Mere coincidence? I think not

[John T]

In order to not derail any one's thread, I re-post as a new thread to invite responses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgfe
Exposing Adventism - Prophet William Miller

There are those who deny the prophetic role of William Miller in the formative years of early Adventist thinking. Ellen White is not among these. Let's examine her glowing endorsement.

As Elisha was called from following his oxen in the field, to receive the mantle of consecration to the prophetic office, so was William Miller called to leave his plow, and open to the people the mysteries of the kingdom of God. (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. 331, 1888)

"As Elisha was called ..."
Was Elisha a prophet? You decide.


I do not want to derail the discussion, Gilbert, but in researching a reply on the Baha'i threads. I came upon this:


QUOTE:
Millenial fervor gripped many peoples throughout the world during the first half of the nineteenth century; while Christians expected the return of Christ, a wave of expectation swept through Islam that the "Lord of the Age" would appear. Both Christians and Muslims envisioned that, with fulfillment of the prophecies in their scriptures, a new spiritual age was about to begin.


In Persia, this messianic ferment reached a dramatic climax on May 23, 1844, when a young merchant--the Báb--announced that He was the Bearer of a long- promised Divine Revelation destined to transform the spiritual life of the human race. "O peoples of the earth," the Báb declared, "Give ear unto God's holy Voice...Verily the resplendent Light of God hath appeared in your midst, invested with this unerring Book, that ye may be guided aright to the ways of peace..."1



Against a backdrop of widescale moral breakdown in Persian society, the Báb's declaration that spiritual renewal and social advancement rested on "love and comp***ion" rather "than force and coercion," aroused hope and excitement among all cl***es, and He quickly attracted thousands of followers.2

1. Selections from the Writings of the Báb (Haifa: Bahá'í World Centre, 1976), p. 50, 61.
2. Ibid., p. 77


While this does not mean that there is necessarily a connection between the Baha'i faith, and SDAism and JWism, one can not help to notice the similarity of the year, and the words of the author

Quote:
Millenial (sic) fervor gripped many peoples throughout the world during the first half of the nineteenth century...


Therefore it is not wrong to explore this further to see what was spiritually taking place in the years surrounding 1844. One thing for sure, living in the Finger Lakes region, 25 miles or so from Palmyra, I conclude that the 1830 publishing of the first Book of Mormon was not an isolated spiritual event since the date 1844 is considered "sacred" for three false religions.

[maklelan]

Therefore it is not wrong to explore this further to see what was spiritually taking place in the years surrounding 1844. One thing for sure, living in the Finger Lakes region, 25 miles or so from Palmyra, I conclude that the 1830 publishing of the first Book of Mormon was not an isolated spiritual event since the date 1844 is considered "sacred" for three false religions.

My response is that your a priori presupposition that the three religions are false has clearly handicapped your ability to objectively evaluate the historical context here. ***ociated with that would be the fact that the year itself is not at all relevant, but if you're pointing to the mid-nineteenth century as the significant general time period, I would have to point out that this was the tapering off of the second Great Awakening, and Evangelical denominations have their roots in this time period as well, since American Evangelicalism experienced its most important revivals then. If you want to say the similar time period is at all relevant, you're going to have to group your own religion in with the religions experiencing significant spiritual events.

I would also point out that you should really stop wasting your time trying to prove rationally that your religion makes more sense than ours. You will not win, since your own faith is equally as dependent upon faith over reason as any other. As is also abundantly clear, not a one of you can succeed as long as there are people around who know the facts much better than you. Go do something productive with your life and stop wasting time searching for ways to make yourself feel better than the Mormons.

[SavedbyTruth]

My response is that your a priori presupposition that the three religions are false has clearly handicapped your ability to objectively evaluate the historical context here. ***ociated with that would be the fact that the year itself is not at all relevant, but if you're pointing to the mid-nineteenth century as the significant general time period, I would have to point out that this was the tapering off of the second Great Awakening, and Evangelical denominations have their roots in this time period as well, since American Evangelicalism experienced its most important revivals then. If you want to say the similar time period is at all relevant, you're going to have to group your own religion in with the religions experiencing significant spiritual events.

I would also point out that you should really stop wasting your time trying to prove rationally that your religion makes more sense than ours. You will not win, since your own faith is equally as dependent upon faith over reason as any other. As is also abundantly clear, not a one of you can succeed as long as there are people around who know the facts much better than you. Go do something productive with your life and stop wasting time searching for ways to make yourself feel better than the Mormons.

Could it be coincidence that there was accelerated religious fervor during this time since the Heavens were now opened again? Surely there were faithful believers all over the world who were filled with the Light of Christ and God's love was already manifest in them. Do you think it is possible their spirits recognized this without knowing that revelation was once more being revealed through His restored Church? I think the hosts of Heaven must have been rejoicing. Spiritual awareness must have been high. Just some thoughts.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

My response is that your a priori presupposition that the three religions are false has clearly handicapped your ability to objectively evaluate the historical context here. ...

i.e. a "stumbling block".

Thanks, Mak.

[Dante]

The Lord said His Spirit would be poured out among all nations due to the restoration of His truth, power and authority back to the earth... the entire world has benefited in certain ways.

It seems I remember an LDS author who wrote a book about the accelerated advances in science, industry, technology, etc. since the advent of the restoration in 1830... coincidence?

[John T]

The Lord said His Spirit would be poured out among all nations due to the restoration of His truth, power and authority back to the earth... the entire world has benefited in certain ways.

It seems I remember an LDS author who wrote a book about the accelerated advances in science, industry, technology, etc. since the advent of the restoration in 1830... coincidence?

The fly in the ointment is that truth to be truth, it must be true, and anything other tham that is false. Logically speaking it means that if A is truth, then anything NOT A ( øA) has to be false.

For the sake of argument, say that everything that Ellen White wrote is correct. By definition, since they all differ so radically, then Baha'i, Christian Conventions, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saint movement, and Churches of God would be wrong, as would be the historically fundamental churches.

Before we go further, it is important to describe objective truth:



Truth is propositional because it rules out a different this or that as being true, ontologically.
Truth is verifiable, and not dependent upon the whimsy of humankind.
Truth is neither independent of evidence nor counter to evidence.
Truth is not relative; if it is true yesterday, it will be true tomorrow and today.
Truth is not subjective, true only to "the select few" but it is universal.


Therein is the crux of the problem with all the religions mentioned above. I expanded it from the three mentioned in the OP so that some would not get their noses out of joint that I was picking on them, only.

In order for ANY of the so-called "Restoration movements" if the 19th century to be considered true, then each of the five axioms about truth must be upheld, or else it is not truth, by definition.

That makes the null hypothesis regarding truth øA a truism: If it is not A, it is not truth, and by definition, of it not being true, it makes the belief a lie.

Since the Mormons were first to jump on this thread, I invite them (and others) to state why their beliefs are true WITHOUT VIOLATING THOSE AXIOMS.

[SavedbyTruth]

The fly in the ointment is that truth to be truth, it must be true, and anything other tham that is false. Logically speaking it means that if A is truth, then anything NOT A ( øA) has to be false.

For the sake of argument, say that everything that Ellen White wrote is correct. By definition, since they all differ so radically, then Baha'i, Christian Conventions, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saint movement, and Churches of God would be wrong, as would be the historically fundamental churches.

Before we go further, it is important to describe objective truth:



Truth is propositional because it rules out a different this or that as being true, ontologically.
Truth is verifiable, and not dependent upon the whimsy of humankind.
Truth is neither independent of evidence nor counter to evidence.
Truth is not relative; if it is true yesterday, it will be true tomorrow and today.
Truth is not subjective, true only to "the select few" but it is universal.


Therein is the crux of the problem with all the religions mentioned above. I expanded it from the three mentioned in the OP so that some would not get their noses out of joint that I was picking on them, only.

In order for ANY of the so-called "Restoration movements" if the 19th century to be considered true, then each of the five axioms about truth must be upheld, or else it is not truth, by definition.

That makes the null hypothesis regarding truth øA a truism: If it is not A, it is not truth, and by definition, of it not being true, it makes the belief a lie.

Since the Mormons were first to jump on this thread, I invite them (and others) to state why their beliefs are true WITHOUT VIOLATING THOSE AXIOMS.

What is perceived as being true yesterday, may not hold up as being true tomorrow. Therefore you cannot make the claim that truth is not relative. And that's the truth about that axiom.

Your very definition of objective truth requires all five axioms. That negates the necessity to point other problems with the axioms. By its own definition, the premise upon which it is based is false.

[John T]

What is perceived as being true yesterday, may not hold up as being true tomorrow. Therefore you cannot make the claim that truth is not relative. And that's the truth about that axiom.

Your very definition of objective truth requires all five axioms. That negates the necessity to point other problems with the axioms. By its own definition, the premise upon which it is based is false.

Your "re****al" is what is false.

What is perceived is by definition, that which is not, and is not congruent to any of the other five axioms. Perception is sense-oriented, and not verification-oriented, therefore to claim that truth is relative in any way violates the ontological nature of truth.

You simply can not have your false cake and eat it simultaneously.

[maklelan]

Before we go further, it is important to describe objective truth:


[LIST=1]
Truth is propositional because it rules out a different this or that as being true, ontologically.
Truth is verifiable, and not dependent upon the whimsy of humankind.

This axiom isn't self-evident, which is manifested primarily in the centuries that have been spent by the world's greatest philosophers to try to identify truth. An axiom is defined as something so fundamental that it is self-evident and universally accepted. This is no such thing. Please substantiate this conclusion before we move on.

[HickPreacher]

Mak says--


I would also point out that you should really stop wasting your time trying to prove rationally that your religion makes more sense than ours. You will not win, since your own faith is equally as dependent upon faith over reason as any other. As is also abundantly clear, not a one of you can succeed as long as there are people around who know the facts much better than you. Go do something productive with your life and stop wasting time searching for ways to make yourself feel better than the Mormons.

Reminds me of 'the Borg' on Star Trek the Next Generation-- 'you cannot win-- resistance is futile' sort of message.

And of course who knows what the other guy knows or does not know???

Kind of a mind-game statement.

If Mormons only knew what I really know about Christian history--- but I have decided NOT to reveal... out of good ethics-- .

[John T]

This axiom isn't self-evident, which is manifested primarily in the centuries that have been spent by the world's greatest philosophers to try to identify truth. An axiom is defined as something so fundamental that it is self-evident and universally accepted. This is no such thing. Please substantiate this conclusion before we move on.


The fly in the ointment is that for truth to be truth, it must be true, and anything other than that is false. Logically speaking it means that if A is truth, then anything NOT A ( øA) has to be false.

It is logic. How can you then substantiate the null hypothesis as being false? Can you give one example?

[maklelan]

The fly in the ointment is that for truth to be truth, it must be true, and anything other than that is false. Logically speaking it means that if A is truth, then anything NOT A ( øA) has to be false.

It is logic. How can you then substantiate the null hypothesis as being false? Can you give one example?

"Truth is true and non-truth is not true" doesn't add anything to anything of this, nor does it all engage my concern. The existence of truth has nothing to do with whether or not it is verifiable, self-evidently or otherwise. Nothing I've said has anything whatsoever to do with the null hypothesis.

[SavedbyTruth]

Your "re****al" is what is false.

What is perceived is by definition, that which is not, and is not congruent to any of the other five axioms. Perception is sense-oriented, and not verification-oriented, therefore to claim that truth is relative in any way violates the ontological nature of truth.

You simply can not have your false cake and eat it simultaneously.

Sorry, but it is common knowledge that what people believe is true can change at any moment when evidence is discovered which makes that truth false. Likewise, what people believe is false can change at any moment when evidence to the contrary is discovered.

So far, you have presented no "true" premise upon which to base even the foundation of your argument.

SbT

[John T]

Sorry, but it is common knowledge that what people believe is true can change at any moment when evidence is discovered which makes that truth false. Likewise, what people believe is false can change at any moment when evidence to the contrary is discovered.

So far, you have presented no "true" premise upon which to base even the foundation of your argument.

SbT


Relativistic nonsense

[SavedbyTruth]

Relativistic nonsense

LOL. It is you who brought up the five axioms to use when testing for truth. To point out that those axioms are false is certainly a necessary step.

SbT

[maklelan]

Relativistic nonsense

Don't pretend to condescend to the philosophical frameworks of others. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how the verifiability of truth is real, much less self-evident enough to be employed as an axiom. You're the one who needs to catch up here, not anyone else.

[John T]

Don't pretend to condescend to the philosophical frameworks of others. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how the verifiability of truth is real, much less self-evident enough to be employed as an axiom. You're the one who needs to catch up here, not anyone else.

From Merriam-Webster

noun, plural truths  /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [troothhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngz, trooths]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; pla***ude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.

I copied all ten of the primary definitions so that no fool can state that I left things out.

Where in ANY of this is the relativistic balderdash that you and others spew forth as any cogent refutation?

From the above, ANYONE can see that truth is objective, rational and real. Truth is true ontologically.

The axioms stand because they are logical extrapolations form the above definitions.

Get over it and deal with reality.

[maklelan]

From Merriam-Webster

noun, plural truths  /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [troothhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngz, trooths]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; pla***ude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.

I copied all ten of the primary definitions so that no fool can state that I left things out.

Where in ANY of this is the relativistic balderdash that you and others spew forth as any cogent refutation?

From the above, ANYONE can see that truth is objective, rational and real. Truth is true ontologically.

The axioms stand because they are logical extrapolations form the above definitions.

Get over it and deal with reality.

Again, totally irrelevant. None of this has anything at all to do with the verifiability of truth as an axiom. Yes, something verifiable is a truth, but that descriptive definition in no way even attempts to imply that all truth is fundamentally verifiable. Your conflating truth that is so named because we have verified it and truth which exists independent of us and our verification. In addition, don't ever appeal to Merriam-Webster in an attempt to substantiate a philosophical axiom. That only serves to betray your lack of familiarity with philosophy.

Now, can you address my actual concern, or can you only jump around and make noise to try to distract everyone?

[SavedbyTruth]

From Merriam-Webster

noun, plural truths  /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [troothhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngz, trooths]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; pla***ude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.

I copied all ten of the primary definitions so that no fool can state that I left things out.

Where in ANY of this is the relativistic balderdash that you and others spew forth as any cogent refutation?

From the above, ANYONE can see that truth is objective, rational and real. Truth is true ontologically.

The axioms stand because they are logical extrapolations form the above definitions.

Get over it and deal with reality.

These definitions define what is already accepted as truth. This does not even discuss or define how you IDENTIFY what is true. You need to read the definitions you provided. You are on a wild goose chase and refuse to admit it.

Please continue to promote your flawed arguments - we see through them, and we are educating the readers as we go.

SbT

[John T]

Sorry guys, but the ball is in YOUR collective court.

According to the rules of forensics, I have met the obligation of the argument, stating it, then providing credible proofs. Just for the sake of making my position clear, here is another clip from MW's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

truth \ˈtrüth\ n

pl truths \ˈtrüṯẖz, ˈtrüths\ [ME trewthe, fr. OE trēowth fidelity; akin to OE trēowe faithful — more at true] bef. 12c

1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy

b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance

2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact

(2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality

(3) often cap : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality

b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true 〈truths of thermodynamics〉

c : the body of true statements and propositions

3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

b chiefly Brit : true 2

c : fidelity to an original or to a standard

4 god —in truth : in accordance with fact : actually



Now instead of your rhetorical whining about me not making the case, which I have, your forensic obligation is to
1) cite authorities that make the definitions above, and previously posted false.
2) then propose another, contrary thesis.

Until and unless you do this, you have no grounds on which to attack the axioms, for they flow from the posted definitions.

How on earth can either of you maintain that truth NOT these (and more)?
1,the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:

[maklelan]

Sorry guys, but the ball is in YOUR collective court.

According to the rules of forensics, I have met the obligation of the argument, stating it, then providing credible proofs.

You absolutely have not, and forensics is high school debate, not real world philosophical inquiry. You haven't at all supported your argument or adequately responded to my re****al.


Just for the sake of making my position clear, here is another clip from MW's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

I already went over this, and you have yet to respond.

[John T]

You absolutely have not, and forensics is high school debate, not real world philosophical inquiry. You haven't at all supported your argument or adequately responded to my re****al.

I already went over this, and you have yet to respond.

Too bad that your position is neither true, nor conforming to reality. Therefore, by definition, your approach can not be true, and is in effect, disingenuous.

What is amazing to me is that you want OTHERS to follow your contrived and artificial rules, but exhibit no intention to engage another in courteous debates, following civilized rules.

When you are ready to follow the rules, and not make them up as you go along, I will be ready to respond.

Is that what you do when you have no authority nor lucid answers to further your cause?

[maklelan]

Too bad that your position is neither true, nor conforming to reality. Therefore, by definition, your approach can not be true, and is in effect, disingenuous.

Utterly meaningless.


What is amazing to me is that you want OTHERS to follow your contrived and artificial rules, but exhibit no intention to engage another in courteous debates, following civilized rules.

When people show me they're willing to treat me like an intelligent and civil human being I return the favor. I find the juvenile and ignorant belittling of my faith to be the an***hesis of that.


When you are ready to follow the rules, and not make them up as you go along, I will be ready to respond.

Don't lie to me. You'll respond if you can find a way to wriggle out of being wrong, but if you can't find a way out you'll just change the subject or ignore me. That's been your m.o. from the beginning. Why would you suddenly change now?


Is that what you do when you have no authority nor lucid answers to further your cause?

More meaningless posturing.

[John T]

Utterly meaningless.

When people show me they're willing to treat me like an intelligent and civil human being I return the favor. I find the juvenile and ignorant belittling of my faith to be the an***hesis of that.

Don't lie to me. You'll respond if you can find a way to wriggle out of being wrong, but if you can't find a way out you'll just change the subject or ignore me. That's been your m.o. from the beginning. Why would you suddenly change now?

More meaningless posturing.


So you are smarter than two different dictionaries? That is good! [/sarcasm]

We are discussing the nature of truth, yet you choose to morph it into something different, and derail the subject: I find the juvenile and ignorant belittling of my faith to be the an***hesis of that Therefore, your irrelevant ad homs demonstrate the paucity of debate-worthy comments you have to offer, and they seriously engender questions regarding your character.

As to belittling your faith, I find it strange that you take offense at the obvious: The BoM has no credible geography, history, anthropology zoology, biology, etc that scholars can demonstrate as true (again back to the definition of true).

From this monitor, it seems as if you guys are building castles in the air, and then getting your nose out of joint when people point out the obvious: There are no castles in the air.

Whenever you are through having temper tantrums because I refuse to bow to your constant, imperious rules-changing, and insipid refusal to look at the dictionaries as defining the truth, I will respond OTOH, if you continue to post blusterous braying as a subs***ute for intelligent discussion, you will have the thread to your self.

<self-snip comment about Baalam> :D

[maklelan]

So you are smarter than two different dictionaries? That is good! [/sarcasm]

We are discussing the nature of truth, yet you choose to morph it into something different, and derail the subject: I find the juvenile and ignorant belittling of my faith to be the an***hesis of that Therefore, your irrelevant ad homs demonstrate the paucity of debate-worthy comments you have to offer, and they seriously engender questions regarding your character.

As to belittling your faith, I find it strange that you take offense at the obvious: The BoM has no credible geography, history, anthropology zoology, biology, etc that scholars can demonstrate as true (again back to the definition of true).

From this monitor, it seems as if you guys are building castles in the air, and then getting your nose out of joint when people point out the obvious: There are no castles in the air.

Whenever you are through having temper tantrums because I refuse to bow to your constant, imperious rules-changing, and insipid refusal to look at the dictionaries as defining the truth, I will respond OTOH, if you continue to post blusterous braying as a subs***ute for intelligent discussion, you will have the thread to your self.

<self-snip comment about Baalam> :D

None of this addresses my concerns.

[John T]

None of this addresses my concerns.

YOUR concerns. eh?

Thank you for demonstrating beyond any shadow of doubt that you are not concerned with truth, either.

<Another self-snip about Baalam's talking animal>

That is why you can not credibly address the many failings of your faith, and the non-existence of so many things taught as fact in the BoM. BTW I am not your enemy because I tell you the truth; it is you who are your own worst enemy because you refuse to look at the truth and act accordingly.

[maklelan]

YOUR concerns. eh?

Thank you for demonstrating beyond any shadow of doubt that you are not concerned with truth, either.

<Another self-snip about Baalam's talking animal>

That is why you can not credibly address the many failings of your faith, and the non-existence of so many things taught as fact in the BoM. BTW I am not your enemy because I tell you the truth; it is you who are your own worst enemy because you refuse to look at the truth and act accordingly.

Doesn't address my concerns. You can't just bring up entirely irrelevant gripes and crow with victory.

[John T]

Doesn't address my concerns. You can't just bring up entirely irrelevant gripes and crow with victory.

Yep, you are important, Mak.

Whenever you are ready to deal with truth, and not castles in the air, let me know.

[alanmolstad]

Adventism is a flawed religion.

Oh it's still Christian,
But it has flaws from the get-go about it .
The whole religion is simply the result of spin.

The Adventists made a huge error a long time ago, and to put a better spin on their errors they came up with modern Adventism.
But thats all they are....they are 'spin" that was invented to put a better face on a huge error .

[alanmolstad]

The 7thy dayers are silly....

I watch their TV channel and catch their radio shows from time to time and they have a totally silly way of understanding the bible.

And I think that their who foundation of why they teach what they teach is just a cover-up for failed predictions about the end of the world...

[alanmolstad]

other than being posted on by what might be Mormons, Im not sure why this topic got posted here?
I went over the posts, now very old as this dates back to 2009 and its 2017 today as i write this, and Im not really sure what anyone was getting to?

I see that none of the people are currently BANNED, so perhaps one day some of these same people might return and tell us how they feel now about the topic?