Re: I guess we cannibals are all alone until the next missionaries show -- 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: 23:44:00 05/02/11 Mon
Author: George
Subject: Re: I guess we cannibals are all alone until the next missionaries show
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: I guess we cannibals are all alone until the next missionaries show" on 20:14:47 05/02/11 Mon

Lois wrote:

>George,
>
>I sort of imagine that this new push for protecting
>the children is also a self righteous finger pointing
>at the events in recent years revealing what has gone
>on in the Catholic church for generations. They had
>rules too. Rules that their priests would be celebate.
>And then they simply preyed on little boys and girls.
>From many accounts the higher ups knew about what was
>going on. But in priestcraft they must protect their
>own.

>So as we see, and I agree with you whole heartedly,
>rules means nothing to people who are in leadership
>positions for their own selfish interests.
>
>Lois

It's worse than that, Lois. The rules that are being ignored are rules made by the very people in power to give false assurance that there were any rules. That's what the polygamists did in Nauvoo. They repeatedly insisted to all inquiry that there was no such thing as polygamy in the Church, and that the rules on the books prohibited it -- while members of the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve were doing exactly that.

As Walter Martin pointed out of the Unitarians, they denigrate the authority of the Bible as a divine revelation, but every time they get into a tight spot, they quote it (usually out of context) to prove their point. He also states that if the Scriptures are unreliable human creations, why bother with them at all, especially when one has gone out of one's way to make clear one's conviction that they are merely human writings or records.

Lois, by disobeying their own rules, they are showing in and of themselves that their own purported revelations are really as bogus as they claim the legitimate scriptures to be. If the Bible's condemnation of sodomy, a condemnation found throughout the Old Testament and reiterated in the New, is considered bogus, why should we think anything different about any "revelation" that Steve Veazey has? After all, according to current Community of Christ teachings the Bible is merely a human record of God's interaction with man, and Steve Veazey's is as well. If we cannot trust the Bible's condemnation of sodomy because the Bible is a human production, can we trust Steve Veazey's revelations either? Last I heard, Steve Veazey is perfectly human, and is as completely flawed and biased as Moses, St. Paul -- or Judas, for that matter.

George

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