Today's Lesson: Jesus lights the Sun moon and stars

[_JonasS]

I don't think anything is in conflict with any teaching and I could sit here all day and argue and proove that there are no conflicts, but at the end of the day that is my opinion and everything can be interpreted to mean anything.

So you're one of those fools that subscribe to the golden mean fallacy. "It's all opinion, why can't both be right, it can mean anything, blah blah blah..." If we operated on your premise that anything can be interpreted to mean anything (which is usually a line of thought used by morons), the statement "the sky is blue" could be interpreted to mean "the sky is red with purple racing stripes". The end result of that line of thought is we'd all stand around going "my opinion is..." or "my opinion of your opinion" or "my opinion of the your interpretation of my opinion of you opinion of my interpretation of your opinion's interpretation by that guy over there..." and the entire board would collapse on itself in a massive singularity of suck and fail.

Well, I was speaking specifically with respect to the Bible in that it is OLLLLLDDD!!!! and things mean different things, and I was speaking about WORDS being interpreted, but if you want to go there...

What is BLUE?

[_Tarski]

I don't think anything is in conflict with any teaching and I could sit here all day and argue and proove that there are no conflicts, but at the end of the day that is my opinion and everything can be interpreted to mean anything.

So you're one of those fools that subscribe to the golden mean fallacy. "It's all opinion, why can't both be right, it can mean anything, blah blah blah..." If we operated on your premise that anything can be interpreted to mean anything (which is usually a line of thought used by morons), the statement "the sky is blue" could be interpreted to mean "the sky is red with purple racing stripes". The end result of that line of thought is we'd all stand around going "my opinion is..." or "my opinion of your opinion" or "my opinion of the your interpretation of my opinion of you opinion of my interpretation of your opinion's interpretation by that guy over there..." and the entire board would collapse on itself in a massive singularity of suck and fail.

Well, I was speaking specifically with respect to the Bible in that it is OLLLLLDDD!!!! and things mean different things, and I was speaking about WORDS being interpreted, but if you want to go there...

What is BLUE?

It is a color. What part of color perception are you puzzled by? (Is this a qualia thing you're headed for?)

[_JonasS]

I don't think anything is in conflict with any teaching and I could sit here all day and argue and proove that there are no conflicts, but at the end of the day that is my opinion and everything can be interpreted to mean anything.

So you're one of those fools that subscribe to the golden mean fallacy. "It's all opinion, why can't both be right, it can mean anything, blah blah blah..." If we operated on your premise that anything can be interpreted to mean anything (which is usually a line of thought used by morons), the statement "the sky is blue" could be interpreted to mean "the sky is red with purple racing stripes". The end result of that line of thought is we'd all stand around going "my opinion is..." or "my opinion of your opinion" or "my opinion of the your interpretation of my opinion of you opinion of my interpretation of your opinion's interpretation by that guy over there..." and the entire board would collapse on itself in a massive singularity of suck and fail.

Well, I was speaking specifically with respect to the Bible in that it is OLLLLLDDD!!!! and things mean different things, and I was speaking about WORDS being interpreted, but if you want to go there...

What is BLUE?

It is a color. What part of color perception are you puzzled by? (Is this a qualia thing you're headed for?)

I am not puzzled by color perception at all. I am not confused at all! But what is a colour?

[_Angus McAwesome]

Well, I was speaking specifically with respect to the Bible in that it is OLLLLLDDD!!!! and things mean different things, and I was speaking about WORDS being interpreted,

So basically you just wanted to play the semantics card with "it could mean anything depending on who's interpreting it".

but if you want to go there...

Oh, please, can we go there? I hear there is a happy place!

What is BLUE?

As per Wiki: "Blue is a color, the perception of which is evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 440–490 nm." Seriously, Jonas, don't play idiotic semantics games with me, I will take your argument off at the knees.

[_Chap]

Why can't Jesus BE Photons?

Look back at my post, and you will see that if you want to make Jesus into photons, you will also have to make him into the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and the plague bacillus too. You don't want to go there.

In any case, if there is anything stranger than God being a male human being with a body, underarm hair and a penis (circumcised or uncircumcised, one asks?) it would be making Jesus into a wave-packet. 'Oooh look! Jesus just got diffracted through Mr Young's slits! Now he is interfering with himself on-screen!'. Leave him alone, please.

Also, if you look back at what I suggested, I was saying that God and Jesus can merely be the energy that created the big bang.

The exchange to which I was referring is:

Yes it is true, direct from the manual itself, Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Lesson 13

Wrong chapter.

What does Doctrine and Covenants 88:7–10 say about the light of the sun, moon, and stars?

I am figuratively in any work I create.

Explain that although we do not understand how, we know that Jesus is the source of the light of the sun, moon, and stars

It is true we do not understand the details of the creation. However, that gravity is the source of a star's light does not conflict with these statements.

By this logic, Jesus is in some sense the source of everything in the material world. If you want to make him the 'source' of the light of the sun, moon, and stars, then you will have to accept that to the same extent he is the 'source' of the smell inside a long unemptied trashcan on a hot summer's day.

That bacterial activity is the source of a trashcan's stink does not conflict with this statement.

Would Jesus like metaphysical 'compliments' of this kind, I wonder?

bcspace wanted Jesus to make the stars emit light in the sense that he is the source of all that is. As I pointed out, that makes him the source of a lot of very nasty things. Now you want to do it by making Jesus be the light itself. OK, so since Jesus is responsible for everything, you are going to have to make him be everything too, including, as I point out, a lot of nasty stuff.

[_JonasS]

Why can't Jesus BE Photons?

Look back at my post, and you will see that if you want to make Jesus into photons, you will also have to make him into the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and the plague bacillus too. You don't want to go there.

In any case, if there is anything stranger than God being a male human being with a body, underarm hair and a penis (circumcised or uncircumcised, one asks?) it would be making Jesus into a wave-packet. 'Oooh look! Jesus just got diffracted through Mr Young's slits! Now he is interfering with himself on-screen!'. Leave him alone, please.

Also, if you look back at what I suggested, I was saying that God and Jesus can merely be the energy that created the big bang.

The exchange to which I was referring is:

Yes it is true, direct from the manual itself, Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Lesson 13

Wrong chapter.

What does Doctrine and Covenants 88:7–10 say about the light of the sun, moon, and stars?

I am figuratively in any work I create.

Explain that although we do not understand how, we know that Jesus is the source of the light of the sun, moon, and stars

It is true we do not understand the details of the creation. However, that gravity is the source of a star's light does not conflict with these statements.

By this logic, Jesus is in some sense the source of everything in the material world. If you want to make him the 'source' of the light of the sun, moon, and stars, then you will have to accept that to the same extent he is the 'source' of the smell inside a long unemptied trashcan on a hot summer's day.

That bacterial activity is the source of a trashcan's stink does not conflict with this statement.

Would Jesus like metaphysical 'compliments' of this kind, I wonder?

bcspace wanted Jesus to make the stars emit light in the sense that he is the source of all that is. As I pointed out, that makes him the source of a lot of very nasty things. Now you want to do it by making Jesus be the light itself. OK, so since Jesus is responsible for everything, you are going to have to make him be everything too, including, as I point out, a lot of nasty stuff.

Not everything, but the thing that makes everything. If you look deep into the structures of everything, there is little difference between us and the table because everything is made of sub atomic particals and even sub sub atomic particals. Every proton is identical, it is how it is combined and the electron arangement that makes the difference. And Yes, why can't Jesus be the source of some pretty nasty stuff? To us they may be nasty, but HIV may be positive in some other area. HIV might be a creation of God it'self. God created everything, it cannot be that God created only that which is good, and if Jesus created by instruction of God then why couldn't he make disease?

[_JonasS]

When you break everything down, continually, nothing makes sense. Like if I say the word 'Glasgow' over and over it begins to mean nothing. And so, the words in the Scriptures may mean anything and it may not even be literal, and I forgot the point of this discussion. There is nothing wrong with thinking that anything can mean anything. It is how one looks at the world. Life is relative. Ok, perhaps Blue was a bad example, I will give you that, but there isn't proof of anything for sure because everything (especially the Bible) is due to interpretation. Like to me, my life at home in Sland was pretty normal, but to someone who has never been through such things would think it awful yet someone who has been through worse would be greatful for such a life.

[_Chap]

....what is a colour?

I gather from the way you write in this and your similar questions "what is a photon?" and "what is blue" that what you claim to be looking for here is an answer that will define the entities referred to in some ultimate way by giving a definition of their essence, an answer about whose meaning there can be no further question. You will not get such answers from modern science, which (unlike some of its predecessors) does not attempt that kind of thing.

Your other attempts to say that in effect anything can mean anything make me think of what Wittgenstein said at the end of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus : "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

Good advice there.

[_JonasS]

....what is a colour?

I gather from the way you write in this and your similar questions "what is a photon?" and "what is blue" that what you claim to be looking for here is an answer that will define the entities referred to in some ultimate way by giving a definition of their essence, an answer about whose meaning there can be no further question. You will not get such answers from modern science, which (unlike some of its predecessors) does not attempt that kind of thing.

Your other attempts to say that in effect anything can mean anything make me think of what Wittgenstein said at the end of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus : "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

Good advice there.

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!


No, I asked what a Photon was for a different reason to that of asking what a colour is!

I really wanted to know if you actually knew what a Photon is.

Whereas I asked what a colour is to point out that when you really think about it, it begins to become meaningless.

[_Chap]

[...]

If you look deep into the structures of everything, there is little difference between us and the table because everything is made of sub atomic particals and even sub sub atomic particals. Every proton is identical, it is how it is combined and the electron arangement that makes the difference.

Congratulations. You have just re-invented what is known as 'reductionism'. But people are different from tables in ways which cannot be contained in any finite statement about the state, motion or position of elementary particles, and have properties which cannot be possessed by such particles in isolation. That is why not many people today find this a very interesting point of view.

And Yes, why can't Jesus be the source of some pretty nasty stuff? To us they may be nasty, but HIV may be positive in some other area.

From Alexander Pope's Essay on Man:

All nature is but art unknown to thee;
All chance, direction which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal good;
And, spite of pride, in erring reason’s spite,
One truth is clear, “Whatever IS, is RIGHT.

It's a point of view, and one prevalent amongst some religious people. But now you say:

HIV might be a creation of God it'self. God created everything, it cannot be that God created only that which is good, and if Jesus created by instruction of God then why couldn't he make disease?

This is a different view from the one you have just advanced. Previously you seemed to be saying that "nasty stuff" properly understood can be good. Now you seems to be saying it is bad, but God still created it. In the course of so doing you 'solve' the problem of evil by saying God had no alternative to creating it.

Could you try to stick to one clear point and state it clearly? This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a forum for free association prose composition.