The Teachings of Jesus Christ

[Meriweather]

Actually, scientists don't pretend say what was before the Big Bang, like you do.

Yes, scientists do present hypothesis (possibilities). Anyone can see why they can't present anything as strong as a "theory" at this point, because science investigates the objective. Nothing is not an object, so they can't investigate that. God is spirit, not physical, so they can't investigate that either.

All day long I have been pointing out possibilities about one instance in science. I am not pretending anything. I am pointing out the two possibilities about this one instance that are still beyond science's ability to investigate.

Come on! This should be very plain by now. Or, did I give you more credit than I should have believing you might understand this simple point?

The universe could be on a never ending loop of expansion and contraction. There could be several, if not billions of universes out there... We just don't know.

Try and keep up with your scientific studies. Most scientist realize that unlike an earlier hypothesis that the universe will begin to contract, the reality is that the universe will continue to expand. Second, they also agree the universe had a beginning, approximately thirteen or fourteen billion years ago (give or take).

For you to claim that you know what scientists are confronted with is total malarky. That scientists would restrict themselves to only 2 possibilities is complete nonsense. Geez, and you teach in a real school?

When it comes to FIRST CAUSE, I have presented what science is confronted with. In all the realm of science, FIRST CAUSE certainly isn't all scientists are investigating. They investigate a myriad of things such as string theory, multiverses, multi-dimensions, etc. None of that is FIRST CAUSE, and all I am addressing is FIRST CAUSE.

When it comes to FIRST CAUSE, I would guess (although I don't know) science is more interested in investigating "nothing": Looking towards the possibility that what we now consider "nothing" has "something" there.

Yes, I teach in a real school(s). And I can almost guarantee that even middle school youngsters more quickly grasp the idea of FIRST CAUSE than you have demonstrated you can today. FIRST CAUSE has nothing to do with multiple universes, dimensions, etc. It is simply a point in time, ONE topic in a myriad of other scientific topics, which also include things like gravity, relativity, atoms, microns, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Mudda]

Actually, scientists don't pretend say what was before the Big Bang, like you do.

Yes, scientists do present hypothesis (possibilities). Anyone can see why they can't present anything as strong as a "theory" at this point, because science investigates the objective. Nothing is not an object, so they can't investigate that. God is spirit, not physical, so they can't investigate that either.

All day long I have been pointing out possibilities about one instance in science. I am not pretending anything. I am pointing out the two possibilities about this one instance that are still beyond science's ability to investigate.

Come on! This should be very plain by now. Or, did I give you more credit than I should have believing you might understand this simple point?

The universe could be on a never ending loop of expansion and contraction. There could be several, if not billions of universes out there... We just don't know.

Try and keep up with your scientific studies. Most scientist realize that unlike an earlier hypothesis that the universe will begin to contract, the reality is that the universe will continue to expand. Second, they also agree the universe had a beginning, approximately thirteen or fourteen billion years ago (give or take).

For you to claim that you know what scientists are confronted with is total malarky. That scientists would restrict themselves to only 2 possibilities is complete nonsense. Geez, and you teach in a real school?

When it comes to FIRST CAUSE, I have presented what science is confronted with. In all the realm of science, FIRST CAUSE certainly isn't all scientists are investigating. They investigate a myriad of things such as string theory, multiverses, multi-dimensions, etc. None of that is FIRST CAUSE, and all I am addressing is FIRST CAUSE.

When it comes to FIRST CAUSE, I would guess (although I don't know) science is more interested in investigating "nothing": Looking towards the possibility that what we now consider "nothing" has "something" there.

Yes, I teach in a real school(s). And I can almost guarantee that even middle school youngsters more quickly grasp the idea of FIRST CAUSE than you have demonstrated you can today. FIRST CAUSE has nothing to do with multiple universes, dimensions, etc. It is simply a point in time, ONE topic in a myriad of other scientific topics, which also include things like gravity, relativity, atoms, microns, etc. etc. etc.

You don't even know if there is a so called first cause, NO FUCKING CLUE!

You seem to think that scientists only have god or nothing as possible causes of the universe, when you read that just now, did it sound as dumb to you as it does to me?

And it's only a theory that the universe will continue to expand, nobody really knows for sure what will happen.

I pity your students.

 

[Meriweather]

You don't even know if there is a so called first cause

You seem to think that scientists only have god or nothing as possible causes of the universe, when you read that just now, did it sound as dumb to you as it does to me?

And it's only a theory that the universe will continue to expand, nobody really knows for sure what will happen.

Oh, for heaven's sake! I am not trying to convince you there is a God!

I am following the scientific theory there was a beginning, often referenced as the Big Bang, that set things in motion. The thing that set things in motion is known as the FIRST CAUSE. No one knows what this FIRST CAUSE is! My husband and I discuss this on occasion. Before the universe began, we don't know what was there or how it happened. Something caused it...or, nothing caused it. How can that be so hard to understand?

If you want to ignore science and pretend the universe always existed, that there was no beginning, feel free. If despite current data you want to hold a theory the universe will one day contract rather than continue to expand, feel free.

Question: Do you study or do you just make things up as you go along? Information from the Hubble Telescope kind of ended the theory that the universe would one day contract and collapse.

I pity the closed minded, those who refuse to even try to understand simple science.

 

[Vastator]

Of all the teachings of Jesus Christ, which one is your personal favorite?

When one understands the difference between immortality and eternal life, my favorite teaching of Christ is:

Doctrine and Covenants 14:7
7 And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

My favorite teaching is that; if you don't like the current tax code, or the way they run their office... you go in and trash the place.

 

[Mudda]

You don't even know if there is a so called first cause

You seem to think that scientists only have god or nothing as possible causes of the universe, when you read that just now, did it sound as dumb to you as it does to me?

And it's only a theory that the universe will continue to expand, nobody really knows for sure what will happen.

Oh, for heaven's sake! I am not trying to convince you there is a God!

I am following the scientific theory there was a beginning, often referenced as the Big Bang, that set things in motion. The thing that set things in motion is known as the FIRST CAUSE. No one knows what this FIRST CAUSE is! My husband and I discuss this on occasion. Before the universe began, we don't know what was there or how it happened. Something caused it...or, nothing caused it. How can that be so hard to understand?

If you want to ignore science and pretend the universe always existed, that there was no beginning, feel free. If despite current data you want to hold a theory the universe will one day contract rather than continue to expand, feel free.

Question: Do you study or do you just make things up as you go along? Information from the Hubble Telescope kind of ended the theory that the universe would one day contract and collapse.

I pity the closed minded, those who refuse to even try to understand simple science.

The universe is expanding now, but we don't know if something like dark matter will slow it down and make it collapse on itself, again. And again...
And if you yourself call it a "theory", then your FIRST CAUSE is not a fact, meaning you have nothing except a POSSIBILITY.
And again, you have no clue what set the universe in motion, at least admit that.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Why would anyone want to follow a guy who ended up nailed to wood in a diaper?

Donald Trump prefers Messiahs that end up in Luxury Hotels with hookers....this is why the Evangelist worship the Orange Baal ...


Probably just running to ask for forgiveness...I bet the Pastor voted for Donald "Pussy grabber" Trump...Evangelists deserve no respect only mockery


Texas Pastor Flees Cameras After Hooker Sting [VIDEO] - Joe.My.God.
Houston’s ABC affiliate reports: A Montgomery County religious leader has been charged with prostitution. According to charging documents, 52-year-old Eddie…

 

[Meriweather]

The universe is expanding now, but we don't know if something like dark matter will slow it down and make it collapse on itself, again. And again...
And if you yourself call it a "theory", then your FIRST CAUSE is not a fact, meaning you have nothing except a POSSIBILITY.
And again, you have no clue what set the universe in motion, at least admit that.

Correct. Like anything else, what we have is the prevailing theory. Just like the theory of evolution something could come along to put a spoke in the theory of a common ancestor. The same with any other commonly accepted scientific theory of today. The accepted theory today is that the universe had a beginning and is expanding. After information was collected from the Hubble telescope (despite dark matter) scientists had information that rather than contracting, the universe would continue to expand. All we have today, scientifically, is what the facts we have collected to date tell us.

I never said first cause is a fact. What I said is that if the universe had a beginning (as is now commonly accepted) scientists are interested in what caused it to begin (first cause). I indicated scientists were currently a bit stymied because with first cause kicks everything out of the realm of science (which deals in objects). The first cause had to come from nothing (outside the scientific realm); or, with an intelligent force (also outside the scientific realm). Of the two, scientists seem to be most interested in poking around "nothing" to see if there isn't something in what we currently think of as "nothing".

No one knows what set the universe in motion, and naturally that includes me. Why would you even think I would know? I am only presenting the facts currently in play and what is being investigated so that science, sometime in the future, might be able to tell us more. As I also said, science has much more on its plate than first cause. First cause is simply one of the things at which they are studying. Do you believe they should stop with that study?

 

[Mudda]

The universe is expanding now, but we don't know if something like dark matter will slow it down and make it collapse on itself, again. And again...
And if you yourself call it a "theory", then your FIRST CAUSE is not a fact, meaning you have nothing except a POSSIBILITY.
And again, you have no clue what set the universe in motion, at least admit that.

Correct. Like anything else, what we have is the prevailing theory. Just like the theory of evolution something could come along to put a spoke in the theory of a common ancestor. The same with any other commonly accepted scientific theory of today. The accepted theory today is that the universe had a beginning and is expanding. After information was collected from the Hubble telescope (despite dark matter) scientists had information that rather than contracting, the universe would continue to expand. All we have today, scientifically, is what the facts we have collected to date tell us.

I never said first cause is a fact. What I said is that if the universe had a beginning (as is now commonly accepted) scientists are interested in what caused it to begin (first cause). I indicated scientists were currently a bit stymied because with first cause kicks everything out of the realm of science (which deals in objects). The first cause had to come from nothing (outside the scientific realm); or, with an intelligent force (also outside the scientific realm). Of the two, scientists seem to be most interested in poking around "nothing" to see if there isn't something in what we currently think of as "nothing".

No one knows what set the universe in motion, and naturally that includes me. Why would you even think I would know? I am only presenting the facts currently in play and what is being investigated so that science, sometime in the future, might be able to tell us more. As I also said, science has much more on its plate than first cause. First cause is simply one of the things at which they are studying. Do you believe they should stop with that study?

You seem to think that you know that the universe came from either nothing or an intelligent being. You can't possibly think that you know that there are any more possibilities. And scientists aren't poking around "nothing", they're observing the universe and trying to figure it out, and haven't come to any conclusion as to what they are restricting themselves to study. Please try again.

 

[Meriweather]

You seem to think that you know that the universe came from either nothing or an intelligent being. You can't possibly think that you know that there are any more possibilities. And scientists aren't poking around "nothing", they're observing the universe and trying to figure it out, and haven't come to any conclusion as to what they are restricting themselves to study. Please try again.

Try explaining it to you again? No thanks. Go back and re-read what I wrote yesterday. Alternately, come up with your own third option for first cause.

Yes, scientists are observing the universe. That is why one of the issues that interest them is first cause.

 

[Mudda]

You seem to think that you know that the universe came from either nothing or an intelligent being. You can't possibly think that you know that there are any more possibilities. And scientists aren't poking around "nothing", they're observing the universe and trying to figure it out, and haven't come to any conclusion as to what they are restricting themselves to study. Please try again.

Try explaining it to you again? No thanks. Go back and re-read what I wrote yesterday. Alternately, come up with your own third option for first cause.

Yes, scientists are observing the universe. That is why one of the issues that interest them is first cause.

Until you can prove where the FIRST CAUSE came from, anything is possible, even the unimaginable. So yes, there are potentially many different ways the universe came into being aside from the two you mention, the third way being things we have yet to imagine. As well as, another way, is that the universe has always been, with no FIRST CAUSE to be found.

 

[Meriweather]

Until you can prove where the FIRST CAUSE came from, anything is possible, even the unimaginable. So yes, there are potentially many different ways the universe came into being aside from the two you mention, the third way being things we have yet to imagine. As well as, another way, is that the universe has always been, with no FIRST CAUSE to be found.

Of course. That is why scientists were looking at the Hubble telescope data to find evidence of contraction, or future contraction. In this theory the universe and everything in it has always existed. (Where did stuff come from? It always was.) From here the universe is constantly going through its seasons. (Unanswered question, which season came first?) But the theory is that everything in the universe always existed. What is thought to happen is that it expands, contracts, bursts forth again to expands, contracts, bursts forth again. The problem is there is no evidence of contraction, just a hypothesis. We can see this type of thing happening with dust, rocks. Dust is compacted until rocks form; rocks erode back into dust. The problem with this theory is that we have the point where this (current, if you wish) universe began. We note the expansion, but no sign of contraction or that it will contract.

That why the beginning (and first cause) is being studied. If the universe always was, how did it contract back to "nothing" and what made it begin again? How did something come from this "nothing"? That is why I commented on scientists being most interested in exploring this "nothing". They hope to find "something".

Again, if the contraction hypothesis falls apart (as Hubble indicates it will), then we're back to where we were at the "beginning." As this is where we will be if contraction should occur, this is a place where science searches for answers.

 

[Mudda]

Until you can prove where the FIRST CAUSE came from, anything is possible, even the unimaginable. So yes, there are potentially many different ways the universe came into being aside from the two you mention, the third way being things we have yet to imagine. As well as, another way, is that the universe has always been, with no FIRST CAUSE to be found.

Of course. That is why scientists were looking at the Hubble telescope data to find evidence of contraction, or future contraction. In this theory the universe and everything in it has always existed. (Where did stuff come from? It always was.) From here the universe is constantly going through its seasons. (Unanswered question, which season came first?) But the theory is that everything in the universe always existed. What is thought to happen is that it expands, contracts, bursts forth again to expands, contracts, bursts forth again. The problem is there is no evidence of contraction, just a hypothesis. We can see this type of thing happening with dust, rocks. Dust is compacted until rocks form; rocks erode back into dust. The problem with this theory is that we have the point where this (current, if you wish) universe began. We note the expansion, but no sign of contraction or that it will contract.

That why the beginning (and first cause) is being studied. If the universe always was, how did it contract back to "nothing" and what made it begin again? How did something come from this "nothing"? That is why I commented on scientists being most interested in exploring this "nothing". They hope to find "something".

Again, if the contraction hypothesis falls apart (as Hubble indicates it will), then we're back to where we were at the "beginning." As this is where we will be if contraction should occur, this is a place where science searches for answers.

Nothing can prove that a contraction won't happen, it might take 100 trillion years until we get there. It's ALL theories. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

 

[Meriweather]

Nothing can prove that a contraction won't happen, it might take 100 trillion years until we get there. It's ALL theories. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

I am interested in the conversation and the ideas, not in proving anyone wrong. What's next on the agenda?

 

[Vastator]

Until you can prove where the FIRST CAUSE came from, anything is possible, even the unimaginable. So yes, there are potentially many different ways the universe came into being aside from the two you mention, the third way being things we have yet to imagine. As well as, another way, is that the universe has always been, with no FIRST CAUSE to be found.

Of course. That is why scientists were looking at the Hubble telescope data to find evidence of contraction, or future contraction. In this theory the universe and everything in it has always existed. (Where did stuff come from? It always was.) From here the universe is constantly going through its seasons. (Unanswered question, which season came first?) But the theory is that everything in the universe always existed. What is thought to happen is that it expands, contracts, bursts forth again to expands, contracts, bursts forth again. The problem is there is no evidence of contraction, just a hypothesis. We can see this type of thing happening with dust, rocks. Dust is compacted until rocks form; rocks erode back into dust. The problem with this theory is that we have the point where this (current, if you wish) universe began. We note the expansion, but no sign of contraction or that it will contract.

That why the beginning (and first cause) is being studied. If the universe always was, how did it contract back to "nothing" and what made it begin again? How did something come from this "nothing"? That is why I commented on scientists being most interested in exploring this "nothing". They hope to find "something".

Again, if the contraction hypothesis falls apart (as Hubble indicates it will), then we're back to where we were at the "beginning." As this is where we will be if contraction should occur, this is a place where science searches for answers.

Nothing can prove that a contraction won't happen, it might take 100 trillion years until we get there. It's ALL theories. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Their previous models of the "weight/mass" of the universe were just proven wrong. Contraction is still a possibility if the info were working with is incomplete. And we find out everyday that it is just that. Incomplete.

 

[onefour1]

Latter-day revelation and discovered ancient revelation have revealed that a part of man, the intelligent part of man, was never created or made but has always existed.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Abraham 3:18
18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

Latter-day revelation has also revealed that the elements are eternal in nature:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

From these revelations from God, creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing) is shown to be false.

There are no verses in scripture that declare that the spirit of man came from nothingness. And we all know where the physical body of man came from:

Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

God and man are self-existent beings. Man has only been created by God in the sense that he is clothed with a spiritual body and a physical body. These revelations come to us through Jesus Christ. These are just more examples of his great teachings. The elements are eternal and intelligent beings are eternal by nature. We have always existed!

 

[onefour1]

We know that God created the spirit bodies of our spirits through the process of procreation based on the following verse:

Moses 6:36
36 And he beheld the spirits that God had created; and he beheld also things which were not visible to the natural eye; and from thenceforth came the saying abroad in the land: A seer hath the Lord raised up unto his people.

Moses 3:5
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

 

[onefour1]

Here are other verses that I like regarding the matter at hand:

2 Timothy 1:9
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

I also like the following teaching that was revealed to John the Revelator regarding those who were taking part in the war in heaven eventually came to this earth:

Revelation 12:7-11
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Obviously those who fought in the war in heaven had to come to earth and overcome Satan by the blood of the Lamb, and they loved not their lives unto the death. (they became mortal) Before coming to this earth, all those of us who have received a body on this earth stood valiantly with God and Michael in the pre-mortal world of spirits and found against the dragon and his followers.

 

[BreezeWood]

Until you can prove where the FIRST CAUSE came from, anything is possible, even the unimaginable. So yes, there are potentially many different ways the universe came into being aside from the two you mention, the third way being things we have yet to imagine. As well as, another way, is that the universe has always been, with no FIRST CAUSE to be found.

Of course. That is why scientists were looking at the Hubble telescope data to find evidence of contraction, or future contraction. In this theory the universe and everything in it has always existed. (Where did stuff come from? It always was.) From here the universe is constantly going through its seasons. (Unanswered question, which season came first?) But the theory is that everything in the universe always existed. What is thought to happen is that it expands, contracts, bursts forth again to expands, contracts, bursts forth again. The problem is there is no evidence of contraction, just a hypothesis. We can see this type of thing happening with dust, rocks. Dust is compacted until rocks form; rocks erode back into dust. The problem with this theory is that we have the point where this (current, if you wish) universe began. We note the expansion, but no sign of contraction or that it will contract.

That why the beginning (and first cause) is being studied. If the universe always was, how did it contract back to "nothing" and what made it begin again? How did something come from this "nothing"? That is why I commented on scientists being most interested in exploring this "nothing". They hope to find "something".

Again, if the contraction hypothesis falls apart (as Hubble indicates it will), then we're back to where we were at the "beginning." As this is where we will be if contraction should occur, this is a place where science searches for answers.

Nothing can prove that a contraction won't happen, it might take 100 trillion years until we get there. It's ALL theories. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Their previous models of the "weight/mass" of the universe were just proven wrong. Contraction is still a possibility if the info were working with is incomplete. And we find out everyday that it is just that. Incomplete.

.
BB is cyclical without ever changing course returning back to the point of Singularity.

 

[irosie91]

"""If sins ARE forgiven, why the need for the Temple or (more to the point) the Temple tax? Also Jesus introduced the picture of instead of God being some strict, ruthless ruler He was a loving Father. A Father who was like a farmer who went out and sowed seed all over the place. (What kind of idiot farmer would do such a thing?) A Father who when, a son goes out and wastes the inheritance his father gave him, throws him a party when the son comes to his senses and returns home.

Some people in power and those who relied on the Temple tax and sacrifices for their living felt they had cause for alarm. If people stopped offering sacrifices at the Temple for their sins, what would happen to them? They warned Jesus to knock it off. Jesus response was that he was obedient to what God wanted--not to them. So they had him crucified.""""

the bitch who posted the above libel is a Nazi sow-----with the blood of scores of millions
on her filthy head. Historically ----the temple tax was ONE HALF SHEKEL per adult male
over the age of 20-------a very nominal fee for everyone------and it was not even COMPULSORY.
She is imagining that the situation was one of extortion----as it is and was in the Catholic church.
She also claims that animal sacrifice was a kind of EXTORTION upon which some
people got RICH-------wrong again------in fact she is thinking of the FILTH OF ROME---where
the meat supply for the city was extorted for the benefit of the temple priests who SOLD it
at extortionary prices back to the starving masses. Animal sacrifice was not compulsory upon
citizens at all------merely customary ------and meat from the sacrifice COULD NOT BE SOLD
as it was in ROME and thus made no one rich. It could be eaten ONLY by the persons who were
cohens and levites -------never used for profit --------that was a ROMAN and GREEK
perversion. Historically----there was never any objection to the voluntary "temple tax" of half
shekel per adult male--------and Jesus certainly never mentioned it. It was not an issue.
I think her catechism whore was Magda Goebbels. People like her inspired ADOLF and HIMMLER.

 

[onefour1]

Just because Jesus atoned for our sins and won the right to forgive sin does not imply that he has forgiven all mankind of their sins.

Matthew 7:21
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

From the time Jesus began to preach the gospel, he taught:

Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Sins are not automatically forgiven. Just because Jesus won the right to forgive does not imply he has extended his grace to all mankind. He first requires that we repent of our sins.

Proverbs 28:13
13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.