Posted on 07/05/2007 3:00:33 AM PDT by Gamecock
But what is your definition of God versus god?
http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/god-jesus-trinity-virgin_birth.htm states that:
The Trinity and Virgin Birth are doctrines of man that were an integral part of mystery religions. They were invented by Nimrod (grandson of Noah); and made official doctrines of Christianity by the unbaptized, pagan Roman Emperor Constantine...
Constantine assembled the Council of Nicea in 325 AD; and established the creed which became the center of Christian belief in God—the Trinity and Virgin Birth. This Creed of St. Athanasius remains the foundation of Christian belief today. “He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.” In essence it states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all three the same god. They are all uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, and almighty; and its believers are “compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord.” Despite the claims of its founder, it is clearly the doctrine of three gods and not one...
As God created man in his own likeness and image (Gen. 1:26), so Adam begat a son in his own likeness and image (Gen. 5:3). What does God look like? Look at yourself in the mirror. Although the human body has lost its glory, we retain the likeness and image of God...
God withdrew His spirit from among them. God no longer spoke with man. Satan was given power to destroy the Church of Christ (Rev. 12:5, 6), the holy priesthood ( 12:17 ), and finally every saint of God (Rev. 13:5-7) for a period of 1260 years. Knowledge of God was soon lost after the days of Constantine...
The Bible leaves no doubt the Almighty Father stands alone as GOD; and is above Jesus in immortality, authority, and perfection. GOD is one and not three...
The Almighty Father is the King of Kings over the entire Universe. He alone is GOD. GOD is one, perfect, without beginning or end, and changes not. The Creed of St. Athanasius declares, “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.” This is clearly a doctrine of three gods. The Bible teaches there are actually two distinct and individual personages that constitute the supreme and governing power over the Universe and this creation—the Father AND the Son. The Holy Spirit shares the same mind and purpose with God and Jesus; and coordinates the work of all. These three constitute what is termed the Godhead. Neither Jesus, nor the Holy Spirit can be GOD. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches the Trinity...
Jesus had a beginning; and was the beginning of this creation—the only begotten of the Father in this creation. Jesus lived as a spirit like us before His birth into the world, died, and was raised from the grave by the Father...
Jesus received His power from the Father. Before He was born of water and the Spirit, He was alien to the kingdom of God ; and held no divine power. He could not have been GOD. He had to be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God . Jesus was then ordained an Apostle, Prophet, and Lawgiver under the hands of the Father (Heb. 5:5). He gave others divine power to bind on earth and in heaven. He was raised from the dead by the power of the Father. After His resurrection, Jesus was given all power in this creation by the Father...
Jesus had a beginning; and WAS the beginning of this creation. Jesus told John, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 21:6) All men, including Jesus, were first created as spirits. “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13)
Jesus was the only spirit brought forth by God. “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” (1 John 4:9) He is not Almighty GOD; but, He is the God of this creation. The rest of creation was the work of Jesus in liaison with the Father...
Some have been led to believe through the doctrines of Constantine that Jesus was God. GOD cannot be alien to His own kingdom. The Father was speaking from heaven, the Son was rising up out of the water, and the Holy Spirit was descending upon Jesus. It is not possible that these three different entities in three different places at the same time can be one and the same identical person—GOD. GOD is one and not three...
Faith in Jesus is possible only through knowing the real Jesus—the seed of David. Jesus is not GOD; although He is the God and Savior of this creation...
Exactly 1260 years after the beast, Papal Rome was established in 570 AD, Joseph Smith claimed to have been ordained to the Prophetic Office under the hands of angels; and restored both the Melchisedec Priesthood and the original gospel of Christ...
It sounds to me that LDS doctrine puts Jesus as a lesser being than Heavenly Father, that Jesus is a completely separate individual from GOD, that there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit as God, that GOD originally had a human form and personally impregnated Mary, that there are multiple universes and Jesus is in charge only of our particular one.
I think that there are a whole bunch of serious departures from what we’d call mainstream Christianity. Do I support your right to believe in LDS doctrines? Sure. I support the right of Jains to practice their own theology as well.
As others have mentioned, what irritates is the new interpretations being generated as well as new documentation that points in very different directions from original Church teachings, while using the same Biblical names and characters.
Is this you speaking or the article to which you refer?... “There is nothing in the Bible that teaches the Trinity”
BTW, welcome to the scrum.
LOL, I wondered how you were going to answer that.
AND...?
You know from post 844 that I am not “anti-christian” yet claim you intend to refer to me as such.
The Religion Moderator stated in post 784 to you:
“It is not derogatory to be “anti” something.
I do not consider the term “anti” to be “making it personal” unless the poster is attributing motives which have not been declared by the Freeper targeted by the claim.
For instance, “your anti-atheist position...” may not be making it personal, if you have made it clear that you are against atheism.”
Nothing in my posts can be remotely construed as “anti-christian.” To the contrary, I expressly stated in post 844 my devotion to Christ. To call me “anti-christian” would be “attributing motives which have not been declared by the Freeper targeted by the claim,” and therefore, would be violative of the posting rules. If you refer to me as “anti-christian” I will regrettably be compelled to report the abuse to the RM. I thank you in advance for not misrepresenting my belief in and devotion to Christ.
Actually, both.
The concept of the Trinity is entirely Catholic. As is worship on the first day of the week, Christmas on Dec 25, the selection of Easter etc. The big difference is that I accept the authority of the Magisterium when it decrees these.
Thanks for the welcome. I’ve actually hung back since you’re doing a fair job and I didn’t want to steal any of your thunder.
And just as I said, my mother, brother, husband and inlaws are Mormon, and so if you call me anti-mormon I will be forced to LOL at your hypocrisy, since I can only rightly be called an anti-mormonism.
I don’t need to run to the Mod for every slight I feel. In fact my feelings don’t have much to do with reality. I think lurkers can understand my motivations and also yours. Adults should not need to be censured for name-calling IMO, didn’t we pass that in Kindergarten. You and others will continue to call me anti-mormon, it is your way to demonize me. I’ll accept that.
You have mail
Got it. Thanks. Appreciate your use of PM.
Please clarify for me. Sometime ago I asked you:
“In your world, should you be able to refuse service to a Mormon patronize your restaurant because of his or her religion?
Should you be able to refuse to hire a Mormon because of his or her religion?
Should you be able to refuse to rent your apartment to a Mormon because of his or her religion?”
To which you responded:
Yes, I just might,
I am forbidden to ask their religion in those circumstances, but if they are forthcoming with the information and there is another suitable person who is also waiting for a table or renting my apartment or seeking employment, it may very well sway my opinion.
Cold hard fact brother.
It is MY restaurant and MY apartment and MY business. I can judge suitability on any criteria I choose. I may not let anyone know what criteria I based my decision, but it is still my decision.”
168 posted on 06/03/2007 6:51:00 PM PDT by colorcountry (”You step in crap once and spend the rest of your life scraping it off.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Is that an example of “anti-mormonism” or “anti-mormon?”
Neither. I said it might sway me. The reason it would sway me is the way it is presented. If someone tried to rent my property and said “I have an IQ of 250, as a way of trying to present himself in a better light (just as if he brought up his religious practices, I would hold the mannerism against him. You are assigning motives to my post. It is against the rules of the religion forum.
Also you are not to continue discussions from previous threads.
What do rules mean to you?
The thing is....with all humility I'm right about that post of yours.....
You in fact "typed" and "sounded"....just like Restornu.
Would any pro Mormon care to have discourse on http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1861095/posts?page=921#921?
There seems to be certain silence.
When I ask you to clarify, that is assigning motives to you?
I am not continuing a discussion from another thread. I am asking how earlier statements made by you comport with your distinguishing yourself as being “anti-mormonism” but not “anti-mormon” which is the current subject of our latest post exchanges on this thread.
Best Wishes.
Uhh...posting a comment from a June 3 thread on this one that was originally started July 5 sure looks like continuing a discussion to me.
I already clairified on the other thread. Now please don’t ever ask that same question again.
The point I was making then had nothing to do with Mormonism per se, but everything about my right to cast my vote for whomever and for whatever reason I wished.
That post being carried over on to this thread shines a dishonest light on our previous exchange and is precisely why the mods frown upon it.
Please clarify my understanding of this rule if you will, moderator.
Not quite.
I have no desire to break the rules. I reviewed the Religion Moderator’s page regarding the rules, but didn’t see any reference to forbidding the quoting of a earlier post on a different thread by a Freeper, particularly if it is salient to the current discussion.
If such is the case, I apologize to CC and will henceforth refrain from quoting earlier posts.
CC,
Is there another area to look for the rules on these issues. I am fairly new to Free Republic and I don’t want to violate the rules.
Thanks.
That is why I asked the Religion Moderator for clairification. But if you look at the religion Moderator’s home page, he/she/whoever has a list of rules for this forum.
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.