|
Post by gillianren on Oct 10, 2006 23:41:59 GMT -4
It's only foolish and cruel if it is a limitation. If God ensures that everyone who needs it receives it then it is no longer a limitation. Why does God need human intervention? So you can answer my questions about baptisms for ancient Sumerians? In fact, think about this--the documented evidence is that humans evolved. When is the cutoff? When do people start becoming human and therefore need baptism? Or does the Church ignore that evidence and therefore only permit baptism of those alive in the last 6000 years, meaning that potentially millions of people are denied what the Church claims is needed for salvation? Why does God need human intervention? Okay, but the Church is based around Jesus, right? I mean, baptism was a new thing in his day, so it's not like the people living--by YEC standards, meaning the shortest time possible-- four thousand years before Christ were given the benefits of Mormonism. And if you go with "it's an extension of Judaism," what about, oh, the Aborigines of Australia? Or the Maya? The Polynesians? They couldn't know about Jesus for quite some time due to accidents of time and place. How much study is required before baptism? Not just of your own faith, either, but of others, so you're truly making an informed opinion? Why does God need human intervention? So God needs your help to save people from his own Hell? Well, you know, I am unchristian, as I'm a Pagan. But you've called me immoral, you know. And in fact, you've called all non-Mormon Christians unchristian by declaring that only your faith is valid. You've denied the validity of my relationship because it's outside the bonds of matrimony, a thing you think is necessary but I don't. That is unfeeling, especially given that I'm just as worried about my boyfriend while he's in Iraq as I would be had we been able to afford marriage. I shudder to think what you think about my daughter--who's not only illegitimate, but being raised by people who aren't married, either.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Oct 11, 2006 0:06:46 GMT -4
Hoosiers - haven't heard from you for a long time. The New Testament itself states that not everything Jesus taught is present. John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." And who decided what writings were preserved? People who were around long after the apostles and whose claims to inspiration were dubious at best. What Paul taught is completely compatible with the LDS doctrine of the restoration. If it is a restoration it is not a change. I think the key words from that passage would be "which Jesus did." John is talking about the miracles Jesus performed--that they were numerous. He wasn't saying that Jesus taught another way of salvation in some book that didn't get written or in a book that was lost. Believers decided which books were inspired and they preserved those writings. Undoubtedly we don't have all the inspired writings, but that doesn't matter concerning this point. What we do have are many apostolic writings that clearly tell us how we are saved and who Jesus is. Those same books which tell us that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, Who had no beginning and no end, Who is the creator of everything which was created, including every angelic being, are the same books which tells us how we are to be saved. They also warn us to reject any messenger who tells us that there is a way to be saved that is different from what they told us. The message was never to be changed. The LDS writings have not only changed the method by which the apostles told us we are to be saved, but they changed the uncreated Christ , the Creator, into a created being. Mat 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Jesus says here that His words will never be lost. Since they were never lost, there is therefore nothing to be restored. The LDS gospel is very much another gospel and accursed accordingly by Paul. Christ's message is so clear and beautiful I can't imagine anyone believing it needed to be changed--except by demons impersonating servants of God in order to deceive people. We were warned that it would happen and many have been led astray.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 11, 2006 6:23:05 GMT -4
Oh, yeah--one other place that showed a decided lack of compassion. In another thread, you pondered the cost-effectiveness of letting people die, Jason. Granted, this was yet another show of ignorance on your part--you seemed to think the Reagan administration was using that money on social programs, instead of new and exciting ways to kill people. But really. Cost-effective? And you wonder why I think you might show a small absence of compassion?
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Oct 11, 2006 8:08:44 GMT -4
So someone is going to have a 'divine revelation' ?
Yes I suppose that will get round the problem of babtising some guy who died a couple of thousand years ago in the middle of the Amazon!
get real!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 11, 2006 11:25:04 GMT -4
Wow, I've got a little hornet's nest going here don't I? Why does God need human intervention? He doesn't, but He has chosen to work through his children. This allows those humans He works with to receive the blessings of helping others at the same time those others are receiving blessings. A win-win situation. Yes, I did answer it. Ancient Sumerians (or members of any number of other ancient civilizations) who accept the gospel will receive the required vicarious baptism. Their identities will be revealed to the church through revelation. Adam and Eve were the first members of the human family. Only their descendents require baptism. Human-like primates from any number of thousands of years ago are not a part of the human family and do not require baptism any more than chimpanzees do today. No, that's not correct. Baptism was not a new thing in Christ's day - John the Baptist merely taught a form of baptism that seemed new, as it was a restoration of things that had been lost before. Baptism has been a part of the gospel from Adam on down - lost occasionally as people have fallen into disbelief but restored both in Christ's day and our own. Knowledge of Christ's mission and the gospel is the same way - it was here from the beginning but requires periodic restoration. Well, for someone born into the church, eight years study more or less. For an adult convert they are taught the basics of the gospel in a couple of months. They are interviewed before baptism by someone other than their teachers to see that they understand the step they are taking. The Church provides continuing education in the gospel throughout a person's life - every Sunday. We do not require anyone to study the doctrines of other churchs before joining ours, and I am unaware of any faith that makes such a requirement. Would you require (not encourage, but require) biologists to study Intelligent Design before they accept their degree? If I have called you personally immoral then I apologize if I have offended you. It is not compassionate to watch someone hurt themselves while standing by and doing nothing. If you were a doctor and discovered a person has cancer and then do not tell them it may make the patient feel better but will not make the cancer go away. In the same way denying that someone has sinned may spare them guilt, but it is not compassionate, as a source of future pain for them is then allowed to fester and get worse. I have not called them unchristian. My view is that anyone who claims to follow the teachings of Christ is a christian. Since none of us are perfect none of us are following those teachings as well as we could, so it is not our place to label others as unchristian. In fact Dead Hoosiers has consistently labled me as a non-christian rather than the other way around. I'm not saying you don't love or care for each other, or that no relationship exists, merely that marriage is the best and most proper way to recognize such a relationship and make it a lasting one.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 11, 2006 11:40:12 GMT -4
What we do have are many apostolic writings that clearly tell us how we are saved and who Jesus is. What is the exact method and how is the LDS church different? I have not receieved a clear answer from you on that point yet. If all it requries is faith in Christ then we Mormons are doing just fine. And he is quite correct -those particular words are preserved to us today. But many other things he taught and did were never written down, as John said. In any case, the people who chose which texts went into the Bible in the early church had no interest in preserving texts which clearly said "there will be a universal apostacy after Christ's death" - they would have been undermining their own authority if they had done so. Even so, most of the New Testament consists of Paul and the apostles attempting to keep the church together - they were already falilng apart mere years after Christ's death. Where is that church today? Surely you don't beleive that there was an unbroken organization from Christ's day to the present, or you would be Catholic, right?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 11, 2006 11:49:15 GMT -4
Oh, yeah--one other place that showed a decided lack of compassion. In another thread, you pondered the cost-effectiveness of letting people die, Jason. Granted, this was yet another show of ignorance on your part--you seemed to think the Reagan administration was using that money on social programs, instead of new and exciting ways to kill people. But really. Cost-effective? And you wonder why I think you might show a small absence of compassion? I said that the Reagan administration may have looked at the AIDS situation and thought they could not justify spending a great deal of resources on a crisis that was affecting only a very small portion of the population at the time. I did not say they were being compassionate, and I didn't say they were right to do so either (though I am more or less sympathetic to the Reagan administration). I was objecting to the idea that the US is effectively responsible for all the deaths caused by AIDS. Blaming someone for not doing enough is sometimes right, but you can't give them all the blame when something beyond their control is what is doing the actual harm.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 11, 2006 11:52:22 GMT -4
So someone is going to have a 'divine revelation' ? Yes. Probably several someones, actually. The LDS church receives divine guideance every day. Yes it will. God knows every one of his children and will not let any be forgotten.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 11, 2006 17:56:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Oct 11, 2006 20:47:58 GMT -4
What we do have are many apostolic writings that clearly tell us how we are saved and who Jesus is. What is the exact method and how is the LDS church different? I have not receieved a clear answer from you on that point yet. If all it requries is faith in Christ then we Mormons are doing just fine. And he is quite correct -those particular words are preserved to us today. But many other things he taught and did were never written down, as John said. In any case, the people who chose which texts went into the Bible in the early church had no interest in preserving texts which clearly said "there will be a universal apostacy after Christ's death" - they would have been undermining their own authority if they had done so. Even so, most of the New Testament consists of Paul and the apostles attempting to keep the church together - they were already falilng apart mere years after Christ's death. Where is that church today? Surely you don't beleive that there was an unbroken organization from Christ's day to the present, or you would be Catholic, right? We're going to go round and round again, but here goes: The Jesus you believe in and the Jesus I believe in are two different persons. That's the first really big problem. Until you make a public statment as to who the Mormon Jesus really is, I'm not going to do it. Will you admit that this is true? That the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus described in the New Testament? Don't give me a dissertation on why you think I'm mistaken. Just admit it. Once you've done that, we can get down to brass tacks. John did not say Jesus taught anything different. He said Jesus had so many works that they couldn't all be written down. Stop trying to change that. It's works. Period. " In any case, the people who chose which texts went into the Bible in the early church had no interest in preserving texts which clearly said "there will be a universal apostacy after Christ's death" - they would have been undermining their own authority if they had done so. Even so, most of the New Testament consists of Paul and the apostles attempting to keep the church together - they were already falilng apart mere years after Christ's death. " Holy cow, Jason! The apostles weren't the ones who "chose" the texts. Laypersons decided which books they thought were inspired. Later on those books were canonized. Neither the laity nor the apostles had a hidden agenda in tossing out texts. Paul himself said that in the latter days there would be a great falling away from the faith. Read what Jesus said in Revelation in His message to the last church! There were heretics and apostates even in the primitive church. No one ever denied it. But they were considered heretics and apostates based on the apostolic writings being circulated AT THAT TIME! "Forever O Lord thy Word is settled in Heaven." Jason, you can't really believe that God changes His policies because His creation has been naughty, do you? Absurd.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 12, 2006 0:30:01 GMT -4
We're going to go round and round again, but here goes: The Jesus you believe in and the Jesus I believe in are two different persons. That's the first really big problem. Until you make a public statment as to who the Mormon Jesus really is, I'm not going to do it. Will you admit that this is true? That the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus described in the New Testament? Don't give me a dissertation on why you think I'm mistaken. Just admit it. Once you've done that, we can get down to brass tacks. I'm not sure that we do believe in different Jesuses, but the Jesus the Mormons believe in is in fact the Jesus described in the New Testament, yes. Even if our conceptions of Jesus do differ, is this a problem? Does faith in a perfect conception of Jesus lead to salvation but faith in a slightly imperfect conception leads to eternal damnation? "Sorry, you did a lot of really great things in your life but because you think Jesus had blue eyes instead of the brown he really had you are condemned to hell for all eternity?" It doesn't say works. It says "and there were also many other things Jesus did." Just to be sure I checked the four different versions of the Bible I have at home and they all read the same on this verse - things, not works. In any case, if the apostles had nothing to teach after Jesus departed then there would only be four books in the New Testament, wouldn't there. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I'm well aware the apostles didn't chose the texts that make up the Bible. Various ecunemical councils called by the Emperor of Rome decided what books went into the Bible, and made efforts to destroy the texts they did not consider inspired. They worked from a general body of texts the church considered useful, but they were the final editors. My point was that although those who did chose them were not interested in chosing scritpures that condemned their own pracitices that the majority of the New Testament still consists of letters from the apostles trying to correct one error or another that had already slipped into church doctrine, mere years after Christ's death. After the apostles were gone there was no one to correct the doctrine, and the falling away that Paul spoke of took place. Much was lost, many clear doctrines became muddled, and a restoration became necessary. Yes he does. What do you think the flood was all about? What about Abraham arguing with the Lord to spare Soddom and Gommorah? God said if he found one righteous person he would spare the city. What about Jonah and Ninevah? Jonah got real upset when the Lord seemed to change his mind about destroying Ninevah because the people repented. Or what about the whole Old Testament? First He supports Israel then He allows it to be destroyed and carried off into captivity because of their unbelief.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Oct 12, 2006 1:26:47 GMT -4
"I'm not sure that we do believe in different Jesuses, but the Jesus the Mormons believe in is in fact the Jesus described in the New Testament, yes.
Even if our conceptions of Jesus do differ, is this a problem? Does faith in a perfect conception of Jesus lead to salvation but faith in a slightly imperfect conception leads to eternal damnation? "Sorry, you did a lot of really great things in your life but because you think Jesus had blue eyes instead of the brown he really had you are condemned to hell for all eternity?"
One thing at a time please. Let's settle the Jesus question before we do anything else. It's very important that we define our terms to avoid confusion. Faith doesn't save us. The object of our faith saves us. The object of my faith is the Jesus of the Bible. The object of your faith is the Jesus of the Book of Mormon and other LDS writings. You say they are the same person. I say they're not.
Isn't it true that Mormons believe that Jesus was begotten via sex between God (whom you believe to be a man with a physical body) and Mary? (Yucck!)
Don't you also believe that Jesus was married here on earth and that since the resurrection is having sex with numerous wives on another planet?
And isn't it also true that you believe that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer?
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Oct 12, 2006 7:36:06 GMT -4
Why shouldn't he have brothers?
In Genesis it says the Sons of God came down to earth and had sex with Human women, their offspring were the giants weren't they?
So it certainly looks like Jesus had brothers going by your own book! And his brothers were full on Gods not just half god/half human hybrids!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 12, 2006 11:02:55 GMT -4
Isn't it true that Mormons believe that Jesus was begotten via sex between God (whom you believe to be a man with a physical body) and Mary? (Yucck!) No, that is not LDS doctrine. No, it is not LDS doctrine that Jesus was married on Earth. There's also certainly nothing in LDS doctrine about him having sex with numerous wives on another planet. Yes. Lucifer and Jesus, and all of us for that matter, all have the same spiritual father - God the Father. So it's accurate to say that Jesus is our older brother and Lucifer is a brother to us both. You see why I began a thread a while back about FUD and Mormon criticism? Only one of your three points had any basis in actual LDS theology.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Oct 12, 2006 20:08:47 GMT -4
Why shouldn't he have brothers? In Genesis it says the Sons of God came down to earth and had sex with Human women, their offspring were the giants weren't they? So it certainly looks like Jesus had brothers going by your own book! And his brothers were full on Gods not just half god/half human hybrids! "Sons of God" is an expression for angels. These in particular were fallen angels and yes, they came to earth and mated with human women and produced giant human/angel hybrids of incredible evil (Goliath was one of these, as well as Nimrod and the King of Og), but they were all post-Flood. This is one of my favorite parts of the Bible. The reason God sent the flood was to kill the hybrids. It's interesting to note that scripture says Noah was perfect in his generations, meaning he and his family were the last full-blooded human beings left on earth. It's been speculated that the reason the nephalim (fallen angels) did this thing was in an attempt to destroy the human bloodline through which the Messiah had to be born. If everyone on earth was a hybrid, there would be no one to save because Jesus' salvation applies only to humans. The angels do not get forgiveness for what they've done. That's probably why they're so hateful towards us.
|
|