward from the center of the face it had one iron
needle. As the boy continued to look, his father rotated the object.
He turned it first one way, then the other, and as he did so the most
amazing thing happened. No matter how the boy's father moved the
object, the needle continued pointing in the same direction-not the
same direction relative to the rest of the device, as the boy might
have expected, but the same direction relative to...something else.
Something out there, outside the device, that the boy couldn't see.
The needle was shaking now. It trembled with the effort. Some six
decades later, when Albert Einstein recalled this scene, he couldn't
remember whether he had been four or five at the time, but the lesson
he'd learned that day he could still summon and summarize crisply:
"Something deeply hidden had to be behind things."
Some things deeply hidden, actually. As the boy grew older, he learned
what a few of those deeply hidden somethings were: magnetism, the
subject of his father's demonstration on that memorable day;
electricity; and the relationship between the two. He learned that the
existence of a relationship between magnetism and electricity was
still so recent a discovery that nobody yet understood how it worked,
and then he learned that within his lifetime physicists had
demonstrated that this relationship manifested itself to our eyes as
light. And he learned that even though nobody yet understood how light
worked, what everybody did know was that it traveled along the biggest
deeply hidden something of them all, one that had so far eluded the
greatest minds of the age but one that was now, as a prominent
physicist of the era proclaimed, "all but in our grasp."
That something was the ETHER. Einstein himself sought it, in a paper
he wrote in 1895, "Über die Untersuchung des Ätherzustandes im
magnetischen Felde" ("On the Investigation of the State of the Ether
in a Magnetic Field"). This contribution to the literature, however,
wasn't so much original scholarship as a five-finger exercise that
wound up pretty much reiterating current thinking, since Einstein was
only sixteen at the time and, as he cautioned prospective readers
(such as the doting uncle to whom he sent the paper), "I was
completely lacking in materials that would have enabled me to delve
into the subject more deeply than by merely meditating on it."
Still, it was a start. Over the following decade, Einstein would
graduate from self-consciously precocious adolescent, speculating
beyond his abilities, to willfully arrogant student at the Swiss
Polytechnic in Zurich, to humble (if not quite humbled) clerk at the
Swiss Office for Intellectual Property in Bern, where he wound up in
part because his professors had refused to write letters of
recommendation for someone so dismissive of their authority. As
Einstein reported in a letter in May 1901, "From what I have been
told, I am not in the good books of any of my former teachers." Yet
even as a patent clerk, Einstein continued to seek the ETHER, for the
same reason that physicists everywhere were seeking the ETHER. When
electromagnetic waves of light departed from a star that was there and
hadn't yet arrived here, they had to be traveling along something. So:
What was it? Find that something, as physicists understood, and maybe
electricity and magnetism and the relationship between the two
wouldn't seem so deeply hidden after all.
Among the seekers of the ETHER, one was without equal: the Scottish
physicist William Thomson, eventually Baron Kelvin of Largs. As one of
the most prominent and illustrious physicists of the century, Lord
Kelvin had made the pursuit of the ETHER the primary focus of his
scientific investigations for literally the entire length of his long
career. He'd first thought he found it on November 28, 1846, during
his initial term as a professor of natural history at the University
of Glasgow. He was mistaken. As he wrote a friend in 1896, on the
occasion of the golden jubilee of his service to the university, a
three-day celebration that attracted two thousand representatives of
scientific societies and academies of higher learning from around the
world, "I have not had a moment's peace or happiness in respect to
electromagnetic theory since Nov. 28, 1846."
Part of the problem with the ETHER was how to picture it. "I never
satisfy myself unless I can make a mechanical model of a thing,"
Kelvin once told a group of students. "If I can make a mechanical
model, I can understand it." In one such demonstration that was a
perennial favorite of his students, he would draw geometrical shapes
on a piece of india rubber, stretch the rubber across the ten-inch
mouth of a long brass funnel, and, having hung the funnel upside down
over a tub, direct water from a supply pipe into the thin tube at the
top. As the water collected in the mouth of the funnel, the india
rubber bulged, and it drooped, and it gradually assumed the shape of a
globule. Soon the blob had expanded to a width nearly double the
diameter of the mouth from which it appeared to be emerging, and just
when the rubber seemed unable to stretch any thinner, it did anyway.
All the while Kelvin continued to lecture, calmly commenting on the
subject of surface tension as well as on the transformations the
simple Euclidean shapes on the rubber were now undergoing. Then, at
precisely the moment Kelvin calculated that neither india rubber nor
the ten benches of physics students could endure any greater tension,
he would raise his pointer, poke the gelatinous mass hanging before
him, and, turning to the class, announce, "The trembling of the
dewdrop, gentlemen!"
The trembling of the dewdrop, the angling of the gas molecule, the
orbiting of a planet: the least matter in the universe to the
greatest, and all operating according to the same unifying laws. Here
was the whole of modern science, in one easy lesson. More than two
hundred years earlier, René Descartes had expressed the philosophical
hope that a full description of the material universe would require
nothing but matter and motion, and several decades after that Isaac
Newton had expressed the physical principles that described the motion
of matter. The rest, in a way, had been a process of simply filling in
the blanks-plugging measurements of matter into equations for motions,
and watching the universe tumble out piecemeal yet unmistakably all of
a single great mechanistic piece. The lecture hall where for half a
century Kelvin demonstrated his models was a monument of sorts to this
vision: the triple-spiral spring vibrator he'd hung from one end of
the blackboard; the thirty-foot pendulum, consisting of a steel wire
and a twelve- pound cannonball, that he'd suspended from the apex of
the dome roof; two clocks, those universal symbols of the workings of
the universe. Matter and motion, motion and matter, one acting upon
the other; causes leading inexorably to effects that, by dint of more
and more rigorous and precise examination, were equally predictable
and verifiable to whatever degree of accuracy anyone might care to
name: Here was a cosmos complete, almost.
The exception was the ETHER. When numerous experiments in the early
nineteenth century began showing that light travels in waves,
physicists naturally tried to describe a substance capable of carrying
those waves. The consensus: an absolutely incompressible, or elastic,
solid. For Cambridge physicist George Gabriel Stokes, that description
suggested a combination of glue and water that would act as a conduit
for rapid vibrations of waves and also allow the passage of slowly
moving bodies. For British physicist Charles Wheatstone, it meant
white beads, which he used in his Wheatstone wave machine of the early
1840s-a visual aid that vividly demonstrated how ETHER particles might
move at right angles to a wave coursing through their midst and an
inspiration for numerous similar teaching aids of the era.
And for Kelvin, "the nearest analogy I can give you," as he once said
during a lecture, "is this jelly which you see." On other occasions,
he might begin his demonstration with Scotch shoemakers' wax. If he
shaped the wax into a tuning fork or bell and struck it, a sound
emanated. Then he would take that same sound-wave-conveying wax and
suspend it in a glass jar filled with water. If he first placed corks
under the substance, then laid bullets across the top of it, in time
the positions of the objects would reverse themselves. The bullets
would sink through the wax to the bottom while the corks would pop out
the top. "The application of this to the luminiferous ETHER is
immediate," he concluded: a substance rigid enough to conduct waves
traveling at fixed speeds in straight lines from one end of the
universe to the other, if need be, yet porous enough not to block the
passage of bullets, corks, or even-by the same application of scale
that rendered minuscule dewdrops and giant rubber globules
analogous-planets.
Not to block-but surely to impede? Surely at least to slow the passage
of a planet? An elastic solid occupying all of space would have to
present a degree of resistance to a (in the parlance of the day)
"ponderable body" such as Earth. But to what degree precisely? In an
effort to determine the exact extent of the luminiferous (or
light-bearing) ETHER'S drag on Earth, the American physicist Albert A.
Michelson devised an experiment that he first conducted in Berlin in
1881. His idea was to send two beams of light along paths at 90-degree
angles to each other. Presumably the beam following one path would be
fighting against the current as Earth plowed through the ETHER, while
the beam on the other path would be swimming with the current.
Michelson designed an ingenious instrument, which he called an
interferometer, that he hoped would allow him to make measurements
that, through a series of calculations, would determine the velocity
of the Earth through the ETHER. The Berlin reading, however, suffered
from the vibrations of the horse cabs passing outside the Physical
Institute. So he moved his apparatus to the relative isolation of the
Astrophysical Observatory in Potsdam, where he repeated the
experiment.
The reading, to his surprise, indicated nothing.
Which was impossible. An interaction between a massive planet and even
the most elastic of solids surely couldn't pass undetected or remain
undetectable. "One thing we are sure of," Kelvin told an audience in
Philadelphia three years later, while on his way to lecture at Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore, "and that is the reality and
substantiality of the luminiferous ETHER." And if experiments of
unprecedented refinement and sophistication failed to detect it, there
was only one reasonable alternative course of action. As Kelvin wrote
in his preface to the published volume of those Baltimore Lectures,
"It is to be hoped that farther experiments will be made."
[Now, RetroProphet, if it took the best minds of science had to offer
to detect the effects of invisible ETHER, don't you think that the
magicians of the past were way ahead of modern day scientists? "Now
as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these [scientists] also
resist the truth [that saves]: men of corrupt minds, [always learning,
and never able to come to the truth that saves,] reprobate concerning
the faith [that teaches one to be wise and know]." (2 Tim. 3:8).
However, there is one big difference between the sorcerers of the past
Jannes and Jambres, and modern day magicians called scientists, for
Jannes and Jambres understood how to use the universal ETHER to do
miracles. It is very clear that they were light-years beyond the
failed attempts of modern day scientists, for they understood ETHER,
and use it to recreate the miracles that Moses did, like turning
staffs into serpents. ]
[And farther experiments will be made.] They were. In 1887 Michelson
tried again, this time with the help of the chemist Edward W. Morley.
Together they constructed an interferometer far more elaborate and
sensitive than the ones Michelson had used in Germany, secured it in
an essentially tremor-free basement at the Case School of Applied
Science in Cleveland, and set it floating on a bed of mercury for,
literally, good measure. Michelson had in mind a specific number for
the wavelength displacement he expected the ETHER would produce, and
he further decided that a reading 10 percent of that number would
conclusively indicate a null result. What he got was a reading of 5
percent of the displacement he thought the ETHER might produce-a blip
attributable to observational error, if anything. Michelson found
himself forced to reach the same conclusion he'd previously reported:
"that the luminiferous ETHER is entirely unaffected by the motion of
the matter which it permeates."
"I cannot see any flaw," said Kelvin of this experiment, in a lecture
he delivered in the summer of 1900. "But a possibility of escaping
from the conclusion which it seemed to prove may be found in a
brilliant suggestion made independently by Fitz Gerald, and by Lorentz
of Leiden." Kelvin was referring to the physicists George Francis
FitzGerald of Dublin, who had submitted a brief conjecture regarding
the ether to the American journal Science in 1889, and Hendrik Antoon
Lorentz, who in an 1892 paper and then in an 1895 book-length treatise
had elaborated an entire argument along nearly identical lines: The
ETHER compresses the molecules of the interferometer-as well as those
of the Earth, for that matter-to the exact degree necessary to render
a null result. In which case, the two beams of light in Cleveland
actually did travel at two separate speeds, as the measurements of
their multiple-mirror-deflected journeys would have shown, if only the
machinery hadn't contracted just enough to make up the difference.
"Thus," Lorentz concluded, "one would have to imagine that the motion
of a solid body (such as a brass rod or the stone disc employed in the
later experiments) through the resting ETHER exerts upon the
dimensions of that body an influence which varies according to the
orientation of the body with respect to the direction of motion."
"An explanation was necessary, and was forthcoming; they always are,"
the French mathematician and philosopher Henri Poincaré wrote of
Lorentz in 1902 in his Science and Hypothesis; "hypotheses are what we
lack the least." Lorentz himself conceded as much. Two years later he
proposed a mathematical basis for his argument while virtually sighing
at the futility of the whole enterprise: "Surely this course of
inventing special hypotheses for each new experimental result is
somewhat artificial."
Like other physicists at the time, Einstein thought about ways to
describe the ETHER, as in the precocious paper he had sent to his
uncle in 1895. Also like other physicists, Einstein thought about ways
to detect the ETHER. During his second year at college, 1897-98, he
proposed an experiment: "I predicted that if light from a source is
reflected by a mirror," he later recalled, "it should have different
energies depending on whether it is propagated parallel or
antiparallel to the direction of motion of the Earth." In other words:
the Michelson-Morley experiment, more or less-though news of that
effort, a decade earlier, had reached Einstein only indirectly if at
all, and then only as a passing reference in a paper he read. In any
case, the particular professor he'd approached with this proposal
treated it in "a stepmotherly fashion," as Einstein reported bitterly
in a letter. Then, during a brief but busy job-hunting period in 1901,
after he'd left school but hadn't yet secured a position at the patent
office, Einstein proposed to a more receptive professor at the
University of Zurich, "a very much simpler method of investigating the
relative motion of matter against the luminiferous ETHER." On this
occasion it was Einstein who didn't deliver. As he wrote to a friend,
"If only relentless fate would give me the necessary time and peace!"
Like a few other physicists at the time, Einstein was even beginning
to wonder just what purpose the ETHER served. What purpose it was
supposed to serve was clear enough. Physicists had inferred the
ETHER'S existence in order to make the discovery of light waves
conform to the laws of mechanics. If the universe operated only
through matter moving immediately adjacent matter in an endless
succession of cause-and-effect ricochet shots-like balls on a billiard
table, in the popular analogy of the day-then the ETHER would serve as
the necessary matter facilitating the motion of waves of light across
the vast and otherwise empty reaches of space. But to say that the
ether is the substance along which electromagnetic waves must be
moving because electromagnetic waves must be moving along something
was as unsatisfactory a definition as it was circular. As Einstein
concluded during this period in a letter to the fellow physics student
who later became his first wife, Mileva Maric, "The introduction of
the term 'ETHER' into the theories of electricity led to the notion of
a medium of whose motion one can speak without being able, I believe,
to associate a physical meaning with this statement."
The problem of the ETHER was starting to seem more than a little
familiar. It was, in a way, the same problem that had been haunting
physics since the inception of the modern era three centuries earlier:
space. To be precise, it was absolute space-a frame of reference
against which, in theory, you could measure the motion of any matter
in the universe.
For most of human history, such a concept would have been more or less
meaningless, or at least superfluous. As long as Earth was standing
still at the center of the universe, the center of the Earth was the
rightful place toward which terrestrial objects must fall. After all,
as Aristotle pointed out in establishing a comprehensive physics,
that's precisely what terrestrial objects did. An Earth in motion,
however, presented another set of circumstances altogether, one
that-as Galileo appreciated-required a whole other set of
explanations.
Nicolaus Copernicus wasn't the first to suggest that the Earth goes
around the sun, not vice versa, but the mathematics in his 1543
treatise De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of
Celestial Orbs) had the advantage of being comprehensive and even
useful-for instance, in instituting the calendar reform of 1582.
Still, for many natural philosophers its heliocentric thesis remained
difficult, or at least politically unwise, to believe. Galileo,
however, not only found it easy to believe but, in time, learned it
had to be true because he had seen the evidence for himself, through a
new instrument that made distant objects appear near. His evidence was
not the mountains on the moon that he first observed in the autumn of
1609, though they did challenge one ancient belief, the physical
perfection of heavenly bodies; nor the sight of far more stars than
were visible with the naked eye, though they did hint that the
two-dimensional celestial vault of old might possess a third
dimension; not even his January 1610 discovery around Jupiter of "four
wandering stars, known or observed by no one before us," because all
they proved was that Earth wasn't unique as a host of moons or,
therefore, as a center of rotation. Instead, what finally decided the
matter for Galileo was the phases of Venus. From October to December
1610, Galileo mounted a nightly vigil to observe Venus as it mutated
from "a round shape, and very small," to "a semicircle" and much
larger, to "sickle-shaped" and very large-exactly the set of
appearances the planet would manifest if it were circling around, from
behind the sun to in front of the sun, while also drawing nearer to
Earth.
Galileo's discovery of the phases of Venus didn't definitively prove
the existence of a sun- centered universe. It didn't even necessarily
disprove an Earth-centered universe. After all, just because Venus
happens to revolve around the sun doesn't mean that the sun itself
can't still revolve around Earth. But such a contortionistic
interpretation of the cosmos-a Venus-encircled sun in turn circling
Earth-had nothing to recommend it other than an undying allegiance to
Earth's central position in it. And so "Venus revolves around the
Sun," Galileo finally declared with virtual certainty, in a letter he
wrote in January 1612 and published the following year, "just as do
all the other planets"-a category of celestial object that, he could
now state with a confidence verging on nonchalance, included the
heretofore terrestrial-by-definition Earth.
An Earth spinning and speeding through space, however, required not
only a rethinking of religious beliefs. It also required new
interpretations of old physical data-a new physics. Galileo himself
got to work on one, and in 1632 he published it: Dialogue Concerning
the Two Chief World Systems. In arguing on behalf of a Copernican view
of the universe, Galileo knew he was going to have to explain certain
phenomena that in the Aristotelian view of the universe needed no
further explanation. Actually, he was going to have to explain the
absence of certain phenomena: If Earth were turning and if this
turning Earth were orbiting the sun, as Copernicus contended, then
wouldn't birds be rent asunder, cannonballs be sent off course, and
even simple stones, dropped from a modest height, be flung far from
their points of departure, all according to the several motions of the
planet?
No, Galileo said. And here's why. He asked you, his reader, to imagine
yourself on a dock, observing a ship anchored in a harbor. If someone
at the top of the ship's mast were to drop a stone, where would it
land? Simple: at the base of the mast. Now imagine instead that the
ship is moving in the water at a steady rate across your field of
vision as you observe from the dock. If the person at the top of the
ship's mast were to drop another stone, where would it land now? At
the base of the mast? Or some small distance back, behind the mast-a
measurement corresponding to the distance on the water that the ship
would have covered in the time between the release of the stone at the
top of the mast and its arrival on the deck of the ship?
The intuitive, Aristotelian answer: some small distance back. The
correct-and, Galileo argued, Copernican-answer: the base of the mast,
because the movement of the ship and the movement of the stone
together constitute a single motion. From the point of view of the
person at the top of the mast, the motion of the stone alone might
indeed seem a perpendicular drop-the kind that Aristotle argued a
stone would make in seeking to return to its natural state in the
universe. Fair enough. That's what it would have to seem to someone
standing on the steadily moving ship whose only knowledge of the
motion of the Earth was that it stood still. That person would feel
neither the motion of the Earth nor the motion of the ship and so
would take into account only the motion of the stone. But for you,
observing from the dock, the stone would be moving and the ship would
be moving, and together those movements would make up a single system
in motion. To you, the motion of the stone falling toward the ship
would seem not a perpendicular drop-not at all an Aristotelian return
to its natural state-but an angle. If you could trace the trajectory
of the stone from the dock, it would just be geometry.
And vice versa. If, instead, you the observer standing on the dock
were the one dropping a stone, then to you the motion of that stone
relative to the Earth would appear perpendicular, because all you
would be taking into account was the motion of the stone alone. That's
all Aristotle did-take into account only the motion of the stone. But
from the point of view of the person at the top of the mast on the
ship in the harbor, looking at you on the dock and taking into account
the motion of the stone and the apparent motion of the dock together,
the trajectory of the falling stone would describe an angle.
And there it is: a principle of relativity. Neither observer would
have the right to claim to be absolutely at rest. The onboard observer
would have as much right to claim that the ship was leaving the dock
as that the dock was leaving the ship. Rather than standing still at
the center of the cosmos, our position in the new physics was just the
opposite: never at rest. After Galileo, everything in the universe was
in motion relative to something else-ships to docks, moons to planets,
planets to sun, sun (as astronomers would come to discover by the end
of the eighteenth century) to the so-called fixed stars, those
so-called fixed stars (as astronomers would come to discover by the
middle of the nineteenth century) to one another, and, conceivably,
our entire vast system of stars (as astronomers were trying to
determine at the turn of the twentieth century) to other vast systems
of stars.
Unless you counted the ETHER. For this reason alone, the ETHER was-as
Einstein had first recognized as a teenager-at least somewhat
objectionable. Not long after he'd written the ether paper that he'd
sent to his uncle, Einstein found himself wandering the grounds at his
school in Aarau, Switzerland, wondering what the presence of an
absolute space would do to Galileo's idea of relativity. If you were
on board Galileo's ship but belowdecks, in an enclosed compartment,
you shouldn't be able to detect whether you were moving or standing
still, relative to the dock or anything else in the universe that
wasn't moving along with you. But if the ship were traveling at the
speed of light through the ether, that's just what you would be able
to detect. You'd know you were the one traveling at the speed of
light-rather than someone on the dock, for instance-because you'd see
the light around you standing still.
By the early years of the twentieth century, Einstein had done only
what other physicists of his era had done. He'd thought about ways to
define the ETHER through mathematics. He'd thought about ways to
detect the ETHER through experiments. He'd even begun to think about
whether physics really needed an EHTER. But then, one night in May
1905, Einstein did what no other physicist of his era had done. He
thought of a new way of thinking about the problem.
Einstein had been spending the evening with a longtime friend both
from his student years and at the patent office, Michele Besso, the
two of them talking, as they often did in their off-hours, about
physics. In the preceding three years, Einstein had moved to Bern,
gotten married, and fathered two children (one illegitimate, whom he
and Mileva gave up for adoption). Yet all the while he'd been applying
himself to the most pressing issues of contemporary physics, often in
the company of his patent-office sounding board, Besso. On this
particular occasion, Einstein had approached Besso for the express
purpose of doing "battle" with a problem that had been plaguing him on
and off for the past decade. After a lively discussion, Einstein
returned home, where, all at once, he understood what he and everyone
else who had been studying the situation had been overlooking all
along.
"Thank you!" he greeted Besso the following day. "I have completely
solved the problem." The trouble with the current conception of the
universe, he explained, wasn't absolute space-or at least wasn't only
absolute space. It was absolute time.
"If, for example, I say that 'the train arrives here at 7 o'clock,'
that means, more or less, 'the pointing of the small hand of my watch
to seven and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.'" This
sentence comes early in "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), the paper that Einstein completed
and mailed to the Annalen der Physik six weeks later. In its audacious
simplicity, even borderline simplemindedness, this sentence is
deceptive, for with this description of one of the most mundane of
human observations-one that just about any eight-year-old can
make-Einstein pinpointed precisely what everyone else who had been
studying the problem had missed: "time" is not universal or absolute;
it is not sometimes universal and sometimes local or relative; it is
only local.
The key was the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is
not infinite, as Aristotle and Descartes and so many other
investigators of nature over the millennia had supposed had been
common knowledge since the late seventeenth century. So had its
approximate value. In 1676, the Danish astronomer Ole Rømer used the
data from years of observations at the Paris Observatory to determine
that the timing of the eclipses of Jupiter's innermost moon depended
on where Jupiter was in its orbit relative to Earth. The eclipses came
earlier when Earth was nearest Jupiter, later when Earth was farthest
from Jupiter, suggesting that the eclipses didn't happen at the very
same moment we saw them happen. That, in fact, when we saw them
depended on where they happened, nearer or farther. "This can only
mean that light takes time for transmission through space," Rømer
concluded-140,000 miles per second, by the best estimates of the day.
But the combination of these two factors-that the speed of light is
incomprehensibly fast; that the speed of light is inarguably
finite-didn't begin to assume a literally astronomical dimension for
another hundred years. Beginning in the 1770s, William Herschel (the
same observer who proved that the sun is in motion relative to the
fixed stars) began systematically exploring the so- called celestial
vault-the ceiling of stars that astronomers had known since Galileo's
time must have a third dimension but that they still couldn't help
conceiving as anything except a flat surface. With every improvement
in his telescopes, Herschel pushed his observations of stars to
greater and greater depths in the sky or distances from Earth or-since
the speed of light coming from the stars is finite, since it does take
time to reach our eyes-farther and farther into the past. "I have
looked further into space than ever human being did before me,"
Herschel marveled in 1813, in his old age. "I have observed stars of
which the light, it can be proved, must take two million years to
reach the earth."
Even that distance, however, would seem nearby if the speculations of
some astronomers at the turn of the twentieth century turned out to be
true. If certain smudges at the farthest reaches of the mightiest
telescopes turned out to be systems of stars outside our own-other
"island universes" altogether equal in size and magnitude to our own
Milky Way-then when we looked at the starlight reaching us from them
we might be seeing not Herschel's previously unfathomable two million
years into the past but two hundred million years or even two thousand
million years. And so they would go, these meditations on the meaning
of light, ever and ever outward, further and further pastward, if not
necessarily ad infinitum, then at least, quite possibly, ad absurdum.
Now Einstein reversed that trajectory. Instead of considering the
implications of looking farther and farther across the universe and
thereby deeper and deeper into the past, he thought about the meaning
of looking nearer and nearer-or, by the same reasoning, closer and
closer to the present. Look near enough, he realized, and you'll be
seeing very close indeed to the present. But only one place can you
claim to be the present-and then only your present.
It was this insight that allowed Einstein to endow the idea of time
with an unprecedented immediacy, in both the positional and the
temporal senses of the word: here and now: the arrival of a train and
the hands of a watch. Because the train and the hands of the watch
occupy the same location, they also occupy the same time. For an
observer standing immediately adjacent to the train, that time is, by
definition, the present: seven o'clock. But someone in a different
location observing the arrival of that same train-that is, someone at
some distance away receiving the image of the train, which has
traveled by means of electromagnetic waves from the surface of the
locomotive to the eyes of this second observer at the speed of light,
an almost unimaginably high yet nonetheless finite velocity-wouldn't
be able to consider the arrival of the train simultaneous with its
arrival for the first observer. If light did propagate
instantaneously-if the speed of light were in fact infinite-then the
two observers would be seeing the arrival of the train simultaneously.
And indeed, it might very well seem to them as if they were,
especially if (using the modern value for the speed of light as
186,282 miles, or 299,792 kilometers, per second) the other observer
happens to be standing on a street corner that's about two-millionths
of a light-second (the distance that light travels in two-millionths
of a second, or slightly less than 2000 feet) away rather than, less
ambiguously, near a star that's two million light-years (or slightly
less than 12 quintillion miles) away. And yes, if you were the
observer on the street corner in the same town, gazing down a hill at
a slowing locomotive pulling into the station, the arrival of the
train for all practical purposes might as well be happening at the
same moment as its arrival for the observer on the platform.
But what it is, is in your past.
Einstein was not in fact alone in recognizing the role that the
velocity of light plays in the conception of time. Other physicists
and philosophers had begun to note a paradox at the heart of the
concept of simultaneity-that for two observers, the difference in
distances has to translate into a difference in time. But where
Einstein diverged from even the most radical of his contemporaries was
in accepting as potentially decisive what the velocity of light is.
It was there in the math. In 1821, the British physicist Michael
Faraday had decided to investigate reports from the Continent
concerning electricity and magnetism by placing a magnet on a table in
his basement workshop and sending an electrical impulse through a wire
dangling over it. The wire began twirling, as if the electricity was
sparking downward and the magnetism were influencing upward. This was,
in effect, the first dynamo, the invention that would drive the
industrial revolution for the rest of the century, and the product
that Einstein's own father and uncle would manufacture as the family
business. But not until the 1860s did the Scottish physicist James
Clerk Maxwell manage to capture Faraday's accomplishment in
mathematical form, a series of equations with an unforeseen
implication.
Electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed as light (and
therefore, Maxwell predicted, are light): 186,282 miles, or 299,792
kilometers, per second in a vacuum. Meaning...what? That it would be
more than 186,282 miles per second if you were moving away from the
source of light, or less than 186,282 miles per second if you were
moving toward the source? Yes-according to Newton's mechanics. Yet it
never seemed to vary.
On a planet that was spinning; a spinning planet that was orbiting the
sun; a spinning planet orbiting a sun that itself was moving in
relation to other stars that were moving in relation to one another-in
this setting that, as Copernicus and Galileo and Newton and Herschel
and so many other astronomers and mathematicians and physicists and
philosophers had so persuasively established, was never at rest and
therefore wouldn't be at rest in relation to a source of light outside
itself, always the answer to the question of what was the speed of
light seemed to come up exactly the same. Just as Aristotelian
philosophers considering the descent of an onboard stone would have
overlooked the motion of the ship, so maybe several generations of
Galilean physicists had been overlooking properties of
electromagnetism. Maybe what you needed to consider was the motion of
the stone, the motion of the ship, and the motion of the medium by
which we perceive both, and together those three elements would
constitute a single system in motion.
©1998-2004 Penguin Group (USA) Inc. All rights reserved
[NOW, To the Best for last stuff, do you care to see notes on the
current search to understand the nature of ETHER?]
JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:vg4dq1ddv3gb9nbj1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:40:14 -0800, "Art Bulla" <a...@artbulla.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >Key to the Science of Theology
>>
>>
>> There is no science involved - just fairy stories.
>>
>
>Blind faith in Evolution, now that's magic thinking!
No blind faith required. More than enough evidence exists for every
stage of evolution - you cannot say the same for supernatural
creation.
>
>No, it is the late Douglas Adams (a friend of Dr. Richard Dawkins, a.k.a.
>the Dr. Strangelove of Evolutionism) that told fairy stories. For example,
>in the middle of the film version of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy",
>the narrator asserts that interstellar space is vacuum! Physicists now admit
>of the existence of what they call "dark matter" throughout the Universe.
Space is still the best vacuum we can get.
>This was known to Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell as "aether". Even
Ah! Luminiferous Aether. Rather behind the times with that aren't you?
That idea was thrown out a hundred years ago.
>Aristotle got this one right, even though he also taught Geocentrism and
>Evolutionism. It is no wonder the mind of Alexander the Great (who is
>prophesied in the Book of Daniel) was both edified and corrupted by his
>famous teacher, Aristotle.
>
>"And when the book of Daniel was showed him(1) wherein Daniel declared that
>one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed
>that he himself was the person intended. ... (1) The place showed Alexander
>might be Daniel 7:6; 8:3-8, 20-22; 11:3; some or all of them very plain
>predictions of Alexander's conquests and successors." Josephus.
>"Antiquities of the Jews"
WTF are you on?
>
[snip lots of crap].
--
Bob.
RetroProphet
>> >JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
>
><snicker>
>
>You're joshin' me, right?
>
>Is this Jong Kim, or Art, pretending to be the Carpenter?
>
>You indulge in self-delusion. Taoism teaches that he who knows, does
>not speak, and he who speaks, does not know. Judging you guys by the
>amount of nonsense you spew, and the inflated view you have of
>yourselves, and the tenacity to which you cling to your delusions,
>there is no hope of you reaching even an ordinary level of confusion -
>not if you lived a thousand years.
>
>Kermit
>
Nope on the sockpuppet thing again.
Joshua Gemmell also fancies himself a Prophet,
and has rather unique ways of expressing himself.
Personally, I enjoy his stories and religious
fanatasies and am fascinated by the way he writes.
Of course, I consider him to be full of beans,
but he has the saving grace of being a genuinely
nice person and when he isn't taking himself too
seriously his writing has a pleasant naive charm
unlike any other I have encountered.
JOSHUA <'}}}><
>Oh so now you are going to play games with me? Very much like a prophet,
>ha.
>
>No, I am playing games with you, mister.
>
Indeed you are, for games are for children, and I am force to come
down to your level and teach you like a child.
You see, mister atheist, you are a child when speaking of faith, for
it is alien to you're understanding, since you have not tasted of the
living waters of Christ, you are left on your own to understand what
man alone cannot grasp. Many greater minds than the both of us have
sought to under faith and have failed, it is not something which can
be taught to you, but only reveal by a real prophet, because no one
can be taught anything if truth be told, for everything is only an act
of remembering our past, something which prophets are quicken to do,
therefore what I have to is not something I learned from studies, but
something which was revealed unto me by prophets and the Holy Spirit.
You see, dear atheist, I know you better than you have known yourself.
For my dear grandfather Alfred George Gemmell, was a man like you, an
atheist, and I loved him dearly. When he came to visit me in New
Orleans, the local newspaper published an article about my grandfather
adventures, and a great many others things that he did in his life as
a Soldier of Fortune, I once post it the newsgroups. My grandfather
did not lack intelligence, he grew up to be a ship captain, his family
in England built over 1300 ships and help save your atheist's butt
during the war. Yes, my family collected war bonds from England for
the use of our ships. Yes, you should be so happy to know, that even
while my grandfather did many things, and traveled the world many
times, and spoke many languages, and was born into an aristocratic
family of wealth and nobility, he was an atheist.
However, before my grandfather died, he called out to God wishing for
his death, for he was in pain of cancer. You see, mister atheist, my
grandfather was dying from something he did not fully understand, and
something which was invisible, it was radiation poisoning, which lead
to his physical body having developed cancer.
Yes, heading in the local newspaper, read, "Adventurer Follows Geiger
'Tics' Finds Guatemalan Uranium," by Mark Hepler.
You see, mister atheist, whenever I am confronted by someone of your
brand of feather, I can't help but remember my dear grandfather, for
you see, he was just like you, and you are just like him, both are
confronted by something invisible, and something that you both don't
understand. In the case of my grandfather it was radiation, and for
you it is faith.
Faith my dear atheist is invisible to all at first, and you being what
you are, just like my dear grandfather, you require to see before
believing in something.
People of your brand of feather think faith as a 'leap of faith' into
the unknown. Therefore it is foolishness to your kind, as to all
intelligent philosophers.
However, perhaps it is because you have never been confront with the
likes of me before, you know it takes an intelligent person to
convince another one.
Ah, you think I not your match? Do you really think that I speak with
only my own intelligence? No. If that were true, then I would have
avoided the challenge, but my confidence comes not from my studies
alone, but from God's Spirit being upon me to write to you.
Therefore, I have confidence to make the challenge, and without having
to think hard like you do, I shall let the word of God flow and allow
God to use my hands to type what your little mind requires.
You said you wanted it short, without details of milk, just cut to
meat and let things fall as they fall.
Okay, then I shall give you a bit of spiritual meat, for I think that
you are ready to have knowledge of the deeper things of God; please
don't be alarmed, for children in the Lord all have to learn as little
child to enter the gates of faith, and there is no except, not even
for prophets, they do grow up too, you know.
And [Jesus] said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted [to
have faith in me], and become as little children, ye shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18:3)
Now, so much for fertilizing your ground, now let's us plant the seed
of faith within you, okay?
As you type your response, and your fingers obey, did you know that
this was an act of faith on your part?
Now, only a living soul is known to have movement, but there can be no
movement of your hands and arms, without you first believing that you
could do it.
Are you getting a clear picture, dear friend? Everything you do is an
act of faith, for there can be no movement without the mind first
believing it can do it.
Now, what is so complex about the nature of faith?
And the Lord [Jesus] said, "If ye had faith as a grain of mustard
seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the
root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you." (Luke
17:6)
Yes, it is only the mechanics of faith that seem to escape your
understanding. For your kind only believes in what they see, but in
seeing you have failed to understand the nature of faith, that all
things are exercising faith, for there can be no movement in space
without the mind first having faith it can do it.
Now, Jesus only took it to the next level and was explaining the in
the mind, it doesn't see boundaries of space, for that is something
you learned as you were growing up, but in the mind's eye there are no
difference from having dream it is real, and seeing that it is real,
or even having commanded a tree to plant itself in the ocean. That if
one truly believed, it would indeed take place.
Ah, so now you think it all a delusion, well that my dear friend is
what makes you a child in need of more details, for a mature spiritual
being who has witness miracles such as I, my faith comes easy.
JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}<
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:14:37 +0100, nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Oh so now you are going to play games with me? Very much like a prophet,
>>ha.
>>
>>No, I am playing games with you, mister.
>>
>
correction:
>
>Indeed you are, for games are for children, and I am force to come
>down to your level and teach you like a child.
>
>You see, mister atheist, you are a child when speaking of faith, for
>it is alien to you're understanding, since you have not tasted of the
>living waters of Christ, you are left on your own to understand what
>man alone cannot grasp. Many greater minds than the both of us have
sought to [understand] faith and have failed, it is not something
which can be taught to you, but only reveal by a real prophet, because
no one can be taught anything if truth be told, for everything [you
learned] is only an act of [you] remembering [your] past, something
which prophets are quicken [by God] to do.
>
Therefore what I have to [tell you] is not something I learned from
studies, but something which was revealed unto me by prophets and the
Holy Spirit [brought back to my memory].
Radix2
JOSHUA <'}}}>< wrote:
<huge snip>
I can't resist it:
<'}}}><
/\ /\
Chris Krolczyk
JOSHUA <'}}}>< wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:20:21 GMT, OvC <otto.vo...@uberwald.gov>
> wrote:
>
> >Obviously, a transcription error stemming from a slip of Moses'
> >chisel, and snakes ever after got a bad rap. It's really worms that
> >should be reviled for tempting Eve.
> >
> >--
> >OvC
>
> Science fiction and scientific fact obviously not in your vocabulary,
> but like the primate you are, you should not dream of understanding,
> so why then try?
Total failure to comprehend sarcasm noted.
(Why are so many of the wackjobs on a.r.m following Art the
Fart on the road to Chez Watt-land, anyway? Are they
actually trying to form a support group?)
-Chris Krolczyk
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
That is only true if we see it from human perspective.
For Taoism believes, 'Still waters run deep.'
And as you can see, I am very still towards your offence, for my
knowledge must be deep indeed, according to Taoism.
My weakness in grammar was given to me to make me humble, but my gift
is in speaking.
Can you understand me now?
Many educated men like you are called to serve God, but few are chosen
like me.
Clearly God was never looking for a wise man, but one he could mold
into a vessel of honor.
I don't carry pre-conceive idea of greatness, for in my humble ways,
spiritual stature is a gift from God.
All your training and grammar is not a sign of having God approval.
Take the great prophet Moses did he have a problem speaking?
"And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither
heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow
of speech, and of a slow tongue." (Ex. 4:10)
So what the big deal? God made me to grow up in public schools, and
they taught modern math, and never taught me phonics or grammar. You
are lucky that you grew up where they taught such things. Therefore, I
do what I do, but my speech is perfect, and God did give me fast
speech, and a quick tongue. So does that make me better than Moses who
was slow of speech and slow tongued? No! However, according to your
methodology for testing a prophet, one would think so unjustly.
Don't you know the protocols for a real prophet is that he is always
found teaching love, for God is Love. Fake prophets don't teach love
for one another.
And the methodology for testing a seer, which I am, is watching him
command the waters, for all seers are able to command the waters, like
Moses.
JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
OvC
<pan.2005.12.19....@is.invalid> ...
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:20:21 +0000, it was decided that OvC should write:
>
> > Obviously, a transcription error stemming from a slip of Moses' chisel,
> > and snakes ever after got a bad rap.
>
> of man came out of the trees. Their bad reputation must have certainly
> predated the Genesis myth.
But snakes don't eat dust!!1!
--
OvC
JOSHUA <'}}}><
>> >JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
>
><snicker>
>
>You're joshin' me, right?
>
>Is this Jong Kim, or Art, pretending to be the Carpenter?
>
>You indulge in self-delusion.
If you think I am Art Bulla who lives in Baja, and Jong who live in
San Deigo, then you are the one who is delusional. Don't you check the
headers of the post, besides anyone here could of told you that I am
another person.
My name is Joshua Israel Gemmell, and I'm not pretending to be the
Carpenter who framed this world into existence. However, you do me
honor, for Jesus is my Lord and master.
Joshua [Zech. 3 speaks of me, go and learn who I am.]
And this is one of the mission I was called to do:
11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the
head of Joshua [Israel Gemmell] the [spiritually adopted] son of
Josedech (Jesus Christ), the high priest;
12 And speak unto him [Joshua Gemmell], saying, Thus speaketh the LORD
of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he
shall grow up out of his place [in Louisiana], and he shall build the
temple of the LORD [in Jerusalem]:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the
glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a
priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them
both[-- between JOSHUA (that's me) and David Joseph the future King of
Israel].
JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
JOSHUA <'}}}><
Why would a foreigner of Polish ancestry want to understand the
greatness of our American Prophet?
Yes, Joseph Smith, Jr. was an American Prophet, and if he had been
Polish, or Romanian, then you would not be out to criticize him, for I
heard that Vlad of Transylvania, is still highly honored by the
Romanians, and the Polish peasants also have their heroes like the
Polish Popes, why can't we American have our own prophets and heroes
too?
Yes, I know your kind, you love your own kind first, and that is good,
but when you come to America and want us to be lovers of Vlad of
Transylvania, or any of your Polish Popes, then you have cross the
line of fairness.
You can't expect Americans to be in love with them too; do you really?
We have our own prophet, and we have a God given right to love our own
too. The prophet Joseph Smith was an American born prophet, and we
Americans, have a God given right to want to love our own, and you
have no rights telling us that we can't have our prophet or heroes.
JOSHUA <'}}}><
JOSHUA <'}}}><
>Did you seek permission from the Penguin Group to republicize an entire
>book in a newsgroup? Jeez, you could have just mentioned the website from
>where you copied it.
The acknowledgment is there!
Since when does an editorial need special rights?
Special rights are for the seller of the books, and magazines, of
which I'm not!
Therefore, I only gave them credit for job well done, and acknowledge
them, which is the right thing to do. However, I did add upon it, my
opinions which I place in brackets.
JOSHUA
Tom McDonald
Oddly, the one who violates copyright is not the one who gets to
decide whether s/he has violated copyright. You blew the doors
off of 'fair use' in your post. Penguin would more than likely
have a case against you.
Or do you get special privileges because you're working for God?
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>You have insisted that divine inspiration means inerrancy. You demand
>that everyone around you take Genesis literally for this reason. No
>disagreements allowed. No multiple points of view.
Whenever two prophets disagree, it does not follow that they both are
false prophets.
Take the case of these two kings of the Old Testament, Saul and David:
Were they both called of God to be king? Yet they both were different,
one had not Love for the other.
The same could be said for account of two prophets of the Old
Testament too, there is an account of one prophet causing the death of
another prophet, and then the prophet who tricked the other prophet
into disobeying God's command not to return into the city he cursed,
cause his death. Yes, the other prophet having heard what this prophet
did, he sent a servant to tell this prophet that it was okay to return
to the city and stay with him, because he too was a prophet of God,
but for disobeying God, the angel killed this prophet, and prophet who
tricked him sent servants to retrieve the body and buried the prophet,
because he said, he was a righteous man and a real prophet.
It is basic teaching among church members that a prophet is only
acting like a prophet whenever he begins his teach with "Thus Saith
The Lord God" preface, and whenever a prophet does not begin this way,
then everything can be construed as a mixture of truth and error, or
what we call personal opinions.
Now here is the dilemma of Art Bulla ---- I, Joshua could have help
become the real thing. However, every time I try to help him, he
became offend in me. You see, I, Joshua saw the potential of Art
Bulla, and I saw the importance of the issues he raised, but Art's
pride and unmerciful attitudes has kept him from becoming the real
thing. Perhaps it is a lesson, to all those who would be "kings and
priests" unto God, that it does not matter unto God how much knowledge
we can gather in this life, but what matter to God is that we have
Love and Mercy unto others, for the work of God is to save man by
proper examples, and not to compel man to obey God by force, as
Lucifer once sought to do. Therefore, knowledge can come to one, but
once one seek to exercise unrighteous dominion upon another soul, such
as Art Bulla does, the very powers of heaven withdraw them selves from
such a man, and he is left to his own devises.
So, many are called, but few are chosen by God.
The Angel of God, the seventh messenger of the kingdom, the seventh
flame of the menorah, Joshua (Zech.3)
AND NOW FOR AN UPDATE:
I didn't give you my human view of thinking, I went to the bible to
find an example. Yes, if we can see one prophet causing the death of
another prophet, and after causing his death, he sends his servant to
bury him, because he said, he was a real prophet.
Then it is not contradictory that two prophets can disagree, but it
is an historical precedent, which the scriptures back me up.
HOWEVER, have notice a change in Art Bulla recently?
I notice that whenever I try to provoke him, he remains silent, and
that should worry you, because, now he acting like a prophet.
Also, whenever others provoke him to anger, I notice him being be more
gentle in spirit, and this should worry you even more, for that is a
true sign that the Spirit is upon him, and it gives him peace of mind,
and this makes me even more fearful, because then, I have to act like
a prophet too, and not step out of line, because God always sides with
the current deeds and actions of prophets, and not with our past good
works.
Therefore, God will always judge me by what I do today, and not make
any allowance for my past good works. So, whenever Art Bulla behaves
like a real prophet, it makes me want to behave also. Because God only
protects us when we stay within the bounds set by him.
That is the way it is with prophets, they can disagree and have
opinions, but when it comes to revelations they are the one whom
understand each other better.
Joshua <'}}}><
RetroProphet
Super funny!
Frank Sullivan
Jong Kim wrote:
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> news:vg4dq1ddv3gb9nbj1...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:40:14 -0800, "Art Bulla" <a...@artbulla.com>
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >
> > >Key to the Science of Theology
> >
> >
> > There is no science involved - just fairy stories.
> >
>
> Blind faith in Evolution, now that's magic thinking!
>
> the Dr. Strangelove of Evolutionism) that told fairy stories. For example,
> in the middle of the film version of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy",
> the narrator asserts that interstellar space is vacuum! Physicists now admit
> of the existence of what they call "dark matter" throughout the Universe.
Is that a fucking joke? If not, your understanding of physics would be
embarassing for any high-school graduate.
> Even
> Aristotle got this one right, even though he also taught Geocentrism and
> Evolutionism. It is no wonder the mind of Alexander the Great (who is
> prophesied in the Book of Daniel) was both edified and corrupted by his
> famous teacher, Aristotle.
>
> "And when the book of Daniel was showed him(1) wherein Daniel declared that
> one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed
> that he himself was the person intended. ... (1) The place showed Alexander
> might be Daniel 7:6; 8:3-8, 20-22; 11:3; some or all of them very plain
> predictions of Alexander's conquests and successors." Josephus.
> "Antiquities of the Jews"
>
> "Let us explain again that there is no void existing separately, as some
> maintain. ... If people say that the void must exist, as being necessary if
> there is to be movement, what rather turns out to be the case, if one
> studies the matter, is the opposite, that not a single thing can be moved if
> there is a void; for as with those who for a like reason say the earth is at
> rest, so, too, in the void things must be at rest; for there is no place to
> which things can move more or less than to another; since the void in so far
> as it is void admits no difference. ... Either, then, nothing has a natural
> locomotion, or else there is no void." Aristotle. "Physica"
>
> "Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the
> constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary
> and interstellar spaces are occupied by a material substance of body."
> James Clerk Maxwell. "1878 Encyclopaedia Britannica"
>
> Parley P. Pratt understood these things many years before James Clerk
> Maxwell formulated the twenty equations of electrodynamics:
>
> Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, Ch.5, Pg.39
> There are several of these subtle, invisible substances but little
> understood as yet by man, and their existence is only demonstrated by their
> effects. Some of them are recognized under several terms, electricity,
> galvanism, magnetism, animal magnetism, spiritual magnetism, essence,
> spirit, &c.
>
> History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.3, Pg.54
> Elders Taylor, Woodruff, and Turley sailed for Liverpool, December 18th,
> while I was in Pennsylvania. None of the rest of the Twelve have yet
> arrived. Parley P. Pratt has another book printed, larger than the "Voice of
> Warning", entitled "The Millennium and other Poems", and a piece on the
> "Eternal Duration of Matter".
>
> History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.10, Pg.182
> * Again from the journal of "Uncle" John Smith we learn that on the 30th day
> of August, the Prophet Joseph was in Nashville and preached on "Eternal
> Judgment and the Eternal Duration of Matter".
>
> ***
> Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.301
>
> Eternal Duration of Matter
>
> Speaking of eternal duration of matter, I said: There is no such thing as
> immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can
> only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are
> purified, we shall see that it is all matter. (May 17, 1843.) DHC 5:392-3.
> ***
>
> 37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is
> no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a
> greater or a lesser kingdom.
>
> (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:37)
>
> I testify that the following is the truth concerning the origin of man,
> though many here will call it a fairy tale:
>
> ***
> "They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the
> herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and
> every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought
> from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the
> brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was
> cursed." Brigham Young. "Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1"
>
> "God took seeds from different worlds and sowed them on this earth, and His
> garden grew up and everything came up that could come up, but what grows
> lives and is alive only through the feeling of its contact with other
> mysterious worlds. If that feeling grows weak or is destroyed in you, the
> heavenly growth will die away in you. Then you will be indifferent to life
> and even grow to hate it. That's what I think." Fyodor Dostoevsky. "The
> Brothers Karamazov"
>
> "Adam came into the garden with a celestial body, which had been resurrected
> from an older earth. He and Eve, one of his wives, along with plants and
> animals were brought here by his Father and his Jehovah and planted in a
> garden eastward in Eden after the former creation had been made desolate,
> saith the Lord, by a mighty convulsion, hence the fossils in the ground, but
> we are not descended from them. This occurred only six thousand years ago.
> The geologists make a tremdously egregious error is estimating the age of
> creation. It would be comparable to saying the city building in Salt Lake
> was billions of years old because the stones which comprise this building
> are timeless." Art Bulla. http://www.artbulla.com/zion/adam.html
> ***
>
> 1 ... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be
> established.
>
> (New Testament | 2 Corinthians 13:1)
>
> >
> > --
> > Bob.
> >
>
> --
> 117 Therefore, verily I say unto you, my friends, call your solemn assembly,
> as I have commanded you.
>
> 118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another
> words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek
> learning, even by study and also by faith.
>
> (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:117 - 118)
>
> The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
> http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3
>
> http://www.artbulla.com
>
> Jong Kim
Taoshan
> My weakness in grammar was given to me to make me humble, but
> my gift is in speaking.
>
> Can you understand me now?
>
> Many educated men like you are called to serve God, but few are
> chosen like me.
>
> Clearly God was never looking for a wise man, but one he could mold
> into a vessel of honor.
Very well. Noted: Though Joshua heaps abuse on people around him,
Joshua says Joshua himself is a swell guy whose own follies and
failings are forgivable, endearing and like unto Moses.
This is indeed humility to be proud of.
You still haven't answered my questions. Let's get back to herpetology.
Jong Kim testified that snakes eat dust.
That's a falsifiable statement. It is possible to assess the scientific
validity of the statement using actual biological research.
What do you think? Do snakes eat dust?
-
Taoshan
_
JOSHUA <'}}}><
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com> wrote:
> Oddly, the one who violates copyright is not the one who gets to
>decide whether s/he has violated copyright. You blew the doors
>off of 'fair use' in your post. Penguin would more than likely
>have a case against you.
>
> Or do you get special privileges because you're working for God?
No prophet is above the law, whether just or unjust.
For all prophets are commanded of God to obey the laws of the land.
However, I will add, that throughout my whole life, I have seen the
Lord's hand in my affairs.
Know that I have been foolish many times, and I have been unworthy of
God's love, but he has never abandoned me.
And I will add that I have seen all of my enemies disappear, sent to
jail, or die an early death.
I don't understand why God loves me, being so human and full of
mistakes, but he does.
Many times God has deliver me from the hands of a killer, even the
worst kill of them all, yes, I am one who escaped death from America
worst serial killer.
Henry Lee Lukas, who claimed to have murderer 200 souls; yes, he would
have killed me too, if it hadn't been for an angel that came to save
me.
So you see, I have no doubts about my limits, and I know that my life
is in danger all the time, but as long as I don't step out of the
bounds set by God, the Lord shall fight my battles.
Yes, when I meet Henry Lee Lukas, I was in a gay bar playing pool,
Henry was buying me hard liquor, and I had no right to God's
protection. However, Brother Charles Day called my home wanting to
speak with me, it late in the night, around 2 or 3 a.m. I was not to
be found, so he talked to my mother, told her that my life was in
great danger, and he needed to talk to me. My mother not knowing where
I was could not tell him. So, I have no doubts that he used his
priesthood powers and prayer to reach out to God to save my soul.
And yes, an angel did come, and told me that if I wanted to live, I
was not to follow him, and he went and cut Henry Lee Lukas tire. Yes,
the angel knew that he didn't have a spare, and even while I offered
to help him fix his tire, he then started to confess to me that he was
going to kill all the gays in the French Quarter. And God told me to
run fast, for he was a murderer. Yes, I then saw him on TV, and then
knew what he had done, yes, he would have killed me too, if it hadn't
been for a brother who cared about me.
NOW, I take no pride in telling you this, this is a shamefully event
of my former life, but I tell it to you so you will know, that even
when I was foolish, the Lord still watched out for me. Therefore, do
you really think that now when Joshua is being good, and keeping the
Lord's charge, that the Lord will now seek to abandon him?
"And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua [Gemmell], saying,
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if
thou wilt keep my charge [to stay within the bound the Lord
proscribes], then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep
my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these [seven
seers of the menorah] that stand by [to lead mankind to Zion].
JOSHUA [Zech. 3]
Art Bulla
to your dippiness and
dizzy intoxication with falsehoods,
you nattering nabob of negativity!
--
"I am like a huge rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the
only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in
contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against
religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors,
suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed
by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and womenall hell knocking
off a corner here and a corner there. Thus will I become a smooth and
polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty." (Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, p. 304.)
(President Harold B. Lee, May the Kingdom of God Go Forth, Ensign (CR),
January 1973, p.23)
"I just tell em the truth, and they think it's hell." Harry Truman
Concerning quotes (out of context): these are distortions, taken out of the
context of
the blasphemies and insults placed upon me by the vilest of traitors and
foul wretches
imagineable. Jesus kicked their asses out of the Temple and I do the same to
all god damned liars and hypocrites. I make no apology. God is my judge. If
this fellow (Manning) were honest he would include these, and all would see
that I am
justified by the Lord in my responses. The word of the Lord is given on
the matter in the following:
Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice,
and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys
of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according
to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.
Let no one, therefore, set on my servant for I will justify him. saith the
Lord your God.
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:
Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition
of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they do not understand."
Dr.Samuel Johnson.
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
<http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3>
Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.68
As it has always been, and will be yet for some time, when the sons
of God assemble together Satan will be on hand as an accuser of the
brethren, to find fault with those who are trying to do good.
"But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call
down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are
indebted
to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God
has
spoken and how much He has not spoken?" Joseph Smith
"Every generation has flattered itself that it is a little better than the
one that preceded it. Every generation has prided itself in its knowledge
and great advancement in the arts and sciences and its superiority over
preceding generations; yet the power of the adversary and his hatred of
righteousness and truth are as great to-day as they ever were since the
creation of the earth." Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.228 - Pg.229,
George Q. Cannon, May 6, 1866
"Some men are natural born saints; whenever a principle is advanced they
understand it, and drink it in; * * * while there are others who do not
understand and oppose every principle that is not clear to their mind. This
can be accounted for, that we are not all pure blooded, for Ephraim became
foolish and mixed up with the gentiles. When we find the pure blood of
Ephraim, we find a natural born child of God and there is nothing in the
gospel that is objectionable to them, but the others have to exercise faith
in God and humble themselves before Him and live for it." (Deseret Weekly,
50:250-251)
35 And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall
be sent away, and shall not inherit the land.
36 For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim,
wherefore they shall be plucked out.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 64:35 - 36)
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4Jzpf.34251$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jong Kim" <rh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11qdfqb...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>> news:vg4dq1ddv3gb9nbj1...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:40:14 -0800, "Art Bulla" <a...@artbulla.com>
>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>> >Key to the Science of Theology
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no science involved - just fairy stories.
>>>
>>
>> Blind faith in Evolution, now that's magic thinking!
>
> I will say this about your Thermodynamics argument Jong Kim:
>
> With every post your entropy is increasing.
>
> JR
>>
>>snip<
>
Shane
> Yes but it is nothing to compare
> to your dippiness and
> dizzy intoxication with falsehoods,
> you nattering nabob of negativity!
To quote Art Bulla;
"Medieval mentalities always attack the man rather than the argument."
--
Shane
The truth will set you free.
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>Jong Kim testified that snakes eat dust.
>
>That's a falsifiable statement. It is possible to assess the scientific
>validity of the statement using actual biological research.
>
>What do you think? Do snakes eat dust?
>
>-
>Taoshan
One has to understand that Jong Kim is a student of scriptures;
therefore his terminology must correspond with that of his studies.
If we are to understand what Jong meant, we must have a sufficient
knowledge of the scriptures in order to defend his position or be in
disagreement.
I can either pray and learn by faith, or draw upon my own studies of
the scriptures in order to formulate my own opinions about the
scriptures.
Having studied the scriptures all of my life, it is easy for God to
bring thing to my mind whenever I am confronted by person such as
yourself. Know that I learn from having read the scriptures a great
wealth of knowledge, and I know that all prophecy is not open to any
private interpretations, but one must ask God in faith, who gave the
original prophet the original prophecy, in order to fully grasp the
true meaning in which it was original given.
Therefore, to answer your question, I go to the bible and see the
context in which it was given, then I draw upon my former studies, and
allow the Spirit of God to bring all references that are applicable to
mind. And this is what I get impress upon my mind from God:
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above above all cattle, and above every beast of the
field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the
days of thy life:" (Gen. 3:14)
So the word that troubles you and you are concern about is "dust"-and
this lead you to have doubts about Jong Kim's interpretation.
Now, the bible says, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the
scriptures is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)
Therefore, know that "dust shalt thou eat" was given as a prophecy in
Genesis, I then know that no private interpretation from any
universities will be able to interpret the meaning that was originally
given.
So what am I to do, if I don't have God's Spirit to interpret?
I do what all scholars of the bible do in universities, they draw upon
other examples of the word "dust" in the bible and compare how it is
used, and this is what I find:
I found out that "dust" was use in other parts of the bible in a later
date, and this leads me to think that this was the context in which
the original prophet in this case it being Moses who wrote Genesis
drew upon his studies of the scriptures and wanted the scriptures he
wrote to be in agreement with the former scriptures he wrote. And this
is what I found to be true:
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto
the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return. (Genesis 3:19) Here we see that Moses again
using the word "dust" in speaking of humankind, calling him "dust thou
art". And he further states "unto dust shalt thou return" which
implies not only the fleshly nature of humankind, but also in speaking
of his flesh, it's native origin as dust.
Now, if I don't call upon the Spirit of God to aid my interpretation,
is it so unreason to your educated mind, that large snakes are known
to eat humans? We all know about the large serpents in the Amazons,
the Anaconda snake which are known to grow up to 80 feet long in the
South American jungle.
Here is what I learned you should do if the Anaconda snake swallows
you while sleep outdoors.
First know that humans can't out run the Anaconda snake, therefore the
best you can do is pray and have your sharp knife ready.
Second don't struggle with the snake, it will only get nasty with you,
however, know that it will always swallow you by your feet first.
Third place you hands next to your body holding your knife, and allow
the snake to swallow your legs, don't move, and just allow the snake
to swallow you.
Fourth, when the snake head has swallowed you legs, use your knife to
cut the insides of the snake's head from its body.
Now, you can free yourself, and avoid being eaten by the snake.
Now, what did Jong Kim say about snake eating up a human?
Seems to me that it makes perfect sense, since Moses wrote that man
was "dust", and Moses also was the one who wrote that the serpent
would "eat dust", therefore Jong Kim knew what he was talking about,
and it didn't take a nuclear scientist to figure it out either.
Your humble servant,
JOSHUA
Now, please share with us your true feelings about God love for you.
I like to know, because God did inspire this response for you.
JOSHUA
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>On 19 Dec 2005 19:03:10 -0800, "Taoshan" <taosh...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Jong Kim testified that snakes eat dust.
>>
>>That's a falsifiable statement. It is possible to assess the scientific
>>validity of the statement using actual biological research.
>>
>>What do you think? Do snakes eat dust?
>>
>>-
>>Taoshan
correction:
>
>One has to understand that Jong Kim is a student of scriptures;
>therefore his terminology must correspond with that of his studies.
>
>If we are to understand what Jong meant, we must have a sufficient
>knowledge of the scriptures in order to defend his position or be in
>disagreement.
>
>I can either pray and learn by faith, or draw upon my own studies of
>the scriptures in order to formulate my own opinions about the
>scriptures.
>
>Having studied the scriptures all of my life, it is easy for God to
>bring thing to my mind whenever I am confronted by person such as
>yourself. Know that I learn from having read the scriptures a great
>wealth of knowledge, and I know that all prophecy is not open to any
>private interpretations, but one must ask God in faith, who gave the
original prophet the original prophecy, in order to fully grasp the
true meaning in which it was [originally] given.
JOSHUA <'}}}><
>Art Bulla wrote:
>> Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt
>
>Theology is not a science.
>
>RS
"Is theology a science? This claim would normally receive considerable
skepticism, not only from scientists but from many philosophers and
theologians as well. To the contrary, I use the philosophy of science
as developed by Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos to argue that the
scientific method applies across many different disciplines, including
theology. The result is that there is no firm demarcation between
science and non-science. One must judge, instead, between good and bad
science, as well as between progressive and degenerative research
programs. In this light, theology can and should be considered a
science, but with significant limitations and qualifications" (Greg
Peterson, Thiel College, Greenville, PA 16125)
Seem to me, that Science has a Christian Perspective as well.
You can't devoice religions from science, this isn't the dark ages
anymore, but you keep think it is; I wonder why?
JOSHUA <'}}}><
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>"JOSHUA <'}}}><" <n...@non.net> wrote in
>news:9dsdq1hm8dfvhf5cd...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 19 Dec 2005 09:19:38 -0800, "Taoshan" <taosh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It is your testimony, then, that snakes eat dust.
>>>
>>>Thank you for providing a falsifiable assertion. We may now assess the
>>>scientific worth of this testimony by comparing it with the results of
>>>research.
>>>
>>>-
>>>Taoshan
>>
>> Taoshan you evil toad, when the fires of eternal knowledge get too hot
>> for you, you jump out of the pot into the fire!
>
>Do you have a rebuttal or not?
>
><snip>
JOSHUA <'}}}><
<elv...@noshpam.net> wrote:
>In talk.origins , Art Bulla said:
>>Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt
>
>Apt name.
>
>------------------------------------------------
>Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we eat, drink and be merry.
>
>D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
>
>AA #2208
Why are you full of dark sayings?
Can't you come to the light and be clear?
Just what is "apt name"?
And how does that fit in with Art's stand?
"Eat, drink and be merry …" that is what the wicked believers do!
Are you a gentile without any credentials?
Ah! I see, you're just a Jewish man who has found his way here.
"There is a way that seemeth right unto a [Jewish] man, but the end
thereof are the ways of death." (Prov. 16:25)
Yes, you do think yourself being in the right path, don't you?
What a shame, that you don't know your way back to God's grace.
All your works are in vain, yet, it seemeth right unto a Jewish man to
seek the ways of death, what a shame.
God is life, not death, and anyone who wants God's protection should
learn to know God.
While it is true that God is Love, it is also true that to be safe one
must know God in order to protect from harm.
So it seemeth right unto a Jewish man, to think he knows God, but the
proof is in the protection God gives him.
I have yet to see God's love for thee, your cities are in constant
danger, am I right in saying that you need a wall because God's hast
distance himself from you?
Why can't you build your temple, and secure for yourself your former
glory, when God spoke to you from the temple?
Surely God never changes, so it must have been Judah that rejected the
prophets of God for naught.
Some things never change,
JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'{{{><
JOSHUA <'}}}><
<remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Shane
>The truth will set you free.
Then listen well, you shall never be free until you reach your
exaltation, and become a god yourself. That is what the bible teaches.
Earle Jones
"Art Bulla" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:
> Yes but it is nothing to compare
> to your dippiness and
> dizzy intoxication with falsehoods,
> you nattering nabob of negativity!
*
Readers might not recognize that last line -- it's from none other than
Spiro Agnew, the disgraced VP under Nixon who was forced to resign for
his shady business dealings.
But he didn't write it: His script writer was William Safire of the New
York Times.
Art Bulla will reach out anywhere to get his sound bytes -- and that's
all they are: sound bytes.
earle
*
Here's a sound byte he might like:
"The Bible is the inerrant...Word of God. It is absolutely
infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and
practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history,
etc."
--Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength (p.26)
I don't think he'll go along with this:
"If the statements [the Bible] contains concerning matters of
history and science can be proven by extrabiblical records, by
ancient documents recovered through archaeological digs, or by the
established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth,
then there is grave doubt as to its trustworthiness in matters of
religion. In other words, if the biblical record can be proved
fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly
to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested."
--Dr. Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (p. 23)
Earle Jones
"JOSHUA <'}}}><" <n...@non.net> wrote:
> that should worry you, because, now he acting like a prophet...
*
Fartheaad Bulla is a bit quieter these days -- because the group
moderator told him to cut the crap 200 line sigs or get plonked.
Personally, I would plonk him for his past behavior -- he's a spammer by
any definition.
earle
*
Shane
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:38:43 +1100, Shane
> <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Nice unmarked snip there, but I forget, you are a religious person,
what need do you have for ethics? Snip restored here;
----------------------------------------------
>>> Art Bulla wrote:
>>> Yes but it is nothing to compare
>>> to your dippiness and
>>> dizzy intoxication with falsehoods,
>>> you nattering nabob of negativity!
>> Shane wrote
>> To quote Art Bulla;
>> "Medieval mentalities always attack the man rather than the argument."
----------------------------------------------
>>Shane
>>The truth will set you free.
>
> Then listen well, you shall never be free until you reach your
> exaltation,
Sorry, but that is against the plain words of the bible, why do you
reject the bible?
> and become a god yourself.
Why would I want to be a god?
> That is what the bible teaches.
Does the bible really say that?
--
RetroProphet
>>
>> No, it is the late Douglas Adams (a friend of Dr. Richard Dawkins, a.k.a.
>> the Dr. Strangelove of Evolutionism) that told fairy stories. For example,
>> in the middle of the film version of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy",
>> the narrator asserts that interstellar space is vacuum! Physicists now admit
>> of the existence of what they call "dark matter" throughout the Universe.
>> This was known to Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell as "aether".
>
>Is that a fucking joke? If not, your understanding of physics would be
>embarassing for any high-school graduate.
>
Isn't Jong a hoot? He's serious.
He really thinks he makes sense when he writes
about physics and claims to hold a BS in the subject.
He frequently demonstates that he doesn't understand
very elementary concepts and also that he has reading
comprehension problems. Taken together, this suggests that
he is currently "self-educating" himself on-the-fly;
it seems impossible that he could have ever completed
a bachelor's course of study successfully.
Jong Kim
news:earle.jones-B379...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
There are plenty of supporting evidences that the Bible is most likely true.
I need not go into that right now since we have the web or you can go to the
library yourself or you can actually go out to the sites and investigate.
(We've been providing the evidences already in our posts, besides.) But such
evidences do not constitute *proof*. The *proof* is the testimony of the
Holy Ghost. Everything else only gives the Bible and other Scriptures
credibility. As far as religious controversies over Bible interpretations,
this is what we believe:
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is TRANSLATED
CORRECTLY; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:8)
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book
proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from
the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of
whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the
truth which is in the Lamb of God.
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the
Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.
26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb,
from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and
abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for
behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which
are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they
TAKEN AWAY.
27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the
Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children
of men.
28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the
hands of the great and abominable church, that there are MANY PLAIN and
PRECIOUS THINGS TAKEN AWAY from the BOOK, which is the book of the Lamb of
God.
29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth
unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the
nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast
seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou
seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken
out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of
men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these
things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly
great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.
(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 13:24 - 29)
The Apocrypha was included in the 1611 King James Bible:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are
many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated
correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are
INTERPOLATIONS by the hands of men.
3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should
be translated.
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the SPIRIT
MANIFESTETH TRUTH;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it
is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 91:1 - 6)
--
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do
it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony
of Jesus: worship God: for the TESTIMONY of JESUS is the SPIRIT of PROPHECY.
(New Testament | Revelation 19:10)
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3
Jong Kim
JOSHUA <'}}}><
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> HOWEVER, have notice a change in Art Bulla recently?
>>
>> I notice that whenever I try to provoke him, he remains silent, and
>> that should worry you, because, now he acting like a prophet...
>
>*
>Fartheaad Bulla is a bit quieter these days -- because the group
>moderator told him to cut the crap 200 line sigs or get plonked.
>
>Personally, I would plonk him for his past behavior -- he's a spammer by
>any definition.
>
>earle
>*
Do you think censure is the right policy?
I think that when a newsgroup starts censuring its posters, then that
newsgroup has managed to become another cult.
Take for example, the newsgroup soc.religion.mormon, the only
moderated group which prides themselves as; The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. (Moderated)
They censure me for calling myself "Holy Ghost", it's a shame that a
group of moderators thing that they have the rights to have
unrighteous dominion upon another soul, for claiming his personal
beliefs. Even when I gave in out of not wanting to offend little ones
in the Lord, and retract calling myself the "Holy Ghost", they the
moderators were unforgiving, and unchristian like, they in effect were
unmerciful. Tilla the Hun would have had more mercy then them, they do
the devil honor. I told them I didn't know they were a moderated
group, but this plead had no effect; now they come here, because it
gets boring over there for having turn themselves into another far out
cult. I wish the Latter-day Saints would stand up against their
breaking of the church standards, which says, that any member who has
something against another member need to bring him to a church court
and prove their case with at least two or three witness. However, they
are just what our Lord called "lip service" for there heart are far
from loving Jesus, for what they did unto the least in my kingdom
saith the Lord, they have done unto me! They will learn that in their
time of need, God and his angel shall treat them the way they treated
me, the heavens above shall be as brass above them, and they shall
suffer the wind, rain, and sun upon their face when they dream for
help. Except for Peggy, she has had good things say in my defense;
therefore, God shall be there in her time of need. For when I was in
need of a friend, they turn against me, and now I suffer here, having
to posts among unbelievers. ~ JOSHUA
Joshua [Zech. 3]
JOSHUA <'}}}><
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect."(Jesus set the goal: -[PERFECTION] Matt. 5:48)
Therefore, I suggest that you take it up with him in prayer.
For it was Jesus who said in the bible........
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods?" (John 10:34)
And why if hearing it from Jesus, do you speak against it?
Is it because of fear?
Fear casts out faith, therefore fear comes from the devil.
God came to increase the faith, not to destroy it.
The scriptures can be broken, and it is written that God is a father
of gods, he is a great God.
"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God,
a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh
reward:" (Deut. 10;17)
NOW, why are so stubborn?
"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the
kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not
see, and hearing they might not understand." (Luke 8:10 Jesus speaking
to the twelve, telling them why those that fear and are stubborn can
see the things of God)
I rest my case, in wanting to raise your goal to the one set by JESUS.
JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:28:15 -0800, Earle Jones
><earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> HOWEVER, have notice a change in Art Bulla recently?
>>>
>>> I notice that whenever I try to provoke him, he remains silent, and
>>> that should worry you, because, now he acting like a prophet...
>>
>>*
>>Fartheaad Bulla is a bit quieter these days -- because the group
>>moderator told him to cut the crap 200 line sigs or get plonked.
>>
>>Personally, I would plonk him for his past behavior -- he's a spammer by
>>any definition.
>>
>>earle
>>*
correction:
>
>Do you think censure is the right policy?
>
>I think that when a newsgroup starts censuring its posters, then that
>newsgroup has managed to become another cult.
>
> Take for example, the newsgroup soc.religion.mormon, the only
>moderated group which prides themselves as; The Church of Jesus Christ
>of Latter-day Saints. (Moderated)
>
>They censure me for calling myself "Holy Ghost", it's a shame that a
group of moderators [think] that they have the rights to have
JOSHUA <'}}}><
Does he not speak of Jesus, then how can he be against you?
We ought set the example, and follow Jesus, who said, "But I say unto
you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good t them that
hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you;" [for these thing are what a real brothers does, therefore be my
brother and not disappoint my dear Brother Jones.] That ye may be the
children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
the unjust. [However the day comes Thus saith the Lord Our
Righteousness that fresh waters will be more valuable than gold and
oil, and then shall thou wish thou had mercy upon thy enemies, that
thou confidence in me may have wax strong.] (Matt. 5:44)
JOSHUA the true servant of the Lord of the Universe, Jesus the Christ,
King of Heaven. <'}}}>< [Zech. 3]
RetroProphet
>Jong Kim:
>There are plenty of supporting evidences that
>the Bible is most likely true. I need not go
>into that right now since we have the web or
>you can go to the library yourself or you can
>actually go out to the sites and investigate.
>(We've been providing the evidences already
>in our posts, besides.) But such evidences do
>not constitute *proof*. The *proof* is the
>testimony of the Holy Ghost. Everything else
>only gives the Bible and other Scriptures
>credibility.
You are confused about what the word "proof" means,
are are delusionally using it to create religious
slogans and dogma, instead of discoursing rationally.
Discourse regarding belief may rest on faith,
but attempts at rational proof may not do so.
Mind you, one's belief and faith may certainly
inspire insight, but this insight MUST lead to
something that can pass through the verifying filter
of rational demonstration in order to be considered true.
A hypothesis considered as a potential proof must
confront and deflect that which might falsify it.
You have much work to do if your goal is proof.
Your claim that "testimony of the Holy Ghost"
is valid evidence is groundless because you
cannot demonstrate either the existence of the
the Holy Ghost or that it communicates. You can
only assert that you "know" this, that perhaps others
"know" this, and that those who don't "know" this are wrong.
This is obviously a meaningless argument within the
context of the proof you are attempting.
Additionally, even if you could actually demonstrate
these two things, you would still need to demonstrate
that the Holy Ghost always communicates the truth.
Yes, I know, you "know" that the Holy Ghost always
communicates the truth. But ain't that nothin'...
your theology is full of stories about how your deities
manipulate humans. Just yesterday, you were telling us
how Lord Jesus was inspiring non-Mormons to develop
scientific advances so that "Babylon" would get so full
of itself, and so fulfill prophecy.
Manipulation of this sort calls into question sincerity
of motivation -- something essential in order for the
communication emanating from your deities to be always true.
Why should I trust a deity that is so interested in not
losing face over a prediction that it is willing to
inspire less advanced creatures such as myself to do
things that might not be good for me, but that will
certainly make me think that they might be good for me?
You will protest that we are being tested -- but tests
are not 100% truthful communications. In fact, tests are
not answers, are they? They are questions. And questions
have null truth values.
Eric Gill
news:ek4fq1hha6gtp4crk...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:22:50 GMT, Eric Gill <eric...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"JOSHUA <'}}}><" <n...@non.net> wrote in
>>news:9dsdq1hm8dfvhf5cd...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 19 Dec 2005 09:19:38 -0800, "Taoshan" <taosh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is your testimony, then, that snakes eat dust.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for providing a falsifiable assertion. We may now assess the
>>>>scientific worth of this testimony by comparing it with the results of
>>>>research.
>>>>
>>>>-
>>>>Taoshan
>>>
>>> Taoshan you evil toad, when the fires of eternal knowledge get too hot
>>> for you, you jump out of the pot into the fire!
>>
>>Do you have a rebuttal or not?
>>
>><snip>
Major, major Snippage.
>>Seems to me that it makes perfect sense, since Moses wrote that man
>>was "dust", and Moses also was the one who wrote that the serpent
>>would "eat dust", therefore Jong Kim knew what he was talking about,
>>and it didn't take a nuclear scientist to figure it out either.
A simple "no" would have sufficed, but thanks for the humor.
explainer
Art Bulla wrote:
> Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt...
...another religious exposition trying to hijack the legitimate
scientific certainty, albeit temporary, for use in proving a belief, a
certainty sans tangible proof eternal. It misses the beauty of
religious practice, an integration of human consciousness with the
cosmos for the sole purpose of realizing the inclusive quality of being
alive. Too bad.
All the best, GH
explainer
All the best, Gordon Hill
Robert Weldon
> "Wakboth" <Wakbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134991255....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Art Bulla kirjoitti:
>>
>> > First. Theology is the science of communication, or of correspondence,
>> > between God, angels, spirits, and men, by means of visions, dreams,
>> > interpretations, conversations, inspirations, or the spirit of prophecy
> and
>> > revelation.
>>
>> Nope. Theology, as far as it can be considered a science (and I think
>> it is a science in the same sense as history, for example; not a
>> "hard", natural science, but still), is the science of religious
>> beliefs, of religious organisations, and of the history of those two,
>> in the context of some particular religion.
>>
>> Theology is not the same as religion, or faith, or mysticism; it
>> certainly isn't natural science, and has nothing to give to us on such
>> issues as the history of biological life,
>
> 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
> thou
> [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon
> belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
>
>
> Moses wrote the above, as given him by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
> I
> testify that the above and below are true accounts.
You testify? WTF is that supposed to mean? Are we are supposed to believe
you, just because you say that you "testify" something. Were you there, or
do you have some other reason that we are supposed to accept you at your
word? I am beginning to think that you are as insane as Art.
>
>
-crap snipped
> "Adam came into the garden with a celestial body, which had been
> resurrected
> from an older earth. He and Eve, one of his wives, along with plants and
> animals were brought here by his Father and his Jehovah and planted in a
> garden eastward in Eden after the former creation had been made desolate,
> saith the Lord, by a mighty convulsion, hence the fossils in the ground,
> but
> we are not descended from them. This occurred only six thousand years ago.
> The geologists make a tremdously egregious error is estimating the age of
> creation. It would be comparable to saying the city building in Salt Lake
> was billions of years old because the stones which comprise this building
> are timeless." Art Bulla the One Mighty and Strong.
> http://www.artbulla.com/zion/adam.html
>
And here Art shows that his knowledge of geology and biology is also
somewhat insane.
-more crap snipped.
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>A simple "no" would have sufficed,
For you I gave nothing, know that what posted was a copy I posted
earlier to Taoshan, who is able to read English, of which you can't,
for it was not address to you.
You see simple one, you're just what Taoshan would label, a
grasshopper of god.
Everyone can now see that you can't read English, and see that I never
address it to you, but I did make a copy of my earlier post so you
could see what I posted to the intelligent person, Toashan.
However, if I had a rebuttal I would be in a piss-match with a
grasshopper, and is not my style, for grasshoppers are known to jump
about and cut out what another person says, and then claim others they
have won something in their petty little mind. However, you only added
insults the intelligence of the ARM readers, and they are not fooled
by little grasshoppers.
Don't you have any understanding? If you can read English, what make
think that you can understand the scriptures?
Walk with God, and you will stop being a liar.
Joshua <'}}}><
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>JOSHUA (add reverb) wrote:
>
>> Taoshan you evil toad, when the fires of eternal knowledge get too hot
>> for you, you jump out of the pot into the fire!
>
>Try to concentrate. The subject is a reptile, not an amphibian, and the
>element is earth, not fire.
>
>Jong Kim said snakes eat dirt.
>
>What do you think? They eat dirt? Or they don't eat dirt?
>
>-
> Taoshan
>_
>>One has to understand that Jong Kim is a student of scriptures;
>>therefore his terminology must correspond with that of his studies.
>>
>>If we are to understand what Jong meant, we must have a sufficient
>>knowledge of the scriptures in order to defend his position or be in
>>disagreement.
>>
>>I can either pray and learn by faith, or draw upon my own studies of
>>the scriptures in order to formulate my own opinions about the
>>scriptures.
>>
>>Having studied the scriptures all of my life, it is easy for God to
>>bring thing to my mind whenever I am confronted by person such as
>>yourself. Know that I learn from having read the scriptures a great
>>wealth of knowledge, and I know that all prophecy is not open to any
>>private interpretations, but one must ask God in faith, who gave the
>original prophet the original prophecy, in order to fully grasp the
>true meaning in which it was originally given.
>>
>>Therefore, to answer your question, I go to the bible and see the
>>context in which it was given, then I draw upon my former studies, and
>>allow the Spirit of God to bring all references that are applicable to
>>mind. And this is what I get impress upon my mind from God:
>>
>>
>>"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
>>thou art cursed above above all cattle, and above every beast of the
>>field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the
>>Seems to me that it makes perfect sense, since Moses wrote that man
>>was "dust", and Moses also was the one who wrote that the serpent
>>would "eat dust", therefore Jong Kim knew what he was talking about,
>>and it didn't take a nuclear scientist to figure it out either.
>>
JOSHUA <'}}}><
<rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote:
> I am beginning to think that you are as insane as Art.
The only insane thing I've seen here is your stubborn belief that you
dark Master, who is Satan the Prince of Darkness, can create bodies of
flesh for his children.
Don't you know that Satan can only steal bodies for his children?
Therefore, neither you nor your master can ever become a god according
to scriptures, for only God knows how make man from the dust of this
earth, and your master Satan would like to know how.
"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise
up children unto Abraham." (Matt. 3:9)
If God can make children out of stones, then which is easier? to make
them out of the 'dust' of the ground, or stones?
JOSHUA <'}}}><
Eric Gill
news:c4igq11214rcrlts1...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:43:29 GMT, Eric Gill <eric...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A simple "no" would have sufficed,
>
> For you I gave nothing,
Yes. A whole lot of nothing.
<snip>
> Don't you have any understanding?
Plenty. You took two instance of the term "dust" from two completely
seperate stories and attempted to tell me that they should mean the same
thing. I didn't buy it. Now you're trying to cover your own incompetence by
shooting the messenger, as you did before.
Welcome to the real world, Sparky. It's not as easy as preaching to the
choir.
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
>Plenty. You took two instance of the term "dust" from two completely
>seperate stories and attempted to tell me that they should mean the same
>thing. I didn't buy it. Now you're trying to cover your own incompetence by
>shooting the messenger, as you did before.
>
>Welcome to the real world, Sparky. It's not as easy as preaching to the
>choir.
Don't you know that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, and
that should have meaning to you, but I like said, you see only what
you want to see, and there is nothing in heaven or earth that can make
you see the light, if your spiritually blinded by the Truth of Satan.
Don't you know that Satan was Lucifer, and do you know what Lucifer
means?
If you did, you would know that he transforms himself into a being of
light, and blinds you with the light of Truth. And you problem is that
you have a hard time see past the blinding light, where the real Truth
resides.
Now, Eric, I was not the first to say this, but the leader of the
Masons, Pike. Therefore anything you speak against what I just said,
is only you personal reflection of Albert Pike, 33rd Degree Mason and
head of the Southern Masonic Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of
Freemasonry. So rant on, and see if the Masons agree with you.
JOSHUA <'}}}><
Shane
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:12:05 +1100, Shane
> <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:57:47 GMT, JOSHUA <'}}}>< wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:38:43 +1100, Shane
>>> <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>Nice unmarked snip there, but I forget, you are a religious person,
>>what need do you have for ethics? Snip restored here;
I notice you decided to act as if your little bit of dishonesty never
happened. Why is that?
>>----------------------------------------------
>>>>> Art Bulla wrote:
>>>>> Yes but it is nothing to compare
>>>>> to your dippiness and
>>>>> dizzy intoxication with falsehoods,
>>>>> you nattering nabob of negativity!
>>
>>>> Shane wrote
>>>> To quote Art Bulla;
>>>> "Medieval mentalities always attack the man rather than the argument."
>>----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>>>Shane
>>>>The truth will set you free.
>>>
>>> Then listen well, you shall never be free until you reach your
>>> exaltation,
>>
>>Sorry, but that is against the plain words of the bible, why do you
>>reject the bible?
>>
>>> and become a god yourself.
>>
>>Why would I want to be a god?
>>
>>> That is what the bible teaches.
>>
>>Does the bible really say that?
>
> "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
> perfect."(Jesus set the goal: -[PERFECTION] Matt. 5:48)
How does that mean I will become a god? It sounds to me like an
instruction about living as a human, not a promise as to a future
state of being.
> Therefore, I suggest that you take it up with him in prayer.
Why? he made no promises here that require me to do so.
> For it was Jesus who said in the bible........
>
> Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
> gods?" (John 10:34)
Ahh, that means that I am a god already, hmmm somewhat less power
available that I would have thought consistent with the position. I
just tried to cure my fathers ills, and ailments, and he still has
them, I wonder why? Could it be that I am not actually a god?
> And why if hearing it from Jesus, do you speak against it?
Please point out where I spoke against it.
> Is it because of fear?
An incorrect premise has led you to an incorrect conclusion.
> Fear casts out faith, therefore fear comes from the devil.
A cite for that particualr position. Are you saying you cannot be
faithfful and fearful at the same time?
> God came to increase the faith, not to destroy it.
Non-sequitir.
> The scriptures can be broken, and it is written that God is a father
> of gods, he is a great God.
>
> "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God,
> a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh
> reward:" (Deut. 10;17)
>
> NOW, why are so stubborn?
About what?
> "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the
> kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not
> see, and hearing they might not understand." (Luke 8:10 Jesus speaking
> to the twelve, telling them why those that fear and are stubborn can
> see the things of God)
>
> I rest my case,
On what? nothing in the above answers my question of why I would want
to become a god. Nor does it show that the ultimate end of a faithful
christian is to become a god.
> in wanting to raise your goal to the one set by JESUS.
> JOSHUA [Zech. 3] <'}}}><
How do you know I do not already have that goal?
--
Robert Weldon
"JOSHUA <'}}}><" <n...@non.net> wrote in message
news:qfjgq1pq377jt9hk9...@4ax.com...
Ok, just what are you talking about here? This bears absolutely no
resemblance to a sane response to what I posted. First off, I wasn't
talking to you, and secondly, it is rude and dishonest to snip comments
without marking them.
Eric Gill
news:40ugq1tb3h8spdoce...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:17:04 GMT, Eric Gill <eric...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Plenty. You took two instance of the term "dust" from two completely
>>seperate stories and attempted to tell me that they should mean the
>>same thing. I didn't buy it. Now you're trying to cover your own
>>incompetence by shooting the messenger, as you did before.
>>
>>Welcome to the real world, Sparky. It's not as easy as preaching to
>>the choir.
>
> Don't you know that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible,
No. I would be interested to see if you could support that assertion, but
it's irrelevant anyway. Your problem here is your nonsensical conflation
of the different definitions of one word.
<snip>
>
> Don't you know that Satan was Lucifer,
No. Care to support that?
>
> If you did, you would know that he transforms himself into a being of
> light, and blinds you with the light of Truth. And you problem is that
> you have a hard time see past the blinding light, where the real Truth
> resides.
>
> Now, Eric, I was not the first to say this, but the leader of the
> Masons, Pike. Therefore anything you speak against what I just said,
> is only you personal reflection of Albert Pike, 33rd Degree Mason and
> head of the Southern Masonic Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of
> Freemasonry. So rant on, and see if the Masons agree with you.
Ah - and their opinion should concern me...why?
Chris Krolczyk
>
> We have our own prophet, and we have a God given right to love our own
> too. The prophet Joseph Smith was an American born prophet, and we
> Americans, have a God given right to want to love our own, and you
> have no rights telling us that we can't have our prophet or heroes.
Too bad for you that I'm an American citizen, then. Aw, shucks.
Are *all* of you self-appointed "prophets" this xenophobic?
If so, are any of you actually sane?
-Chris Krolczyk
Earle Jones
"JOSHUA <'}}}><" <n...@non.net> wrote:
> Earle Jones why are you so hard with thy brother Art Bulla?
>
> Does he not speak of Jesus, then how can he be against you?
>
> We ought set the example, and follow Jesus, who said, "But I say unto
> you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good t them that
> hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
> you;" [for these thing are what a real brothers does, therefore be my
> brother and not disappoint my dear Brother Jones.] That ye may be the
> children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
> rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
> the unjust. [However the day comes Thus saith the Lord Our
> Righteousness that fresh waters will be more valuable than gold and
> oil, and then shall thou wish thou had mercy upon thy enemies, that
> thou confidence in me may have wax strong.] (Matt. 5:44)
>
> JOSHUA the true servant of the Lord of the Universe, Jesus the Christ,
> King of Heaven. <'}}}>< [Zech. 3]
[...]
*
First of all, Brother Joshua, thou shalt not toppost.
Do you know what that is?
Next of all, why in hell should I follow Jesus? I followed him from
Sunday School when I was a child, but when I became a man, I put away
childish things (that might sound familiar to you.)
The Christian Bible is full of errors. It is also full of bad advice --
with a bit of morality sprinkled in.
Most Christians dwell on the beginning and end of Jesus' life. He was
born of a virgin (patently impossible) and rose from the grave (also
patently impossible.)
No one seems to give a damn about what he did in the 33 years in between.
He sounded to me like a pretty good guy -- don't kill your brother --
don't steal -- turn the other cheek.
I chose the path of science and logic. Biology, physics, geology, all
conflict with the teachings of the bible.
Jerry Falwell takes the position that if something in science conflicts
with the bible, the science must be wrong. That is a fairly widespread
belief among Christian fundamentalists. To any intelligent person who
is capable of rational thought, it is an absurd notion!
David Hume advised us (in 1770) to "proportion our belief to the
evidence". That's what I do. The problem with your Jesus is there is
not one whit of evidence for his divinity, given that he ever lived.
In the New Testament the Lord invited Thomas to both see and feel
the nail prints in His hands (John 20:27). As a result of what he
observed, Thomas was instantly convinced that he was in the presence
of the crucified Lord.
I will follow the lead of Thomas. I, too doubt the existence of the
crucified Lord. When he shows me the nail prints in His hands, I
will be convinced.
earle
*
"What matters in science is data...and explanations of the natural
world that are consistent with those data...Evolution has not attained
the level of theory because people believe in it, but rather because it
is an explanation that is consistent with hundreds of years of data
collection as described in tens of thousands of scientific manuscripts."
--Casey Hoy, Wooster, MA School Board
And -- by the way -- you will be unhappy to read today's news:
(12-20) 15:56 PST Harrisburg, Pa. (AP) --
In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution
since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a
Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching "intelligent
design" in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the
Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in
October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum
violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which
is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds
that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by
some kind of higher force.
Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and accused
several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he
said was to promote religion.
A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence"
establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere
re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a
Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years
ago.
The school system said it will probably not appeal the ruling, because
several members who backed intelligent design were ousted in November's
elections and replaced with a new slate opposed to the policy.
For the complete story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/20/national/a082
556S28.DTL&hw=dover&sn=001&sc=1000
earle
*
Earle Jones
"Jong Kim" <rh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Jong Kim: Greetings!
Does that sentence of yours, "...the Bible is most likely true..." mean
that, of all the thousands of statements in the Bible, most of them are
true?
Or do you mean that everything in the bible is exactly true?
Jerry Falwell, the fundamentalist Christian believes that the Bible is
inerrant:
"The Bible is the inerrant... Word of God. It is absolutely infallible,
without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well
as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc."
--Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength (p.26)
Do you agree with Falwell?
By the way, is your nationality Korean? I lived in Seoul for a little
over three years -- 1988 (Seoul Olympic year) until early 1992. I had a
nice apartment in Shin Mun Ro 2-ka. I was doing some engineering work
for Samsung, Ssangyong, LG, SunKyong, and others. I really enjoyed
living there -- I still have many Korean friends. I enjoyed the Korean
food and the people.
When I lived in Japan (around 8 years) I noticed that there are very few
Christians there -- only about one percent of the population. There are
evidently more in Korea -- something like 20%. Is that true?
I would like to give you some friendly advice about your posting here.
This group has a moderator -- David Iain Greig -- and he does not allow
spamming. That means that, if you post the same long quotations at the
end of your message every time you post here, you might be kicked out of
this newsgroup.
Keep you "sig" line very short -- a line or two -- and you will be fine.
Best regards,
earle
*
Earle Jones
"JOSHUA <'}}}><" <n...@non.net> wrote:
[...]
>
> If God can make children out of stones, then which is easier? to make
> them out of the 'dust' of the ground, or stones?
>
> JOSHUA <'}}}><
*
Which is easier -- to make a child from dust or from a stone?
I would say, based on the laws of nature that I am familiar with, that
they are equally easy -- in other words, impossible!
The Bible says that God made Adam from dust. But he made Eve from one
of Adam's ribs. Am I right so far?
BTW, the way to make a child, is for two preferably consenting adults to
have intercourse. That's the 'natural' way. I don't believe that any
child was ever made any other way -- dust, stone, or whatever.
earle
*
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a
mountain top throwing lightning bolts and say,
'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So primitive
and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning
bushes talking to people and guys walking on water.
We're...sophisticated.'"
--Paul Provenza
Jack Dominey
<n...@non.net> wrote:
>Don't you know, that in all the history of the world there has only
>been ONE who has risen up from the grave before witnesses, and his
>name is Jesus Christ?
If one accepts the stories in the Gospels as true, then I see three
mistakes in your statement. First, Lazarus rose up from the grave
before witnesses (John 11:38-44). None of the Easter morning stories
describe Jesus actual resurrection being witnessed - only various
people encountering him after the fact. And "Christ" was never Jesus'
name, but a Greek-based title. "The Christ" would be more accurate.
Since you fail to deliver accurately the message of the Gospels, which
any person can read, why should we trust you to bring a message from a
source we cannot check?
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
Jack Dominey
<n...@non.net> wrote:
>You see you fallen soul of endless quests to understand the truth that
>saves, science did not discover this in the past, but in modern times,
>that 'snake once had legs like chicken, but that they lost their
>legs', now, who discovered this first?
So you agree that snakes are descended from reptiles with legs?
JOSHUA <'}}}><
wrote:
Correction:
The scriptures can [not] be broken, and it is written that God is a
JOSHUA <'}}}><
<remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Shane
>The truth will set you free.
Shane remind me of my dear cousin, one day he came from college and
was going to impress me about something he learned.
He told that I could not prove that he existed, and no matter what I
said to him, he still held his ground and said, that he was just a
dream, and had still not prove anything, nor shown that he was real.
To this I said, raising my fist, how about I punch you in the face?
To this my cousin quickly reacted and moved his face!
Then I said, "see you know that you are real, because you moved you
face!"
Yes, your doing the same thing, you say one thing, but deep inside you
know that you are a liar. That is what Native Americans call having a
"fork tongue".
And you know the rest, the Serpent in the garden had a fork tonue
also.
Like father (Satan) like son (Shane)
Do you know what Shane means?
Shane was remade as a television series in 1966, starring David
Carradine. And David Carradine was called "grasshopper" in the confu
series.
Okay grasshopper, how many angels can fit on top of a needle?
Okay grasshopper, how long does it take to travel around gods head?
CUT CUT , don't you see grasshopper this is pure rubbish, but that is
what you understand, you can't help but speak with reason.
All that you want to debate is non-sense, think of something
meaningful before asking your question grasshopper
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you." (Matt. 7:6)
GOODBye little grasshopper, I found you unable to handle the deeper
things of God, and only a fool would reveal anything to the likes of
you, for you would even trample over God's wisdom if you could, so why
should anyone waste their time with a grasshopper?
JOSHUA <'}}}><
>In <075eq1hpttqgutkmu...@4ax.com>, "JOSHUA <'}}}><"
><n...@non.net> wrote:
>
>>Don't you know, that in all the history of the world there has only
>>been ONE who has risen up from the grave before witnesses, and his
>>name is Jesus Christ?
>
>If one accepts the stories in the Gospels as true, then I see three
>mistakes in your statement. First, Lazarus rose up from the grave
>before witnesses (John 11:38-44).
No! Lazarus did not rise from the grave, only Jesus rose up!
You see, you can read well, but you fail to understand.
Truth by itself shall make it known, read and learn:
"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment
have I received of my Father." (Jesus Christ | John 10:18)
Don't you understand, Jesus by himself had power to rise from the
grave, but Lazarus didn't have power in himself to rise from the
grave. Lazarus was called by Jesus to come forth from the grave.
"And when he [JESUS] thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice,
Lazarus, come forth." (John 11:43)
Therefore, I find that you can read well, but you fail to understand
well, that Lazarus had no power to rise from the grave,and it was
still Jesus whom had the power to rise up Lazarus. And my position
that Jesus is the ONLY one to rise from the grave is correct, because
according to the holy text Jesus was the only and first in all history
to rise from the grave, and remain alive! What Lazarus did was not a
true resurrection, for he later died, didn't you know that? However,
while Lazarus life was prolong a little while longer, Jesus was a true
resurrection because he never died again. And please don't be foolish,
after Jesus there has been others too. For example:
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matt. 27:52-53)
> None of the Easter morning stories
>describe Jesus actual resurrection being witnessed - only various
>people encountering him after the fact.
"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus,
saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared
greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." (Matt. 27:54)
> And "Christ" was never Jesus'
>name, but a Greek-based title. "The Christ" would be more accurate.
>
No! Greek was not the language of Jesus, neither was it the language
of the tribes of Israel. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Hebrew was spoken by the Israelites until their return from Babylonian
captivity, at which time Aramaic became the language of everyday
conversation. During the time of Jesus, Hebrew was the language of the
learned, of the law, and of religious literature.
Therefore, you Greek is of a later date.
And the prophecy of Jesus Christ were in Hebrew, so if you desire to
be technical, the title name should have been in Hebrew, Messiah Ben
David as all the learned men in Jesus time spoke.
What you are speak of is way off into a later date. Didn't you know
that? But then you only appear to understand what your saying.
And if we want to very accurate then you are wrong again, because the
holy text makes clear the real name of Jesus Christ:
"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of
the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matt. 1:22:23)
So you see, you don't even know Jesus real name, now do you?
It was "Emmanuel".
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Isa. 7:14)
Oh, now we have "Immanuel".
So, which is it, do you know?
The answer is both, it only a different spelling. However, I like to
point out to you your lack of understanding about the language used in
the time of Jesus, the name "Jesus" is Greek, and the Son of Man, did
not speak in Greek but in Aramaic. And his name in Hebrew was Joshua,
but the Israelites disbanded and most traveled northward, and during
the time of Jesus the few tribes left spoke Aramaic, and only the
learned men spoke the ancient language of Hebrew. Now, in prophecy we
have Joshua as his name according to prophecy and how the learned men
called him.
Now, I think I will get deep with you, because it will do you good my
brother to understand the mysteries of kingdom.
You see brother, I don't wish to be hard on you, now the true spirit I
have wants to come out, know that I wish that thou could be wiser and
more knowledge than myself, for I wish I had someone to teach me the
things of God, but all we have now, is me teaching you a thing or two.
And if you are wise, you shall added upon what I teach, rather than
make thyself a fool before others.
Here is your test, if thou are wise, thou will understand:
"JOSHUA" is also a title, did you know that?
The reason JESUS is called JOSHUA is because it a title given unto
those who come to this earth to fulfill the mission of a MESSIAH.
Now, do you understand what was said in the scriptures about there
having to be an Elias (a forerunner) before there comes a JOSHUA
(Messiah = Deliverer)?
And they asked him [John the Baptist], and said unto him, Why
baptizest thou then, if thou be not that CHRIST, nor ELIAS, neither
that prophet?
Now, I will not give you more details, because the Spirit of Wisdom
and Knowledge tells me that I have gone beyond thy ability to
understand.
JOSHUA [Zech. 3]
Taoshan
whether snakes eat dust. I realize this was difficult issue for you.
This is clear from your description of the introspective thought
process the question set in motion.
You answer that yes, snakes do eat dust. But you do not want this to be
taken literally. You say snakes *really* eat human beings. But because
human beings are made from dust, snakes--through a sort of commutative
principle of dust-eating--are really eating dust.
This is a very interesting and imaginative interpretation. I appreciate
your taking the time to provide it. I enjoyed reading it. You minded
your manners (for a change) and in the process proved yourself to be a
rather engaging storyteller.
It was total blarney. But still.
Unfortunately, charm does not change the fact that in this post you
have blown the whistle on your own game. Twice.
First, you demonstrated that the products of your imagination--contrary
to what you say--are NOT of divine origin. Second, you invalidated your
efforts to promote Genesis as a science book. You actually believe
metaphorical interpretations of Genesis are permissable and that the
book does not have to be taken literally.
Let's look at each self-destructive step in turn.
1
First, to answer a question about snake diets, it's telling that you
chose a non-scientific path at the outset. You did not elect to consult
a trained herpetolgist, read scientific literature, observe snake
diets, or offer dirt to a snake to see if it ate any. Your choice was
non-scientific. You elected to retreat into your own imagination to see
if you could think of any plausible way to reconcile a statement from
Genesis, as interpreted for you by Jong Kim, with a fact you already
knew: snakes do not eat dust.
You came back with a fanciful series of statements about anacondas that
violate known fact. You were wrong on nearly every point. You assumed
humans represent the preferred prey of anacondas; they do not. You
misrepresented the feeding habits of anacondas as typical of snakes as
a whole; not true. You stated that adult humans have to fear being the
prey of anacondas; actually, adult humans are too big for anacondas to
eat. You said anacondas devour their prey feet first; actually, they
devour prey head first. You said the prey's survival depends on
remaining still; actually, anacondas are constrictors (a pertinent fact
you strangely omitted). They kill by denying their prey the ability to
inhale. If the animal remains motionless, the anaconda's task is
easier. If the animal struggles, it burns oxygen faster and reaches the
terminal point sooner. The anaconda wins either way.
This level of ignorance shows that you did not consult even the most
basic references. You *certainly* did not get this stuff from an
Authority responsible for creating anacondas in the first place. The
products of your imagination are not divinely inspired as you claim.
2
Genesis says snakes eat dust. Science--and common kowledge--says snakes
eat lots of things, but dust is not one of them. You were faced with
the task of reconciling these two statements.
When you finally stoped avoiding the conflict and chose to face it, you
preserved Genesis for yourself by interpreting it *poetically.* Snakes
eat human beings, you said, and human beings are made of dust, you say,
so it's really the same thing. Snakes are eating processed dust, as it
were. Genesis, of course, says nothing about this intermediate step you
invented, but that did not bother you. You then walked us through a
fanciful narrative about anacondas which was long on Hollywood
entertainment values and short on facts.
Note carefull the choice you made when faced with an irreconcilable
conflict of fact. You punted on the idea of Genesis as literal *fact*
and chose to treat it as *story*. Your treatment became poetic. You
even closed your post with a metaphor when you wished me to avoid being
'eaten by the snake.' You do not believe I am in literal danger,
sitting here at my computer, of being ambushed by anacondas. You used
the image of a snake not to serve a discussion of biology. You used a
snake to serve as a symbol of something else.
Which is, of course, what Genesis does.
If dust does not have to be literal dust and a snake does not have to
be a literal snake, it follows that a tree does not have to be a
literal tree and a garden not a literal garden---and maybe a day not a
literal day and a week not a literal week. All these details are open
to discussion.
Your poetic interpretation invalidates your effort to exalt Genesis as
a science book. You admit that the book speaks in symbols. You admit
that it is sometimes best to understand the book this way. You
acknowledge that a statement from Genesis, when taken at face value,
can be factually untrue.
You now have no legitimate quarrel with theistic evolutionists or
anyone else who chooses not to take the book literally.
Thank you for playing, Mr JOSHUA.
-
Taoshan
_
Shane
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:08:28 +1100, Shane
> <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Another creatinist unmarked snip here. Why are creationists often
seemingly incapable of even the smaller ethical practises? They come
in here and invoke the weightier matters of the law and fail on the
little stuff that would show that they have any respect at all for
others.
>>Shane
>>The truth will set you free.
>
> Shane remind me of my dear cousin, one day he came from college and
> was going to impress me about something he learned.
>
> He told that I could not prove that he existed, and no matter what I
> said to him, he still held his ground and said, that he was just a
> dream, and had still not prove anything, nor shown that he was real.
>
> To this I said, raising my fist, how about I punch you in the face?
>
> To this my cousin quickly reacted and moved his face!
>
> Then I said, "see you know that you are real, because you moved you
> face!"
>
> Yes, your doing the same thing, you say one thing, but deep inside you
> know that you are a liar. That is what Native Americans call having a
> "fork tongue".
And you know this how?
> And you know the rest, the Serpent in the garden had a fork tonue
> also.
>
> Like father (Satan) like son (Shane)
>
> Do you know what Shane means?
Yes, - "see JOHN." (I looked it up in a book of names once, and that
is what the entry said).
> Shane was remade as a television series in 1966, starring David
> Carradine. And David Carradine was called "grasshopper" in the confu
> series.
No that is a TV show, based on a western novel, not a definition of a
name. If this is the level of your scholarship that it is no surprise
that someone as inept as Art Bulla can lead you astray on theological
matters. And the name you were looking for is Kung Fu, If you get
simple things like this wrong I am not surprised that you do not want
to discuss scripture.
> Okay grasshopper, how many angels can fit on top of a needle?
IANA grasshopper, but to answer; 42.
> Okay grasshopper, how long does it take to travel around gods head?
IANA grasshopper, but to answer; 42 parsecs or 42 femtoseconds, take
your pick as you did not specify distance or time.
> CUT CUT , don't you see grasshopper this is pure rubbish,
IANA grasshopper, but to answer; Yes I agree, your post is, I wonder
why, as it does not address anything from my previous response to you?
> but that is
> what you understand, you can't help but speak with reason.
Why thank you. I generally try speak with reason, and to have someone
such as yourself confirm it is gratifying. I sincerely regret that
honesty precludes me from returning the compliment.
> All that you want to debate is non-sense, think of something
> meaningful before asking your question grasshopper
Well if you want to characterise a discussion of scripture as
nonsense, then that is fine by me. I don't agree, but it's your call.
> "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
> pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
> again and rend you." (Matt. 7:6)
Sadly it seems I did this, however pearls of wisdom, once gained
cannot be thrown away, so I will suffer no loss from your trampling.
> GOODBye little grasshopper,
Leaving so soon Bold Sir Robin?
> I found you unable to handle the deeper
> things of God,
And yet you were the one that ran away from a discussion of scripture.
> and only a fool would reveal anything to the likes of
> you,
You do realise that you just called God a fool, don't you.
> for you would even trample over God's wisdom if you could, so why
> should anyone waste their time with a grasshopper?
Well I'm not a grasshopper, and you have not given me any of God's
wisdom, so I wonder how this would apply.
--
Jack Dominey
<n...@non.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:16:45 -0500, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig> wrote:
>
>>In <075eq1hpttqgutkmu...@4ax.com>, "JOSHUA <'}}}><"
>><n...@non.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't you know, that in all the history of the world there has only
>>>been ONE who has risen up from the grave before witnesses, and his
>>>name is Jesus Christ?
>>
>>If one accepts the stories in the Gospels as true, then I see three
>>mistakes in your statement. First, Lazarus rose up from the grave
>>before witnesses (John 11:38-44).
>
>No! Lazarus did not rise from the grave, only Jesus rose up!
<snip>
>Don't you understand, Jesus by himself had power to rise from the
>grave, but Lazarus didn't have power in himself to rise from the
>grave.
If you meant that only Jesus raised himself, you should have said so.
<snip>
>> None of the Easter morning stories
>>describe Jesus actual resurrection being witnessed - only various
>>people encountering him after the fact.
>
>"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus,
>saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared
>greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." (Matt. 27:54)
That verse is before Jesus' burial. There are two earthquake
references, the second being in Matt. 28:2, and the first occurs at
the time of Jesus' death.
>> And "Christ" was never Jesus'
>>name, but a Greek-based title. "The Christ" would be more accurate.
>>
>No! Greek was not the language of Jesus, neither was it the language
>of the tribes of Israel. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
True. But "Christ" or "Messiah" are not names in the same sense that
"Jesus" or "Joshua" (or "Y'shua", as I have seen it written) are.
<snip>
>And the prophecy of Jesus Christ were in Hebrew, so if you desire to
>be technical, the title name should have been in Hebrew, Messiah Ben
>David as all the learned men in Jesus time spoke.
The modern Hebrew rendering as I've seen it is "Moshiac" or something
close to that.
>What you are speak of is way off into a later date. Didn't you know
>that? But then you only appear to understand what your saying.
Well, I hope I understand what I said.
<snip>
>"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of
>the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
>and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
>which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matt. 1:22:23)
>
>So you see, you don't even know Jesus real name, now do you?
>
>It was "Emmanuel".
Funny, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone actually
called him by that name, except that one verse.
>The answer is both, it only a different spelling. However, I like to
>point out to you your lack of understanding about the language used in
>the time of Jesus, the name "Jesus" is Greek, and the Son of Man, did
>not speak in Greek but in Aramaic.
I was aware of that.
<snip>
>"JOSHUA" is also a title, did you know that?
>
>The reason JESUS is called JOSHUA is because it a title given unto
>those who come to this earth to fulfill the mission of a MESSIAH.
It was apparently also an (at least)legendary name associated with the
Exodus.
Although I find your explanations somewhat roundabout, I do appreciate
that you've made your original statement clearer, and that you've
responded politely. Thank you.