Re: Geronimo Rides Through Town -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:10:35 06/27/11 Mon
Author: George
Subject: Re: Geronimo Rides Through Town
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Geronimo Rides Through Town" on 21:09:07 06/26/11 Sun

>>It just occurred to me that apologists for this lapse
>>in communication could cite the 1940's short story
>>"Locomotive 38," about an Indian of that same name who
>>came into town and had his mule struck and killed by a
>>motorist. After all, it could be cultural miscues that
>>caused the misunderstanding, rather than just poor
>>communication over the phone. After all, if Indians
>>name their children after train engines, wouldn't the
>>mistake be perfectly natural? Sociologists have a
>>million such excuses. And a lot of them are just as
>>fictional as "Locomotive 38."
>>
>>George
>
>George,
>
>It occurred to me today that just as God told Adam and
>Eve, "if you eat that fruit you will die" that they
>were just like children who are told "not to touch the
>hot burner, you will get burned." Of course they have
>to try it.
>
>The gays and lesbians and other fornicators have been
>told "not to do that". But I guess they just have to
>try it and find out what destruction really means.
>
>But they really can't be excused. They were warned, it
>is not like they were born in the Amazon jungle and
>never had access to a Bible. Probably the Amazon
>natives have better morals, even without any formal
>training in the scriptures.
>
>It is understandable to try something, but it is
>inexcusable to claim that God told them it is alright.
>
>Lois
>
>
>PAPER #3, First Presidency Meetings (Community of
>Christ), January 9, 1979, 1:45 p.m.
>
>THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCHPage 2
>
>The message of the gospel is concerned with the
>deepest human needs. It offers no solutions for the
>problem of collective evil, the question of death, nor
>even a solution for sin. The gospel is the
>assurance that all is changed in Christ.

Lois, the Bible says that the Gentiles and heathen have the laws of nature to show them what is right, and that those who will not even heed them are completely reprobate.

Tony Evans had a brilliant exposition of the situation with Adam and Eve. Adam was subject to God, and Eve was subject to Adam. Adam's job was not to dominate Eve, but to demonstrate in his proper relationship to God the proper behavior toward a superior, or supervisory rank person. He did not. He did not serve as an intermediary between God and Eve, but left her to her own devices. Then, Satan chose to subvert the situation by drawing Eve out of her proper position, thereby distorting the entire order and giving the prince of darkness the ability to regain the control that he had lost.

That is what the push for female priesthood and same-sex marriage is all about. It disturbs the proper spiritual order and enables subversion. However, note that the men are not blameless in this. Were they doing their jobs properly, there would be no opportunity for Satan to be able to practice this kind of craft.

I like the statement that "all is changed in Christ." Our current president offered "change," but it appears that the only change this term over the previous forty is the skin color and the boldness in misdemeanor of the officeholder. The vagueness of the FP's statement "all is changed in Christ," apparently is elastic enough to include the possibility that the only change is in which sins are being celebrated and performed, and/or who is doing them, not in a change from the desire to commit sin to a state of grace in which one no longer wishes to do so, whether willingly or by compulsion. I would find ludicrous the "conversion story" of a prostitute who discovered that after she accepted Christ that she could continue to ply her trade under the auspices of the church, because the "change" that has occurred is that she no longer has to be ashamed of her profession, or do anything to try to improve her situation morally and/or legally. Or perhaps John Edwards could present a conversion story in which he could tell us how accepting Christ freed him from the law so that there was no longer any condemnation or shame in committing adultery with whomever, because "all is changed in Christ."

As Ann Coulter wrote in her book "Demonic," (and this is the last time I'll refer to it): "It's a good thing that we don't have any idea exactly what was going on in Gomorrah, or the liberals would be trying to push that on us, too."

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]