Was Jesus "carnal" for teaching in Parables?

**Cow Poke** · November 5th 2010, 08:13 AM

I think I understand the Mormon "logic" to try to vilify "proof" or "physical" or "evidence". I see frequent assaults on "physical" and "proof", even to the extent that the Mormons attempt to say we are "putting the carnal above the Spiritual".

I, of course, disagree that citing "evidence" means that it is ABOVE the "Spiritual" - it's more corroborative than it is "sole substance" of the matter.

More recently, OC says...

Originally posted by OtherCheek

Somewhere along the line, a person needs to have a spiritual conversion, CP. Not just a carnal conversion. And that spiritual conversion will carry you through life. Through thick and thin. Through trials and tribulations and through it all you can find the kind of peace promised from the Savior.

First of all, I am well aware that the Spiritual carries me through life's battles, and I give God all the glory. That aside, however, the "conversion" is not necessarily an "either / or", as so many arguments by the Mormons seem to claim. If you disagree with then on an issue, then you MUST believe the exact OPPOSITE! I don't buy that.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, Jesus uses "physical" (OC prefers to call them "carnal") things to point out the Spiritual. Isn't that the essence of "parables"? To overly simplify the definition of a parable -- it is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning, or application. Jesus talked about people and THINGS --- mustard seeds, wind, lilies of the field, bread, stones, thorns, wheat.... etc.

When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about being born of the Spirit, Jesus referred Nicodemus to the wind (pneuma) to teach him about the spirit (pneuma).

Yet OC advises...

Originally posted by OtherCheek

Hey, go where ever archeology and your carnal senses take you if that is your guide. I will let the Spirit be my guide.

Was Jesus "carnal" for teaching in Parables, using "things" that could be considered "carnal" to represent the things of the Spirit?

**Hamster** · November 5th 2010, 09:31 AM

Is that a bible thing? I don't own one, I let the spirit guide me

**Pilgrim** · November 5th 2010, 09:40 AM

Of course Mormanism has to point to such a thing. Of course the contradiction is that they then point to their own writings as proof even though they've just told you that you don't need such proof.

You're spot on. It's a corroborative thing. Mormon thinking has created a false dichotomy which is of course a logical fallacy.

**nrajeff** · November 5th 2010, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Of course Mormanism has to point to such a thing. Of course the contradiction is that they then point to their own writings as proof even though they've just told you that you don't need such proof.

----You don't earn a lot of credibility points when you don't even know the correct spelling of what you're criticizing.

**Cow Poke** · November 5th 2010, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by nrajeff

----You don't earn a lot of credibility points when you don't even know the correct spelling of what you're criticizing.

What do we know, Jeff? We're just ANTS [sic].

**Sparko** · November 5th 2010, 12:29 PM

as usual, jeff just comes in to derail the thread. ignore him.

As far as I can tell, "evidence" is fine as long as the Mormon thinks its on their side. It's only when the evidence shows they are wrong that he rejects the need for evidence.

It's sour grapes.

**Hamster** · November 6th 2010, 09:43 AM

Carnality is worthless! BRB, physically resurrecting and leaving an empty tomb.

JB · November 6th 2010, 12:37 PM

Seems to me that the Mormon version of the Holy Spirit (as portrayed by the prolific LDS posters here, maybe not by smarter LDS) is kind of a wuss, especially compared to the real deal. I mean, when the Mormon version of the Holy Spirit wants to communicate deep truths to somebody, he's limited to just one way: private manifestation of the truth through some nebulous feelings, even though there are so many epistemic pitfalls to be had there, since apparently the Mormon Holy Spirit doesn't give spiritual confirmations anywhere near as awesome as the real Holy Spirit has given most of us Christians here. But the real Holy Spirit isn't just limited to using private inner experiences; the real Holy Spirit can use a whole bunch of other ways, like properly understood Scripture and the preaching of the word and rational argument and even archaeological evidence. It's pretty awesome that the Holy Spirit is so much more incredible than the version our prominent LDS posters here get stuck with. We Christians get to experience spiritual confirmation of the gospel in so many widely different ways that we lose count of them all. That way, when we're confronted by nutters who tout their spiritual experiences, we get to honestly say that we've had those too, and oh yeah, plus all this other public evidence that's no less spiritual than private testimony and which the Spirit has also used to give us a testimony of the truth that's vastly more firmly established than the Mormons' testimony of Smith's sectarian counterfeits and heresies.

**Sparko** · November 6th 2010, 12:50 PM

All this mormon complaining about "carnality" sounds very gnostic to me. But it is also very ironic since basically their entire theology is based on carnality: God is not a spirit but a physical being. Spirit itself is just "very fine matter" - and the only eternal thing in existence is matter itself, that not even God created it.

**nrajeff** · November 6th 2010, 05:10 PM

Yawn.

JB · November 7th 2010, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Sparko

as usual, jeff just comes in to derail the thread. ignore him.

**nrajeff** · November 7th 2010, 06:04 PM

Re: Was Jesus "carnal" for teaching in Parables?

No. Question answered.

**Cow Poke** · November 7th 2010, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by nrajeff

No.

Obviously.

Question answered.

While I can understand that you wouldn't want to discuss it any further, your agreement that Jesus used "physical" things to speak of spiritual things seems to create a problem for the notion that any form of "evidence" or "physical" or "proof" is "carnal".

The point is -- if it's good enough for Jesus, why is it "carnal" for us?

**nrajeff** · November 9th 2010, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by CP

Obviously.

While I can understand that you wouldn't want to discuss it any further, your agreement that Jesus used "physical" things to speak of spiritual things seems to create a problem for the notion that any form of "evidence" or "physical" or "proof" is "carnal".

---How so?

The point is -- if it's good enough for Jesus, why is it "carnal" for us?

---People using parables to teach stuff is good enough for me. In fact, my stake president is extremely good at coming up with parables to teach the importance of gospel principles. He is becoming famous for having this talent. I haven't heard of anyone telling him that this teaching method is evil.

**Cow Poke** · November 9th 2010, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by nrajeff

---People using parables to teach stuff is good enough for me. In fact, my stake president is extremely good at coming up with parables to teach the importance of gospel principles. He is becoming famous for having this talent. I haven't heard of anyone telling him that this teaching method is evil.

Parables make sense! Jesus wouldn't have used them if it didn't speak to us and point us to a spiritual level.
OC - if you read the OP - seems to disdain anything "physical" or "evidence" or "archaeological" as "carnal".

It's perfectly normal to expect that the "physical" (or "carnal") and the spiritual are NOT mutually exclusive.
We don't need the "physical" (OC calls it the "carnal") to "prove" the spiritual -- It's that "corroboration" thing.

Thread: Was Jesus "carnal" for teaching in Parables?