ChristianForums banned Christ.

[Mustard Seed]

Evil is not co-eternal with God. God is holy and there was no evil until His creation rebelled.

Free will is an aspect of being in the personal image of God. God has free will. Does this make God evil? What are you smoking?

Nothing. I was a bit tired and thought that you'd conceeded a point on evil being co-eternal with God. I missed a "not" in your statement and your explanation that the concept was somehow in God's mind without it ever having existed or being created by God in anyway seemed to correlate with the way I read your statement when I failed to note the "not".

Free will gives us the capacity to chose between right and wrong. The misuse of free will does not mean that the capacity to chose is inherently evil, especially if we do not chose evil as God does not chose evil.

You still have the problem with the origin of evil. You say that it is a product of agency BUT that there's some magical exception that, in this case, seperates cause and effect.

God is not irrational in creating. He does not have to create since He is complete in Himself. He chose to create out of a desire to have love relationships with significant others. This introduced the potential for new joy and experience, but entailed risk that He could be rejected, hurt, and grieved.

Uhhh... Sorry godrulz but the above doesn't make sense by anyform of logic of which I'm aware. God has all the loving relationship he would ever need. He could continue on in such forever due to his self sufficiency. God decides to bring regection and evil into the picture DESPITE the fact that he was not lacking in ANY aspect of love or relationship previous to that moment AND could have continued on in such a state without lessening the good He was and had.

AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN'T SEE ANYTHING NEAR LOGIC IN SUCH A VIEW?

A no-risk model of divine relationality may resonate with Mormonism and Calvinism, but it is not the biblical model (see John Sanders: "The God who risks...a theology of providence).

You don't understand either what resonates with us nor what we believe. If you did you would understand that my questions are trying to understand YOUR view and NOT representations of MY view.

You continue to give me reasons to understand the superiority of biblical Christianity over Mormonism (since it is not true, its weaknesses become more apparent as it is examined in light of truth).

I don't. You simply see what you want to see and are willfully blind of the problems of your views in light of the Bible AND logic. But keep telling yourself you're winning. Ignorance is bliss, until you can't be ignorant anymore, then it rather becomes terrible and makes all the past bliss vanish like the dream of one who hungers and dreams he eats...

 

[Mustard Seed]

Is there ONE Heavenly Mom or a harem?

Is God Polygamous?

====

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of Heavenly Mom:

===

NAH, taint right! Just a Mormon speculation, like life on the Sun and moon men dressed as Quakers.

Life on the sun is hard to prove either way. The whole Quaker thing is like saying all Christian's accept the shroud of Turin as genuine, it's just a disingenuous attempt to smear.

Regarding the whole polygamy thing it is an Eternal Law, anyone who will not accept that it is such could never receive Eternal Life. They don't necessarily have to practice it, but to reject it as a true principle would be as grave an error as rejecting the law Mosaic law as a true principle in it's context.

Oh and the Heavenly Mother would be under the name of the Father, similarly to how women take the names of their husbands. But you're a blind ignoramus too full of his titles and honors received from man's universities and academia, a man to ready to profane something he doesn't understand, nor is willing to try to understand. You toss aside in scorn what others consider Holy because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions, like those who wished Christ to reprimand the man who did miracles in His name, or those who wished to dismiss those who prophesied in Israel while Moses sat as prophet. You walk a dangerous line because you don't merely wish us dismissed, you wish to profane something that you don't comprehend or know of its state before God.

You would do good to follow the advice here--
“Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”

A man, who takes liberties to defame whatever he pleases, when he cannot call down fire from heaven like Elijah, is a man who is walking a precarious line.

You can mock the mock, but can you defrock by the means of fire from the heavenly wok? (or equivalent means of consuming by literal heat or fire coming down from heaven)

 

[Mustard Seed]

I did explain before why that type of discussion wasn't allowed, and you even conceded the point.

I didn't agree with it as a policy.

Because the chatbox is (almost) live, it would need a dedicated moderator 24 hours a day if heavy discussion is allowed, and there is no way to provide that kind of moderation, so the rule is light chat, only.

Can't trust God's spirit. Gotta keep everything in line with the moderators. Even if the only thing being discussed is the Bible.

Why would you want to have a heavy theological discussion in a chatbox, anyway, when your words are gone in a matter of minutes and people come and go in short order because they are just passing through? I would think if you really wanted to have a discussion, you would do so on one of the discussion boards where proper discussion can take place.

Why did Jesus heal people in private then command them to not tell anyone else what he'd done? Why did Christ return and teach to the people for forty days AFTER his work had, in your view of the redemption, been done and finished completely? If what Christ had said was important those forty days why do we not have a discourse on it equivilant to that given on the teachings that came before His sacrifice? The point being that why would it negate the validity or purpose of a discusion if it's not being recorded in an easy, or even possible to retreive, format? What's the problem with having a deep biblical discussion between just two or three or four people that never gets published to all the world? How is that discussion any less capable of promoting the cause of God than a discussion with someone you meet as you go about your daily life? Someone with whom you may share a few deep thoughts or ponderings but with whom you never record your discussions for future publication? What's the purpose for small trivial talk if that's all it ever remains? I mean how many deep discussions do you think Christ had, one on one, with individuals or small groups that were never recorded or published? Does that mean that Christ wasn't teaching deep and profound principles and truth? CF is doing nothing divorced from the kind of psuedo spiritual protectionism that the Pharasees tried to enforce on the masses. They built up hedges around the law. So many steps on the Sabbath, spiting out your saliva during fasts, so many inane and absured attempts to 'make sure' that no one even got close to commiting a sin. So inane are such attempts that they lead to a loss of the spirit of the law. Is it unlawful for a man to do good, to do the work of God, on the Sabbath? Is it unlawful to discuss an loosly moderated chat discussing the Bible on a Christian Theology board? If you can't see the connections then you are blind. If my church had tried the kind of controls on me while I was serving as a missionary that CF tries to enforce on it's members then the refrain that we are brainwashed would be a thousand times louder, and coming from a thousand fold more sources than those points from which it currently comes. Teach people correct principles and they govern themselves. Dictate to them what boards and comments are and are not Traditional Christianity style 'Kosher' and they will largely remain ignorant followers who cannot grow in their beliefs because they never truly confront those beliefs and their implications. You rob them the chance to learn discernment on their own because you must always ensure that they learn precisely your paradigm, right or wrong, of discernment (never mind they are not really encouraged to discern the validity of your discernment paradigms)

 

[Mustard Seed]

I've been a regular member of Christianforums.com for the last 2 years now, I really like it: they have a huge audience and there is very little censorship. I'm sure this forum is just as good, but it is just a pit-stop for me, my main home is Christianforums.com. Anyway, I think I may just be too politically incorrect for this forum: I hope not, but I am a bit concerned that I probably will get banned. This is still a good forum though, hats-off to the owner.

Too politically incorrect for TOL??? RIIIIIIIGHHHHHT.

Trust me. TOL is BASED on an anti-PC methodology.

Curious as to what gave you the idea that it's 'PC'?

 

[no avatar]

Can't trust God's spirit. Gotta keep everything in line with the moderators. Even if the only thing being discussed is the Bible.

Again, you fail to understand.

Discussion about the Bible gets just as heated as any other discussion, and people respond in just the same ways. People insist that their POV is right, they flame others and call them heretics, etc., etc., which requires moderation. Short of creating a whole new set of rules for the chatbox, if CF let one person come in and preach there, they would have to let anyone who claimed to be Christian preach there.
What is it about heavy discussion and moderation that you don't understand?

If my church had tried the kind of controls on me while I was serving as a missionary that CF tries to enforce on it's members then the refrain that we are brainwashed would be a thousand times louder, and coming from a thousand fold more sources than those points from which it currently comes.

I think you underestimate just exactly how many people feel that members of the LDS church are brainwashed. I know I do.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Life on the sun is hard to prove either way. The whole Quaker thing is like saying all Christian's accept the shroud of Turin as genuine, it's just a disingenuous attempt to smear.

Regarding the whole polygamy thing it is an Eternal Law, anyone who will not accept that it is such could never receive Eternal Life. They don't necessarily have to practice it, but to reject it as a true principle would be as grave an error as rejecting the law Mosaic law as a true principle in it's context.

Oh and the Heavenly Mother would be under the name of the Father, similarly to how women take the names of their husbands. But you're a blind ignoramus too full of his titles and honors received from man's universities and academia, a man to ready to profane something he doesn't understand, nor is willing to try to understand. You toss aside in scorn what others consider Holy because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions, like those who wished Christ to reprimand the man who did miracles in His name, or those who wished to dismiss those who prophesied in Israel while Moses sat as prophet. You walk a dangerous line because you don't merely wish us dismissed, you wish to profane something that you don't comprehend or know of its state before God.

You would do good to follow the advice here--
“Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”

A man, who takes liberties to defame whatever he pleases, when he cannot call down fire from heaven like Elijah, is a man who is walking a precarious line.

You can mock the mock, but can you defrock by the means of fire from the heavenly wok? (or equivalent means of consuming by literal heat or fire coming down from heaven)

So I am going to hell because I reject Heavenly MOM. A view propagated by a hymn and having no basis in LDS scripture. Even the hymn acknowledges that this is a logical deduction. Never claims revelation.

Yet you elevate this to an eternal life criteria. Does your bishop know you are spouting this stuff? You'd lose your bicycle.


So I support those at FARMS who have academic degrees have your disdain as well. And I suppose that BYU is an ignoramus factory as well since I haven't seen Heavenly MOM or Jesus on their faculty list. Just humans with degrees giving degrees. yep an Ignoramus factory for sure.


Egytians considered Dung Beetles holy, so I suppose that if anyone sees that as bogus has your disdain too. By the way, at least Dung Beetles can objectively be shown to exist.


Repent of your Phony Maroni Gospel or you have a date set in "consuming literal heat." GAL 1:6-8

BTW, maybe you can invoke 2 NEPHI 5:21 and turn me BLACK SKINNED. I'll be checking the mirror.

Have a White and Delightsome day!

And he (LDS GOD) had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Call blackness down on me if you like. I happen to think black skin is as beautiful as any other color the triune God selects.

 

[Sarcastikus]

Based on several articles I've read and my limited knowledge of the religion, Momonism is, in believing in a Heavenly Mother, similar to some of the Gnostic sects which existed in the early centuries AD.

But, does God actually have or need gender? Doesn't God transcend the male/female duality? Isn't refering to God using masculine pronouns and titles more a reflection of Judaism, and hence Christianity, developing in a almost exclusively patriarchal society?

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Based on several articles I've read and my limited knowledge of the religion, Momonism is, in believing in a Heavenly Mother, similar to some of the Gnostic sects which existed in the early centuries AD.

But, does God actually have or need gender? Doesn't God transcend the male/female duality? Isn't refering to God using masculine pronouns and titles more a reflection of Judaism, and hence Christianity, developing in a almost exclusively patriarchal society?

In Mormonism He and She do, otherwise they can not to the hibbidy dibbity that produces spirit babies. Celestial sex is integral to their premortal and post mortal theology. And ya got to have the parts to play the game in the Celestial Kingdom.

The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood- was begotten of his Father, as we are of our fathers. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:115)

"God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh ...The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father ...He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct" (The Seer, Orson Pratt, pg. 158).

Heavenly Father impregnated Mary (His wife) and heavenly MOM and godly Joseph were not invited to the party. Now Mormons will say,

"Heavenly Father did not have sexual relations with that virgin, Mary."

Perhaps He used a turkey baster to do the insemination, but in their thought bodily fluid was transmitted. In any case, they teach Mary was God's wife and then Joseph's (and I ain't talking Joe Smith in this case).

====
Yeah, it's a real family friendly religion.

 

[Sarcastikus]

In Mormonism He and She do, otherwise they can not to the hibbidy dibbity that produces spirit babies. Celestial sex is integral to their premortal and post mortal theology. And ya got to have the parts to play the game in the Celestial Kingdom.

Heavenly Father impregnated Mary (His wife) and heavenly MOM and godly Joseph were not invited to the party. Now Mormons will say,

"Heavenly Father did not have sexual relations with that virgin, Mary."

Perhaps He used a turkey baster to do the insemination, but in their thought bodily fluid was transmitted. In any case, they teach Mary was God's wife and then Joseph's (and I ain't talking Joe Smith in this case).

====
Yeah, it's a real family friendly religion.

Mormonism is a religion that doesn't seem to make much sense unless you've been raised in that tradition or have made a study of it, again like some of the ancient Gnostic sects. I find that it's an interesting religion and it's without a doubt that Joseph Smith was an imaginative, creative man, but the idea that the ancient Americans were the descendants of Jews who sailed here doesn't have much to support it, especially since genetic studies of Native Americans from North and South America show no trace of them having Middle Eastern ancestry. There is evidence of contact between the Americas and Eurasia and Africa (traces of cocaine and tobacco found in the bodies of Egyptian mummmies, and the Olmec heads in Central America with distinctly Negroid features), but nothing like what is written of in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Lighthouse]

Hey, Mustard Stain, don't you have a planet to rule?

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Mormonism is a religion that doesn't seem to make much sense unless you've been raised in that tradition or have made a study of it, again like some of the ancient Gnostic sects. I find that it's an interesting religion and it's without a doubt that Joseph Smith was an imaginative, creative man, but the idea that the ancient Americans were the descendants of Jews who sailed here doesn't have much to support it, especially since genetic studies of Native Americans from North and South America show no trace of them having Middle Eastern ancestry. There is evidence of contact between the Americas and Eurasia and Africa (traces of cocaine and tobacco found in the bodies of Egyptian mummmies, and the Olmec heads in Central America with distinctly Negroid features), but nothing like what is written of in the Book of Mormon.

Google

A View of the Hebrews (1823) by Ethan Smith (no FAMILIAL relation to Joseph)

and you'll find an earlier proponent of Injun Israelism

 

[Mustard Seed]

Mormonism is a religion that doesn't seem to make much sense unless you've been raised in that tradition or have made a study of it, again like some of the ancient Gnostic sects. I find that it's an interesting religion and it's without a doubt that Joseph Smith was an imaginative, creative man, but the idea that the ancient Americans were the descendants of Jews who sailed here doesn't have much to support it, especially since genetic studies of Native Americans from North and South America show no trace of them having Middle Eastern ancestry. There is evidence of contact between the Americas and Eurasia and Africa (traces of cocaine and tobacco found in the bodies of Egyptian mummmies, and the Olmec heads in Central America with distinctly Negroid features), but nothing like what is written of in the Book of Mormon.

You've been duped on the DNA side of things. Look at this recent article, especialy the comments section, for a demonstration of how you've been duped by the declarative claims of things like the recent LA Times article--

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1406

 

[Mustard Seed]

Google

A View of the Hebrews (1823) by Ethan Smith (no FAMILIAL relation to Joseph)

and you'll find an earlier proponent of Injun Israelism

The funny thing is that the similarities between several accounts of Abraham discovered sometime AFTER Joseph brought forth The Book of Abraham have vastly more similarities than anyone ever found in Ethan Smith's book when comparing it to the Book of Mormon. Books like the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham etc. have major and numerous similarities---just one problem UNLIKE "A View of the Hebrews" these books were not discovered or available to the western world untill AFTER Joseph released The Book of Abraham.

 

[Mustard Seed]

So I am going to hell because I reject Heavenly MOM. A view propagated by a hymn and having no basis in LDS scripture. Even the hymn acknowledges that this is a logical deduction. Never claims revelation.

Yes. If you continue in that false view you are going to hell. Nevermind the Christian view of such a place is flawed and incomplete. In a sense everyone goes to hell. But that's another argument for another day.

Yet you elevate this to an eternal life criteria. Does your bishop know you are spouting this stuff? You'd lose your bicycle.

My Bishop would agree with me.

So I support those at FARMS who have academic degrees have your disdain as well. And I suppose that BYU is an ignoramus factory as well since I haven't seen Heavenly MOM or Jesus on their faculty list. Just humans with degrees giving degrees. yep an Ignoramus factory for sure.

Here's a quote that I think addressess what I'd respond with better than I have time to try and elaborate as successfully.

However, Brigham Young University is a Mormon University in an American cultural setting, and Mormons have not had the same attitude towards the American cultural setting after 1890 as they had before 1890. When I speak of the American cultural setting, moreover, I am thinking of the United States as the leader of all Western society, and therefore, that which is characteristic in Western society nowadays has for the most part come from or been spread wide by the United States. This country is now predominantly responsible for Western culture generally, for Western civilization. It is best exemplified here in its vices and in its virtues.

Let me remind you of a phrase that a BYU man is said to have used of the pomp of Commencement: "Clothed in the robes of the false priesthood." These caps and gowns are the rags and relics of the apostate church. What are they doing on Mormon backs and heads? They are symbols of compromise: at their best they are indications that we have arrived and want the world to see that we are like everybody else. Now we should not want the world to see that we are like everybody else in any other respect than that we are brothers in Christ; because it is back to Christ that we wish to bring them, and it is very much more difficult to bring a man back to Christ if you and he both wear caps and gowns: they convey the wrong sense of self-importance.

The obvious object of BYU is to serve the Church; for, whether we have grown up in it or are converts to it, if we believe in the Church, we believe that it is the most important organization on this earth, the instrument of God's will; that Christ is its head; and, therefore, that anything that the Church sets up must be finally and ultimately to serve the Church. This means that BYU serves the Church as a servant in that full sense in which "servant" is used in the New Testament: in the sense of "ministers" we are the servants of the Church.

--taken from

http://www.byu.edu/fc/ee/w_ahk73.htm​

Egytians considered Dung Beetles holy, so I suppose that if anyone sees that as bogus has your disdain too. By the way, at least Dung Beetles can objectively be shown to exist.

It's not the viewing of something as bogus that has my disdane. It's the open mockery with a principle intent to defame. If you were really comfortable in your claims as to the absurdity of our beliefs you wouldn't have to, and would hurt your cause, by simply mocking and lambasting with the primary intent to simply degrade others. Like the Muslims that freak out at the cartoons, the Iranians that sponser counter cartooning against Judaism, you only demonstrate your own juvenile insecurity in the positions you have taken.

Repent of your Phony Maroni Gospel or you have a date set in "consuming literal heat." GAL 1:6-8

Bring it. We'll see who ends up in which fire.

BTW, maybe you can invoke 2 NEPHI 5:21 and turn me BLACK SKINNED. I'll be checking the mirror.

Have a White and Delightsome day!




Call blackness down on me if you like. I happen to think black skin is as beautiful as any other color the triune God selects.

You imply that our scriptures have God saying that dark skin is inherently repulsive or that white skin is inherently 'Delightsome'. The fact that both points are kept seperate, I believe, demonstrates that He is making a serious distinction.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Hey, Mustard Stain, don't you have a planet to rule?

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

If you take Christ at his word, all true Christians should.

 

[godrulz]

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

If you take Christ at his word, all true Christians should.

Reigning with Christ on earth in His millennial kingdom is not the same thing as a Muslim sensual heaven nor a Mormon universe where men are gods, rule planets, breed perpetually with women, etc. Cease believing the lie at the expense of truth. Eternity is about worshipping Jesus and being with Him, not becoming self-centered false gods. We are to become Christ-like and glorified, not deified.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Reigning with Christ on earth in His millennial kingdom is not the same thing as a Muslim sensual heaven

I never said such. Why the constant need to try and make us equivilant with those we do not share equivilancy with? Islam, like Communism, tends toward believing in a militaristicaly aided world take over. That is abscent from our view of world domination by the Kingdom of God on Earth.

nor a Mormon universe where men are gods, rule planets, breed perpetually with women, etc. Cease believing the lie at the expense of truth. Eternity is about worshipping Jesus and being with Him, not becoming self-centered false gods. We are to become Christ-like and glorified, not deified.

How can you reach the "fullness of the Stature of Christ" and NOT reach a deified state? That's like telling a kid, you can do and be like your dad when you grow up, except you can't ever be of the same species and you can't REALLY reach the fullness he has because your just 'spiritualy' (or some other abstract form) of his son."

You defame God and man by making us a pet like, or sophisticated robot like entity created by 'God' for no logicaly tenable reason--since he already had everything he did or would have ever needed--other than just to 'change things up'.

 

[Mustard Seed]

godrulz,

I'm curious as to what you think the meek ruling the Earth will be comprised of. You mentioned the Millenial Reign. Do you think that it will not be a literal, physical dominion over the millenial earth?

 

[godrulz]

godrulz,

I'm curious as to what you think the meek ruling the Earth will be comprised of. You mentioned the Millenial Reign. Do you think that it will not be a literal, physical dominion over the millenial earth?

Christ rules with a rod of iron. We are not the King of kings and Lord of lords.

God is ontologically 'other' than creation. There is only one true God by nature (uncreated Creator). Man can be like God in character and personal (will, intellect, emotions) attributes. We cannot be like God in His essential attributes (eternal, Creator, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent).

Mormonism is foreign to biblical Christianity. Do not believe the lie of Satan that we can become gods. God alone is worthy as the most valuable being in the universe. He alone is worshipped in spirit and in truth. Man is the pinnacle of His creation, but this does not make us gods. We are more than pets or robots. You blaspheme God to think that we are equal to Him.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

godrulz,

I'm curious as to what you think the meek ruling the Earth will be comprised of. You mentioned the Millenial Reign. Do you think that it will not be a literal, physical dominion over the millenial earth?[/QUOTE]

with Zion / the New Jerusalem in Independence, Missouri ???

:rotfl: :hammer:

Documentation: Doctrine and Covenants 57 (read this for yourselves)

3 And thus saith the Lord your God, if you will receive wisdom here is wisdom. Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse.