Two Gods, No Devil, but who' s keeping score? updated
by Albert 1

# 1. 8/14/08 7:34 AM by UNO HOO - Valhalla
thumbsdown.gif "I AM the Lord the God and you shall have no other gods before me"

Editor's Note: Now that presents a problem. You gave humans intellects and an evolving consciousness.

It is this cumulative consciousness which created this rival of yours. What are you going to do, take away their intellect and have them revert to apes?

# 2. 8/14/08 8:36 AM by Hawkeye - East Rochester, NY
One of my favorite quotes about the devil is from Charles Baudelaire who said, "The devil’s cleverest trick is to convince us that he does not exist.”

That line was used prominently in one of my all time favorite movies, "The Usual Suspects"

Editor's Note: Never heard of the film. Very familiar with the author, and don't care much for some of those froggie philosophers except Voltaire.

# 3. 8/14/08 8:58 AM by Hawkeye - East Rochester, NY
Never heard of it? I'm surprised. It won 2 Oscars in 1996, one for best writing/screenplay and Kevin Spacey won the "best supporting actor" award for his brilliant performance. One of the now rare, 'well deserved' Oscars.

It also featured Stephen Baldwin, Gabriel Byrne, Benicio Del Toro, Kevin Pollak, Chazz Palminteri, and Pete Postlethwaite.

It is an ingenious crime drama with plenty of shooting, explosions and clever plot twists from start to finish. I'd bet large sums that you do not see the end coming at you until it hits you in the kisser. The end twist is easily on the same level as the end of "Sixth Sense".

It makes a great rental.

Editor's Note: Ill make a not to see it when opportunity presents itself as I usually dont rent but think your tast might pay off on this,


# 4. 8/14/08 2:56 PM by Mickey Sanders
A column is actually coming from me on this very subject. It is a bit unusual as I am taking quite a bit of time preparing it. That's not usually my style.

A preview would be this. It is INDEED blind faith to acknowledge not only the existence of God but of Jesus Christ, his Son and our savior. It is the necessity of believing in that blind faith that makes the relationship with Him so special.

If you could irrefutably prove the existence of God then what good is faith? You wouldn't need it would you? Those that choose to embrace that blind faith are rewarded, those that reject it are punished. I believe God himself left questions that science cannot answer for the very purpose of testing our faith in Him.

Personally, I look at how perfectly the World is designed in that everything works together to keep us alive and that is my proof. If the Earth were on an axis of 1 degree closer to the Sun, we would burn up. If it was 1 degree closer, we would freeze. We exhale CO2 and the plants live on that same gas. How can that happen by chance?

Circular reasoning? Maybe. I have no problem with that. Evolutionists use circular reasoning in just about every argument they make.

Editor's Note: Your suppositions ignore common science that has proven that life forms can survive where hunmans could not as we are now structured.

Alternate environments would have produced alternate versions of ourselves to copmpensate.

First and foremost I have sufficient confidence and trust in my logic to support a historical Jesus, No need for faith there,

As I wrote if my concept of God was not supported by logic then it would be called faith.

As I wrote the very fact that I AM aware of Self and the rest of reality via logic not faith that takes care of that.

What good is faith? perhaps none however I see a person's REASON to believe to be a step between blind faith and knowledge.

Faith sustains where a lack of knowledge exists.

No faith =s no progress.

It is when logic is available and is trumping faith that I have a problen with the "true believers"

Presently much of the LDS accept the premise of their official version of genetic history of the American Indians.

This in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

So Mickey what is it to be?

# 5. 8/15/08 12:54 PM by Jay - OR
To me it seems you do hide some good points in this column. They also seem overwhelmed by the major premises, many of which are debatable, even artificial.

Who cannot disapprove of blind faith? Yet, the word "blind" implies strongly NO basis (other than the authority of others, perhaps), and used that way it is disparaging. You know that. I have reasons for my faith. You may be skeptical of my reasons, but they are mine, and they are reasonable and logical to me. Your self-proclaimed reasoning geniuses are no more reliable than their assumptions and prejudices; and, incidentally, they often disagree.

It needs further discussion, wouldn't you say? Laugh at the devil if you choose, but is it possible you have misread some of the story? What if a subtle, independent counter-influence (call it evil?) does in fact exist? Could there not be a powerful concept of God that embraces that possibility? Could it be possible that such a concept is not merely speculative?

And, while I'm asking questions, do you believe that THE God is unable to reveal himself clearly to whomever he has chosen as qualified?

Editor's Note: We are reaching into the area that I consider more appropriate for private discussion. Although I may seem to reveal much of my thought there is much I dont for reasons I prefer only a trusted confidant become aware of.

I would not presume to disparage one's faith unless it leaves that area and claims to be either universal truth or indisputable logic.

You once challenged me concerning my observation of circular reasoning. This is overlapping into that area.

Again a topic I prefer to discuss one on one with a different set of ground rules.

As I have been pondering this column I have arrived at some new conclucions I 'd like to bounce off someone like you. This touches on my other "entity" column two heads synergistically more than doubles intellectual capacity.

Jay, I had an older and very respected friend who died at Christmas time from a long illness.

His powers of observation and analysis helped me as I helped him with some areas of knowledge he was unfamiliar with. I miss the opportunity to link up with both a trusted intellect and good friend that I could really open up with.

He was born and raised in Finland and became a millionare contractor in the Rochester area.

I became friends with his son first and after that developed into a trust that remains to this day I was inroduced to the father.

It was quite a unique relationship tht we probably could have sold tickets to. Neither of us were PC but we did retain civil tongues.

When you commented on this column I have the same prpblem tat often pops up.

Due to more than one specific being presented a comprehensive reply is almost impossible if communication is to be valuable.

# 6. 8/15/08 3:00 PM by Jay - Or
Unfortunately I just read your response to Michael's comment.

May I correct what you have stated as a fact? You indicate that much of LDS have a belief regarding the ethnic beginnings of the American Indians that is contrary to science. Not the most of LDS with whom I am acqauainted. (I grant that early in the history of the church many assumed the present Indians were all descendants of Laman, and thus they were called Lamanites. This was an assumption and personal opinion, not part of LDS cannon of scripture.)

The belief has gradually altered, and much of present belief (if any is necesssary--it was never doctrine) preceded in time the facts and theories of DNA. Apparently you have not yet accessed the articles I provided you, written by LDS that clarify the spurious assumptions some others have written. You seem to beat the same drum when attempting to illustrate your point.

My only purpose in this comment is not to deny your point, but to deny that your statement regarding LDS belief is illustrative of it.

Editor's Note: You have helped by clarifying its status as you understand it to be..

What may be confusing me is a book I was given in Palmyra printed by LDS but not The Book of Mormon.

I no longer have it or recall the title but think it contained the Pearl of Great Price and another work. It did tell what I assumeed was official doctrine.

The Catholics have a system for certifying doctrine called Imprimater and Nihil Obstat . Spelling my be off a bit but close.

Does LDS have a similar method for certifying doctrine?

include comments