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):
|
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: Salvation FREE and Eternal (Part 1) -- Sheepdog, 06:16:26 08/02/05 Tue
Sheepdog: The Pharisees and Sadducees believed in God,
but they would not accept any of the living prophets
that God chose to send. So what good was their belief in God? They believed in a Messiah, but not the one God chose to send. To them, the one God chose just wasn’t quite
what they’d expected after their interpretation of Him
in the scriptures. Their belief in the Messiah did
them no good.
Lord Veritas: Is this behavior any different from that which those who interpret the scriptures in the light of different texts, such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price, do to the Messiah God sent?
SD: I’m not sure I understand your paragraph. Please restate your point if I miss it.
It IS different. The Pharisees had one text, which they built their faith around. The Christians had the old text PLUS living prophets and chosen apostles. Their faith was built around revelation and not an old book. The Pharisees were a murderous bunch. Not unlike those who killed JSmith. Pharisees believed that Jesus was a corruptor of “true” faith. Just as His church is still viewed by some (LDS). But instead of allowing people their freedoms to worship God the way they choose, they decide to do a favor for God and kill with no command from him to do it. Same thing which had happened to the prophets He’d sent before Him. Same thing that happened to JSmith, whom He sent after. In reality, the gospel Jesus taught seemed new, but was really a correction of the gospel which their leaders had rejected and messed up over time. The Pharisees are the ones that had a problem with new texts and living prophets. The only way the texts such as BofM, D&C, etc. are evil is IF, IF they are not of God. But they are and so to condemn them simply because they are new scripture is nonsense. Being different is not a sin either because the NT is different than the OT.
Just for the heck of it, quote for me the most untrue, non christian chapter, as you see it, in the Book of Mormon.
Sheepdog: They believed in scripture, but only when they got to interpret it their own way.
Lord Veritas: And those who follow Joseph Smith do not?
SD: Some may interpret it incorrectly on my side. I will admit that for sure.
All scripture must be interpreted and understood with prayer and the Power of the Spirit of God or else it is of little worth. Even dangerous.
Sheepdog:So what was their belief in scripture worth?
They had the commandments of God, yet they chose to
break them. What good was all their faith and beliefs
then?
Lord Veritas: The beliefs of the Pharisees and Sadducees were not worth a grain of salt, I'll admit, however, you misunderstand why their beliefs were worthless. Their beliefs were not worthless because they broke the commandments of God (which everybody as done-Romans 3:9-12:" What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written,There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth,there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way,they are together become unprofitable;there is none that doeth good, no, not one") but rather, their beliefs were worthless because they were placed in their own good works instead of the grace of God.
SD: Their problem was what they called “good works”. If they had truly done “good works” there would not have been a problem. The problem was that they murdered and believed in their hearts that God would approve. They honestly believed that their torment towards the Christians was ridding the world of evil. They believed they were “casting out devils” by murdering and hurting. THOSE are NOT “good works” yet they though that they were.
The other “works” they relied on to save them were rituals. Now God had commanded rituals BUT the rituals were to remind them of certain things they must do and think of. They began to put all their efforts into the ritual and forgot the reasons they were performing the rituals/works.
LV:When one truly becomes a son of God, they cannot be damned no matter how many times they break the commandments, because their faith in the grace of God saves them, and God's grace is too strong to be defeated by man's shortcomings.
SD: So, Judas is in? The Pharisees called themselves the sons of God and they called themselves “saved”. Just because someone anoints themselves as “saved” doesn’t mean anything until God himself appears and lets them know that they are. Otherwise it’s a hope, and very possibly a vain hope.
If a person does not try to do his best to keep the commandments then how does he ever expect to hear from God about his standing before Him?
If one truly becomes a son of God, they do not break the main commandments. Of course, they have their imperfections and sin a little.
They do not commit grave sins without punishment and renewed repentance.
Sheepdog: With all their belief in God, one thing they refused to do was get down on their knees and ask God, the
Father of us all, who Jesus really was to Him.
Lord Veritas: They also did not pay enough attention to the scriptures that prophesized his coming and what he would do-sound familiar?
SD: Oh yes they did pay attention. They were scriptorians and priests! The most educated in scripture!
They argued about where Jesus was born because of what scripture said.
Because of scripture, they expected a King, did they get a king? Nope, not exactly. They expected a wonderful, counselor, marvelous, etc. Did they see Him as anything other than an ordinary nut? No.
Was he their “counselor”? No, they refused his counsel because he taught new things and didn’t follow scripture.
They expected to know him just by looking, (they being religious and all) but nope.
They said they’d believe if he’d just give them a sign and prove who he was.
Nope, no proof.
Bold claims, yet no proof.
Sheepdog:We make a bold claim to be the church that has the
authority to preach and baptize in Christ's name.
Lord Veritas: (nods)
Sheepdog: All we ask of those we teach is that they consider the things we teach and then ask God, with a sincere desire to know, if it is true.
Lord Veritas: A fair request. Nonetheless, your method of "testing truth" appears to be relying on a warm, tingly sign from heaven to corroborate your teachings, which given the fancy of human emotions, does not seem very wise.
SD: I am not talking about emotion. I’m talking about the Spirit of God communicating with you. Now if you can’t decipher the difference between the burning of the Spirit and tingling, then that is between you and God. Some of us had a relationship with the Spirit of God before we ever asked about this specific, very important, topic. We have had many less important troubles and questions and have approached God on them and have learned what He feels/sounds like. The Burning of the Spirit should not be minimized or mocked by any true Christian. It is the Power by which God communicates with men.
When the apostles were traveling after Jesus died, a man walked with them and they talked. The apostles did not recognize that it was Jesus. Afterwards though, they scolded themselves for not knowing because of the burning within their hearts as he spoke.
Only a person who has never experienced this could say that it could be confused with any human emotion. It is very different, distinct, and powerful.
There are levels of it’s manifestation and sometimes it is barely there, but it continues to get stronger as needed according to faith and need.
Would you really deny the power of the Spirit of God?
You see, this is why I like the Mormon Jesus. He is real and He is there and if I need Him, He comes. I read in scripture how others have also heard Him and I know that they are not lying because I have also heard Him for myself.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Salvation FREE and Eternal (Part 1) -- Sheepdog, 16:07:38 08/02/05 Tue
LV:Why do that when God has already provided a far more reliable method of testing if your doctrine is true, by testing it against the gospel that Christ has already preached in his living word, the Bible.
SD: It's can be reliable if you don't take your pastor's word for who is and isn't a false teacher. That takes communication from God.
The Jews also were warned to beware of false teachers and the Priests told everyone that Jesus was one of those false teachers that scripture warned of. That is why they felt he deserved to be stoned for blaspheme against God!
The Bible is a book. We do not worship a book. We worship Christ.
To you, a living word is a written word, to me it’s when I hear someone speak to me who is there. To me, the book is a tool. It shows me how others obtained a real living relationship with God. I do not worship their experience or the book they wrote. I use the advice there to help me have my own real experiences.
The scripts of the apostles were many. Evil men discarded the scripts that offended them, even though they were written by the twelve.
To think that you have it all is a vain hope, especially after considering all that the scripts had been through before they were compiled into what we now call a Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful for what made it through, yet I know that because of motives and other things, I can’t trust every word is untouched by other humans or that all important info was contained and not scapped.
I do not trust what Constantine and his book burning left us with. We know that other Christians had texts of the apostles that he burned. Now why would he do that? Well, he didn’t get all of them burned because in 1945 some that had been hidden were found. The gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Philip to name a few.
In the NT after Christ was resurrected he taught the disciples for 40 days or so, don't you think that this information would have been good to have?
LV:After all, if God is immutable and perfect, it would make sense that his gospel would be immutable and perfect as well, and that any gospel that differed from it would be false. And we all know what God has to say about false gospels
SD: He is perfect, His gospel is perfect, but the book is not “his gospel” nor could it be perfect unless it was hand written by Him, which it was not.
The apostles didn’t have the NT. They had Him and then when he died they still had direct revelation from Him. He gave them a government to run the church by. He left them with that, He did not leave them with a book that contained His gospel.
LV:Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
SD: This is one of my favorite verses. Only a Christian who didn’t know the history of his own faith could possibly use this scripture against the LDS.
The key verse is “if any man"....claiming to be of God (like an angel would)...
The gospel the Emperor Constantine left to you was the accursed gospel.
Do you know what he did to the gospel of Christ?
In a nut shell...
His motive was power and money. He wanted to stop the fighting between religions because it was causing so much trouble for him. The Christian sects were fighting among one another about doctrine and there were many sects. (NOT just one!)
The Pagans were fighting with the Christian too.
It was totally a mess. Constantine knew that he must unite the people, by force if necessary.
He favored both Christians and Pagans when it suited his motives.
One year he's giving tribute to the Pagan God and a couple of years later he's claiming to have a Christian "vision".
He established a church to please and pacify both. Many Christians were punished and killed because they would not comply. He changed the Sabbath to Sunday in order to please the Pagans who worshipped the Sun God. He combined the celebration of Jesus’s birth to the Sun God’s birth (Dec. 25). He combined the celebration of the resurrection with the Pagan God of fertility (Easter).
He demanded all Christians stop their preaching and turn over their buildings of worship to the new government church.
He assembled some bishops and insisted they come up with a definition of God that all could be forced to accept, Pagan's and Christians alike. It's the definition you still have today and anybody who has a problem with it is automatically called "non Christian" even though there were many who shuttered at the creeds back then. What did they do with these people? Charge them with blaspheme, just like their Savior, and punish or kill them.
Constantine built the first elaborate “Christian” church only for the rich to attend, no poor allowed.
He made it so that sins could be paid for with money and favors to him.
He was a murderer and he had his wife and son boiled to death and he conquered many nations under the symbol of the cross. The cross was his symbol, not Christ’s.
He pretended to have a vision in which Jesus told him that he could kill and conquer as long as it was under the sign of the cross.
Does this sound like a man of God?
What ever happened to the doctrine of preaching the gospel "meek and mild and harmless as doves"?
Wow, free pass to murder!
He burned all books and scripts that were “not approved”.
I surely could go on and on about this accursed gospel which was preached and established by a man that was NO angel sent from God.
These are the roots of your church. He did this to the original gospel. This was the “different gospel” talked of here. In other places it is written that it would come to pass soon. If Constantine would have known what was symbolically written of in Revelations, he’d have burned that too. The Lord knows how to get his message through so that the wicked don’t see it or comprehend.
Many Christians will say that they don’t follow the gospel of Constantine, but they do. He was the author of your creeds which God rightly called an abomination.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Next! -- Lord Veritas, 18:47:01 01/28/06 Sat
>LV:Why do that when God has already provided a far
>more reliable method of testing if your doctrine is
>true, by testing it against the gospel that Christ has
>already preached in his living word, the Bible.
>SD: It's can be reliable if you don't take your
>pastor's word for who is and isn't a false teacher.
>That takes communication from God.
LV: You did not answer my question. My question was why pray for divine inspiration on whether or not a text is scripture when you can easily test its validity against those of the previous scriptures. All you did was say "Do not take your pastor's word for who is/is not a false teacher", and by doing so, completely ignored my question.
SD:>The Jews also were warned to beware of false teachers
>and the Priests told everyone that Jesus was one of
>those false teachers that scripture warned of. That is
>why they felt he deserved to be stoned for blaspheme
>against God!
>The Bible is a book. We do not worship a book.
LV: Neither do we. We simply acknowledge that the Bible is the complete and living Word of God.
SD:We worship Christ.
LV: Then why do you have no faith in His ability to preserve His Word and Church from being corrupted by a mere man such as Constantine? Why do you have no faith that He is powerful enough to bring you into heaven without needing any "extra help" from you trying to fulfill commandments that you can't fulfill?
SD:To you, a living word is a written word
LV:Wrong. The living word is the gospel and scriptures of God, not simply anything that's "written". You've jumped to a radical conclusion for no apparent reason.
SD:, to me it’s
>when I hear someone speak to me who is there
LV: I hope you have better qualification than that for a "living word". Any imbecile or demon can say a word. If you heard Satan speak to you, and he was there in front of you, would you consider his lies "living word"? I certainly hope not.
SD: To me,
>the book is a tool. It shows me how others obtained a
>real living relationship with God. I do not worship
>their experience or the book they wrote.
LV: Neither do we Christians. We use it to discover what God wants from our lives, to discern truth, and as a measuring rod to make sure that we are not duped by every "new scripture" that people try to fling at us.
SD:I use the advice there to help me have my own real experiences. The scripts of the apostles were many. Evil men
>discarded the scripts that offended them, even though
>they were written by the twelve.
LV: Not true. Many books were excluded from the Bible because they either:
1) Preached doctrines that were contrary to the gospel and the previous written Words of God, and therefore, false, since God does not contradict himself.
2) Were completely irrelevant (ex. stuff like shopping lists, or address books)
3) Were not actually authored by the prophets or the apostles (ex, the Gospel of Thomas, which was written at least five decades after he was killed in India)
To think that every little thing an apostle wrote should be included in the Bible is tantamount to claiming that Shakespeare's bills and shopping lists should be included in his play anthologies. It would be ridiculous to put anything that was not a play into a play anthology, just like it would be ridiculous to put anything that was obviously not divinely inspired into God's divinely inspired Word. And somehow, I think that a council of over two hundred church leaders who spent most of their lives studying the thousands of scriptural texts are a bit more qualified than an American with a third grade education is to figure out which texts are divinely inspired.
SD:To think that you have it all is a vain hope,
>especially after considering all that the scripts had
>been through before they were compiled into what we
>now call a Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful for
>what made it through, yet I know that because of
>motives and other things, I can’t trust every word is
>untouched by other humans or that all important info
>was contained and not scapped.
LV: Yet, you trust everything Joseph Smith wrote was untouched by other humans/motives, despite the fact that he and his followers were all humans. Good to know your standards are consistent...
SD:>I do not trust what Constantine and his book burning
>left us with. We know that other Christians had texts
>of the apostles that he burned. Now why would he do
>that? Well, he didn’t get all of them burned because
>in 1945 some that had been hidden were found.
LV: I gave you plenty of room to write about Constantine in the "Rants about Constantine" thread. Please use it.
SD:The gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Philip to name a
few.
LV:Gospel of Thomas has already been addressed. Gospel of Philip will be looked at soon.
SD:In the NT after Christ was resurrected he taught the
>disciples for 40 days or so, don't you think that this
>information would have been good to have?
LV: I had this crazy idea that this information that Christ taught the apostles would be contained in the TWENTY SEVEN DIVINELY INSPIRED New Testament scriptures that they wrote AFTER CHRIST ASCENDED TO HEAVEN, which, coincidentally, took place AFTER CHRIST TAUGHT THE DISCIPLES FOR FORTY DAYS. If you cannot logically follow that, then perhaps you are not adequately prepared to participate in a debate.
>LV:After all, if God is immutable and perfect, it
>would make sense that his gospel would be immutable
>and perfect as well, and that any gospel that differed
>from it would be false. And we all know what God has
>to say about false gospels
>SD: He is perfect, His gospel is perfect, but the book
>is not “his gospel” nor could it be perfect unless it
>was hand written by Him, which it was not.
>The apostles didn’t have the NT. They had Him and then
>when he died they still had direct revelation from
>Him. He gave them a government to run the church by.
>He left them with that, He did not leave them with a
>book that contained His gospel.
LV: Not true. They had the Old Testament, which, if I am not mistaken, was WRITTEN DOWN. If Christ preached a contrary doctrine to what was previously mentioned in the Old Testament, then any imbecile could have called him out on it! However, the New Testament is full of Old Testament references to prove its consistency with God's previous teachings. The gospel Matthew is especially famous for this. Honestly, double check your facts before you post, please. It will result in less headaches for all who are involved.
>LV:Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from
>heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
>which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
>As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
>preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
>received, let him be accursed.
>SD: This is one of my favorite verses. Only a
>Christian who didn’t know the history of his own faith
>could possibly use this scripture against the LDS.
>The key verse is “if any man"....claiming to be of God
>(like an angel would)...
LV: That is not what it said. This is what the verses said:
Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.
If you read the above carefully, it does not say "“if any man"....claiming to be of God (like an angel would)..."
It says if any man or angel preaches a different gospel than the gospel God has already given to us, then let them be accursed. Man or Angel. Not Man claiming to be of God like an Angel would. Man or Angel. Plain and simple. This is outrageous-this session is supposed to be us debating whether salvation is free and eternal or not, not me explaining to you the fundamentals of the English language.
SD:The gospel the Emperor Constantine left to you was the
>accursed gospel.
LV: This, and the rest of it which has been deleted, belongs in the Constantine rant section. This was supposed to be about whether or not Salvation is free and Eternal, yet, you have taken us way off-topic. I hate to say it Sheepdog, but quite frankly, you have proven over and over again that you are not qualified for a debate. You completely ignore simple questions, take up paragraphs of space on tangential subjects, can't get basic facts straight, and cannot comprehend verses that a child could understand. Therefore, I am afraid I shall no longer engage you in this discourse. I hereby wish you best of luck in all your endeavors and pray that God will allow you to see the truth one day. But until then, goodbye.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Next! -- Like I said... brainwashed, 10:12:56 02/07/06 Tue
LV:
>This is outrageous-this
>session is supposed to be us debating whether
>salvation is free and eternal or not, not me
>explaining to you the fundamentals of the English
>language. ...
...This was
>supposed to be about whether or not Salvation is free
>and Eternal, yet, you have taken us way off-topic. I
>hate to say it Sheepdog, but quite frankly, you have
>proven over and over again that you are not qualified
>for a debate. You completely ignore simple questions,
>take up paragraphs of space on tangential subjects,
>can't get basic facts straight, and cannot comprehend
>verses that a child could understand....
Like I said.
Nice posts though LV. You have proven him (her) wrong over and over again and he/she never has a valid or even logical response. It's been elightening reading your posts LV. I for one, have learned from them so your words did not go to waste on sheepwash.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Rich ruler, poor apostles (rebuttal part 1) -- Lord Veritas, 13:21:38 08/15/05 Mon
>What does “receive him” and “believe on his name” mean?
>Does it require any action by us?
>Lord Veritas: Only our faith, which is enough to
>release the grace of God that saves us.
>SD: According to Christ, faith alone (if faith means
>belief inside) isn’t enough.
>Remember the man who asked Christ what he must do to
>be saved? Jesus didn’t say, “believe in me, that’s
>it.” Nope, he told the man to keep the commandments.
>The man replied that he had done this all his life,
>what more did he need to do? Sell all that he had and
>follow, (in other words, feed the sheep by becoming a
>missionary and leaving the world behind.) this is not
>faith alone. It is action, in addition to keeping all
>the commandments.
Let's take a look at what the passage of the rich young ruler REALLY says. Because, after all, you must know what a passage says before you can discern what it means.
Matthew 19:16-29
" 16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Ex. 20.13 · Deut. 5.17 Thou shalt not commit adultery, Ex. 20.14 · Deut. 5.18 Thou shalt not steal, Ex. 20.15 · Deut. 5.19 Thou shalt not bear false witness, Ex. 20.16 · Deut. 5.20
19 Honor thy father and thy mother: Ex. 20.12 · Deut. 5.16 and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Lev. 19.18
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? "
In the above verses, the rich young man asks Christ what can he do to get eternal life. Christ replies that if he will enter into eternal life, then keep the commandments. The young man replies that he has already kept all the commandments; yet his question "What do I lack" reveals that he still lacks something crucial. Notice that upon hearing that he kept the commandments, Christ does not say"Congratulations, you have earned a spot in heaven"
"21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
In this Christ says that the young man must
a) give up everything he has
b) to come and follow him
Then the young man will be perfect and "have treasure in heaven". Your "missionary clause" in your above paragraph is woefully absent.
"22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The rich man rejects Christ's teaching for his own possessions and leaves. In response, Christ turns to his apostles and says that, in spite of keeping the commandments, the rich man's chances of entering heaven are not only not guaranteed...they are also highly unlikely.
"24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
This is the punctuation on Christ's earlier point, that just as it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, it is even more impossible for even a rich man to get into heaven. This clearly shows that even the most "valuable" men cannot get into heaven, at least, not on their own.
"25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
After that bombshell is dropped the apostles ask Christ who can be saved. Christ replies that salvation is impossible for men, but that through God, everything (which includes salvation) is possible.
"27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, Mt. 25.31 ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Lk. 22.30 "
This time Peter speaks up. Note that he does not say that he or his apostolic brethren kept the commandments. He only that they all gave up everything they had to follow Christ. Yet Christ still promises that they will sit on twelve thrones, judging all of Israel.
"29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first "
Herein Christ tells what truly gets men into heaven: giving up everything for his name's sake. This will cause "the first" such as the wealthy man, to be the last into heaven (if they even get there at all), and the "last", such as the poverty-stricken apostles, to be "first" (who are already guaranteed thrones over Israel).
And that is what true saving faith requires, to give up everything you have to follow Christ.
So, when taken in context, this passage shows that keeping the commandments will not get you into heaven. The rich man, in spite of being wealthy and keeping all the commandments, has virtually no chance of entering heaven. Incontrast, the poor apostles, who, having given up all they have, are relying on nothing except Christ for their future, have been promised thrones over God's chosen nation
and will, because of their faith, achieve everlasting life.
Christ does say in verse 17 "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." But apparently, you misunderstood it to mean , " You have to keep the commandments to get eternal life" which it doesn't, especially in the context of the rest of the passage. Rather, it is an "if-then statement", meaning that "if you are among those who will get eternal life, then you should keep the commandments. ", not "If you are among those who keep the commandments, then you will get eternal life". Simply put, you got Christ's words backwards. And, if you reread the passage, you will clearly see that he DOES say faith alone on him (synonymous with belief on his name), is enough.
Action and keeping the commandments will not get you into heaven; the faith that results in actions and keeping the commandments gets you into heaven. Christ said it himself in the passage you tried to use against me. But once again, the truth triumphs over the lie...who would have thought that THAT would happen...
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rich ruler, poor apostles (rebuttal part 1) -- QUITTNER, 11:20:01 08/19/05 Fri
As I understand it, those who wrote the 4 "authorized" gospels, at least 40 years after Jesus was killed by the Romans, were NOT members of "The Kingdom of God", and they relied on garbled stories about it handed down mouth-to-mouth.
..... The "Kingdom of God" ("of heaven") was an alternative community, separated from "The World", partly described in Acts 2 and Acts 4. Members had a different, communal, loving lifestyle, quite different from those of the outsiders who still lived "in the World". It was an artificial "family" of likeminded, specially selected members. No others could get in, and high quality of character/morality was required of all members. Compare with current rquirements of religious orders and other groups that still require of all applicants for full membership vows of obedience, poverty and chastity. Keeping always all of the commandments of God was, of course, only one of these requirements - nobody could get to be a member otherwise. All members were poor as individuals, including Jesus and the apostles, they had pooled their possession and given them to the administration of the Kingdom of God for the use of all members as required. Outsiders therefore called members "The Poor". Members, and ONLY members, had "life", even "eternal life", as compared with the outsiders who were (spiritually) "dead". Compare with the passage where a member was not permitted to attend a funeral (let the dead bury their dead).
..... After the Romans had killed Jesus, many changes were made, many new unauthorized versions of Christianity were invented, and the first priority was on maximizing the quantity of members (read: of their money), never mind their quality.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
You don't read many scriptures, do you? -- Lord Veritas, 17:15:29 02/07/06 Tue
>As I understand it, those who wrote the 4 "authorized"
>gospels, at least 40 years after Jesus was killed by
>the Romans, were NOT members of "The Kingdom of God",
>and they relied on garbled stories about it handed
>down mouth-to-mouth.
LV: That does not say much for your understanding. Three of those who wrote the gospels, Matthew, Mark, and John, were all eyewitnesses to the life and death of Christ and saw him after his resurrection. Luke compiled his gospel based on other eyewitness accounts. So much for your garbled "mouth to mouth" theory.
>..... The "Kingdom of God" ("of heaven") was an
>alternative community, separated from "The World",
>partly described in Acts 2 and Acts 4. Members had a
>different, communal, loving lifestyle, quite different
>from those of the outsiders who still lived "in the
>World". It was an artificial "family" of likeminded,
>specially selected members. No others could get in,
>and high quality of character/morality was required of
>all members. Compare with current rquirements of
>religious orders and other groups that still require
>of all applicants for full membership vows of
>obedience, poverty and chastity. Keeping always all of
>the commandments of God was, of course, only one of
>these requirements - nobody could get to be a member
>otherwise. All members were poor as individuals,
>including Jesus and the apostles, they had pooled
>their possession and given them to the administration
>of the Kingdom of God for the use of all members as
>required. Outsiders therefore called members "The
>Poor". Members, and ONLY members, had "life", even
>"eternal life", as compared with the outsiders who
>were (spiritually) "dead". Compare with the passage
>where a member was not permitted to attend a funeral
>(let the dead bury their dead).
LV: An interesting conspiracy theory, but unless you have specific quotes from the Bible that show that heaven is not the kingdom of God, that eternal life is a code phrase, etc, then that is all you have-an interesting conspiracy theory. I will address the passage of the "let the dead bury the dead" in a following post.
>..... After the Romans had killed Jesus, many changes
>were made, many new unauthorized versions of
>Christianity were invented, and the first priority was
>on maximizing the quantity of members (read: of their
>money), never mind their quality.
LV: I am going to assume that the reason you cited no specific information for this theory was because you were pressed for time. Either way, the accusations you make in the passage above are too vague and need to be substantiated to be taken seriously, otherwise, they are nothing more than a rant. In addition, the issue of unauthorized "Christian" sects is tangential to the main argument here of whether salvation is free and eternal or not, so please bring up that issue in a different thread where it has more relevance, such as the lost gospel and Constantinian threads.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: NOT Rubbish! -- Sheepdog, 17:06:54 11/17/05 Thu
>say that you love him, shed tears, and say you believe
>in Him all the day long, but if you refuse to follow
>Him and do as he has commanded, then your belief is
>not a true belief.
You neglect Vice Versa! IF YOU HAVE A TRUE BELIEF YOU WILL DO ALL THE THINGS!!!
***I do not disagree with this. I guess you think it sounds better when you say it. There is no “other way around” they go hand in hand. And you can cut the caps. I can hear you without the shouting.
its NOT the other way around... thats the DEVILS TRAP!!!!
SEE DONT YOU SEE?!??! You fall into the trap of WORKS before FAITH!!! If you fail your work you are not saved!?!??!?! RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
***And you fall into the trap of falsely judging my faith. Of course I believe and have faith. I also love. Love motivates me. My indebtedness motivates me. My relationship with God motivates me.
I do not think it’s possible for a person to obey God if they do not believe in Him. They may accidentally do a lot of right things but they do not do them out of love or belief in God. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who say that they believe in God, but they refuse to follow Him or do anything that he has ask of them.
The Devil is not going to try to TRAP me by encouraging me to do what is right, you silly.
The TRUE FAITH is that you are saved NO MATTER WHAT!!!! Then you do your works... out of HEART FELT DESIRE!!!!!
THIS WAY when you "Screw up" you are STILL SAVED!!!!
***If I have to live with the screw ups forever and ever, just because they say they are saved, then I might as well be in hell, right? Who will be able to tell the difference? This is how we say it works. You believe and accept the gospel of Christ. You make commitments to God to follow Him because you want to. You do your very best to change your ways from wicked to righteous. When you make mistakes, you repent and try to make things better and ask for forgiveness for that sin. Then you recommit and try again and again and again. You do not just carry on as if nothing matters anymore because you’re “saved”. What happened to enduring until the end?
If it happened that you are right, then I have no worries. I have faith.
But I feel better taking all of the things the Bible says and putting it all together because it mentions many things that need to be done.
The way you put it, you are not even allowed to make a mistake.
***Now you are twisting my words. Where did I say that mistakes are not allowed? I will say that mistakes are not to be ignored or minimized. They are to be acknowledged and repentance/change is required. We believe in doing your best and that the Mercy of Christ takes care of the rest.
That's the Devil trying to control you and usurping the SALVATION THAT IS FREE TO ALL WHO BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
***You're a good example of why not to drink coffee. You are out of control
hyper.
>ask Him which church is true and which one He’d have
>you join, ...
OK I DID THIS AND GOD SAID ITS THE GREEK ORTHODOX. YOUR POINT IS???
***Are you yelling at me still? You do not believe God is real. He’s a character in a book for you to read about but not associate with. Why do you lie and say that you did pray and that He said it’s the Greek Orthodox Church? How can I prove my point when you refuse to exercise you faith. Remember the mustard seed? With this kind of behavior, it is no wonder you do not hear from him. you can calm down now, okay? If you truly believed that you were right, you wouldn’t have to yell so much. Pray for me if you care. Oh, never mind. That’s not part of your faith is it. I’ll just pray for the both of us.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: NOT Rubbish! -- Brainwashed Sheep, 21:47:06 01/30/06 Mon
Sheepdog you are completely brainwashed and there is nothing I can do for you son (or daughter whatever).
I will add that it is sad how you do not even realize that you never addressed 90% of my arguments yet still typed a virtual novel. When proven wrong or challanged you simply retreat into your programmed defensive mechanisms. Attack the argument, not the person, and you will have more credibility. Hopefully you employ a similar level of finesse when brainwashing new Mormon recruits?
I will say a prayer that you would have the haze lifted some day Lord willing.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: NOT Rubbish! -- Sheepdog, 20:52:25 02/02/06 Thu
>Sheepdog you are completely brainwashed and there is
>nothing I can do for you son (or daughter whatever).
Sheepdog: Did I ask for you to do anything for me Daddy (or Mamma whatever)? Uh...no.
You are not my God, nor my Savior, nor are you the one who hears my prayers and answers them.
As for your accusation against me (brainwashed), I would have to humbly say... judge not lest ye be judged.
>I will add that it is sad how you do not even realize
>that you never addressed 90% of my arguments yet still
>typed a virtual novel.
I didn't have to address 90%. I only disagree with a big fat 10% of what you wrote. I agree with all the scripture you quoted, just not your slanted view on them.
>When proven wrong....
(Again, you are not my God nor my source of proof.
I do believe in Paul's words about the importance of proving all things. He was given proof through the power of the Holy Ghost and by revelation directly from God. That's the proof I base all of my beliefs and life on. When I come to a verse in the Bible that I do not understand, I do not trust you or any other man to give me all the correct answers. I do, however, trust in prayer and the answers I get directly from God. This is what works for me and when I die, it will be that same powerful, kind,and familiar voice that I will recognize.)
>or challanged you simply retreat into your programmed
>defensive mechanisms.
Ohhh ya "programmed". You falsely accuse me again of being brainwashed. Be careful there cowboy, it's stuff like that that you answer to later.
> Attack the argument, not the
>person, and you will have more credibility.
I don't recall attacking the person. Be spacific. Where did I attack you?
> Hopefully
>you employ a similar level of finesse when
>brainwashing new Mormon recruits?
What do you hope I do?
Is encouraging new Mormon recruits to humbly get down on their knees and ask the God that gave them life, if it's all true, brainwashing? No.
>I will say a prayer that you would have the haze
>lifted some day Lord willing.
I appreciate that, it has work in the past. Don't forget to add "THY will, not mine be done" when you close this prayer for me. While you are down there explaining to God how wise you are and how brainwashed I am, tell Him that He ought to quit being so good to us brainwashed Mormons....It just makes us think He's for us and not against us.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: NOT Rubbish! -- Judgemental Mental, 09:48:08 02/07/06 Tue
>As for your accusation against me (brainwashed), I
>would have to humbly say... judge not lest ye be
>judged.
Oh heaven help those who have a backbone! lmao
According to your silly logic no one is allowed to have an opinion about anything (but I am sure your walls are up and your anti logic shield is already at full force so you may not understand this...I will try to spoon feed it to you).
For instance, YOU are now not allowed to say "I disagree with the Greek Orthodox belief system!" because then you are being "judgemental". You may not use the exact word "brainwashed" but the meaning is implied, since people really do believe it, and according to you would be misguided in that beliefe... hence "Brainwashed". (again the spoon feeding is necessary to avert your anti-logic wall).
I imagine this twisted form of logic and misuse of scripture is exactly how the Mormon leaders keep you dumbed down? Remeber, NEVER QUESTION ANYTHING LEST YE BE QUESTIONED AND FLOGGED IN THE TEMPLE! (sarcasm in case you didnt get it).
So apply your logic and silly cliche to your own thought process before spouting off and making yourself look like a moron.
A judgement would be me then saying "therefore you will burn in hell sinner!" Or perhaps "since sheepdog is nearly hopelessly brainwashed, he is a BAD person!"
Which I clearly did NOT do.
Again by your logic, if I make a "judgement call" about a stop light, seeing that it is indeed RED, I will elect to STOP at that light. You, being seemingly afraid to take a stand for fear of being "judgemental" may just sail right through the intersection and cause someone or yourself some serious harm. Just like with your misguided faith. Saying your faith is misguided and casting a character judgement on you are two totally different things. But of course, then you would not be able to spout off overused cliches in your responses?
You can tell in many cases these same people are the ones who are afraid to speak up, afraid of being wrong, afraid of what others think, afraid of not being "PC", and just generally lack backbone or leadership qualities. Note, not a judgement on these people as being "bad or good". Just an observation of their personality types. But maybe I am talking to a wall here... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand the simple words here.
Your kneejerk reaction only indicates the doubts you must have lurking in the back of your mind over the validity of the Mormon faith.
Lastly, calling your response "humble" really is the biggest laugh of my day so far!
lol... oh man... lol
But don't worry. God will most likely save you as long as you believe in Christ Jesus... even if the other 50% of your beilefs are jabberwocky.
(wow I really kind of beat your brains in there... sorry bout that!)
good luck out there. you'll need it!
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: NOT Rubbish! -- Sheepdog, 19:33:17 02/15/06 Wed
.... judge not lest ye be
>>judged.
>According to your silly logic no one is allowed to
>have an opinion about anything
SD: No, that is not true. Everyone is allowed an opinion. I am just not willing to base my salvation on your opinion.
I am only interested in God's opinion.
Men's opinions are guesses and I can guess as well as the next guy.
I know that throwing around ideas/opinions can lead to truth if you are tuned in to the promptings of the Lord. But life is too short to waste too much time on the same subject and just kick around the same old guesses, don't you think? I didn’t want to rely on a guess anymore when it came to this faith.
My point in saying judge not, is that I think you ought to consider whether it may be you that is the brain washed one before you accuse me of it.
>>>(but I am sure your>walls are up
SD: In the Bible they call it a hedge : )
>>>and your anti logic shield is already at
>full force so you may not understand this...I will try
>to spoon feed it to you).
>
SD: Let my wipe the drool off my chin, loosen my helmet strap, and put the cork back on the fork so that I don't get hurt. Okay, you big smart man, teach this uneducated dumb dumb something she's not been able to learn till now
WWW
I - - I
I__=_I
>>>For instance, YOU are now not allowed to say "I
>disagree with the Greek Orthodox belief system!"
>because then you are being "judgmental".
SD: Jesus said those words about judgment that I quoted and applied to you. You'd have to know the context of the conversation to "get" what he (and I) mean by it. Obviously, it is not a sin to make judgments, I never thought it was. It is what we are here on earth to do. Jesus said those words, YET he said many judgmental things about others, right? And so did his followers. It is not a sin to judge, but ya better be careful and make sure it is a righteous/truthful judgment you make of another.
So, if you are going to say that I am brainwashed when it comes to religion, then you’d better know it and not be guessing/believing/hoping. If God didn’t reveal to you that I am, in FACT, a misguided, brainwashed soul, then don’t accuse me and risk being judged by God in the last day as a false accuser. Do you get what I mean here?
>>>since people really do believe it (GOrthodoxy), and
>according to you would be misguided in that belief...
>hence ...
SD: Again, a "belief" is a word that means "a guess". I do not "believe" in Christ. I KNOW who he is and what he is and I know it not because somebody said it was so. I know it because I have been given proof to support the belief in him that I started out with.
I do not “believe” the Book of Mormon to be true either. I once “believed” but now have been given proof that it is. I know you guys are always saying how we misguided Mormons believe in a “different Jesus” and I always say that I like this Jesus because he doesn’t just leave us alone to guess what is right. He’ll actually show us when we are asking questions intently and sincerely.
If anybody "believes" in Greek Orthodoxy. Fine. Have they had this specific belief verified with proof from Christ Himself? Do they have hundreds of thousands who will swear to the fact that God literally appeared or spoke from heaven to them individually and said that it was His authorized church? I haven't seen it. I have seen that men debated doctrine and fought and shed blood about it all. What happened to revelation? It wasn't there. Opinions/beliefs sure were.
I really don't care if people believe what I say about Mormonism. I know that they do not HAVE to believe me. All they need do is ask God about it and they can hear Him for themselves. How is that brainwashing?
>>I imagine this twisted form of logic and misuse of
>scripture is exactly how the Mormon leaders keep you
>dumbed down?
SD: You can guess and imagine all you like. You said it.... "I imagine".
Imagine, guess, and believe whatever you want.
I clearly do understand that scripture. I used it in correct context too. I can't help it if you took what I said and misunderstood.
>>Remember, NEVER QUESTION ANYTHING LEST YE
>BE QUESTIONED AND FLOGGED IN THE TEMPLE! (sarcasm in
>case you didn't get it).
SD: I know that big boys like yourself like to convince yourselves (or guess) (or imagine) that none of us question anything. Fact is many of us are where we are because we dared question EVERYTHING. Have you questioned? There is no sin in questioning and Mormons teach that people must find out for themselves from God about this faith.
>So apply your logic and silly cliche to your own
>thought process before spouting off and making
>yourself look like a moron.
SD: Talk about driving a subject into the ground! Are you done yet?
>A judgement would be me then saying "therefore you
>will burn in hell sinner!" Or perhaps "since sheepdog
>is nearly hopelessly brainwashed, he is a BAD person!"
>
>Which I clearly did NOT do.
SD: You made some accusations.
Guess what? I don't care what you guess I am. My feelings are not hurt. Why should they be. You are simply sharing your opinion and opinions do not affect me because I know what I am.
>>Again by your logic, .........
SD(a very long rambling repeat follows these 4 words...)
Whew. You are a windy guy. Are ya done????
>Your kneejerk reaction only indicates the doubts you
>must have lurking in the back of your mind over the
>validity of the Mormon faith.
SD: Yet another guess. A wrong one.
>Lastly, calling your response "humble" really is the
>biggest laugh of my day so far!
SD: Laugh all ya like: ) I like happy guys.
>>But don't worry. God will most likely save you as
>long as you believe in Christ Jesus... even if the
>other 50% of your beliefs are jabberwocky.
SD: 2 more guesses : o.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: NOT Rubbish! -- Sound Mind, 13:35:53 02/17/06 Fri
>>>>since people really do believe it (GOrthodoxy), and
>>according to you would be misguided in that belief...
>>hence ...
>
>SD: Again, a "belief" is a word that means "a guess".
>I do not "believe" in Christ. I KNOW who he is and
>what he is and I know it not because somebody said it
>was so....
No actually it's not a "guess". My reference refers to the ENGLISH definition since that is the language we are using in this forum:
be·lieve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
Additionally:
Let's examine The Bible where it states that ...whoever "BELIEVES" in Christ... is God saying that all you have to do is just "guess" that He is Lord? According to that verse, you don't need to KNOW anything. Belief, firm religios faith. That's the definition. If you want to call it "KNOW" then fine but we are talking about the same thing here regardless of the semantics and your inept attempt to thwart the truth and the WORD of GOD.
Just as your whole faith is built upon the foundation of semantic twistings of The BIBLE, your "arguments" display a microcosm of that environment. And just like your Mormon faith, you consistently contradict yourself. I just wish you could see it for yourself and break free. Maybe one day... God willing...
Logic 101: If you "KNOW" something then it is implied you also "BELIEVE" that same something.
OR are you saying that you KNOW your religion is correct but do not "BELIVE" it is? Now that sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
Beilef and Know are interchangable here.
Point being:
When you tell me to judge not lest I be judged, in calling you brainwashed, you fail to recognize that by default you "BELIEVE, KNOW, HAVE FAITH" that very same thing about me and every other non-Mormon on the planet.
You may not come out and say it, but since you "KNOW" you are right it follows that you "KNOW" everyone else is wrong. So before you call me out for being a harsh judge, KNOW that you are the exact same. GET IT?
Logic would dictate you to stop with the cliches as a form of debate.
So now in turn I would predict you to tell me that you do not BELIEVE what you KNOW. So the above does not apply to you! Just like you did initially in reverse!! Sheer Genius!!!
And yes, I am windy, but your inability to decipher the English language makes the lengthy explainations necessary.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: NOT Rubbish! -- Sheepdog, 20:37:54 02/19/06 Sun
SD: This is the definition that I found for the word “Belief”.
1: any cognitive content held as true; 2: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed;
People believe all sorts of things ARE true when they ARE NOT true. So these false beliefs can be called guesses. Faith is a hope in things that are true. But, there is such a thing as having a belief and a hope in something that is totally false. Is it still true faith? No. It’s a bad guess and holds a lot of disappointment for the person relying on it.
Paul was a religious man who believed in God but did not “believe” Christ was the Son of God. He fought against his followers. He guessed he was right. He had a firm belief he was right. He had faith that he was right. He was not right. He had guessed wrong. When he witnessed for himself and heard for himself from Christ’s own lips, he no longer held onto his former guesses.
After hearing from Jesus for himself, he no longer had to rely on beliefs for or against Jesus. He had replaced false beliefs with knowledge. Some people guess right and their good guess leads them to more knowledge which suports their true faith and true beliefs.
My point to you is... You guess that Mormonism is not of God. It’s what you want to believe and so you do. It is not because God has come to you in a vision or even inspired you at all about it.
My comment on this is... If you’d had an experience like Pauls and could speak with knowledge on the subject, fine, I’d listen. But you have no such witness from God on the subject. So, why should I care what your guess is? On the other hand, I know hundreds of upright people, who are lovers of God, who would rather die than lie, who live what they believe, who have indeed had experiences like Paul when it comes to this faith. They will swear to all that is holy that what has happened to them is the truth. I believe them. I believe them because it is the same for me and I know that I am not lying about what I have seen and heard for myself from God.
I could say that I believe in the power of prayer, but the truth is that I have actual knowledge about the power of prayer.
I could say that I believe in the resurrection and in life after death, but the truth is that I have been given proof that their truly is life after death.
I believed it for about 30 years before the belief/faith in it was verified.
There are many things I firmly believe in, that may turn out to be a little off because I haven’t received any actual knowledge on the subject but have put together pieces that seem to fit. I try to be careful to use the word “believe” and not “know” in these instances.
**Additionally:
Let's examine The Bible where it states that ...whoever "BELIEVES" in Christ... is God saying that all you have to do is just "guess" that He is Lord? According to that verse, you don't need to KNOW anything.
SD: If you had read the whole of what I wrote, you would not have hyper reacted to my statements. I clearly wrote that knowledge about God begins with a belief.
Christ said “believe and follow”. He also promises some rewards/proof if a person will give this belief a chance.
Same as He does with, this, His Church.
**t as your whole faith is built upon the foundation of semantic twistings of The BIBLE, your "arguments" display a microcosm of that environment.
SD: Thats a “belief” of yours, which you have not learned from God.
**And just like your Mormon faith, you consistently contradict yourself. I just wish you could see it for yourself and break free. Maybe one day... God willing...
SD: God is not willing. I have asked Him and He has spoken and there is nothing that can pry my body or soul from it. It is a priceless gift and I will forever be grateful that His gospel and Government is back on the earth, just as He promised it would be.
**Belief and Know are interchangable here.
SD: Oh no they are not. There is a huge difference in “beliefs” which can be wrong guesses and “knowledge” which is based in truth. There is a huge difference in beliefs and false beliefs, that’s all I’m saying. Read again what I wrote about Paul’s experience with beliefs and knowledge. Sometimes we know things and, sure, we say that we “believe” them. But in reality we know them and don’t simply believe them.
I say that you have no real knowledge about what Mormonism is to God, that’s all.
**Point being:
When you tell me to judge not lest I be judged, in calling you brainwashed, you fail to recognize that by default you "BELIEVE, KNOW, HAVE FAITH" that very same thing about me and every other non-Mormon on the planet.
You may not come out and say it, but since you "KNOW" you are right it follows that you "KNOW" everyone else is wrong. So before you call me out for being a harsh judge, KNOW that you are the exact same. GET IT?
SD: I never said that you were a harsh judge. I said you were a false judge. Get it? The difference between you and me is that you think I am offended at your harshness/false judgment, but you are the only one here that is offended because this is personal for you. I am not offended because I am not here to say that I am smarter than you or more special than you. It is not personal for me and I do not care what you think of me personally. My motive is only to defend my Lord and challenge you to believe in Him enough to trust that he could show you who the Mormons truly are and then you would not have to guess at it.
I do indeed know that you are wrong, yet it gives me no personal pride to know it. I’m not ashamed to say any of this because it is the truth. I only wish you would approach the living God about it. I do not really “believe” that you ever will, but there may be someone out there reading this that will and that is the only reason I debate the issue with you.
You say I’m wrong. I say you’re wrong.
Now can we discuss what “proof” is and where it is found?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: NOT Rubbish! -- Sound Mind, 13:41:52 02/17/06 Fri
>>>>since people really do believe it (GOrthodoxy), and
>>according to you would be misguided in that belief...
>>hence ...
>
>SD: Again, a "belief" is a word that means "a guess".
>I do not "believe" in Christ. I KNOW who he is and
>what he is and I know it not because somebody said it
>was so....
No actually it's not a "guess". My reference refers to the ENGLISH definition since that is the language we are using in this forum:
be·lieve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
Additionally:
Let's examine The Bible where it states that ...whoever "BELIEVES" in Christ... is God saying that all you have to do is just "guess" that He is Lord? According to that verse, you don't need to KNOW anything. Belief, firm religios faith. That's the definition. If you want to call it "KNOW" then fine but we are talking about the same thing here regardless of the semantics and your inept attempt to thwart the truth and the WORD of GOD.
Just as your whole faith is built upon the foundation of semantic twistings of The BIBLE, your "arguments" display a microcosm of that environment. And just like your Mormon faith, you consistently contradict yourself. I just wish you could see it for yourself and break free. Maybe one day... God willing...
Logic 101: If you "KNOW" something then it is implied you also "BELIEVE" that same something.
OR are you saying that you KNOW your religion is correct but do not "BELIVE" it is? Now that sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
Beilef and Know are interchangable here.
Point being:
When you tell me to judge not lest I be judged, in calling you brainwashed, you fail to recognize that by default you "BELIEVE, KNOW, HAVE FAITH" that very same thing about me and every other non-Mormon on the planet.
You may not come out and say it, but since you "KNOW" you are right it follows that you "KNOW" everyone else is wrong. So before you call me out for being a harsh judge, KNOW that you are the exact same. GET IT?
Logic would dictate you to stop with the cliches as a form of debate.
So now in turn I would predict you to tell me that you do not BELIEVE what you KNOW. So the above does not apply to you! Just like you did initially in reverse!! Sheer Genius!!!
And yes, I am windy, but your inability to decipher the English language makes the lengthy explainations necessary.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: To my Sound-Minded comrade -- Lord Veritas, 16:03:59 02/16/06 Thu
Hello Sound Mind,
I would no longer continue this argument with Sheepdog if I were you because simply put, she is not on your level when it comes to debate. Would you accept a challenge to fight from a six year old kid? Obviously not. So why waste time placing your adult mind in combat with one who is mentally six years old? No one likes getting the last word in more than me, but in this case, it is simply not worth it. Not matter how many times you prove her wrong, she will just bounce back with something more illogical, obtuse and incorrect. So save yourself a lot of time and headaches and find someone more mature and reasonable to debate spiritual matters with.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: To my Sound-Minded comrade -- Sound Mind, 13:46:59 02/17/06 Fri
Thanks. And yes of course you are correct. The time would be better spent on someone with the ability to reason.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: To my Sound-Minded comrade -- Quizno210hopper, 15:45:21 03/20/06 Mon
I like debates. I like to challenge my notions. I like to discuss the Word of God in a manner consistent with the principles espoused in the very scriptures we all quote from. From my perspective set up one argument at a time. Argue until it is either agreed on or diametrically opposed rational arguments are developed then do "rock-paper-scissors" or go your seperate way on the issue.
I don't think teaming up and cutting on someone because you perceive yourself to be superior benefits any discussion.
Grasshopper
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]