Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
How
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Faith in Christ is Completely Logical
- Thread starter Serenity7855
- Start date
How
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I am not sure if you are talking to me or someone on my ignore list as you seem to be denigrating me, without reason, to a, not so nice, third person. That is indication enough to show why there are those who cannot live the higher law, unprovoked attacks and bearing false witness.
If any Christian does not believe in the Plan of Salvation then they ain't no Christian. It is our raison d'etre. It is like being a gun slinger without a gun, a doctor without a stethoscope, a theif without a balaclava, a schizophrenic without friends, or a failed Christian without a burning, insatiable and unquenchable need to fervantly critique God, and His son, for their failure as a christian. It is just not possible to be a Christian and not believe in the war in heaven, the creation, the atonement, the crucifixion, the resurrection, salvation, the judgment, and finally, exaltation. It is simply a non- sequitur. That you do not know this fundamental principle of christianity explains reams about why you, and other here, failed miserably at becoming a Christians.
Last edited:
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
And according to other Christians, you're not a Christian because you don't believe what they believe. You're all playing a game and none of you can show that you're actually correct.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
What christians have said that. None on here and none that I am aware of. Are you trying to start a confrontation and then run away? I know of no individual Christian or faith who does not believe in the mission of Christ. It is where the "Christ" in "Christian" came from. It literally is our raison d'etre.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Hey, you're the one playing the "my way or the highway" card, you think you're the only one? There are more than 40,000 sects of Christianity, all of whom think the rest are wrong.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Not totally wrong, just missing or adding bits. If I did not consider my belief to be correct then I would be looking for the correct one right now. I am not. You may consider me arrogant but out of those 40,000 sects none of them have the whole truth and none of them have the authority to act in God's name. Where two or three are gathered in my name, there shall I be also. It is that church that has the whole church and I am a congregational is in that church.
Oh, just as a quick aside, I have never read any post on here where the unexplained must necessarily be supernatural. You deceive and mislead your readers by making such misrepresentations about descent christians who can think. Supernatural is that which is outside of the realms of nature. If an event, or phenomenon, cannot be explained by natural laws then it becomes a supernatural event. You were not only told this but you were shown it in the english dictionary where it is defined yet you persist in your duplicity. Dark energy cannot be explained by natural laws and is unlikely to ever be. It is how the planets have been framed into their individual orbits. It is beyond naturalistic explanation. We don't know, however, we will never know because not a single naturalistic law can explain it, so, unless we find a natural law that we do not have we will never know. But christians can genuinely say "we do know" because we know God so we know that he is responsible. Atheists are restricted by closed minds and an unwillingness to see outside of the box. They have an archaic outlook on our world which means that their minds will never be opened.it is either natural or supernatural. The "I don't know" is a temporary condition of unexplained nature. The supernatural are miracles.
What total, unadulterated utter nonsense and lies
Last edited:
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
How interesting that you leave out the beginning sentence!!!
"I am not challenging everybody, just the likes of you, who thinks that to academically study scripture is sufficient to know it is authentic. To study the entire text and cannot see God's Plan of Redemption stairing you in the face because her life is not in line with Gospel principles...."
That like the others was meant specifically for me!!!
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Books used only by LDS believers, which other Christian denominations do not use, because they consider them false.
Most people have never heard of them.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
The nonsense has been on your part - as multiple people - including Christians - have pointed out to you.
Don't forget to Click his post to Expand .
rivenrock
Member
The core element of the 'plan of salvation' - the Atonement - is both unreasonable and immoral. God kills one of his children (don't argue that he didn't technically kill him, as you know it was his will, and that when Jesus asked for 'this cup to be removed' he was denied. God required him to suffer and die) in order to save the rest. This act of sacrifice is not moral, even if Jesus can be considered a volunteer. (To argue that anything God asks must be moral is to render both God's laws and morality in general arbitrary and pointless.)
The Atonement itself relies on the concept that one person can pay the price for another's sin and this would be considered just. Our reason shrinks from this idea in any other setting where a genuine evil has been committed. Imagine that scenario in a courtroom. You child has been raped and killed by Tom and Tom is convicted of the crime. But Tom's brother Mike stands up and offers to go to jail for Tom's crime, although he is perfectly innocent of that crime. Are you, the parent of that terrorised and slaughtered child, going to nod your head and feel in your heart that justice has been served? Will Tom be able to ever feel that he has repented or can be forgiven? It's a ridiculous notion. No-one can truly suffer to pay the price of another's crime. Justice just doesn't work that way, and we know that.
Another point that jars against reason is the assumption Christians accept that only an innocent can pay the price - that we humans are incapable of paying a sufficient price for our sins to be forgiven. What a crock of crap! People do that all the time - make genuine and significant recompense for the wrong they do and are forgiven by those they harmed, and even find a way to forgive themselves. Is God so much less than us that he cannot accept repentance that isn't accompanied by the death of an innocent? Can you even imagine demanding that in order to believe that someone can be forgiven? Why would God? What kind of screwed up thinking is God applying there to come to that conclusion?
If God actually demands that an innocent life be sacrificed before he will deign to forgive a sinner, then he is not only immoral and macabre, but he is also less compassionate than human beings, who are often able to find it within themselves to freely and frankly forgive even terrible acts. The Atonement makes no sense unless you are working on the assumption that God can do anything, and demand anything, and still be called good. If that's the case, God can only be called good in the most arbitrary of senses, as he adheres to no objective standard of 'good' and just makes it up as he goes along. Again, that is less of a standard of good than we even expect from us mere mortals and just makes God look like an ***.
Last edited:
I can only add to what rivenrock stated. He use the scripture to explain his perception. From the same scripture I will give mine. In John 11 from verses 45 to 53 a ''man'', Caiaphas, together with other senior Church members started planning the death of the man Jesus, and also how he would be sold to an unsuspecting world; "as a martyr who gave himself to save the world''. Not a God, but man planned the perfect murder, to rid a religion from its worst enemy. From the quoted book, chapter and verses it also becomes clear that the man Jesus did some serious damage to that religion, they had no choice but to get rid of him, if he had lived one more year none of us would have known a Christian Religion.
Right lane
Member
Not my job to prove your fantasies, that's your job.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
The greatest selfless sacrifice ever made by any man ever, you call unreasonable and immoral. Immediately I have to conclude that your perception of that extraordinary event is to say, obscured and confused.
God kills one of his children (don't argue that he didn't technically kill him, as you know it was his will, and that when Jesus asked for 'this cup to be removed' he was denied. God required him to suffer and die)
How would you expect me, a devout Christian, to not say anything in defence of my God when accused of killing his son. Now that is what I would call unreasonably.
A plan was put forward in heaven, before the world was, in which a Saviour would be needed to redeem all mankind. If you were familiar with the character of God you would know whay a Saviour was necessary. Follow this link to find out. WhiteBinder - The Meaning of the Atonement . Now, Jesus came forward and said "I will do it, send me, and let the glory be thine" it does not take mega intelligence to recognise what he did. He VOLUNTEERED. He was not forced, coerced, encouraged, manipulated or in any other way made to do it. He volunteered to do it.
And apparently only John stayed awake. And John heard Him fall full-length on the ground. he didn't kneel down at a rock. It says he fell full-length on the ground. And he said, "Oh, Father, all things are possible unto Thee, take this cup from me, nevertheless, not my will but thy will be done.
Now what he's saying is, "Father, you are God! You're all-powerful. All things are possible unto thee; don't make me go through with this. You can, work this out some other way."
And that angel that came to minister unto Jesus undoubtedly explained to Him something he'd forgotten. He's forgotten His pre-existence, HE WAS BORN TO SUFFER AND DIE!
What the angel must have undoubtedly said, though we don't have the message, (but I wouldn't be a bit surprised,) if it went something like this:
"Oh, Jehovah, thou Son of God, you do not have to do this unless you wish, but you should know that unless you fulfill this assignment, the Father will lose not only this family, this whole family, but the entire creation associated with them; the planets, the plants, the animals, everything that you laid your hands to create will be lost to the Father and go back to the chaos and outer darkness from which it came," because when the angel had finished ministering to Him, Jesus said, "Then Thy will be done."
And He sweat drops of blood. The channels of His life stream couldn't even contain the fluid of life and it spilled out into the sweat glands and poured out from His skin as it were great drops of blood.
The agony of that moment! Now you and I couldn't have endured that. We don't have any idea how terrible that was,
This act of sacrifice is probably the most valiant and selfless act that any human being could every volunteer for. Your idea of morality seems to differ from mine. God never asked anyone to do this. Jesus put himself forward voluntarily. God would never, could never, ask anybody or anything to act in immorality. He is perfect.
Both I and God and Jesus all agree. That should surprise you because you probably think the opposite.
Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay."
That's the law. The law says that no person can suffer for the sins of another person. That's the law! That's what all of those little intelligences are saying. Now you just stop and think why that is so. If I commit an offense, a very serious offense, can you die for it and satisfy this audience, do you think you could? Even though we love each other and you say to everybody, "No, don't let Serenity be killed, I'll die for Serenity." You think they're going to be happy about that? No! It'll violate your sense of justice and it does to all of those little intelligences and that no person can die or be punished for the sins of other people and have it be accepted as justice! "The demands of justice," that's what those little intelligences are. There is an offense here. "They cannot come back, Father." Everybody see the problem?
Now the genius of the solution: God knows that these little intelligences have a capacity for compassion. They are just like you and me—intelligences have a capacity for compassion. Therefore, the atonement is based not on law, but on mercy.
In other words, we're going to try and get to these little intelligences in some way so that we can over come the demands of justice, with what? SYMPATHY! MERCY! So that we'll actually overcome the demands of justice.
Satan said, "You know, Father, this is very old-fashioned. This just isn't necessary. You can satisfy the intelligences of the Universe. Just put your children in strait jackets and get them through the second estate, and it's a great ideal. I thought I'd really like credit for it because I'm offering the whole family no-risk insurance. All I'm asking you to do is to give up the hang-up that the family has on this 'free-agency' thing. It s only for this little bit of time, we'll put them in a strait jacket, get them through the second estate; nobody can object to them then! We've taken them down, they've got bodies, we've prevented them from violating any laws and bring them back. It's that simple!"
"No," the Father said, "it isn't that simple," apparently implying that if you introduce compulsion into our eternal plan of salvation, or into the cosmic universe, you put coercion there anywhere, you've sown the seeds of what? REVOLUTION! Revolution, disintegration; everything that is out there is moving as it is willing to move. You don't get revolution that way.
Satan says, "I'll start a revolution," and he got it. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the real followers of the Father there for a while were a minority. We had a big uncommitted, in-the-middle majority.
Jesus said, "Father, I'll do it your way. I'll do it the way we've always had to do it. We have to have casualties, true, but at least we maintain a voluntary participation that we've always had in the past. Anal I know somebody has to suffer in order to have that atonement and create that sense of compassion, so I'll do it.
So we had a big argument, and the revelation says that the war in heaven was a testimony meeting, as we said to one another, "The Father's way is the right way. You don't want to introduce compulsion. If you start using compulsion, who says where it can end. Lucifer is trying to steal the throne of our Heavenly Father and he wants the glory for it. There is nothing in that direction but rebellion and destruction.
We finally got two-thirds on our side. I won't be surprised if, when you see this in the vision, that we only had a minority to begin with, but we finally got two-thirds and this other one-third went for no-risk insurance. They wouldn't take a chance with us.
Alright now, how does this atonement work? Watch how the principle functions. Now you're an intelligence, and you are capable of being subjected to so much sympathy and compassion, you stop asking for every pound of flesh that the law permits. Have you ever noticed that in yourself? IT WORKS! First the principle: They must have a person who is infinite. it must be one who is infinitely loved. Infinite means completely—everybody recognizes him.
So we take a spirit who is so superior. He is so honored that when the Father wants something done, He speaks to this person, and then He tells all the intelligences what to do and he's identified as THE WORD. He's the one through whom the word passes. He's loved and respected by all just like the Father.
So he comes down into the second estate and lives a perfect life without offense so that he can return to the Father, and incidental thereto, while laboring among the human family, He suffers so terribly that the little intelligences of the entire universe are revolted! It's horrible, the suffering that he went through! They loved Him! The very elements were crying out against this terrible torture of someone that they loved.
And all this was by design. That was the mission of Jesus Christ, You must suffer so much that these little intelligences, when you come and plead on behalf of someone that did the best that he could, which is called repentance, they'll say, "Well, they really shouldn't go back, but if you want them, after all you went through for them, yes, they can come up." That's the Atonement.
"And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on His name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy...."
Whose mercy? The Father already has mercy towards us, This is His plan. We don't have to create that in Him. We have to create it in those that are demanding justice.
"Father, they have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
That is where you must arouse the bowels of mercy, which overpowers justice, meaning the demands of justice, and brings about the means of an end that they may have faith unto repentance, and thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice and encircles them in the arms of safety.
I will ignore the insults to Deity that seems to demonstrate a hidden bitterness. The second part requires an in depth explanation of the creation that has already been given.
Men cannot forgive their own sins; they cannot cleanse themselves from the consequences of their sins. Men can stop sinning and can do right in the future, and so far [as] their acts are acceptable before the Lord [become] worthy of consideration. But who shall repair the wrongs they have done to themselves and to others, which it seems impossible for them to repair themselves? By the atonement of Jesus Christ the sins of the repentant shall be washed away; though they be crimson they shall be made white as wool [see Isaiah 1:18]. This is the promise given to you.”8
We do not know exactly how the Lord accomplished the Atonement. But we do know that the cruel torture of crucifixion was only part of the horrific pain which began in Gethsemane—that sacred site of suffering—and was completed on Golgotha.
Let me tell you a story—a parable.
There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.
He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.
So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.
The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.
But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.
Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.
“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.
“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”
“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”
The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”
“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”
“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”
There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.
“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.
“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.
Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?
There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.
The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.
“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”
As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”
And so the creditor agreed.
The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”
“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”
“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”
And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was fully satisfied.
Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit. One day the account will be closed, a settlement demanded. However casually we may view it now, when that day comes and the foreclosure is imminent, we will look around in restless agony for someone, anyone, to help us.
And, by eternal law, mercy cannot be extended save there be one who is both willing and able to assume our debt and pay the price and arrange the terms for our redemption.
Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be exacted from us to the uttermost farthing.
But know this: Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is such a Mediator.
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5.)
Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice.
This truth is the very root of christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them.
The Mediator
Last edited:
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Just one problem! The Messiah is from the Jewish religion, and was in NO WAY supposed to be a sacrifice! That is ridiculous!
He was supposed to be like Kings - conquering, and bringing about the end times. The sacrificed Jesus did not do this.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Dude, you need to stop posting these huge blocks of other people's work. There are copyright laws, and the rules of this site.
These huge posts also make it hard to adequately rebut your post because of size limitations.
*
Sapiens
Polymathematician
It's a standard tactic, even has a name: The Gish Gallop it is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent. (Gish Gallop - RationalWiki)
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
The fact is, you used verses to explain the plan of salvation that you are claiming exists. You say that you can use your own words, but your personal claim obviously doesn't work for us so you resort to something that you give authority to, which is the Book of Alma...
You keep getting back to this cycle of overlooking what I've been saying to you all along.
In order for something to be an objective, absolute, Universal Truth, it must be able to be proven independently and outside of human constructs, like our theologies or any of the other mental hoola-hoops that we create in order to justify our beliefs.
The Plan of Salvation that you are referring to must be demonstrably true even if every piece of scripture that we know of never existed. Does the Plan of Salvation stand up to that? As it seems, outside of the faith of the people that we refer to as Christians, where is the plan? If it's true, surely there is evidence for it outside of scripture or outside of the faith of Christians.
You've gone from claiming that the Plan is obvious, "written clearly in the depths of the Bible for anyone to see" to claiming that only the Holy Spirit can guide a reader through understanding scripture. Then you said that the Holy Spirit doesn't even communicate with words on a page but with directly speaking the wishes of God to the faithful, in some magical sort of way. Then you said that Cephus, and others like him, were failing at being Christian because he doesn't share your version of faith.... surely you see the problem with all of this. You're moving goal posts, hoping for a random field goal...either that or you're uncertain of your own personal criteria for truth.
On The Book of Alma...
But back to my original point, you quoted from the Book of Alma in order to explain the Plan of Salvation.
Quoting from any piece of scripture shows the redundant fallacy that you keep getting trapped in. Your claims and even your knowledge of what you claim to believe in is limited to the scope of whatever is written in these books (And what the "holy ghost" has said to you, I imagine.) As I have mentioned, you're only ever going to be as logical as the theology that has been created... there are some real problems with quoting from any book of the Bible, but to quote from the Book of Alma as a source of authority? Really? You couldn't at least use the more widely accepted books from the canonical Bible?
I had basically even given you a guide in the Book of Hebrews. Have you read that? If you had, you wouldn't even need to quote the "Book of Alma". Hebrews was an attempt by someone to explain faith in Jesus following certain aspects of the Jewish tradition. Give it a look...
Even if you personally place your faith in this religion, you have to know that referencing a book like this is just foolish. I'll refrain from factually tearing apart the historical fantasy of The Book of Mormon, and only ask that you give us some Historical references (other than from Mormon sources) which lend any credibility whatsoever to an ancient Jewish populace coming to the Americas and supplanting their faith here. Unless you can do that, then there's really no reason to even knock the dust off of my copy of "another testament of Jesus Christ".
Before you spout some historical "facts", however, I should warn you that my academic mentor was an expert in the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It was his life's work to study the History of the people of these two continents. So make sure your sources are solid.
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I believe that the Book of Mormon is indeed a second witness to the authenticity of deity. That gives me the right to quote it as a source of evidence for the plan of salvation. It is, of course, your right to reject it, remembering, that both of our choices will have consequences.
You say that you can use your own words, but your personal claim obviously doesn't work for us so you resort to something that you give authority to, which is the Book of Alma...
Not really, as I am fully aware of the world view on Mormonism, having been one for twenty five years. Quoting the book of Alma hold no greater authority then making the claim in my own words, other then my colloquialisms will cause no problems in clarity. It is what is being said that is relevant, regardless as to the source of the words. If Hitler was to have announces that breast feeding is better for the baby then bottle feeding, would it make his remarks any less true because he was a genocidal maniac. Of course not. The same logic applies to the Book of Alma.
You have made two posts on here to me. That hardly constitutes the need for the phrase "all along" when it is but a brief encounter.
But you fail to comprehend that my belief is not under scrutiny here, it is the plausibility Plan of Redemption. If the plan is falsifiable then it is nothing more then meaningless words in a book. If it is strategically sound then it's implementation could be factual, not that it is, but that it is a feasible proposition, which is the point that I am making. In any scientific investigation a hypothesis is constructed and tested. The hypothesis in this case is the Plan of Redemption.
Not true, the Plan of Salvation must be demonstrably possible. You are correct in saying that it should stand on its own. It does.
Yes, indubitably, unless you think you can falsify it.
Are you suggesting that the war in heaven is not a belief of everyday Christian's, or the creation, the fall, the birth of a Saviour, the replacing of the Mosaic Law with the Abrahamic Covenant during the beatitudes, the atonement and crucifixion that brought salvation to all mankind, the resurrection, the day of Judgment and exaltation are not the belief of Christians. All of these are significant points of the Plan of Salvation yet you say that Christians, those who strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, do not believe in any of those things. I am sorry but I would have to disagree with you. They are all fundamental principles of christianity.
The Plan of Salvation is obvious. It is the epicentre of christianity. It is our raison d'etre.
When one reads scriptures along side of the Holy Ghost he quickens the spiritual eyes of your understanding making their meaning clear and concise. When look upon by the carnal academic eyes you only see black and white and your knowledge will only reach the heights of man's knowledge.
1 Corinthians 1:20-21
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
You misrepresent me. I have never said that he does not communicate with words on a page. He clearly does, it is your explanation of communication that is in error. You now suggest that it is magic, in some kind of supercilious tone. The method is simplistic and logical. The communication is by concepts and emotions, no different then a sixth sense. The use of words voiced into ones head would be too laborious and unreliable as you would need to decipher the difference between your thoughts and the communication of the Holy Ghost. When receiving knew knowledge from an external energy, separate and distinct to yourself, the transfer is almost instantaneous and the knowledge is unique to yourself. It is communications without words.of course, this kind of communication is not relevant to the Plan of Salvation and only those who strive to live a Christ like existences can tap into the influence of the Holy Ghost. See what you are missing through disbelief.
Once again, you misrepresent me. Cephus is a failed Christian who just could not leave the faith quietly without burning bridges but has had to leave it kicking and screaming with an empty box of jumbo matches in his hand. He has a Web page where he blatantly lies and denegrates Christians because of his bitterness. I never said that he failed at being Christian because he doesn't share my version of faith. I actually said that he was never a Christian in the first place because if he had been truly converted by the spirit of God then he would still be a Christian today. Once you have been blessed by the testimony of the Holy Ghost there is no going back. There is no denying the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Such action results is being made a son of perdition. So, Cephus never reached that point, which is why he is so proactive in trying to take others away from a standard of living that he could not personally maintain.it is so much easier to accept failure if you are not the only one who has failed. It is easy to write this drivel on the Internet but when it comes to defending it his lips are sealed. So, let's rectify your misrepresentation by saying that "I never said that he failed at being Christian because he doesn't share my version of faith. I actually said that he was never a Christian in the first place because if he had been truly converted by the spirit of God"
What goal post did I move?
Truth is not restricted to books of authority. The truth is the same regardless as to what the title of the book is or who wrote it. The description of the Plan if Salvation, in the Book of Alma, is both true and accurate. That is the only authority required. It is a universal law.
Time does not always permit, however, I will take a look.
I belong to no organised religion.
Why would you think it is foolish.
I am no longer a Mormon, however, the Book of Mormon is one of the most academically scrutinised books in existence yet it has never been discredited. The method and conditions of its translation has never been replicated. The translator was not even intelligent enough to write such a canon of religious writ. Mormonism has developed a great many ethical concerns which has rendered it a unwise choice of religion, however, there are to many unexplained events and happenings that surround the book of mormon for it to be dismissed out of hand. The big mistake you make is in branding it a historical record of the early inhabitants of South America. It is not. It is another testament to the Holy Bible. A book of commandments. It does not rely on historical accuracy for its authority. It's authority, like the bible, is God given.
I have no intentions of spouting historical facts. I am a Engineer and Christian, I am not a historian. If I need proof for any of this then I will use my knees.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Ok, are you asking people to believe that a perfect being created either:
a) two perfect beings knowing they could be tempted to sin?
or:
b) two imperfect beings to be tempted to sin?
Either scenario casts the deity into doubt as to being a divinity. Why would any self respecting deity create "doomed to sin" creatures just to be able to forgive them? If A&E had resisted the 3rd attempt to make them sin, christianity would be moot. Who knows how many time they would be tempted after the talking snake episode. Seems the deity was actually rooting for failure dunit?
... and, how could YOU know how many people believe in the invisible blue fairy theory? It could be very wide spread and just not spoken of. A belief that doesn't need the hoopla of preachers and books and making money off the faithful. You cannot disprove it. It may be more complex and intricate than you could ever know.