Are you going to be rational now?
-
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!
Who gave Jesus all authority in Heaven and Earth?
- Thread starter savagewind
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I do as well, and there's only one person I kept on ignore for a long period of time and that was because we're too much like oil & water (he no longer is on it, but, and it wasn't 1robin, btw).
When I do use ignore, it's to defuse the situation by making sure I don't read their posts and then respond. IOW, it's because of my tendency to not let go, I have to pretty much force myself to drop out because I realize that nothing good is likely to come out of continuing on. I almost always take them off ignore within about two weeks.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Are you the judge of rational? If so, then NO.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
First off, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not a "cult".
Second, performing a vicarious work on the behalf of another (baptisms for the dead) is a core doctrine of Christianity, unless you deny that the Lord Jesus Christ performed a vicarious work for you.
Third, the Bible clearly teaches that it is possible, that it is the goal, of believers to become like our Father in Heaven.
Last, we do not believe that the Book of Abraham was translated from the Egyptian book of the Dead.
Latter-Day Saints (aka "Mormons") may disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, but not the Bible itself.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Your responding to a post I made a while back so I had to go back and find what context my claims were in regard to. Whether a world view is a cult or not is kind of up to the one evaluating it. Even Catholicism and Protestantism are referred to as cults by some. The definition of a cult is: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. So in that sense all faiths are cults. Since whether LDS is a cult or not was not central to my argument I will refrain from using the word cult when I mention LDS from now on even though it is a cult by that definition.
This is a false deduction. Not everything true of Christ is true of us. To start off with he is God and we are not. Jesus could forgive sins (something only God can do, and not us), Jesus performed miracles in his own name (we cannot), he existed since the beginning of time (we have not), he is the co-occupant of the throne of God (we are not), etc....... ad infinitum. So it is simply a fallacy to claim that whatever is true of Christ is also true of us.
That what exactly is possible? If you mean we can become what God the father is, then please point out the person who is morally perfect and has always been so, what human being is eternal, which one of us is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, independent of time, made of pure spirit, and who has created all things that began to exist. So we are not, have never been, nor will we ever be like God the father.
However you are right to say that our goal is to be like God. A goal is something to try and reach but in many cases not a destination we can reach. We are to strive to be like God but no one will ever reach that goal.
It is irrelevant what any modern Mormon believes in this context. It is an objective fact that Joseph Smith produced an atrocious translation of the Egyptian book of the dead and claimed it was actually a Hebrew text. In his day few people knew Egyptian and so no one called him out on it, but later on scholars were able to see that he had lied. That is just one of hundreds of lies and contradictions that the history of Mormonism contains. Another would be that pretty much every so called witness to Smith's Golden plates recanted their accounts.
Ok, find me a single verse which states baptism for the dead is profitable and acceptable.
What the bible actually does say is that for every man there is appointed a time to die and then the judgment. No mention of anyone else's faith vicariously applied to anyone after death. How on God's green earth is a dead man going to benefit from someone else getting water poured on their head? The idea is as unbiblical and as irrational as the Catholics selling of indulgences.
Why do people say that only God can forgive sins?
Matthew 18:21-22 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
How refreshing, an actually reasonable point about faith.
I can provide a response but this one is going to require some in depth information.
To start with passages like these are where that belief comes from:
New International Version
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
New International Version
Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy.
New Living Translation
"I--yes, I alone--will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again.
A Psalm of David.
1Bless the LORD, O my soul,
And all that is within me, bless His holy name.
2Bless the LORD, O my soul,
And forget none of His benefits;
3Who pardons all your iniquities,
Who heals all your diseases;
4Who redeems your life from the pit,
Who crowns you with loving kindness and compassion;
5Who satisfies your years with good things,
So that your youth is renewed like the eagle.
6The LORD performs righteous deeds
And judgments for all who are oppressed.
Psalm 103 NASB
It is a given that the bible claims that only God can forgive sins but as you pointed out in a few places it commands us to forgive. We can really get into this issue by looking up the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek that the verses were originally written in so as to eliminate problems with interpretations and we can get into the great commentaries on these issues but first let me state what I believe we will find if you wish to dig deeper.
I believe there is a virtually infinite difference between what we forgive and what God forgives. We merely cease holding another's sins against us when we forgive but we cannot wipe out the actual eternal sin debt a person has before God. No matter who and how much we forgive that person will still be guilty and condemned before God for the sins we stop holding against another. Only God can clear the actual debt that sin incurs, we can merely provide relief from vengeance against others who sin against us. How is that? Can we agree on that or do you want to go deeper into this?
Thank you. Did you think you had to add an insult? "an actually reasonable point about faith."
Maybe you didn't mean me and as an insult. You are forever forgiven. Haha
Yes, I agree about what you say is the difference between forgiving another and holy forgiveness (can I call it that?).
Do you want to edit this sentence?
I think the kind of forgiveness Jesus taught is that I should not treat anyone as though they have sinned against me.
But, on the other hand, I think it is the same kind of forgiveness God has for us. God is always ready to treat us as though we have not sinned. "Your sins are forgiven", says Jesus.
But, on the other hand, I think it is the same kind of forgiveness God has for us. God is always ready to treat us as though we have not sinned. "Your sins are forgiven", says Jesus.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What a world we live in these days, are you triggered already? I give you a compliment (that you as apposed to the others I am debating currently) made a very good point and you take it as an insult. I give up.
Ok, please forgive me for praising you, I promise it will not happen again. Maybe I should actually insult you so you will take it as a compliment.
What you call it is up to you, as long as we are on the same page I am happy.
I am not much for grammar but I think my statement was correct. I said that when another sins against us we are required to not hold that persons sin against them.
Please don't give up. I did say that I do not know if you meant that I do not usually bring up a reasonable question. I have mnay, many questions but most people seem to think that I am being unreasonable. That I am not imagining. So, thank you!
LOL Please don't.Ok, please forgive me for praising you, I promise it will not happen again. Maybe I should actually insult you so you will take it as a compliment.
OK. Happiness for me is being on the same page as Jesus Christ (not his real name).
I agree with that pov. I think that is correct grammar. I think it is not what you said. You said this.
"We merely cease holding another's sins against us when we forgive".
After reading it about ten times I think I can see it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Ok, I will soldier on then.
You are correct but my response was within the context of our discussion. Regardless, Jesus had several names, and many titles. Why are you claiming that Jesus was not among them?
I make so many grammatical or hermeneutical errors I almost always agree that I screwed something up when I type up something but after reading it a few times I think what I said is correct. If you cannot quite see what I meant let me know and I can clarify it.
People worship Jesus as a false god. I think that to call him by the name of a false god is not respectful. What do I mean? I do not mean that he isn't divine. I don't even mean that he isn't a part of God. What I mean is the Jesus that people preach is only their idea of who he is.
I understand what you meant. If someone sins against me (us) I must not keep account of it. I do not treat them as though they owe me anything. To do so might mean waiting for something like an apology or restitution forever.
Can you try to read it my way? We merely cease holding other's sins against them when we forgive them.
I know of no sins against me. That is why it is confusing to hear someone say that forgiveness means not holding someone's sin against me.
I do see people sin, but sin is against the sinner. Of that I am sure.
I do see people sin, but sin is against the sinner. Of that I am sure.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
First let's start with what I believe the bible says about Christ.
1. I believe the bible says Christ is one of three persons which comprise the being of God.
2. Christ has an independent will but that will and his essence are co-equal to the other 2 beings which comprise the God head.
3. I believe he is divine and as much God as the other two persons that comprise the being called God.
4. I do not believe that his being God or not is all that important but that his role in the salvation of mankind is as important as it is possible to be.
If you do not disagree with any of those then we do not have any disagreements that are too awfully important.
I hold no firm position but I have heard others making the argument that only once forgiveness is requested should it be granted. Also there is the issue with national or other defense. If the US for example forgave the Nazis of the Japanese we would be speaking Japanese or German currently. This issue can be confusing.
Ok
Thumbs up!
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Very well
1robin
Christian/Baptist
It gives me great pleasure to agree that I screwed up in my typing, I think spellchecker shanked me in this instance.You really do make my brain work, which is a good thing.
My pleasure.
TheSecretAntitheist
Member
Those that created the idea of him did.