Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sorry Fabian the question is not a little vague for there are no details whatsoever,
if i say i am a chess genius and i really am a chess genius and i prove it by beating all
other players, is that arrogance, well perhaps, but it might also be true.

Let's say that you really are a chess genius. Does that mean that you are a superiour being, more worth than everyone else, just because of that fact?

Let's say that a person is a member of a group, doesn't matter which, does that mean that he can claim that he is a superiour being, more worth than everyone else?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Let's say that you really are a chess genius. Does that mean that you are a superiour being, more worth than everyone else, just because of that fact?

Let's say that a person is a member of a group, doesn't matter which, does that mean that he can claim that he is a superiour being, more worth than everyone else?

Again its all relative, i might be 'worth more', to chess enthusiasts, or to the
advancement of chess theory, as for being a superior being, in what respect superior, is
Magnus Carlsen a superior being in chess circles? In order for anything to be superior
it must be relative to something else.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again its all relative, i might be 'worth more', to chess enthusiasts, or to the
advancement of chess theory, as for being a superior being, in what respect superior, is
Magnus Carlsen a superior being in chess circles? In order for anything to be superior
it must be relative to something else.

I see your point.

In chess cirkles is of course rating a measure of how good in chess you are. But that doesn't make any sense to anyone playing football, right. So you can feel superiour to others only if they recognize you as superiour.

No, I mean rather that, if you are good in chess, then if you think you are a better human being than anyone else, chess playes, and not chess player, and expect anyone else to treat you as a better human being than any other.

Does this make sense to you?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I see your point.

In chess cirkles is of course rating a measure of how good in chess you are. But that doesn't make any sense to anyone playing football, right. So you can feel superiour to others only if they recognize you as superiour.

No, I mean rather that, if you are good in chess, then if you think you are a better human being than anyone els ...[text shortened]... nyone else to treat you as a better human being than any other.

Does this make sense to you?

yes it makes sense, a better human being, well, its possible, but what is it that defines
what a 'better', human being is, more compassionate, more generous, more practical,
more loving, more empathetic? I think its certainly true that its possible to be better or
superior in some manner in comparison to other humans although the criteria is not
yet defined as to how we proceed with our evaluation.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When did the time of Prophecy ends? Does the bible say anything about the date?

No, of course the Bible says nothing about this. Do you think it was written last Friday? When the Bible was written, there were still prophets of God living. Today, there are none left. I'd say that means the time of Prophecy is over, and has been over for well over a thousand years, despite people like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young calling themselves prophets.

Originally posted by divegeester
The trouble with "prophesy" is that in the Bible a lot of what is talked about as "prophesy" is actually visions; Revelation is an obvious example and also much of Daniel. The purpose of prophesy is to provide God's people with inspired direction and to demonstrate that that direction is in fact divinely inspired; it needs to be simple and easy to measu ...[text shortened]... s organisation. This doesn't make than necessarily bad people - just not Gods' prophets.

For you and twhitehead, my tip of the day is that "prophecy" is the noun, while "prophesy" is the verb.

Originally posted by Suzianne
For you and twhitehead, my tip of the day is that "prophecy" is the noun, while "prophesy" is the verb.

Thank God for context.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, of course the Bible says nothing about this. Do you think it was written last Friday? When the Bible was written, there were still prophets of God living. Today, there are none left. I'd say that means the time of Prophecy is over, and has been over for well over a thousand years, despite people like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young calling themselves prophets.

I'm not a mormon but every single mormon I have met "bears good fruit" so to say... The ones in positions in the church are all people who really would turn their cheek and they are also the ones who don't post on this slag filled "spirituality" forum.

In other words, of all denominations, If I was forced to make a sweeping generalisation I would have to say that mormons are the most pleasant chrisitians and if any religion is correct then it is theirs.... based on "their fruit."

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, of course the Bible says nothing about this. Do you think it was written last Friday? When the Bible was written, there were still prophets of God living. Today, there are none left. I'd say that means the time of Prophecy is over, and has been over for well over a thousand years, despite people like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young calling themselves prophets.

Sorry but many prophicies in the Bible have not come to their finish yet... A prohecy can still continue or not even come to pass yet and just because the prophet is no longer alive means nothing.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, of course the Bible says nothing about this. Do you think it was written last Friday? When the Bible was written, there were still prophets of God living. Today, there are none left. I'd say that means the time of Prophecy is over, and has been over for well over a thousand years, despite people like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young calling themselves prophets.

I believe they are false prophets, just not prophets of God. 😏

Originally posted by tomtom232
I'm not a mormon but every single mormon I have met "bears good fruit" so to say... The ones in positions in the church are all people who really would turn their cheek and they are also the ones who don't post on this slag filled "spirituality" forum.

In other words, of all denominations, If I was forced to make a sweeping generalisation I would have ...[text shortened]... chrisitians and if any religion is correct then it is theirs.... based on "their fruit."

They really have you fooled. 😏

Originally posted by tomtom232
In other words, of all denominations, If I was forced to make a sweeping generalisation I would have to say that mormons are the most pleasant chrisitians and if any religion is correct then it is theirs.... based on "their fruit."

This is an interesting post that strikes a chord with me.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I'm not a mormon but every single mormon I have met "bears good fruit" so to say... The ones in positions in the church are all people who really would turn their cheek and they are also the ones who don't post on this slag filled "spirituality" forum.

In other words, of all denominations, If I was forced to make a sweeping generalisation I would have ...[text shortened]... chrisitians and if any religion is correct then it is theirs.... based on "their fruit."

There aren't any Satanists posting here either.

And don't forget Satan appears as an angel of light; A perfect gentleman.

The key word here is "appears".

Originally posted by FMF
This is an interesting post that strikes a chord with me.

Convert already so we'll have something to debate about.

Originally posted by josephw
Convert already ...

Oh no you misunderstand. Mormon religion is of no interest to me. But all the Mormons I have known personally, without exception, have been really engaging - and seemingly energized in a very positive way. I don't really know why exactly. By their faith perhaps. But it's not very big sample so perhaps I have just been unrepresentatively lucky.