Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
I meant to include you in the post #1763, but I did not, I apologize.
“Now you must accept me as a valid candidate for POTUS, since I am a Christian. Right?”
Well, I’d probable vote for you if you ran. Maybe I can incorporate your new religion in my new religion.
“Please explain how he would be president of 10 years...”
2 years of nomination campaign plus 8 years presidency, sorry to be unclear.
“And all so you can slip your Trojan horse into a position of power.”
[If there was any evidence of this, you would have seen it in Mass.]
I see evidence right here in the dissembling of the apologists.
“Why on earth would we want to have a murder implement used to kill someone we love around, I suppose if your mother was killed by a gun, you’d hang it from your neck with a gold chain.
That is how the cross is seen by some Mormons. You won’t see them on our buildings, it has nothing to do with Baal.”
Oh, but it has a lot to do with Baal. You worship Josph Smith so much that you can’t bare the thought of giving up his occult rituals.
Always a slippin and a slidin, never a straight answer.
“He is quoted as saying that, but that is not that same as setting down doctrine by revelation. “
Hoo Yeah, a slippin and a slidin.
The prophets of Mormonism are divinely inspired truth - unless they aren’t divinely inspired truth. And sometimes we have revelations that what WAS divinely inpired truth (like blacks being the son’s of Caine) aren’t real revelation.
I’m going to try to write that line into business contracts with mormons. This contract is binding, unless I decide it wasn’t binding. That’s the ticket.
“FastCoyote your whole premise is off kilter
and than you want the LDS to defend your strawman. “
Ummm, sure. That’s a new tactic, posting a little graphic rather than explaining why my premise would be a strawman. I guess now I could post a picture of someone kissing my butt, and that would win the argument???
You have to do better than this restornu. Quote me out of context, give me something to work with here.
“Just remember this, your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Basically your right to speak is not absolute. And you have no right to be heard. You may speak, I may listen, or ignore. You may not insist that I agree with you. You may not speak for me, or anyone else, without my/their permission. And lastly, this is not a public place, there are Mods and it belongs to Jim Robinson. I always like to think of myself as his guest. Any guest in my house who uses inappropriate language will be shown the door. I expect no less from the Mods of this forum.”
Whooo Hoo, here comes the threats to the mods. I guess you’ve used that before effectively to stifle debate once your usual spin stops working.
You always know when someone has lost the debate when they start claiming the other side used “inappropriate language” while not providing any quotes! And if I am corrected by the Mods, I will gladly follow their lead, but in general it is hard to take me to task because I’m generally quoting from Mormon source material.
But, I guess if you aren’t man enough to debate mano a mano without crying to the Mods and playing victim, it means your position is pretty weak.
I’ve been called everything from a bigot, to “loony grey matter” by you guys and I’ve laughed it off and provided counter examples without crying Mommy to the Mods. Wonder if you are strong enough to do the same.
“Just remember this, your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Basically your right to speak is not absolute.”
Pretty interesting how you’ve conflated physical violence with free speech. I’ve never threatened any violence, it’s not in my nature, though I’ve been threatened by Mormons before. If my right to speak is not absolute, then neither is yours, but I would have thought you were strong enough to survive rigorous debate. If you aren’t strong enough, please let me know and I will avoid you.
“And you have no right to be heard.”
I think that is the point of your diatribe, shutting me up because it’s too hard to argue with my points. Much easier to try and get someone banned, you can just feel the frustration.
“You may speak, I may listen, or ignore.”
I sure haven’t held a steel bow to your head making you type your replies to me.
“You may not insist that I agree with you.”
Please provide a reference to where I said that. chirp chirp
“You may not speak for me, or anyone else, without my/their permission.”
Reference please? chirp chirp chirp
Seems to me you are speaking for Jim Robinson and acting as if you are a Mod right now, wonder if you asked him? And if you have some proof that I was “speaking for someone else”, please provide the reference and I will stand corrected.
But, all we’ve seen so far is innuendo - born of what looks like frustration. Not a single quote. Seems like you fight your battles by getting people banned rather than arguing persuasively. Sort of like Harry Reid’s technique, calling for investigations and impeachment ‘cause he ain’t holdin no cards.
So, let me know if I’m “banned from speaking with you”, it’s not like it is much of a pleasure debating someone who cries wolf all the time anyway.
But we actually agree on this point. This world is but a type and a shadow. Once you accept this premise, then we must look at marriage in a different light.
Marriage is a type and shadow of a heavenly reality in two primary ways:
(1) Its 2-in-1 reality is reflective of a 3-in-1 reality in heaven. Two people as one on earth is reflective of three Personages as one in heaven.
(2) Our marriage on earth is but a foreshadow of the greatest universal covenant marriage of eternity--that of the Church to the Lamb. To know somebody intimately on earth, and commit yourself to that person in covenant for a lifetime, is meant to describe eternal life: "And this is eternal life, that you know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." (John 17:3)
Here's another passage about our covenant commitment to knowing the Lamb: "For thy maker [John 1, Col 1, Heb 1 all says Jesus created us] is thine husband; The Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel. The God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God." (Is. 54:5-6)
"For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shally thysons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." (Is. 62:5)
Look, I am a Guy, and the idea of being someone’s bride, well, it’s not appealing, if that’s heaven, package me up and send me to hell.
If you don't want to call your everlasting relationship with the Lamb a "marriage," so be it. Call it an eternal covenant relationship. Call it one where you trust one another. Call it one where He loves you with a sacrificial love and you love Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Call it one where you intimately know and relate to Him daily (John 17:3). Call it one where you submit to him as Eph. 5:24-25 and other verses around there describe. In these phrases, I've essentially describes many of the most important things we do in our marriages on earth, anyway.
We should indeed have a relationship with him, but it is not that he will be my bridegroom, he is my savior, my God, not my husband.
All I ask is that if the Bible links these two concepts of Jesus as Savior and Jesus as Bridegroom in a very close manner, why are you so bent on separating them? (You know more than the prophet or the apostle who wrote them at God's beckoning?)
Allow me to repeat those linkages: "For thy Maker is thine husband; The Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer [Savior] the Holy One of Israel..." (Is. 54:5)
And also: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies...This is the great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5:25-28, 32)
And: "Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." (Rev. 21:9) [Lamb being the saving sacrifice]
So the first parable is about being prepared.
I agree. It is a parable about being prepared. But a parable about being prepared for what? A picnic in heaven, and there's not enough light there so enough oil has to be there in case the picnic runs late?
The oil represents the Holy Spirit who anoints us. If we are filled with His presence and light, it is His holy presence who makes us worthy to go live in a close, intimate relationship with the Bridegroom. What? You think Jesus just ran out of role descriptions He was to play upon His return and randomly picked that one out of the air--because, frankly, he didn't have to even use a virgin-bridegroom analogy to make the same point.
The Second parable is about being true to your covenants.
Yes. But what's the most important covenant we have? (Our relationship with him, both now and forever)
The third parable is about the patriarchal order of the family.
Yes. But what is the patriarchal order of the earthly family modeled after? (The patriarchal order of the heavenly family.) Our wives are subject to us just as we are subject to the Head of the Heavenly Family. We have been died for, just as the Lamb was sacrificed for us, the church.
The fourth is about the members being ready in the last days
Again, yes. But "ready" for what? A picnic stroll down Pearly Gate Lane? Haven't you ever noticed the great details a bride-to-be goes through as she readies herself for the wedding? How she readies herself to give herself in every way to her bridegroom? You think she wants an extra 10 pounds here and an extra 10 pounds there? You think she wants all these blemishes to just "beam" at her groom? (Obviously no. She is preparing for a special merging that can compare to nothing else)
The fifth Scripture is about Jesus’ second coming an him taking possession of the government.
Perhaps you can frame it that way but upon first glance using a government metaphor kind of leaves you colder than what John is describing in Rev. 21. Look again: "And I, John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." (Rev. 21:2-3)
Haven't you ever wondered why the Bible, written over 2,000 years, begins with an earthly wedding merger ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"--Gen 2:24) and ends with a heavenly wedding merger? The most important part is not the wedding, as Rev. 21:3 shows, it's the dwelling together in commitment and trust.
The sixth is one scripture about the church delivering living waters to any who thirst and is the only scripture in the whole chapter that uses the word bride.
Of course. (Ya wanna point me to a bride who if they've planned a mega wedding feast doesn't send out invitations?) We're so spoiled, we forget how special that offer is of water to a hot and thirsty world.
But, again, you reduce the impact of a wedding feast invitation by focusing on the invitational delivery of them. Yes, it's important they get there. I would say both the Honor of recognizing who the Bridegroom is [like how we would feel being specially invited to a Prince's wedding] as well as how we are going to be delivered to the wedding feast is the key.
Read the last phrase of Rev. 22:17 again: "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Freely. Free. Gift. Grace. 100% Grace. Unearned. Unmerited. No Spiritual Boy Scout badges.
What? You think a bride has to "earn" her way into the Bridegroom's heart? You think she has to "service" him to get His attention? Do you think the guests of honor at a wedding must pay their way in? They've got to perform some great service to be invited? Is that the way LDS run their weddings? (Almost sounds like it, since you have to have a temple recommend to see your child's wedding; and to have a temple recommend requires surpassing a certain measurement of spirituality, including paying for that privilege via a tithe)
“That is quite an inherently flawed argument and the reason we believe Mormons will spin anything. If Hitler said he was a Christian, by your logic we would have no right to cull him from the Church.”
[Certainly, cull him from the church, but leave the judgment of whether or not he is a Christian up to Jesus. ]
Ummm, a lot of people did the same thing in 1939, that’s why we had something called World War Two. Christ will make the decision who makes it to heaven, but he gives us free will to decide between right and wrong. If I decide Mitt Romney is unsuitable for the Presidency because our religious differences are large enough, then that is a judgment I will make whether or not you try and force me to think otherwise.
“I wasn’t going to say anything, i didn’t want to embarass anybody. Besides, I find when I tell people my IQ, it chills the conversation. So don’t ask, I don’t want to tell, but it is higher than 135.”
As discussed with Tantiboth, high IQ leads to magnified insight, and magnified error. That’s why it can be a poor predictor of the truth. I met some brilliant people at Stanford who I wouldn’t trust to tie my shoelaces. And I have met you :)
“I will exalt my throne above the stars of God” (Is. 14:13) = a thrown above the stars, but not necessarily above God. The next verse he talks about ascending above the clouds, but not above God. He doesn’t say, “I will be above the Most High,” but rather: “I will be like the Most High.”
Now if it was quite troublesome (and evicting) to God for one of His up-until-then perfect angelic leaders to issue a grab for divinity, how do you think God fills when a not-so-perfect mere mortal makes a grasp for divinity?
Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Luke 20:
34 And Jesus said to them, The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage,
35 but they who are counted worthy to have part in that world, and the resurrection from among the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;
36 for neither can they die any more, for they are equal to angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Equal to angels but NOT equal to God.
Nope, staying Mormon was not painful, I’ve done that for over 20 years as an inactive Mormon. Being judged and ostracized by my neighbors, customers, and family who are LDS (because I no longer live “right”)... That is painful.
Having members at FreeRepublic tell me I am not “worthy” of calling myself Mormon, that I am untruthful, even though it is true, and it is my heritage, THAT is painful....
But seven, I’ve HAVE learned something since I found Christ five years ago. Admit it when you’re wrong, ask for forgiveness, change then move-on. Perhaps it would behoove you to do that in this case.
You seven, may not have been the most offensive. There have been strings of Mormons on strings of threads. You’re not the only Mormon poster on FR (unless you have multiple personalities). So move on. It wasn’t always you, you weren’t always involved.
Resty and I, have had knock down, drag-outs. But I know she does what she does out of pure intent and love (she has told me) and so when my feelings are hurt, I forgive her automatically. Isn’t that right resty?
Exmormon screens out repeated hits. Some site do that you know.
For example if there are 15 of my replys on this thread, my URL is only recorded once, counting one visit.
You two try this one on for size. Mine is also.
I never went to college.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.