Posted on 04/05/2007 5:42:47 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Mitt Romney is riding high this week after his victory in "the first primary," which consists of raising cold, hard cash to compete: more than $20 million in the first quarter, $5 million more than his closest contender, Rudy "Lay off my wife!" Giuliani. John McCain came in a lackluster third with $12.5 million.
Romney's campaign benefited from two distinct donor networks, according to media accounts: Wall Street and Mormons. GOP front-runner Rudy, struggling with one of those weird media freak shows erupting around his wife, Judith (her alleged participation in future Cabinet meetings and former puppy killings), must be a little envious on both counts.
Why is it that all the Dem candidates are still married to their first spouse, while among the current crop of leading GOP contenders, the only guy with just one wife is the Mormon?
Truth is, I don't think this is just an accident. There's something about Mormons the rest of us ought to pay attention to: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do much better than almost any other faith group at sustaining a marriage culture -- and they do this while participating fully and successfully in modern life. Utah is above the national average in both household income and the proportion of adults who are college graduates.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Reagan already did this. He had pretty good judgement.
1. God does not change.
But the clarity of His revelation to us does--there is such a thing as progress in God's revelation, and our understanding of it. It is through the New Testament we can fully understand the Old Testament. When Jesus was asked about divorce, he pointed to Adam and Eve. One Adam, one Eve, not Adam, Eve, Joan, Amy, Jennifer, etc.... If polygamy is God's ideal, in a world empty of humans, why just one couple in the beginning?
2. Abraham had two wives (as well as concubines) and was specifically approved of by God after being polygamous.
Actually, Abraham had only one wife at a time, then after waiting for over 30 years for his promised son, got impatient, and followed the common ancient Near East practice of taking a concubine--Sarah his wife's idea. There is no indication at all God approved of that, in fact just the opposite. The description in Genesis 16 and forward of Abraham's family life and marriage to Sarah, after his taking a concubine, is anything but pretty--eventually resulting in the concubine and her son, Ishmael's banishment. After Sarah's death Abraham remarried.
God's approval of Abraham was not based on all the things he did--rather, scripture clearly says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."(Rom 4:3)
Isaac, Abraham's promised son, had only one wife, then Jacob, Isaac's son, had 2 wives--with constant problems of rivalry between them--hardly a picture of domestic tranquility. In fact Jacob has arguably the most dysfunctional family described in the bible--all stemming from his polygamy. Read about it in God's true Word in Gen. 29, 30
3. Therefore God still approves of polygamy.
Interesting, I've never heard a Mormon admit they still believe in polygamy....
What you have with Abraham, and all the Old Testament saints, is evidence that God's mercy--not everything that those men and women did--is the basis of salvation. God clearly loved and approved of King David, who wrote most of the Psalms. What was the basis though? That David lived a wonderful life? No. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and then murder, besides being a polygamist. But God in His mercy helped move David to repent, and then forgave and loved him anyway. Similarly, in the same way that slavery was practiced in OT times....and was certainly better than just killing all your enemies...so too polygamy was overlooked, in that God is merciful--and no Old Testament saint was perfect.
Is polygamy better than serial divorce? Yes, but both are still far from God's ideal.
I will stand with the King James bible (which Joseph Smith read, understood--and disobeyed), which you specifically asked for--along with every other legitimate modern English translation--as well as the opinion of the Greek scholars whom I know, that St. Paul clearly and unambiguously commanded monogamy as the only acceptable married state for any kind of church leadership.
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were unquestionably disobedient to New Testament revelation in their polygamy. Not only were they personally disobedient, they led thousands of others to be so as well. Their gross, disreputable and lawless lifestyle in this area alone falsifies any revelation they claimed as being from God.
I find it sad that you are so blind to what all Christians believe about polygamy, and the more important issues of faith in Christ. Try reading Holy Scripture, instead its pretenders' "cunningly devised fables." (II Peter 1:16)
Well, what we do on both topics which you touch on, temple worship and clothing, is held by most as deeply private and personal. In terms of clothing, we don’t want to put our commitment out there for scorn and we also find tremendous virtue in modesty which is why we wear our clothing under our clothes. In my opinion it is not unlike the early Quakers view that pure clean white undergarments were a symbol of having the spirit of Christ within you.
Show where anyone who was divorced has been blessed for their righteousness.
Revelations 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Many other references in the Bible, but I will leave it at that.
You are cunning, I will give you that. But then, cunning is not an indicator of good character, just manipulativeness.
“Pot shot’ers? I see a lot throwing up shields to the incoming volleys, but not much going the other way. I’m not sure what you are referring to.”
sevenbak, not sure why even responded as my comment was not addressed to you. Maybe a slow day or something?
If you are so fond of the principles found in Coveys books, perhaps you should again read up on them before calling me a Dic*. I don't remember that chapter when I read 7 habits. If there is any reason I need anger management, it is responding to such a juvenile attack, one which I haven't seen since High School 20 years ago. And if the other posts were just tongue in cheek, perhaps you can keep that tongue in your mouth and not stick it out at others with wanton abandon.
If I didn't refute your points, then you obviously didn't read Gen. 20. I guess I have to point out the verses to you since you apparently don't want to know the truth for yourself.
Genesis 20
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands have I done this.
6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
13 And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.
At any rate, for what it's worth at this point, Happy Easter!
Actually, posting such comments about Mormons means you are addressing us all. Did you expect no one to respond to such a “pot shot” ;-0
Lets try this with Polygamy
1. God does not change.
>>But the clarity of His revelation to us does—there is such a thing as progress in
>>God’s revelation, and our understanding of it. It is through the New Testament
>>we can fully understand the Old Testament. When Jesus was asked about
>>divorce, he pointed to Adam and Eve. One Adam, one Eve, not Adam, Eve, Joan,
>>Amy, Jennifer, etc....
Did you read the page I sent you to with an interesting take? Here, let me give you the link again. http://www.samchapman.talktalk.net/scriptur.htm the author of this page has a very interesting take on polygamy, and the Bible. Oh, and he is not a Mormon, at least not by his explanations. Let me quote him as I want to be accurate” Another way of looking at it would be that God made Adam marry every woman who was around - because that is what happened. If we tried to do that today we would all have to be polygamists, and we might find it a hard rule to follow.”
>>If polygamy is God’s ideal, in a world empty of humans, why just one couple in
>>the beginning?
Because it was enough, why don’t we marry our brothers and sisters today? All of Adam’s offspring did. (This “Adam” example just will not hold water, the valid argument that Adam married all the women around means you are reading things in to the scriptures that are just not there and all it proves is god is pro marriage between men and women)
2. Abraham had two wives (as well as concubines) and was specifically approved of by God after being polygamous.
Actually, Abraham had only one wife at a time,
BZZT Wrong! This is such a laughable attempt to dodge the truth as to be funny.
Lets get a few things out of the way. Abraham wanted an HEIR. The only way to have an heir is to have a male child by your WIFE. Concubines would not “do”, adultery would not “do”, it had to be a wife.
So here is the time line (Genesis 16)
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
So, Abraham is married to Sari, and Hagar at the same time (it says WIFE).
15 ¶ And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
So there is a male child (the marriage has defiantly been consummated), the presumptive heir at this point is Ishmael.
(Genesis 17)
In verse 5 God changes Abrams name to Abraham
In verse 15 God changes Sari’s name to Sarah.
God blesses Abraham and the unborn Isaac because of Abrahams exceeding Righteousness.
>>then after waiting for over 30 years for his promised son, got impatient, and followed
>>the common ancient Near East practice of taking a concubine—Sarah his wife’s idea.
>>There is no indication at all God approved of that, in fact just the opposite. The
>>description in Genesis 16 and forward of Abraham’s family life and marriage to Sarah,
>>after his taking a concubine, is anything but pretty—eventually resulting in the
>>concubine and her son, Ishmael’s banishment. After Sarah’s death Abraham remarried.
This stands disproved for anyone who wishes to actually read the scriptures (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/16 )
>>God’s approval of Abraham was not based on all the things he did—rather,
>>scripture clearly says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
>>righteousness.”(Rom 4:3)
Again from Genesis 17:1 AND when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Abraham was commanded to be perfect, but god did not say and get rid of that concubine, instead he blesses Ishmael at Abrahams request.
>>Isaac, Abraham’s promised son, had only one wife,
So? No one is saying marrying one wife is wrong, only that ALL marriage is Godly.
>>then Jacob, Isaac’s son, had 2 wives—with constant problems of rivalry between
>>them—hardly a picture of domestic tranquility. In fact Jacob has arguably the most
>>dysfunctional family described in the bible—all stemming from his polygamy. Read
>>about it in God’s true Word in Gen. 29, 30
So Marriages with one wife are always a bed of roses? This is a ridiculous argument. Anyone out there know of a man who got divorced because of trouble with his wife? ROTFLOL!
3. Therefore God still approves of polygamy.
Interesting, I’ve never heard a Mormon admit they still believe in polygamy....
Sure, we just don’t practice it because it’s against the law. What do you think we believe will happen in the last day when all will be resurrected to be judged? Did you think we believe those married for all time and eternity will be severed because of a law of this world that should never have held up to review? No, those married by God’s word will still be married. However, we are bound to obey the law of the land (it’s in the articles of faith) so we do not practice polygamy because it is illegal. (Isn’t being law abiding a good character in a president?)
>>What you have with Abraham, and all the Old Testament saints, is evidence that
>>God’s mercy—not everything that those men and women did—is the basis of salvation.
>>God clearly loved and approved of King David, who wrote most of the Psalms. What
>>was the basis though? That David lived a wonderful life? No. David committed
>>adultery with Bathsheba, and then murder, besides being a polygamist.
Let’s examine this a bit more closely shall we, how about actually using the scriptures Second Samuel (2 Sam) Chapter 12. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_sam/12) Tells David the parable of the exe lamb (a man with much stealing from a man with little) Nathan tells David this parable is about him. In verse 8 Nathan says to David:
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
The lord GAVE David the wives. The lord said he would have given David more if was not enough.
Would God cause any man to sin? Why then did he give David these “Wives” if it was a sin? Because it was and is not a sin.
>>But God in His mercy helped move David to repent, and then forgave and loved him
>>anyway. Similarly, in the same way that slavery was practiced in OT times....and was
>>certainly better than just killing all your enemies...so too polygamy was overlooked, in
>>that God is merciful—and no Old Testament saint was perfect.
What Blasphemy is this? Jesus was the only one perfect, but he is the one approving of this polygamy in both the old and new testaments. Show me one scripture that plainly speaks of Jesus speaking out against polygamy (not Divorce, I have already covered that) but Polygamy. You can’t because he never condemned it.
>>Is polygamy better than serial divorce? Yes, but both are still far from God’s ideal.
And you would know this from some revelation? The Bible certainly does not say that.
>>I will stand with the King James bible (which Joseph Smith read, understood—and disobeyed)
Balderdash, you are not in agreement with what you are now claiming to stand behind.
>>which you specifically asked for—along with every other legitimate modern English
>>translation—as well as the opinion of the Greek scholars whom I know, that St. Paul
>>clearly and unambiguously commanded monogamy as the only acceptable married
>>state for any kind of church leadership.
If monogamy is the only accepted form of marriage then PROVE it.
You want to quote from some “New translation” why? The KJV is the gold standard of Bibles in America. I a Mormon seem to know more about the history of Christianity than you do, you seemed surprised at the history behind the Trinity, the fact that many early Christians believed as I do, and that they were authoritarians in their day with both impressive pedigrees, and respected works.
You ran from the research required to discuss early church beliefs with “I don’t have time or inclination to refute you point by point”
FR is a highly addictive website, if you don’t have the time, don’t come here. If you don’t want an argument then don’t miss represent what others believe. I would never pontificate about your faith. Why do you feel free to do so about mine? You attacked me by judging me (a very un-Christian act) as a non-Christian. Now you continue to misstate and mislead, insult and belittle. Are these the actions of a Christian? I am beginning to be glad that in your eyes you and I have a different God if your God teaches you to have such a mean spirited and unforgiving, stiff necked and proud approach to anyone professing belief in Jesus, then I want no part of the denomination!
>>Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were unquestionably disobedient to New Testament
>>revelation in their polygamy. Not only were they personally disobedient, they led
>>thousands of others to be so as well. Their gross, disreputable and lawless lifestyle in
>>this area alone falsifies any revelation they claimed as being from God.
This is such a steaming pile, well I am going to go into what has already been disproven.
>>I find it sad that you are so blind to what all Christians believe about polygamy, and
>>the more important issues of faith in Christ. Try reading Holy Scripture, instead its
>>pretenders’ “cunningly devised fables.” (II Peter 1:16)
The All Christians thing again? Who elected you pope that you speak for all? Bah.
You may not have noticed, but I have refuted your every point without going beyond the Bible (KJV) as I said I could. The problem with the Bible as it stands is it requires interpretation, passages have become vague through many translations and you can prove almost any doctrinal point from it. This is why we have so many denominations of Christianity. Mormons are not hampered by this as we have additional works to give us clarity in how and what the Bible means.
I hope you are able to hear the logic of my words and will read the scriptures I have quoted for you are sorely mistaken and it should be embarrassing to you to have someone you claim does not know the bible or Christ to know it better than you. Apparently, I have more time to study God’s word than you do.
This should sadden you.
Be well and may God bless you with knowledge and understanding.
>> You twisted out
LOL!
>>That is opposite of the point I was making and you know it.
Now you too are claiming to know what is in my heart.
Make better arguments then.
>> But, in your style of dissembling to alter truth to fit your agenda, you twisted what I offered, as if I was asserting that divorced men would be blessed.
Lets go back to what you said…
>>“If God actually approved of any one of these people, he
>>approves of polygamy.” That is clearly an erroneous
>>conclusion since the same could then be applied to
>>divorce, but the scriptures say clearly that God allowed
>>divorce because of the hardness of their hearts not
>>because he ‘approved’ of divorce. But that was a nice
>>try ...
You invited the comparison of polygamy to divorce. You said it was clearly erroneous logic. Did you realize that I merely used the logical construct AnalogReigns gave me? I told him at the time he would not like where it ended up, go back in the thread, you’ll see that that was where this logic came from.
>>”dissembling”? I thought I was being Clear in my agenda, I am defending my faith from scurrilous attacks using only the Bible, the web and wit. I am cleaning the proverbial clocks of you and AnalogReigns because I have studied hard and long. AnalogReigns has already stated that he does not have the time to keep up with my study material and you are resorting to cheap tricks that would have lost you points in the debate clubs I used to participate in.
“”you twisted what I offered, as if I was asserting that divorced men would be blessed” Sorry, I saw this as the obvious rejoinder to your statement, I’ll try to pull my punches a little next time. I did not know you were so sensitive.
>> It was never so ...
I agree.
>>men were blessed despite their polygamy.
I disagree.
>>God’s promises to David were realized despite David’s adultery and murder of Uriah;
God gave David many wives before he fell they were a gift from the lord, Nathan says so in 2 Samuel 12:8 “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.” Unless you are telling em that God would give a man sin, God does not have a problem with polygamy.
>>Peter was blessed despite his denial of Christ the night of His trail; Paul was blessed despite his persecution of the believers.
This I can agree with, but because of repentance. God cannot bless us in our sins; we must repent of them in order to receive his fullness.
>> You are cunning,
If this was supposed to b a compliment, you failed, I see the link you are tying to draw between me and Satan. I assure you I am doing what I think God wants me to, just as I assume you are doing. I will always assume you have the highest motives, because I want to be treated that way. (It’s the golden rule thing)
>>I will give you that. But then, cunning is not an indicator of good character, just
>>manipulativeness.
See, here you impute base motives to my actions which I assure you, you are also mistaken about.
Go with God, may he bless and keep you.
Are you unaware of the contradictory nature of your assertions in that paragraph and your replies?
“I would never pontificate about your faith.” Yet your every reply to the poster is doing just that, in a condescending manner, too.
Sorry, as a High functioning Autistic, my humor is understood by few. I apologize I honestly do not intend to be condescending, as for pontificating, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pontificate) I am giving references and links that support my arguments and points I do not wish to be pompous or dogmatic, but the repetitive nature of some of the attacks against Mormons get old. I do not believe I tried to tell any poster what they believe, nor have I even asked what denomination they ascribe to, merely “Christian” is all I have been told. I am not attacking the founder of any faith, nor am I belittling anyone’s faith. I have told no man whether or not he is saved.
>>Why do you feel free to do so about mine? “You attacked me by judging me (a very
>>un-Christian act) as a non-Christian.” Um, it is called spiritual discernment, not >>judging, and Christians are commanded to use it at every opportunity.
You are being disingenuous; the spirit of discernment will not tell you to belittle anyone’s faith. Speaking of talking down you seem to be saying, you are a Christian, so you get to “Discern” that I am a bad person, but I couldn’t possibly be a Christian, and or have the spirit of discernment. I call them as I see them, it was judging.
>>”Now you continue to misstate and mislead, insult and belittle.” Your reply is replete
>>with just what you’re decrying!
Where have I misstated anything? Have I lied about anyone’s beliefs? Have I judged anyone? Have I ever done less than wish anyone well with God? I think you are mistaken.
“”Are these the actions of a Christian? I am beginning to be glad that in your eyes you and I have a different God if your God teaches you to have such a mean spirited and unforgiving, stiff necked and proud approach to anyone professing belief in Jesus, then I want no part of the denomination! Is that not ‘pontificating’ about his faith?
I don’t believe so, I am legitimately complaining about my treatment here, and I am attempting to give him an out so I can disengage, because I seem to be undermatched in this debate. (My opinion) I have been trying to disengage here since no one wanted to read Hippolytus and learn what Early Christians thought. However, I will not leave unanswered questions on the table, like the ones on your post, call it a compulsion if you must.
>>Are you unaware of the contradictory nature of your assertions in that paragraph and
>>your replies?
Yes, I am trying to be honest; my replies were straight from the heart. I do not feel your judgment is accurate, you already have an agenda here as evidenced by your posts to me and therefore you are unable to be impartial in your analysis of my postings here. Therefore, I will be taking your “assessment” with a large pinch of salt.
Go with God and enjoy your Easter Sunday, I hope you have family to spend it with.
"... because I seem to be undermatched in this debate." You seem to be undermatched because you are capable of discerning only your own opinion of yourself and that from your lofty perch of condescension. Have a nice last word. I'll agree to disengage hereafter.
MMMWWWAAAAHHAAAAA! 
Yes I am, I am pure Eeeevilll and you are under my control. My friends call me Dr. E. Now that I have you under my power, you are to send me all of your money and then convert to Judyism.
Just a question, does your paranoia keep you from holding a steady job?
I’m thinking that the clothing in white raiment is the doing of the Lord, and doesn’t count if we do it for ourselves. Anyone can put on clean underwear.
Jesus had a body, a soul, and a 'set-apart' spirit. The 'set apart' spirit is the Hebrew Language feminine component of the name Eloheim (actually Elohiym) with which you are struggling, not a female personage with whom God The Father Almighty mated to conceive Jesus. [If you would like further exegesis of this terminology, I'll post it for you.]
It was the 'set apart' spirit which Jesus had depart from Him at the crucifixion so that His soul could descend into hell. It was also the 'set-apart' spirit which raised Him from the grave by calling Him forth and soon after rejoined with His soul, as witnessed by the admonishment give to Mary not to touch Him at the tomb because He was not yet 'ascended'. Ascension in this tomb-setting scene speaks of restoration to a state of Glory, not a location to be traveled to ... beside the tomb, Jesus still had the 'stink of death to the body and torment of hell to the soul' upon him, not yet fully restored with the 'set-apart' spirit of God The Father Almighty'. But this state of transition is accomplish quickly because with His next appearance He welcomes touch and asks for food.
Jesus and the Father are one, not to be defined as two separate people, but part of the Triune nature of the Creator and sovereign of the universe and all that is, was, or will be. Let's examine that a bit further since this visionary mischaracterization of two people permeates Joseph Smith's supposed vision(s) of God and Jesus and has been misconstrued in the vision of Stephen at his stoning when he 'saw Heaven opened' and Jesus positioned to the 'right hand' of the Glory of God The Father Almighty'.
In the 14th Chapter of John's gospel, we read of a physics lesson given to Philip ['All you can see of the Father is what you see in me, for I am in the Father and the Father in Me']. Further, we have Jesus's own clarifications as to the meaning of this physics lesson.
In John 14 we have Yahushua (Jesus) saying: "Let not your heart be anxious or troubled. Trust God. Rely on Me. In My Father’s family and home there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, I would have told you. For I go from one place to another (poreuomai - transfer, and depart from life) to prepare and make ready for (hetoimazo - to make necessary preparations; to condition and ready people by way of resolution for) passage to this place and position (topos). And when I go from one place to another, departing from this life (poreuomai) to accomplish the necessary preparations to condition and ready people by way of resolution (hetoimazo) for passage to this place and position (topos), I will come forth again to renew (palin) and receive you (paralambano - taking you in to join Me, bringing you to My side, welcoming you) to Myself, that where I Am (eimi - I exist and am present), there you may be also. ...Yahushua said, I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to (erchomai - arises and appears before) the Father but through (dia - by way of) Me. If you know (ginosko - recognize, acknowledge, experience, and understand) Me, you belong to the home and family (oikeios - household and dwelling place) of the Father also. And now, at this very moment (arti - at this time and place) you are familiar with and know Him and have seen Him with your eyes." (John 14:1-6) Seeing Jesus they saw the Father as best their limited physical and spiritual limitations could see such an being.
But we are to understand that God the Father Almighty is so much more than we are able to perceive in Jesus though God is in Jesus and Jesus in the Father:
Psalm 88 begins with the three most important names in creation: "Yahuweh ‘Elohiym Yashuw’ah." (Psalm 88:1) Yahuweh is ‘Elohiym/God as is Yahushua, the diminished manifestation of Yahuweh in human form. The reason that Yahushua is the diminished form of Yahuweh, the reason Yahshua follows Yahuweh in this verse, is because Yahshua said it was so. I and the Father are One. (John 10:29-30) Yahshua would later clarify this: The Father is greater in dimensions, mass, power and stature (megas) than I. (John 14:28) The reason that Yahshua is a reduced form of Yahuweh is because the Father’s undiminished presence would incinerate the earth and evaporate mankind. A power great enough to provide matter sufficient to form the universe would be comprised of energy equivalent to an infinite quantity of hydrogen bombs, a hundred of which would extinguish all life as we know it. For us to know God, for us to see God, for us to experience God, while still in our mortal bodies, God must manifest Himself in a form we can observe without dying and relate to without our senses being overwhelmed. Yahshua was a much God as would fit into a finite, three dimensional, human construct.
God the Father took flesh upon Himself, limiting Himself for a time, for our needed Salvation. Jesus walked the Earth with an indwelling 'set-apart' spirit which He set aside at crucifixion so that He could redeem us from our natural fate of dissolution of soul and body. The Salvation comes to each of believers, those trusting in Him for their Salvation, by the coming in to our human spirit of the 'set-apart' spirit which imparts LIFE to the lifeless soul of humankind. ONLY one come from the source of such LIFE could impart such Grace to us.
>>You conveniently left out ‘belittle and insult’.
Yes, I did, I thought that was covered by my general apology, so I guess I’ll apologize for any insult or belittlement you may have felt from my posts.
IMHO you seem self-contradicting.
I understand how if you assume I am wrong and I prove my self to be correct you might find that contradictory. BTW IMHO does not belong in a sentence by anyone who is damning a person claiming to be Christian to hell.
>>You also make liberal assumptions,
Now, not only am I dammed, but I am a Dammed Liberal (Grin, that sense of humor I was talking about.)
and purposely misconstrue and dissemble the words of others.
I am a literalist, Speaking for those of us with Autistic tendencies we are all literalists. I tend to take the literal meaning, you think I am dissembling, ah well I guess Jesus gave you the power to Judge because you can read my heart and know what my intent is. (this is not dissembling, or twisting it is illustrating absurdity by being absurd, something I learnt from Rush)
>>Is that dus to a deep need to have the last word.
It seems a spelling error has obliterated my ability to discern your meaning; however it seems to have something to do with my temptation to not let you have the last word.
My wife once asked me “Do you always have to have the last word?” I responded “No.” (Do I really need a humor tag here?)
>>”... because I seem to be undermatched in this debate.” You seem to be undermatched
>>because you are capable of discerning only your own opinion of yourself and that from
>>your lofty perch of condescension.
I seem to be undermatched because I bring up things like The Council at Nicea, and my opponents seem surprised that this is when the trinity became Dogma. I bring up Greek translations and post links and am told “Well my friend speaks Greek and he says you are wrong.” I link vociferously to sites, scriptures and experts. I disprove statements about what the bible says by quoting the exact scripture that was paraphrased from (Abraham and two wives at the same time…) and all my opponents on this thread can do is switch topics to see if there is one that I have not already researched.
That fits my definition being undermatched.
As for condescension, I may seem that way to you, but I really am a nice guy in person, you’ll just have to take my word for that though.
>>Have a nice last word. I’ll agree to disengage hereafter.
Have a nice Day, I hope God enlightens you with his spirit and brings you closer to him until you are joined with him in the hereafter. Go with God.
>>Anyone can put on clean underwear.
Please do!
(My wife’s voice) OK Mister put the keyboard down and step away from the computer!
Uh, I gotta go...
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.