Posted on 04/09/2013 4:52:50 PM PDT by Colofornian
Yeah. YOU would like that.
But my word on a forum means nothing. To some one who never understood a single WORD.
And maybe there are some threads here that reflect that. This isn't one of them.
huh?
huh?
Good luck with that.
Um.
Ok.
Can you elaborate. I have been here for sometime in these threads, even back when you were actively defending the faith and nothing really has changed.
It was YOU who said you could expose a variety of denominations, not I.......so again be my guest.
Really, please expound on these “get what I am saying”, if this were really a religion forum.
Thank you very much.
Any time I see writing by a Mormon I know that that is a “deluded” cult member, someone who has an ax to grind. Someone who has traded the objective knowledge and propositional truth of the Holy Scriptures, for personal experience, apart from facts, logic, or evidence. Yet they believe...
__________________________________________
Forgive me for writing so late, I wish I could spend more time at this but unfortunately have things to do in life beside have fun in these discussions.
You snidely say “They have feelings”. Isn’t that all any of us have, isn’t that what faith is after all. If you start looking for facts then you are need to look somewhere besides Christendom. Most religions are not about facts, evidence or even logic.
... They believe a civilization covered Meso-America from sea to shining see - full of vast metal works and millions of people and mythical creatures like cureloms. Despite there being no buildings, no foundations, no rusting metal, no curelom bones, etc. Why?
Why isn’t there a Noah’s ark. Which is more fantastic, a worldwide flood or a book of gold plates? I’ll bet it was pretty tough getting all the animals on earth in that boat.
What evidence do you have of Christ raising Lazarus? The Bible? Sure that’s cute, the Catholic Church over 1500 years ago decided what would be in the Holy Bible and burned everything else they could get their hands on. The reality is that the Mormons have a number of witnesses of whom there are birth certificates and death certificates and grave yards with them in it that swear they saw the plates and angels. I’m not saying that makes it so but it certainly qualifies as logical deduction to facts.
They believe something created and non-eternal, can become God. Despite their ignorance of logic leaving them in the position of ignoring God’s character as omnipotent (all powerful), and instead accepting the falsehood of lots of gods, of whom none are omnipotent. Still they believe. Why? They have feelings! . . . .
You misstate what they believe and I suspect you know exactly what you are doing. They do not believe that anything created and non-eternal can become God. They believe all life is eternal in some form. They believe that the children of God can become heirs with Christ of all His Father has. If you have everything that God has then you must need be by definition “god”! The Apostles taught this same doctrine.
... They believe their God and Goddess breed in the heavens, rutting continually to produce an onslaught of spirit children to populate new worlds. Even worse, they have accepted that they have the potential to aspire to godhood, continually bedding goddesses and ruling over a planet of their own. Despite all the Bible teaches about the nature of God, it is swept aside to make Him into a creature. Why? They have feelings!
What rudeness you ascribe to God who is the Father of us all. Just how again was Jesus “created” in mortality? You believe that it was some rutting instinct? God is our Father, that is the title He uses, He does not call Himself our Creator but our Father. Fatherhood implies many things, I see nothing ugly in those things.
I’m not sure I criticized anybody, much less any ex-Mormons. Saying someone has an ax to grind is not a criticism just an expression of an attribute.
I don’t have anything against Mormons, I do however have a thin skin when people who live in glass houses start throwing stones.
Christianity is a religion of faith, not facts. Christianity is a religion of feelings, not facts.
Christianity is a religion of Christ, Christ commanded us to love all men, even Mormons, even Catholics and even Protestants. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are part of all men and so are those that come after them. When you question their beliefs and motives you are accusing them of evil. I’ve met a lot of Mormons, I haven’t met the evil ones yet.
Some threads start out as purely exposing a belief aspect of the ISM, but slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) these threads turn into ridicule of the adherents.
When Mitt Romney was seeking the nomination of the republicant party, the switch of focus often happened immediately, aimed at ridiculing Romney more than the ISM he adhers to. Doesn't that strike you as suspiciously 'covert politicization'?
Except Christians every chance you get.
Fred, is it possible that a number of your comments on this thread equate to you speaking out of your grief here? If so, I can understand that you are wanting to honor your Mormon relatives & their loved ones, some of whom are also grieving at this time.
I've attended a Mormon relative's funeral within the last several years...Twas a need then to rally around those Mormon relatives; there's nothing wrong with that. Go for it.
Well, you know what?...LOTS of various "religious"-oriented people of EVERY religious stripe -- Christians, Jews, Hindu, etc. have parents who may have "raised them free" to live out their various faiths and to practice "what they want" ... but what do Mormons come and do with their post-death reputations by "baptizing" the dead?
Fred, if you REALLY believed in "fighting" for those who lived out their religion as they wanted, then where have you been on the FR threads talking about THESE topics?
* Fox News: Gandhi’s grandson responds to proxy posthumous baptism by LDS church
* NY Times: Anne Frank, a Mormon?
* Washington Post: Elie Wiesel calls for Romney's help to end Mormons' proxy baptisms
* Salt Lake Tribune: Newest Catholic saint baptized and 'sealed' to wife in LDS temple?
In this last case, Mormons even "married off" a deceased single Roman Catholic priest from Hawaii in a temple ritual to a nun! (Do you think that is honoring the memory of this priest's freedom to honor his vows of chastity and single-eyed devotion to His Lord?)
Do you think it's honoring the freedom of Mahatma Ghandi, a Hindu, or Anne Frank, a Jew, or the parents of Simon Wiesenthal (Simon was a holocaust survivor; his parents were not) for them to be labeled as "Mormons?"
Fred, I'd like to see a little consistency from you on these points: If all of this bothers you, then you need to speak out forcefully vs. Mormon necro-baptism.
I mean if the Scientologists suddenly came up with some post-death "clear" dunking ritual which made all such "cleared" people a Scientologist post-death, and if somebody made your uncle Lyle a "Scientologist" post-death, how would you feel about the honor of his memory being distorted from the freedom of how he chose to live his life?
Any time I see writing by an ex-Mormon I know that that is a “disaffected” Mormon, someone who has an ax to grind. If you hate the Mormons just say you hate them. [JAKraig, post #28]
I’m not sure I criticized anybody, much less any ex-Mormons. [JAKraig, post #70]
ALL: JA automatically assumed above (post 28) that EVERY ex-Mormon "hates" his/her former associates and JA judges ALL of these complete strangers to him who express that as "grinding axes."
How is it that you omnisciently know this, JA?
(And then you have the complete gall to claim you didn't criticize them??? Are you aware of what your keyboard types out?)
Well, let's see...I pointed out your crits against an ex-Mormon in my last post. I suppose for you to criticize ex-Mormon Grant Palmer that MUST mean you don't live in a "glass house." (Otherwise, you wouldn't have dared to critique Palmer per your own proverbial standard, right?)
And, of course, these statements you made in this same post...these aren't "crits" at all, right?
"Why isn’t there a Noah’s ark. Which is more fantastic, a worldwide flood or a book of gold plates? I’ll bet it was pretty tough getting all the animals on earth in that boat." [JAKraig, post #70]
"What evidence do you have of Christ raising Lazarus? The Bible? Sure that’s cute, the Catholic Church over 1500 years ago decided what would be in the Holy Bible and burned everything else they could get their hands on." [JAKraig, post #70]
Please DO tell us, JA, what your house is built of...and how it is that you -- and seemingly you alone -- manage to escape application of your "glass house" proverb?
Even in opposition to some of the directions these threads take, I would not identify any of the offerings as generated by hatred for Mormons. That sort of specious accusation is aimed at trying to marginalize the poster, and perhaps shut them up from further exposure.
AMPU,
Since JAKraig was addressing you in post #70, meant to also ping you re: posts 75-76
(1) ALL: Notice that JAKraig says this as if it was a "fact" -- and not simply something based upon his personal "feelings" -- nor not emerging from his "anti-faith" posturing.
(2) THE KEY CLAIMS of Christianity -- are things that had the Jerusalem Gazette been around circa 30 A.D. -- would have covered: The death on the cross of Jesus Christ; the empty tomb & claims of His resurrection while appearing to around 500 individuals...& claims of His ascension.
That's why Christianity focuses on the "Good News" -- the literal meaning of the word "Gospel." It's NEWS...not just "Good dogma based upon blind faith" -- a stark contrast to JA's claim that our faith is somehow "blind" & operating only in the dark
The apostle Paul told the Corinthian church that if Jesus wasn't resurrected, that we were still in our sin and to be pitied among all men as having an empty faith. No resurrection, no Christian faith.
(3) Well...since this one is longer...I will post it next comment... No incarnational Jesus, no Christian faith.
(3) [cont'd from last post]:
ALL: Many who claim that Christianity ONLY involves "faith," are essentially implying the following:
1. That faith is somehow against reason.
2. OR...that faith is somehow a free-floating ethereal thing (outthere somewhere);
3. That the Christian faith somehow falls outside history. (Sorry, but Christ's death and resurrection talks about a man who claimed to be God in time & space -- who died, and whose resurrection would have made "Local News @ Five" had broadcasting been around then)
4. That somehow the testimony that Jesus appeared to about 500 (1 Corinthians 15:6) is irrelevant...the eye-witness testimony is that (a) Jesus visited the apostles (John 21); and (b) for 5-6 weeks popped up to meet/teach from the Mount of Olives, near Bethany (Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:3-11).
Sorry, JA...but the CHRISTIAN faith is in a person (Jesus Christ). Such faith doesn't stay "bottled up" within a person; it gets transferred. Toward the object of that faith (Jesus Christ). And Jesus is not simply a free-floating divinity "out there" somewhere. Jesus Christ lived and died and rose again in a time-space continuum. We know he was born -- probably 4 B.C...likely about April 25 (NOT Dec. 25)...and died about 33 years later. That means that the Christian faith IS rooted in history. And history can be tested from a variety of angles, most notably the eye-witness history and the consequences of Jesus Christ on the lives of His apostles and eventual followers!
Note what author Kenneth Samples has to say about Jesus' resurrection:
"The story's natural details conform well to what is known historically. Far from being a myth or legend, the report of the empty tomb...
[1]...has a very early date... [meaning it wasn't a tale that simply arose a generation later]
[2]...fits with archaeological data (burial customs, construction of tombs, timing of ceremonial events)...
[3]...and was never challenged, let alone refuted, by the contemporary enemies and critics of Christianity.
[4] In addition, the Jews or Romans could have immediately squashed Christianity by producing Christ's body. The disciples could not have proclaimed a bodily resurrection if the body could be brought forth. [Kenneth Samples, Without a Doubt, Baker books, 2004, p. 138]
What key reports re: the empty tomb am I referencing? (The following is a paraphrase of Do the Resurrection Accounts Conflict and What Proof is There that Jesus Rose from the Dead? by John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon):
We know Joseph took the body of Christ/wrapped it/placed it in the tomb (Matt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53); and Nicodemus assisted him (John 19:39).
We know Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb (Matt 27:62-66; 28:11-15) @ the request of Jewish leaders (Matt 27:27, 65); early church writers Justin, Tertullian & a few apocryphal accounts also mention this) [You don't post guards to guard an empty tomb, right?].
And we know from history that the penalty for a Roman soldier deserting his post was death (Polybius, among other early historians, noted the strictness of Roman camp discipline).
This place of burial was common knowledge -- observed by both Jesus' friends as well as His enemies (Matt 27:61, 66).
We know the "extremely large" stone (Mark 16:4) put in front of the tomb was marked with a royal seal to safeguard it -- and that these stones weighed 1-2 tons.
We know Jewish authorities didn't question the report of the guards that the tomb was empty (Matt 28:11-15)
"When even your enemies at both the immediate time of the event and for two thousand years afterwards are forced to acknowledge that the tomb was empty, the case for the Resurrection becomes more than credible. Again, no one anywhere at any time ever doubted the empty tomb: 'A.M. Ramsey writes: ...Paul Althaus states that the resurrection 'could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the temptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.'"
"Paul L. Maier concludes: '...no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.' (Ankerberg & Weldon, p. 122)
Bottom-line: There's enough historical eyewitness testimony about Jesus' resurrection. (Remember: Eye-witness testimony has been "enough" to send many men to their deaths)
What JAKraig wouldn't do in criminal and civil cases or in much of the most solid history books that have been published -- diss eyewitness testimony -- he seems ONLY to readily -- and subtly do -- when it comes to the HISTORY within the Christian faith!
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.