Joined: May 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 5,579 Location: Terra / Solomani Rim 1827
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #15 on Jun 26, 2006, 12:06am »
Let me sincerely appologize to anyone other than Dead Hoosiers who may be checking on this thread occasionally if we are boring you to death.
Correct, God does not contradict himself. He does sometimes change his mind, however. Case in point; the Israelites were told that the law was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Any Israelite who obeyed the Law of Moses before Christ's coming obeyed this standard, and God justified him in doing so. When Christ appeared however, the standard changed. Now those who follow Christ's teachings were required to follow a higher and distinctly different standard than what the BC Israelites followed - "turn the other cheek". You may call it an expansion, but it was a definite change - what was acceptable before was no longer acceptable. And as you pointed out yourself, many of the things God's people were required to do changed when Christ appeared. Doesn't this indicated they could change again?
No word or prophecy exists indicating there would be any change in the game plan after His coming. What is written concerning Christ in the NT covers everything through eternity. No word or prophecy exists indicating that there would never be any other changes in the game plan after His coming either. Neither is there anything that said God would never give any further scripture.
Allow me to quote a relevent passage of the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 29:3 "And because my words shall hiss forth-many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible." 2 Nephi 29:8-10 "Wherefore murmer ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written."
I'm no expert in how the veracity of books is established, but I'm pretty sure that it's not by the age of the text--that is, presuming that the newer writing is more accurate simply because it's newer. A text that is older has had more time to be altered, mis-copied, or mis-translated. The Dead Sea scrolls were such an astounding and useful discovery because they were so much older than any other text that had been found. The age of a text is not the only standard I would use in judging the validitiy of a text but it is something to keep in mind when reviewing ancient texts (not just the Bible). The Bible mentions several books of scripture are missing from our current text, including: Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:6), Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13), A book of statutes (1 Sam. 10:25), Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), Books of Nathan and Gad (1 Chron. 29:29), Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29), Book of Shamaiah (2 Chron. 12:15), Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34), Acts of Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:22), Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19), earlier epistle from Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:19), another epistle from Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3), an epistle of Paul from Laodicea (Col. 4:16), former epistle of Jude (Jude 1:3), and the Prophecies of Enoch (Jude 1:14). These texts have been lost to us in time (there are some books claiming to be the Prophecies of Enoch, but none of them are credible as such). If one or more were discovered today, and somehow verified as authentic, would you disregard them anyway or would you accept them as scripture?
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Your point? I said no one should put a book before God. "The Word" is one of Christ's titles - it does not refer to written text.
Gal 1:8 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. Gal 1:9 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. In the LDS view, the gospel taught by the LDS church is the same as the original. It is not a different gospel than what Paul received, and therefore the LDS church is not accursed for teaching it. The word "gospel" here cannot refer to the Bible specifically because the Bible was not compiled at the time these words were written. If it were taken to literally mean "if anyone preaches anything more than what is in this book then they are accursed" then it would have to mean that only the letter to the Galatians is to be considered scripture.
Since Christ (who is eternal) is Lucifer's creator, how can He be Lucifer's brother? So do you instead teach that Christ is Lucifer's father?
Read the whole first chapter of Colossians again. Does the scripture refer to God the Father, Jesus Christ, or both?
As I said, quoting scripture at each other doesn't resolve very much. Scripture can be read to mean different things by different people with different understandings of how they fit together. Plus there's the fact that much of my understanding of the gospel comes from scripture that is not present in the Bible.
Can I instead ask you a question that may be somewhat personal instead: How do you know that the Bible is correct? I'm not saying by this that you don't know the Bible is correct or that it isn't correct or anything of the sort. What I'm asking you is what procedure you used to determine if it is correct. Did you simply accept what you were told by your parents or pastor? Did you study it and then decide it was right? Were you convinced by archaeological discoveries? There must be some reason you accept the Bible as your religious authority. What is that reason?
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Joined: Jun 2005 Gender: Female Posts: 562 Location: Los Angeles
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #16 on Jun 28, 2006, 4:40pm »
And as you pointed out yourself, many of the things God's people were required to do changed when Christ appeared. Doesn't this indicated they could change again?
No. As I pointed out previously, the change that would take place at the coming of the Messiah was prophesied. There is nothing in scripture indicating that there would be a change after His coming.
The Dead Sea scrolls were such an astounding and useful discovery because they were so much older than any other text that had been found
And the scrolls prove that the scripture we have today is more than 99.5% accurate and the discrepancies are as minor as spelling differences. But by your reasoning wouldn't you actually be saying that they were less reliable because they're older?
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Your point? I said no one should put a book before God. "The Word" is one of Christ's titles - it does not refer to written text.
That is correct. It does not refer to written text. It refers to the words God spoke to the prophets and apostles. Although written on paper with ink, the Word itself is not "just a book." How can you separate God from the words He has spoken and denigrate them because they've been written down? If you were to do a word study in a concordance on the word "word," you would see how highly He regards His Word--even higher than His name. There are too many to ennumerate here.
Regarding your references to the Book of Mormon...hold on--Don't the beliefs of Mormonism depend upon our scripture being mistranslated, misunderstood and superceded? You haven't established that our current scripture or our understanding of it is inaccurate, so it's pointless to quote from later revelations at this time.
Regarding your ennumeration of some lost books, yes, there are some lost books, but for purposes of our discussion, that's neither here nor there. We'll just have to wait and see if they ever turn up. In the LDS view, the gospel taught by the LDS church is the same as the original. It is not a different gospel than what Paul received, and therefore the LDS church is not accursed for teaching it. The word "gospel" here cannot refer to the Bible specifically because the Bible was not compiled at the time these words were written. If it were taken to literally mean "if anyone preaches anything more than what is in this book then they are accursed" then it would have to mean that only the letter to the Galatians is to be considered scripture.
Although all the NT letters had not yet been bound into a book (canonized), the 4 gospels, Acts, Jude and possibly I and II Thessalonians were already in circulation among the churches when Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians.
If the LDS gospel is the same as the original, what would be the point of Joseph Smith ministry? While you're at it, would you please define the LDS gospel for me?
Since Christ (who is eternal) is Lucifer's creator, how can He be Lucifer's brother? So do you instead teach that Christ is Lucifer's father?
Lucifer is a created being like all the other angels, man and animals. Jesus is neither Lucifer's father (in the sense of begetting), nor his brother (as though Jesus Himself were a created being).
Because you believe Jesus is Lucifer's brother, it might be a good time to discuss just who we believe God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are. We're probably worlds apart on this.
Read the whole first chapter of Colossians again. Does the scripture refer to God the Father, Jesus Christ, or both?
I did. It refers to Jesus.
Agreed that there's no point in swapping scriptures. Let's highlight the differences in what we believe, and there are many. I'd like to start with my earlier request to you to define who Jehovah, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are. I think we'll find big differences there. My goal in engaging in this discussion with you was to show that since we believe very different things, we can't both claim to be Christian. Theoretically we could both be wrong, but we can't both be right. There are naive Christians who believe the LDS church is just another Christian denomination. What does the LDS church believe about Christians?
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Joined: May 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 5,579 Location: Terra / Solomani Rim 1827
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #19 on Jun 29, 2006, 12:15pm »
No. As I pointed out previously, the change that would take place at the coming of the Messiah was prophesied. There is nothing in scripture indicating that there would be a change after His coming. Is there anything in scripture that indicates there can be no change after Christ's first coming? Or, alternatively, is there any proof that Christian understanding of the Bible didn't change after Christ's coming?
And the scrolls prove that the scripture we have today is more than 99.5% accurate and the discrepancies are as minor as spelling differences. But by your reasoning wouldn't you actually be saying that they were less reliable because they're older? Sorry - I didn't make myself very clear on this topic. Texts that have been in human hands the longest have the largest chance of having been mis-copied, mis-translated, etc. The Dead Sea Scrolls are considered more reliable because the history of those specific manuscripts can be more accurately traced and they were preserved without human interference for most of their history, rather than being re-copied/re-translated. Rather than saying "age of text" is a factor in judging the accuracy of a text, perhaps I should have said "how long it has been in human hands, and how often it has been copied and re-copied, translated and re-translated."
Regarding your references to the Book of Mormon...hold on--Don't the beliefs of Mormonism depend upon our scripture being mistranslated, misunderstood and superceded? You haven't established that our current scripture or our understanding of it is inaccurate, so it's pointless to quote from later revelations at this time. No, the beliefs of the LDS church do not depend on the Bible having been mistranslated or superceded. We do believe it has been misunderstood, but any Christian faith believes that they're the one who has understood the Bible correctly where they differ from the teachings of other faiths - we're not unique in that way. We do believe there are a few translation errors in the Bible, but they really aren't all that important. Much more important to LDS beliefs is that God has spoken much more than what is in the Bible, and that he continues to speak today.
Regarding your ennumeration of some lost books, yes, there are some lost books, but for purposes of our discussion, that's neither here nor there. We'll just have to wait and see if they ever turn up. Yeah it was a purely theoretical question. Since you seem uninterested in the possibility of new scripture I just wondered if you'd be more interested in recovered scripture.
Although all the NT letters had not yet been bound into a book (canonized), the 4 gospels, Acts, Jude and possibly I and II Thessalonians were already in circulation among the churches when Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians. So are you arguing that the New Testament should include only those books, since Paul said "nothing but what we have received" at that point? Or are you conceding that Paul wasn't trying to limit the canon of scritpure with what he said in Galatians?
If the LDS gospel is the same as the original, what would be the point of Joseph Smith ministry? To restore the original, which had been lost in the time between the death of the original apostles and his own day.
While you're at it, would you please define the LDS gospel for me? Can you define the gospel as you see it in a few words? If I had to pick the one thing that makes the LDS church different from the other Christian faiths, I would have to say it is our belief in continuous revelation from God and modern-day prophets and apostles.
Lucifer is a created being like all the other angels, man and animals. Jesus is neither Lucifer's father (in the sense of begetting), nor his brother (as though Jesus Himself were a created being). If Jesus is not a created being, how can he be said to have a father, or to be a son?
Because you believe Jesus is Lucifer's brother, it might be a good time to discuss just who we believe God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are. We're probably worlds apart on this. Admittedly, this is one area where the LDS church differs greatly from other Christian faiths. I don't think I'll go into a big discussion about the differences between the LDS church and most other Christian faiths on this point until you answer my earlier question about why you believe what you do. What method did you use to determine that the Bible and your particular branch of Christianty (if you don't want to tell me which branch that is I won't mind) was correct in the first place?
My goal in engaging in this discussion with you was to show that since we believe very different things, we can't both claim to be Christian. Theoretically we could both be wrong, but we can't both be right. There are naive Christians who believe the LDS church is just another Christian denomination. What does the LDS church believe about Christians? Do you believe the Pope is Christ's vicar on earth? Or in transubstantiation? Or that priests can't marry? If you don't doesn't that mean that you think Roman Catholics are not Christian, since you believe in such different things? What about which day of the week you worship on? If it's not Saturday then doesn't that mean the Seventh Day Adventists aren't Christian, since they have a totally different day of worship than you have? What about gay bishops? Or women bishops? If you believe they aren't supported by the scriptures than surely you don't believe the Episcopalians are Christian, do you? Or do you believe Christ was crucified on a pole rather than a cross? Or that the holy ghost is just God's power, not a personage? Or that you shouldn't get blood transfusions? If not I guess that means you don't consider the Jehovah's Wittnesses to be Christian. Do you believe that you must be baptized as an adult and by full immersion? If not then the Baptists must not be Christians, since you differ on something so important.
My point of course is that Christians can believe very different things and still be Christian. The thing that identifies Christians, that makes them different from non-christians, is their belief that they are following Christ's teachings, whatever they believe those teachings to be.
The LDS church believes that other Christians are Christian. We don't deny anyone that wants the label because it is not our place to judge others. We simply beleive that we have more to offer, not that belonging to the other faiths is wrong or will lead you invariably to a bad end.
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Joined: May 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 5,579 Location: Terra / Solomani Rim 1827
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #22 on Jun 30, 2006, 11:12am »
I generally try to only quote scripture and get in deep theological arguments with those who want me to quote scripture and get in deep theological arguments.
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Joined: Jun 2005 Gender: Female Posts: 562 Location: Los Angeles
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #23 on Jun 30, 2006, 11:29pm »
Quote:
You didn't answer the question I considered most important Dead Hoosiers. How did you determine that the Bible is correct?
I'm guessing you want to do the inner witness of the Holy Spirit vs. the burning in the bosom right now. I'd like to wait til later if that's okay. I believe the Bible can be verified by other means: prophecy in one hand and world history in the other. The Hebrew prophets in the Bible have a 100% accuracy rate (though not all prophecies have been fulfilled). Joseph Smith doesn't have a very good track record in that respect, which is a major reason I have to reject everything he had to say. Had he been prophesying in OT times, he would have been stoned to death--no re-writes, no second chances to get it right.
Joined: May 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 5,579 Location: Terra / Solomani Rim 1827
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #24 on Jul 1, 2006, 12:51am »
Prophecy and world history? Most of the prophecies the Bible makes are fulfilled in the Bible. That doesn't really prove anything - a skeptic can say that the earlier predictions that didn't come true were edited out, or that the predictions that did come true were written in after the fact. I'm not sure what you mean by world history. Do you mean because it's been an important book to a lot of people for a long time? So has the Koran. Again, let me emphasize that I do believe the Bible is true. I'm just trying to determine where your trust in the book has come from. And yes, whether those methods might be applied to other scripture.
But since you brought it up, what is wrong with the idea that God will help you determine what is true doctrine if you ask Him? "If any of you lack wisdom, let hiim ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." Surely God will help you in the most important religious decision of your life, won't He?
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Joined: Jun 2005 Gender: Female Posts: 562 Location: Los Angeles
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #25 on Jul 1, 2006, 3:40pm »
What are we going to do here? In your last 2 posts I counted 22 questions and at least 6 statements of "fact" that I'd like to refute. All of your questions deserve an answer and I'm prepared to do so, but I think we're going all over the place here and hitting on so many subjects that my posts, at least, are going to start getting very long.
Any suggestions? Shall we limit ourselves to a couple of topics and get those taken care of before introducing new ones, or just go whole hog?
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 1,064 Location: New Zealand
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #27 on Jul 5, 2006, 7:40am »
To add more fuel to what may be dying embers...
Isn't all this Lucifer stuff just man-made dogma and not biblical at all? Isn't it true that nowhere does the Bible actually state that Lucifer is Satan or any of the other similar names? People have cooked up all sorts of dubious links to relate the two names, and many other people have accepted and believed their incorrect mental meanderings.
My understanding is this:
In Isaiah 14:12, the King James Version uses the Old English term Lucifer, which in turn came from the Latin Lux Ferre. Lux = light and ferre = to bear.
In the Greek texts the term Ho Heosphoros is used in place of Lucifer and means "Bringer of the Dawn." In the Hebrew texts the word used is Hehlel, and means "Shining One."
Lucifer was also a Roman word that meant "Venus," and was probably referring to the planet, not the goddess.
In none of the five languages do the words used mean "Satan," and furthermore, nowhere does the Bible say that this verse refers to Satan. That is the incorrect interpretation of some men, that's all. In verses 4 to 23 God is telling Isaiah to talk of a real, live man, an unnamed king of Babylon, and to publish a satire or parody about this king, whom He cynically refers to as a "bringer of light," among other classy insults. From this, we can infer that God had, or has, a sense of humour; perhaps even a devilish one, bless Him!
I once came across someone who stated, with the utmost horror, "This terrible modern Bible has changed the name of the devil into one for Jesus!" Not so at all. It merely used the correct English term for what the original text said. Nothing more than any sensible person would expect.
<Fixed capitalisation. Regardless of one's religious convictions or lack of them, it is conventional (as far as I know) to refer to the deity of any religion as Him, Her, Whom, Rongo, Tane etc.>
Don't criticize what you can't understand. Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin' (1963) Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. Edward R. Murrow (190865)
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 1,064 Location: New Zealand
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #28 on Jul 5, 2006, 8:12am »
Back to your original post and subsequent ones Jason, I admire your level-headed and non-judgmental way of expressing your beliefs. Good on you!
If it's any comfort, the self-righteous, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, and quite-often-ignorant pontificating of some people tends to get up my nose too. But I guess you have a far more diplomatic way of saying it.
Don't criticize what you can't understand. Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin' (1963) Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. Edward R. Murrow (190865)
Joined: May 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 5,579 Location: Terra / Solomani Rim 1827
Re: FUD and religious intolerance « Reply #29 on Jul 5, 2006, 11:05am »
Lucifer is identified with Satan/the Devil in LDS sources outside of the Bible, so even if there isn't solid evidence in the Bible for it I wouldn't disagree with identifying the two as the same person.
Thank you Kiwi. Of course it's impossible to have a constructive dialogue with someone if you accuse them of being self-righteous, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, and ignorant right up front, so I generally try to avoid doing so even if that is my opinion of someone.
No Dead Hoosiers, I don't think you're any of those things. I was thinking more of several of the people who wrote replies to the Townhall article.
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://home.comcast.net/~jbpostma/d20.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v326/gracemer/apolloavatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://www.ricksantorum.com/sites/default/files/family_feature2_0.jpg "[avatar]")
