Racer - Law, Liberty and Sin

[Funkaloyd]

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=756560&postcount=156
Lets go ahead and legalize drugs and while we are at it, lets go ahead and legalize everything else that people want to do that is illegal. Such as prostitution, gambling, and whatever else we can come up with.

Problem is, where is the line drawn?

Why not allow individuals the freedom to do what they want, as long as they're not taking away the freedom of others to do what they want?

If I want to snort some coke, pay someone for sex, worship Satan, and bet all of my money that I can drink more without passing out than Qdrop and Ace42 put together, then that's really none of your business, and it doesn't have any bearing on your life or your freedom. You might be disgusted, but so what? I'm disgusted by sushi.
If, on the other hand, I were to spend the night stealing, raping, and killing, then that clearly has a negative effect on the freedom of others.

Unfortunately, you do not seem to care for liberty; in fact―and please correct me if I'm wrong―the statements that you've made on this forum seem to suggest that you wish the government and law of the United States were based on the system found in Iran. So I'll change perspective to something which you might understand:

The LORD almighty obviously wants as few people as possible to get through the pearly gates and into Heaven; otherwise he wouldn't have allowed us to be confused by false prophets, science, reason and that ever pesky logic. He might even use his omnipotence to somehow help us out in getting up there.
But no, that would be to easy for Humanity. Instead, the good LORD has set up life as a test of faith and resistance to temptation. Those who are too weak and those who die before being introduced to Christianity face eternal damnation. It's natural selection for the afterlife.
Now, by creating laws which outlaw sinning, you're taking away all individual choice. You're destroying God's test. Before you know it, everybody's going to be getting into heaven, regardless of how little faith they have. Don't you think that the almighty's going to be a little pissed off when he can't go swimming in the Orion nebula without bumping into people?

[D_Raay]

Well thought out and well said.... That's the problem with Bible thumpers, they are all hypocrites.

[bb_bboy]

Now, by creating laws which outlaw sinning, you're taking away all individual choice.

Come now, you know that this is not true. Laws by no mean imply absolute cessation of those acts deemed to be illegal. One still has a choice to violate the law. I see the point you're trying to make, but you can't have a fallacy like this as the crux of your argument.

[racer5.0stang]

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=756560&postcount=156


Why not allow individuals the freedom to do what they want, as long as they're not taking away the freedom of others to do what they want?


First of all I would like to say that I am not trying to take anyones rights away. I am very appreciative of all the rights that we have. If people did drugs in their own home, out of public, then I have no problem with that. It is when people go into public that is the problem. More times than not someone gets hurt or killed due to someone being under the influence. By the way it is not written in the Constitution that you can do whatever drugs you want to do.

Unfortunately, you do not seem to care for liberty; in fact―and please correct me if I'm wrong―the statements that you've made on this forum seem to suggest that you wish the government and law of the United States were based on the system found in Iran. So I'll change perspective to something which you might understand:

What does my opinion on drugs have to do with liberty or freedom? If Americans did not over indulge themselves with the luxuries that we do have, alcohol, food and drugs would not be a problem. But people can not seem to get to a point and stop, which causes alcohol poisoning or overdose. The point I am trying to make is that most cultures that do drink, do it for the taste with their meal, not to get so drunk they can not stand up, and granted there are exceptions.

The LORD almighty obviously wants as few people as possible to get through the pearly gates and into Heaven; otherwise he wouldn't have allowed us to be confused by false prophets, science, reason and that ever pesky logic. He might even use his omnipotence to somehow help us out in getting up there.

His son did die on a cross some two thousand years ago.

The way I see it, it could not be any easier. In order to be saved, all one must do is ask forgiveness for their sins and believe that Jesus Christ died for them. It is not a "works" religion, all the work has been done by Jesus when he died on the cross.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This verse talks about the wages of sin and the gift of God. Wages is something that you earn, like a pay check. A gift is something that you do not earn but you have to choose whether to accept it or not. So if by sinning I have earned death, then I can either accept the gift that God has, which is eternal life, or spend eternity in Hell.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Now, by creating laws which outlaw sinning, you're taking away all individual choice.

Jesus said that if a man looks upon a woman and lusts after her, that it is the same as committing adultery with her in his heart. So how will we create a law for that, seeing as how adultery is a sin?

Laws do not, in no way take away choice. You have to choose whether or not you are going to obey they law. Besides, God set up his laws, you know the Ten Commandments, and people break those without thinking twice about it. Whose law has more weight: Man's law or God's law?

Choices are determined by free will. Do you think God is going to drag people kicking and screaming into Heaven?

[ASsman]

Choices are determined by free will. Do you think God is going to drag people kicking and screaming into Heaven?
Well, either that or you burn in agony and pain for eternity in hell... uh yah hard choice....

[QueenAdrock]

If people did drugs in their own home, out of public, then I have no problem with that.


I SMOKE WEED IN MY BASEMENT THEN WATCH FAMILY GUY WHILE EATING BEN & JERRYS!

i rule :cool:

[Whois]

Originally Posted by racer5.0stang

"Lets go ahead and legalize drugs and while we are at it, lets go ahead and legalize everything else that people want to do that is illegal. Such as prostitution, gambling, and whatever else we can come up with."

*cough* Nevada *cough*
*cough* Lotto *cough*

...shall I continue?
:rolleyes:

[Whois]

I SMOKE WEED IN MY BASEMENT THEN WATCH FAMILY GUY WHILE EATING BEN & JERRYS!

i rule :cool:

F*cking A right you do...

[synch]

Yeah, you are right. Lets go ahead and legalize drugs and while we are at it, lets go ahead and legalize everything else that people want to do that is illegal. Such as prostitution, gambling, and whatever else we can come up with.

Problem is, where is the line drawn?
I live in a country where all of the above is legal yet I don't do or make use of any of it.

Choice is a wonderful thing.

I'm fairly sure that we have less people using weed, less gambling addicts and less murdered or abused prostitutes here than you lot have in the US.

[racer5.0stang]

Originally Posted by racer5.0stang

"Lets go ahead and legalize drugs and while we are at it, lets go ahead and legalize everything else that people want to do that is illegal. Such as prostitution, gambling, and whatever else we can come up with."

*cough* Nevada *cough*
*cough* Lotto *cough*

...shall I continue?
:rolleyes:


I wonder if any of you people bothered to read the rest of the posts from the thread in which this post was extracted from. From this particular comment, I would have to assume, no.

[Funkaloyd]

Laws by no mean imply absolute cessation of those acts deemed to be illegal. One still has a choice to violate the law.
You're right, though I believe that by supporting a law against an act, you insinuate that you don't want to even leave it as an option. Whether choice remains depends on the efficiency of the enforcing power.
I kind of regret that last paragraph now, it's rather off-topic (this thread was going to focus on liberty), and if Racer et al choose to shun the self evident truths, then no amount of Bible quoting will help them.
At the very least though, the paragraph will keep me on God's shit list, and insure that I can hang with Gandhi in Hell.


it is not written in the Constitution that you can do whatever drugs you want to do.
9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


What does my opinion on drugs have to do with liberty or freedom?
Fucking everything if you believe that drugs, prostitution, gambling etc. should be (/remain) illegal to protect your communistic idea of a society which is vulnerable to freedom.


it could not be any easier. In order to be saved, all one must do is ask forgiveness for their sins and believe that Jesus Christ died for them.
And in order to believe, one must throw away all logic, despite the great job it has done thus far in making sense of the Universe.

[SobaViolence]

either we're all free or we're all in chains.

the fundamental flaw of human civilization: government.

[yeahwho]

I'm going to go make some Freedom Toast, this thread is making me hungry.

[checkyourprez]

I SMOKE WEED IN MY BASEMENT THEN WATCH FAMILY GUY WHILE EATING BEN & JERRYS!

i rule :cool:


i got this bomb albino shit, eating yogurt, watching college basketball. uhhhhhhh

[Ace42]

Fucking everything if you believe that drugs, prostitution, gambling etc. should be (/remain) illegal to protect your communistic idea of a society which is vulnerable to freedom.

Totalitarian != Communist.

[racer5.0stang]

9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As I stated before, I do not care if people do drugs (alcohol included) IF they do them at home. It is when they come into public areas that I have a problem with it. When you are at home, you affect your family (who could be innocent) and yourself. In public, you affect the innocent people around you.

Fucking everything if you believe that drugs, prostitution, gambling etc. should be (/remain) illegal to protect your communistic idea of a society which is vulnerable to freedom.

The "right" to do drugs does not make freedom vulnerable. It just makes it harder for people to justify their actions.

And in order to believe, one must throw away all logic, despite the great job it has done thus far in making sense of the Universe.

Man's logic is fallible.

[SobaViolence]

Man's logic is fallible.

so our belief in God can only be described as illogical. thanks.

[racer5.0stang]

so our belief in God can only be described as illogical. thanks.

Last I checked, it is through the eyes of faith that man believes in God.

[ASsman]

And faith is illogical.

[Sandinista!]

And faith is illogical.

How come Churchy tries to use "logic" to bring about his bible-fascism? Those nutty, gaudy, goddy hypocrites :rolleyes:

[SobaViolence]

everything is a philosophical debate except God. That dude is fact. :rolleyes:

[Ace42]

Man's logic is fallible.

Which is why planes only work 2% of the time. That's why computers don't exist. That's why scientific methodology hasn't done anything for humanity in the last three hundred years.

Oh wait, scientific methodology and logic have allowed us to deduce all manner of useful things with great confidence.

Whereas your faith can't do squat. Move any mountains lately? Didn't think so.

[SobaViolence]

oh Ace, you're so illogical...

[Bob]

whatever, spock

[ASsman]

Let's have mind sex.

[racer5.0stang]

Whereas your faith can't do squat. Move any mountains lately? Didn't think so.

I haven't asked any mountains to move.

Has your logic moved any mountains?

Which is why planes only work 2% of the time. That's why computers don't exist.

If man's logic wasn't fallable, then planes would work 100% of the time.

[Bob]

I haven't asked any mountains to move.

Has your logic moved any mountains?



no, but we rearrange them sometimes (http://bensguide.gpo.gov/images/symbols/mountrushmore.jpg)

[Ace42]

I haven't asked any mountains to move.

Do so, and then all this discussion will be moot.

Has your logic moved any mountains?

Logical scientific reasoning has lead to the development of explosives which have been used to sucessfully destroy several mountains that blocked various railroad endeavours around the world.

If man's logic wasn't fallable, then planes would work 100% of the time.

Again, you are wrong. Logic predicts an accurate failure rate in manufactured components. Logic does not dictate that the planes we produce are 100% effective, therefor planes failing cannot disprove logic.

[SobaViolence]

i have faith God has a good reason for cancer... :( :rolleyes:

[ASsman]

God's got nothing on string theory! Foo!

[Funkaloyd]

I'd be totally kicking God's ass right now if logic couldn't explain why mountains choose to move at 4:00 in the motherfucking AM (http://www.geonet.org.nz/x2376455g_l.html).

[racer5.0stang]

Do so, and then all this discussion will be moot.

Pick one.

Logical scientific reasoning has lead to the development of explosives which have been used to sucessfully destroy several mountains that blocked various railroad endeavours around the world.

I'm not sure if black powder or dynomite was "logically" discovered. But I see your point.

History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_powder#History)

Again, you are wrong. Logic predicts an accurate failure rate in manufactured components. Logic does not dictate that the planes we produce are 100% effective, therefor planes failing cannot disprove logic.

Your statement is illogical.

I think you are refering to a statistical conclusion more so than a logical answer.

[Whois]

Let's have mind sex.

Mind fuck...Bush style?

[Ace42]

Pick one.

Any mountain. As long as it moves sunstantially, it will be sufficient. Mountains do not arbitrarily move, so it would make the news regardless.

I'm not sure if black powder or dynomite was "logically" discovered. But I see your point.

TNT is not gunpowder, nor is nitroglycerine, nor are the numerous other high explosives used today. Gunpowder hasn't been used for demolitions in centuries.

Your statement is illogical.

No, it isn't. If you had a grasp of logic, yo'd know this.

I think you are refering to a statistical conclusion more so than a logical answer.

Statistics follow rules of logic. However, this to one side, logic dictates that materials cannot exceed their intrinsic capabilities. Thus rusty or fatigued metal used in an airframe will logically break is suitable pressure is applied to it inflight.

[Funkaloyd]

Any mountain.

Except St. Helens.

[SobaViolence]

what the fuck is this thread about?

nice way to divert another alright-thread. (n)

[Ace42]

nice way to divert another alright-thread. (n)

Blame the people that voted for Racerstang to stay.

[SobaViolence]

meh, i'll also blame everyone here that paid him any attention...

[racer5.0stang]

what the fuck is this thread about?

nice way to divert another alright-thread. (n)


You need to read the first post.

After all it was directed towards me.

[racer5.0stang]

Blame the people that voted for Racerstang to stay.

So would it be safe to assume that you voted against me? :(

[racer5.0stang]

Any mountain. As long as it moves sunstantially, it will be sufficient. Mountains do not arbitrarily move, so it would make the news regardless.

Ok, lets say a specific mountain did move for no aparant reason. What would that mean or prove to you?

TNT is not gunpowder, nor is nitroglycerine, nor are the numerous other high explosives used today. Gunpowder hasn't been used for demolitions in centuries.

True, but that is where today's explosives orginated from. Bigger is better.

Statistics follow rules of logic. However, this to one side, logic dictates that materials cannot exceed their intrinsic capabilities. Thus rusty or fatigued metal used in an airframe will logically break is suitable pressure is applied to it inflight.

If this where true, wouldn't it be logical to replace said parts with "better" parts to prevent the unwanted end result (plane crash).

[Bob]

we should make this a little more specific. i mean, there could be some bizarre tectonic plate movement or something, it could be the strangest coincidence of all time. let's pick a mountain, maybe 2 or 3, just so everything's clear.

[ASsman]

Obviously, else you'll start preaching that God is evertything, and that the fact that everything exists is proof that he exists. In which case you should either kill yourself, or kill yoursel.f

[racer5.0stang]

Obviously, else you'll start preaching that God is evertything, and that the fact that everything exists is proof that he exists. In which case you should either kill yourself, or kill yoursel.f

Colossians 1:16,17

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

[Ace42]

Ok, lets say a specific mountain did move for no aparant reason. What would that mean or prove to you?

If you can tell a mountain to move, and it moves solely on the basis of your faith then it would mean that you MIGHT have a point.

True, but that is where today's explosives orginated from.

No. Each modern explosive has had a complicated life, and most work in different ways. For example, TNT is not a combustible explosive and thus is quite different from gunpowder.

If this where true, wouldn't it be logical to replace said parts with "better" parts to prevent the unwanted end result (plane crash).

It is true, and it is self evident that if a part is flawed then it is logical for someone who wants to avert a plane crash to replace it. However, to do that, the person has to know the part is flawed. As it is not cost-effective for people to perform electron-scanning to detect micro-fractures in allaerospace grade materials, clearly this can't happen.

That is a flaw in procedure, not logic.

[Bob]

it's like, if i'm going to build a house, and i say, "i'm going to build this house, but i'm probably going to fuck it up", and after i build it, it immediately collapses, my logic was not flawed, it was just my knowledge of house-building.

[racer5.0stang]

it's like, if i'm going to build a house, and i say, "i'm going to build this house, but i'm probably going to fuck it up", and after i build it, it immediately collapses, my logic was not flawed, it was just my knowledge of house-building.


If you logically constructed the house, it would not fall down.

It would be sound and secure.

A logical thinker would deduce the "correct" way to construct the house.

[SobaViolence]

but i thought man's logic is fundamentally flawed.

so, our understanding of everything is flawed.

therefore, God as we know it is flawed.....

[Funkaloyd]

Really, this is pointless. We've established what logic can do and explain, now let's see what faith can do.

Until I see mountains moving, I see no reason to incorporate faith into my life.

[Bob]

but i thought man's logic is fundamentally flawed.

so, our understanding of everything is flawed.

therefore, God as we know it is flawed.....

logic has nothing to do with faith. logically, it's very hard to have faith, when you consider the possibilities of how many things you could have faith in, and how few of them can be simultaneously correct. that's why i don't have faith. i can't choose which faith to pick, they all seem equally ludicrous.

anyway, i think we're having a fundamental miscommunication about what logic is. i wasn't aware that carpentry was an exercise in logic, i thought it was a technical skill. i have no technical skill, but i consider my logic to be fairly ok. and yet, i can't even build a birdhouse without it falling apart. it's my logic that's flawed?

edit; here's a definition, make out of it what you will

log·ic
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science.
1. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
2. Computer circuitry.
3. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

i suppose there could be formal, guiding principles of carpentry yes. still that's not what i'm thinking of when i think of logic, i'm generally thinking of all the other definitions...except the 5th one.

maybe we should be using a different word. i call reason.

[ASsman]

This is retarded.

[Bob]

astounding! groundbreaking! mindblowing! brilliant! my worldview is changed! thanks for that, what else do you have to add?

[ASsman]

You've wasted your time posting that. Since you clearly missed what/whom I'm referring to. Feel free to suck me off.

[Funkaloyd]

i have no technical skill, but i consider my logic to be fairly ok. and yet, i can't even build a birdhouse without it falling apart. it's my logic that's flawed?
You're just not using it.

Logic, as applied to building: "I know from observation that this length of this type of wood will support this much weight when placed here."

It's rather simplified, but you get the idea.

[racer5.0stang]

logic has nothing to do with faith. logically, it's very hard to have faith, when you consider the possibilities of how many things you could have faith in, and how few of them can be simultaneously correct. that's why i don't have faith. i can't choose which faith to pick, they all seem equally ludicrous.

Logic typically deals with things that can be demonstrated by one or more of our senses.

Faith on the other hand, deals with the invisible aspects of life.

Jesus Christ said that he is the way, the truth, and the life.

anyway, i think we're having a fundamental miscommunication about what logic is. i wasn't aware that carpentry was an exercise in logic, i thought it was a technical skill. i have no technical skill, but i consider my logic to be fairly ok. and yet, i can't even build a birdhouse without it falling apart. it's my logic that's flawed?

Logic, in it's simplest form, is what allows us to perform the most simplistic tasks.

[Bob]

Logic typically deals with things that can be demonstrated by one or more of our senses.

Faith on the other hand, deals with the invisible aspects of life.

Jesus Christ said that he is the way, the truth, and the life.


alright alright i'll concede you the house-building part but i'm still having trouble with the faith bit. lots of different people have faith in lots of different things and they can't all be right. why'd you pick christianity? jesus said what he said, sure, but other prophets said other things. why have faith in jesus and not the rest?

[Ace42]

If you logically constructed the house, it would not fall down.

It would be sound and secure.

A logical thinker would deduce the "correct" way to construct the house.

That's bullshit. Do some research on formal logic, and then come back and explain to us why you posted without having a clue what you are talking about.

[racer5.0stang]

lots of different people have faith in lots of different things and they can't all be right. why'd you pick christianity? jesus said what he said, sure, but other prophets said other things. why have faith in jesus and not the rest?

How many other religions claim that the god of that religion sent his son to be the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind?

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Jesus was born of a virgin, during his 33 years on earth he never sinned, then he was scourged, and then crucified on a cross. An innocent man died for my sins, as well as everyone else's.

Jesus paid the sin debt and all we have to do is believe in him.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

You are right about people having faith in many different things. Some would rather believe a lie than believe the truth. Others may not know the truth.

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Believing in Jesus Christ is how you get to Heaven, but there are rewards for people who do the things that Jesus has commanded to do. Things like loving one another and telling other people about Jesus.

God has given each one of us free will: the ability to choose.

[synch]

You are right about people having faith in many different things. Some would rather believe a lie than believe the truth. Others may not know the truth.
This is what makes it meaningless to discuss with you, you realise that right? I'm just glad not all religious people are like you although too many of them are.

[racer5.0stang]

This is what makes it meaningless to discuss with you, you realise that right? I'm just glad not all religious people are like you although too many of them are.

What do you mean?

[synch]

You just stated this:

Your opinion = fact

Everyone elses opinion = misguided or misinformed

[racer5.0stang]

You just stated this:

Your opinion = fact

Everyone elses opinion = misguided or misinformed


I stated that the word of God is fact.

Not my own opinion.

[synch]

I give up.

Congratulations.

Mind you, I gave up a few times before so I might hassle you again in the future.

[racer5.0stang]

I give up.

Congratulations.

Mind you, I gave up a few times before so I might hassle you again in the future.


It is not a hassle to me, I don't mind the questions.

Why do you think that when I post bible verses, that I post the exact location of the verse and not just the verse itself.

I look forward to our future discussions. (y)

[Bob]

You are right about people having faith in many different things. Some would rather believe a lie than believe the truth. Others may not know the truth.

but how do you claim to know the truth? muslims know the koran's the truth. jews know the torah's the truth. and you know the bible's the truth. most if not all of you are wrong. how do you know you've got it right? just because?

[Funkaloyd]

lots of different people have faith in lots of different things and they can't all be right. why'd you pick christianity? jesus said what he said, sure, but other prophets said other things. why have faith in jesus and not the rest?How many other religions claim that the god of that religion sent his son to be the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind?So you chose Christianity over all other religions because it has a better story?

[ASsman]

but how do you claim to know the truth? muslims know the koran's the truth. jews know the torah's the truth. and you know the bible's the truth. most if not all of you are wrong. how do you know you've got it right? just because?
Suddenly my post makes sense.

[SobaViolence]

I stated that the word of God is fact.

Not my own opinion.

it's your opinion that jesus was the son of God and that god sent him or embodied him to save mankind. and it's your opinion that he is the way to salvation.

i don't even know why salvation and heaven and holiness is held in such high regard. it's no fun. and being as we are all fundamentally flawed, by definition, makes anything other than damnation impossible.

[Funkaloyd]

New Hellion #1: WHERE ARE WE?!

New Hellion #2: Oh, my God! I've gone to Hell!

New Hellion #3: (Italian Woman) WAZZAPANING?!

New Hellion #4: AAAAAH!

Hell Director: (on a stage near the entrance. on a microphone.) Hello, new-commers! Welcome! Can everybody hear me?! Hello! (taps his mic.) Can everybo...okay! Uh, I'm the Hell Director! Uh, It looks like we have about eight-thousand, six-hundred, and fifteen of you newbees today, and for those of you who were a little confused, uh, you ARE dead and this is Hell! So, abandon all hope and, uh, yadayadayada! Uh, we're now going to start the orientation process which will last about...

New Hellion #5: Hey, wait a minute! I shouldn't be here! I was a totally strict and devout Protestant! I thought we went to Heaven!

Hell Director: Yes, well, I'm afraid you were wrong!

New Hellion #6: I was a practicing Jehova's Witness!

Hell Director: Uh, you picked the wrong religion as well!

New Hellion #7: Well, who was right?! Who gets into Heaven?!

Hell Director: I'm afraid it was the Mormons! Yes! The Mormons were the correct answer!

New Hellions: AWW!

[SobaViolence]

God is a mutant hippopatamus who practices buddhism.

fucking great.

[ASsman]

Actually. God/Jesus could very well be some alien, from some advanced civilization. Why do you think he is in "Heaven", in the "Sky", voice from "above". And whe Jesus returned to "Heaven" (aka mothership), he was practically beamed up, like fucking Star Trek.

[Bob]

southpark

i fucking love that episode

and i'm suddenly remembering something i learned from elementary school about the difference between facts and opinions. i seem to remember the teacher specifying that the key difference between a fact and an opinion was that a fact can be proven or disproven, whereas an opinion can not. facts don't necessarily have to be true, they just have to have a truth value. for example, "this cake is chocolate" would be a fact, even if the cake were vanilla, but "this cake is the greatest cake ever made" would be an opinion.

i think.

i should look this up.

edit; goddammit i'm fucking wrong again, i hate it when that happens

fact Audio pronunciation of "fact" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.


Idiom:
in (point of) fact

In reality or in truth; actually.

[racer5.0stang]

it's your opinion that jesus was the son of God and that god sent him or embodied him to save mankind. and it's your opinion that he is the way to salvation.

It is what the bible says, not me.

[ASsman]

It is what the bible says, not me.
So the Bible speaks to you? Are you off your meds?

[SobaViolence]

seems that way to me.

[racer5.0stang]

So the Bible speaks to you? Are you off your meds?


Are your parents cousins?

[ASsman]

Are your parents cousins?
Actually, they are brothers. Both are God's sons.

And you haven't found the truth. Because the truth... Is the book of Mormon.
http://www.mormon.org/bookofmormon

Find Jesus, and find salvation.

[racer5.0stang]

Actually, they are brothers. Both are God's sons.

And you haven't found the truth. Because the truth... Is the book of Mormon.
http://www.mormon.org/bookofmormon

Find Jesus, and find salvation.


If I wanted to join a cult, I wouldn't pick one that made me ride on a bicycle for two years.

[ASsman]

Cult? God is insulted. And why do you not wan to serve God? For merely 2 year. God gave his son, and all you can do is whine about serving him for 2 years? Also, you can take the bus, lazy ass.

[yeahwho]

How come God won't let you serve him on a dirt bike?

[ASsman]

How come God won't let you serve him on a dirt bike?
Motorcycles are EXTREMELY dangerous. Also, you don't need a motorcycle if you don't have to go long distances. Some people get cars if their "areas" are very large.

[racer5.0stang]

How come God won't let you serve him on a dirt bike?

That is the mormon way.

[ASsman]

That is the mormon way.
Which is God's way.

[SobaViolence]

Which is God's way.

but it's not my way, so why would God create me if i wasn't part of His design?

[ASsman]

but it's not my way, so why would God create me if i wasn't part of His design?
Uh...Uh.... To test you, my son.

[Qdrop]

to make it easier...you can all just call me God...

make checks payable to...

[Bob]

i want to go to heaven how much do i owe?

[racer5.0stang]

but it's not my way, so why would God create me if i wasn't part of His design?

Your way is not always going to be God's way.

The comment I made about the mormons is related to their ideology. For some reason their male members will travel in pairs on bicycles and visit various neighborhoods.

One thing that they do that I have never understood is that, mormons believe that their salvation is contained in their "holy garments". New members have "each" part of their body "blessed" by other members of the same sex ie guys--guys and girls--girls. Then they are told to wear these garments which consist of a white shirt and pants that they must always wear (even in the shower). If salvation is spiritual (and according to the bible, it is) why do they wear these garments?

They believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers and that Jesus was once a man from another planet who obtained godhood and came to this planet with his wife and their offspring populated the Earth.

If you did a search on cults, mormonism should be at the top of the list.

Their beliefs are out in left field. About the only thing they use as biblical, is Jesus' name.

Anyone with a mere cursory knowledge of the King James Bible would be able to see holes in the mormon doctrine.

[catatonic]

I'm Mormon, so I want to step in here and clarify something. There's a summary at the bottom.

Most people today believe that faith is accepting things without premise and that you don't have to live like you believe it.
The Jews thought of faith as something that if you had you would act upon and 'live righteously'.
The greeks thought of faith as something that you just believed in and didn't have to follow.
But according to a high councilman in my Church, Jesus said to his disciples that if they had faith they would always do his will. Real faith is not a belief in something that isn't true but an understanding, based through logic, facts, and experience, that something really is true... an understanding that leads one to perfectly follow that understanding. It's an understanding that things you haven't witnessed directly but have had other means for are true, based through logic, fact, and experience. For instance, if someone felt a stirring in their heart and knew of no other explanation than that it was because something was good, this would not be faith because they didn't know if there was another explanation. But if they understood that there could be no other explanation, and they lived according to that stirring, that would be faith. Or they would understand that they were born with a knowledge that something was true, and have an understanding that there would be no logical underpinnings that could emerge to topple their belief, and live perfectly according to that knowledge. Or maybe they had an understanding of how stories are made up and they understood correctly, in this example, that the Bible could not have been one of them, and lived as if the Bible were true.

Those are examples of what would be faith. Faith is understanding of things which are true that will automatically lead us to do the right thing if we have it. If Christianity is not true, then it is impossible to have faith in it. And if a person who claims to be Christian does not comply with their religion, you can berate them by saying they must not have faith in their religion or else they would follow it. (but I'd be careful because there are plenty of people in many religions who live in such a way that they strongly suggest they have real faith in their religion).

Summary: If you have real faith that the room around you will actually collapse, you will leave the room and the room will have to collapse.

[Bob]

Anyone with a mere cursory knowledge of the King James Bible would be able to see holes in the mormon doctrine.

it doesn't matter, the mormon doctrine is the only way to salvation, the king james bible is wrong

[racer5.0stang]

But according to a high councilman in my Church, Jesus said to his disciples that if they had faith they would always do his will.


So are not allowed to read the bible on your own?

It would seem to me that your "high councilman" would have pointed this out in the bible.

But in case he didn't this is what you are referring to.

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

[catatonic]

Yes that's the verse he was referring to, but since it's not all clear how to get to everything I said from that translation, I went for a big explanation. Anyways, I like the Jewish version of faith, not accepting a bunch of things that you know nothing about.

[racer5.0stang]

Yes that's the verse he was referring to, but since it's not all clear how to get to everything I said from that translation, I went for a big explanation.


So are black people still considered cursed?

[catatonic]

God cursed the black man with the smashed nose. I don't know if the curse has been lifted.
But men are punished for their own sins and we were always against slavery as a Church and when people were ready for it, all people could hold the priesthood.

[ASsman]

. Then they are told to wear these garments which consist of a white shirt and pants that they must always wear (even in the shower). If salvation is spiritual (and according to the bible, it is) why do they wear these garments?
Show how much you know. About anything.


Their beliefs are out in left field. About the only thing they use as biblical, is Jesus' name.

Anyone with a mere cursory knowledge of the King James Bible would be able to see holes in the mormon doctrine.
That is because God is right, and man is wrong. Again show's lack of knowledge when it comes to the LDS church.

[catatonic]

Blacks can be Mormons and hold the priesthood and can in fact do everything that whites can in the church. We could some day have a Black prophet, but if it was a woman she'd have to be a prophetess and the Church is led by a man.

[racer5.0stang]

Show how much you know. About anything.


That is because God is right, and man is wrong. Again show's lack of knowledge when it comes to the LDS church.


And I suppose you are an expert. Lets here what South Park has to say.

[ASsman]

And I suppose you are an expert. Lets here what South Park has to say.
As a matter of fact. Let just say it's been a lifelong study.

Keep assuming.

[racer5.0stang]

Blacks can be Mormons and hold the priesthood and can in fact do everything that whites can in the church. We could some day have a Black prophet, but if it was a woman she'd have to be a prophetess and the Church is led by a man.


Doesn't that sound a bit racial?

I mean look at this verse.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Doesn't say anything a/b skin color or nose shape.

[racer5.0stang]

As a matter of fact. Let just say it's been a lifelong study.

Keep assuming.


So lets hear it.

[catatonic]

And there's nothing that contradicts that verse in being cursed on earth. Blacks were always given the opportunity to have eternal life as long as they didn't commit the unpardonable sin..

[ASsman]

Let's hear what?

Yah, duh it's racial. How'd you think blacky got black? God left him in the oven too much? God.

Really.. hear what? Why should I waste my time with you, or continue to do so. Do a little research dipshit. And quit wasting everyones time.

[racer5.0stang]

And there's nothing that contradicts that verse in being cursed on earth.

All of mankind is cursed, it is called sin.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

[racer5.0stang]

Let's hear what?

Yah, duh it's racial. How'd you think blacky got black? God left him in the oven too much? God.

Really.. hear what? Why should I waste my time with you, or continue to do so. Do a little research dipshit. And quit wasting everyones time.

I have done the research.

What? Do I know more a/b their doctrine than you?

[ASsman]

I have done the research.

What? Do I know more a/b their doctrine than you?
You've already assumed as much. And thus far you have yet to backup that assumption. Goodnight.


They are selling the Bible on a CD-ROM, call now and receive and free bitch slap.

[catatonic]

Yes that's a nice nonracist perspective to it. Blacks and American Indians just happened to be cursed in skin (the American Indian curse was later removed, but the skin remained)

[racer5.0stang]

Yes that's a nice nonracist perspective to it. Blacks and American Indians just happened to be cursed in skin (the American Indian curse was later removed, but the skin remained)

And bible scripture provides you with this information?

[catatonic]

I should go to bed too. I'll be there tommorrow.

[racer5.0stang]

You've already assumed as much. And thus far you have yet to backup that assumption. Goodnight.

It is only an assumption because you have not put forth any information disproving it.

[racer5.0stang]

I should go to bed too. I'll be there tommorrow.

Be where?

[catatonic]

Well in the case of the Blacks yes.

I know there's a verse that says, whosoever adds or subtracts from this book...

Remember that was said at least 4 times in the Bible and more text was added afterwards, but as different books. The Book of Mormon is not adding to the Bible, it is another book to testify of Christ, and written to show people the Bible was true after man messed it up.

The Book of Mormon mentions the American Indians.

[catatonic]

at the computer, probably in the afternoon but maybe in the morning

[racer5.0stang]

Well in the case of the blacks yes.

I know there's a verse that says, whosoever adds or subtracts from this book...

Remember that was said at least 4 times in the Bible and more text was added afterwards, but as different books. The Book of Mormon is not adding to the Bible, it is another book to testify of Christ, and written to show people the Bible was true after man messed it up.

The Book of Mormon mentions the American Indians.


A Man wrote the book of mormon.

The book of mormon goes against the bible in doctrine.

And the verses you are looking for is:

Revelation 22:18,19

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If you get a chance, check this website out and let me know what you think.

mormonism (http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm)

[catatonic]

The Book of Mormon doesn't really go against the Bible. I told you already man messed up the Bible. As Assman said, God is right and man is wrong.

I think I can handle this website without bringout the big guns myself. Like with this page, http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm , it is not expressing true doctrine of Mormonism. Mormonism never says anywhere that God was once a man, nor does this web page provide a reference since there aren't any.

I'll check some of the other pages on here, and if I have to I'll bring out the big guns.

[Documad]

So you chose Christianity over all other religions because it has a better story?
Sorry to jump in here, but I'm pretty sure most people choose Christianity because it's the easiest religion.

BTW -- The more I study the Bible and its history, the more confused I am by people who cite it as a definitive text. I mean no disrespect--it sincerely astounds me.

And I'm perfectly fine with the government legislating some morals for the benefit of society, but not on a religious basis.

[catatonic]

Racer,

would you mind deleting that web site from this thread since it is probably pretty intolerant and libelous before it's too late, and I have the link and I will look some of it over when I get the chance?

[Funkaloyd]

Racer, you may disagree with some of the teachings of Mormonism, and it may be incompatible with the Bible, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the one and only true religion.


I'm perfectly fine with the government legislating some morals for the benefit of society, but not on a religious basis.

Whose morals? Everybody thinks that they're own set of moral beliefs would be perfect for society if written into law. How is it decided which moral code would actually be beneficial?

[Documad]

Whose morals? Everybody thinks that his/her own set of moral beliefs would be perfect for society if written into law. How is it decided which moral code would actually be beneficial?
Mostly it is the moral code of the majority of people who show up and vote. With some limited exceptions. I'm a fan of that system.

[Funkaloyd]

But then you get the tyranny of the majority. A large percentage of Americans may have favored slavery, but that doesn't mean that it was right for society. I take it that's an example of the "limited exceptions" you speak of. But then what separates exceptions from beneficial moral laws? You can't pick only the laws which you agree with, as that wouldn't be democratic.

Imo, the best way around this is to allow people the freedom to do as they wish, as long as they don't infringe on the freedom of others to do as they wish.

[ASsman]

Hah, Catonic schooled your ass. I didn't even have to come in. "Man wrote the book of Mormon"....
MAN WROTE THE FUCKING BIBLE!
Wrong, God wrote both..indirectly. Except according to the LDS church the Bible has been tampered with, which I find easy to believe. Either on purpose or not.

Also the LDS church claim to have the only book written directly (meaning it was dictated by) God himself. Called Doctrine and Covenants.

I could go on, like I said I DO know more than YOU. Maybe someday you'll figure out why.

[Ali]

Also the LDS church claim to have the only book written directly (meaning it was dictated by) God himself. Called Doctrine and Covenants. Always a strong selling point to claim that you have the real bible and all the rest have fakes.

All religion blows. Think your yourselves, fukn sheep. The Lord is my shepherd and I am a sheep. Fuck me Jesus, give me salvation.

Load of bollocks.

[ASsman]

Obviously. That is the point I'm trying to make.

If we were living in a different time, we might be arguing about multiple Gods.

Retarded if you ask me. Took me 19 years to figure out.

And by "real" you mean completly true, or you should. They don't claim the Bible is "false", but rather corrupt.

[racer5.0stang]

Hah, Catonic schooled your ass. I didn't even have to come in. "Man wrote the book of Mormon"....
MAN WROTE THE FUCKING BIBLE!

My point being that A Man wrote the book of mormon. Several men at different times in history wrote the bible and yet the coincide with each other.

So how did ol Joseph die? Ah yes, hung for stealing horses.

Also the LDS church claim to have the only book written directly (meaning it was dictated by) God himself. Called Doctrine and Covenants.

That is what most cults say.

I could go on, like I said I DO know more than YOU. Maybe someday you'll figure out why.

Maybe it is because you have your sanctified garments on.

[racer5.0stang]

The Book of Mormon doesn't really go against the Bible. I told you already man messed up the Bible. As Assman said, God is right and man is wrong.

I think I can handle this website without bringout the big guns myself. Like with this page, http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm , it is not expressing true doctrine of Mormonism. Mormonism never says anywhere that God was once a man, nor does this web page provide a reference since there aren't any.

I'll check some of the other pages on here, and if I have to I'll bring out the big guns.

Well do what you gotta do.

And it does say that a/b mormonism check this out:

Here (http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_doctrines.htm)

[ASsman]

!#J@O$JAOM<GOAOIAJIFKJLAKJLGFAHLKGHLKGAHKGALHKLGAHKLGAHKLGAGA HLKHLKGALKHGHKLGAHKGAGKH


Wow, you have passed into a new realm of stupidity. Wow. It's like you're in that "Dimension X" that Shredder always talks about.

Wow, if the LDS church is a cult, then so is Judaism. Fucking moron, oh and every other religion.

"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."

Can be said about all religions. Hmmm unconventional? Like following a bunch of silly ass commandments.


Smith, Joseph. 1805-1844.

American religious leader. He founded (1830) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and led his congregation westward from New York State to western Illinois, where he was murdered by an anti-Mormon mob

OMGGHT@FUCKINGGOD!#@ You could have saved yourself the time and looked him up in the GOD DAMN DICTIONARY! $#$ OMGNUFCKIGN!!#

Murdered nontheless by your redneck ignorant ancestors.

Oh and like I said, God wrote the book of Mormon. More specifically prophets of the Americas who were inspired by God, the same way (and around the same period) as the prophets of the Bible. Later to be translated by Joseph Smith, according to the LDS church that is all he did, TRANSLATE THEM, THROUGH THE MAGIC OF GOD!#

So sit down, and shut the fuck up. Learn before you speak, ignoramus.



CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY
hahaha, yah I believe them. Also that page is full of lies.

e.g.
Baptism for the dead, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141. This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.
"higher level" wtf? This person clearly know not of what he speaks of.

Now I know were you got all that bullshit spewing out of your apostate mouth.

[racer5.0stang]

This website has some interesting info on poor Joseph.

here (http://www.exmormon.org/prophet.htm)

[ASsman]

God is all knowing. Do not question his actions.

Also, if you'd like I will tear that site apart, find the exact sources and either prove those lies such, or at least clarify the misconceptions.
(talking about the Mormon Doctrines one)

You know what I find incredibly funny though, how churches dare to call each other wrong. It's the stupidest thing ever. It's like a bunch of blind kids trying to tell each other which way is the right way, and watch then start shouting at each other. Constantly trying to prove the other wrong, while they can't even prove that they themselves are right.

Also is that site selling "The Watchtower on CD" which watchtower is it talking about?

http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/articlesdoctrine.htm <--? Jehova Witnesses?

[racer5.0stang]

Now I know were you got all that bullshit spewing out of your apostate mouth.

Do you even know what an apostate is?

Majority of mormons and jehovah witnesses are made up of apostates.

[Ali]

Do you even know what an apostate is?

Majority of mormons and jehovah witnesses are made up of apostates.Apostate is one who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.

Have Mormons and JW's abandoned their religious faith?

Doesn't look like it.

Why do you even bother to post here? Do you think you are going to convert some heathens? Maybe you just enjoy being persecuted. Christians just love it when they get hunted down and fed to lions, it gives them something to whine about.

[racer5.0stang]

Apostate is one who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.

Have Mormons and JW's abandoned their religious faith?

Doesn't look like it.

Why do you even bother to post here? Do you think you are going to convert some heathens? Maybe you just enjoy being persecuted. Christians just love it when they get hunted down and fed to lions, it gives them something to whine about.

Apparantly you have a hard time discerning simple English sentences, so I will try and break it down for you.

Apostate: Someone who gives up religious faith or falls from the truth.

Majority of J.W.'s and mormons are people who were once "true Christians" but for what ever reason, gave that up and joined one of these.

I post here b/c the majority of the people here provide an intellectual debate on numerous topics. Unfortunatly, people like yourself, often put in their opinion and have idea of what the discussion is really about.

As far as persecution goes, I have not suffered any. If you mean by verbal abuse, then that merely goes in one ear and out the other, so to speak. Nor have I "whined" about it.

Really, next time just sit back and try to comprehend the entire debate.

[racer5.0stang]

You know what I find incredibly funny though, how churches dare to call each other wrong. It's the stupidest thing ever. It's like a bunch of blind kids trying to tell each other which way is the right way, and watch then start shouting at each other. Constantly trying to prove the other wrong, while they can't even prove that they themselves are right.


What I find funny are the T.V. commercials promoting the book of mormon. They want to send you a free copy of the KJV bible, but you two (assman and catatonic) just stated that it is corrupt. So why push a corrupt bible?

Churches or denominations call each other wrong for various reasons. Maybe one is more liberal than another or teaches an incorrect doctrine. If you are referring to the LDS as one of those churches, then true bible believing churches bag on them (LDS) consistantly. Just by teaching true doctrine, puts you guys to shame.

Matthew 24:23,24

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

[Whois]

This is the mindset of these nutcases:

Rev Otwell and his followers have visited SFA in the past with signs of protest against what he describes as the militant feminist movement; women in the military holding jobs and running for political offices. According to Otwell, the civil rights movement is also in part responsible for the rise in homosexuality in America.

“Civil rights is an abomination,” Otwell said. “It gave the sodomites the right to practice this filthy lifestyle they practice without prosecution.”

“I believe this is what brought 9/11, and I believe the terrorists, from what I understand the Bible teaches us, are God’s terrorists- he let them do it,” he said. “Osama (bin Laden), Al Qaeda, all of those men – God uses them like his sword to punish weakness. It was not just an act of terrorism but an act of God.”

- Rev. W.N. Otwell, Texas

http://www.thepinelog.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/16/4214142d8a8ec?in_archive=1

[ASsman]

Of course they use the Bible. JESUS CHRIST! #@$

OMGSGUFKCING

I quit, and so did God, that's why you came out so half-assed.


The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of christ.

Anyways Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus, you have yet to see either. Tortillas and potato chips don't count.

------The end of the line--- Don't expect any response from me, so don't direct any post towards me.

[catatonic]

Racer, I checked Mormon Doctrine p. 321. I checked Journal of Discourses vol. 2 p.345 and vol. 7 p. 333. None of them say that God once lived on another planet or that God was a man, although the last one says that God passed on and was exalted, but that is just a journal entry! It's not the cannon of the Church. "As man is God once was" is just part of a couplet that somebody wrote who didn't know better.

The Mormon Doctrine page 321 warned that those who preach false doctrine will be thrust into hell. What were the Jehovah's witnesses thinking counting that as a reference? And what are you thinking telling things that you haven't checked?

I'm way behind on this page and I will catch up when I can. I will be glad to go through this with you since you seem sincerely disbelieving.

[catatonic]

Look. I was reading the Joseph Smith page and first of all, "this generation" refers not to a generation of men but all modern times since 1830 and some in the future. Also, it's true he did get false revelations from man or from the Devil, but that doesn't contradict Deut 18:22. The test is whether when he speaks as a prophet, it comes true. The Holy Ghost would confirm it if it were true. And when they say, "The time is soon", that's often said in the scriptures when it's a long time away by our reckoning.

These pages are meant to use psychology to cast doubts in people's minds, when in fact there's nothing wrong with the Doctrine.

I've looked at three pages so far, and they all contain false doctrines of my Church. One of them even gives several references that aren't true. You can check the references yourself. For instance, check the reference that God had sexual relations with Mary. I'm sure you will find that that isn't true of our Church's beliefs.

I'm not going to read these pages any more. They are a waste of time and they just don't want people to believe the Lord's Church is on the Earth today. I will get back to the rest of this page when I have a chance.

[Documad]

But then you get the tyranny of the majority. A large percentage of Americans may have favored slavery, but that doesn't mean that it was right for society. I take it that's an example of the "limited exceptions" you speak of. But then what separates exceptions from beneficial moral laws? You can't pick only the laws which you agree with, as that wouldn't be democratic.

Imo, the best way around this is to allow people the freedom to do as they wish, as long as they don't infringe on the freedom of others to do as they wish.
Wow. I'm not really sure what your point is. There was massive support to end slavery. It wasn't Abe Lincoln's idea. Nor did the US Supreme Court mandate its end. I'm not an expert on slavery or the civil war, but it's my understanding that slavery originally got a pass in our Constitution because of political tradeoffs needed to get giant southern landowners to sign off on it in the 1780s. Our Constitution was later amended (with popular support) to undo the damage.

My limited exceptions would, indeed protect minorities from discrimination. But even so, there has to be some public support. There is this myth that the US courts cram social change down the throats of its people. When you look at the history, you will usually find a social movement that preceded the court cases. Whenever the courts do seem to precede the social movement, we have big problems in this country (as we do now over gay marriage where one state high court went further than popular support allowed).

I'm not understanding exactly how far your proposed standard would go. Just about anything I want to do infringes in some way on someone else's freedom. I'm fine with Judeo-Christian values forming the basis for our society's rules even though I'm not a Jew or Christian. I am happy that beastiality, incest, and plural marriages are illegal. I think the criminal sentences for drug offenders are insane but I don't think drug use and sales are victimless crimes.

BTW -- I'm a big huge liberal who actively works to push my political agenda within the system.


My point being that A Man wrote the book of mormon. Several men at different times in history wrote the bible and yet the coincide with each other.
Again, Wow. I should have stayed out of here.

Whichever version of the Christian Bible you use, there are tons of contradictions within the thing itself. It also clashes with other documents. Choices were made over time, stories were left out, mistranslations were made. And much of what I learned in Sunday school isn't in the Bible at all!

I'm truly amazed at the intolerance and downright meanness in attacking someone else's beliefs. But doing so on the basis of the Bible as the Word of God is ridiculous.

[catatonic]

In all this I typed here, I don't mean to sound smug or arrogant. I'm just saying what I believe, and I have a great respect for many other faiths, especially Confucianism.

When I mentioned the American Indians were cursed and later that curse was removed, I didn't mean all of them.

Ali, why can't people can think as a group too?

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I believe I can send you that evidence, racer, but you would then be responsible in terms of your salvation for that evidence. Because you would be responsible, I wouldn't want to give this to you unless I knew you wouldn't revile against it. I don't think, in your growing up with all this anti-Mormon literature, it would be appropriate.

But why not just say that the Book of Mormon was written by several men as claimed inside? And why not say Joseph Smith was shot in Liberty Jail as the Mormon's claim. How could they get away with lying about it? Why not take the source for it's word in this?

Baptism for the dead, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141. This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.

That part is actually true, but I object to labelling heaven as Mormon heaven unless you mean the Mormon version of heaven.

And the thing about apostates is, there aren't that many apostates. Half the Church doesn't attend Church regularly, but that doesn't mean they are apostate. Half of them do attend regularly, that's more than any Church I know. How'd you like it if I said your Church had more apostates than my Church because they weren't attending their meetings?

If you mean apostate from main Christianity, I would disagree with you. As far as I know, Mormons accept the Nicene Creed on all points except one, which the Bible tells us is wrong.

In fact, this is the reason you should take these anti-Mormon websites with a salt truck. We have more members "faithfully" attending than any Church I know, and we discuss anti-Mormon claims in Church from time to time, and people are aware of these claims, but Mormons don't leave their religion. We discuss Christianity all the time. Doesn't that tell you something about these anti-Mormon sites, especially ones that say we're not Christian? And if you really want to know if it's true, why not take Assman's cue and study the source first? I wonder if you've spent a lot more time reading anti-Mormon websites than actually learning the official doctrine.

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

We read the scriptures too you know. I read them about 30 minutes a day. I believe after that verse it says that "By their fruits ye shall know them." Joseph Smith's fruit was, among other things, the Book of Mormon. It's considered one of the top 20 most influential American books. Gordon B. Hinckley, our current prophet, has the fruits of a very large and effective humanitarian aid program for the whole world and a perpetual education fund to bring members out of poverty.

Whois, just because somebody claims to be Christian doesn't mean they live as Christ would. That goes back to what I said about real faith.

And we use the Bible since most verses in it are correct.

Documad, Christianity is to take upon oneself the name of Christ. Since Christ had a difficult life, Christianity ought to be difficult, unless you think Christ's life is now easy.

And I've been trying to say all along, because of the Bible's getting messed up man isn't expected to believe it, but the Book of Mormon is a witness to its own truth and stands as a witness of the Bible.

[EN[i]GMA]

I would just like to post this and gather your responses: http://www.infidelguy.com/flashtoons/ig16.html

[catatonic]

lol.

If you want my full response, there's a lot more in those verses in their original languages than everyone thinks or you could really ever hope to translate. Take the first verse of the Bible for instance.

If you look at some of Stan Tenen's 30 years of research (http://www.meru.org/Lettermaps/symmgrup.html#genwords), you will quickly see that there's a lot more to it than just a book that says "I'm right." I suspect that verse in the animation had much more to it in Hebrew as well.

[catatonic]

Be sure to check out the Shushon flower arrangement and the key at the top of the page to it. Stan Tenen is Jewish.

[ASsman]

Thanks catonic. I guess Racer won't be getting a new ass ripped, atleast not by me.

[Documad]

Documad, Christianity is to take upon oneself the name of Christ. Since Christ had a difficult life, Christianity ought to be difficult, unless you think Christ's life is now easy.
I'm no expert on Christianity -- or any given strain of it today. I certainly never meant to jump into a debate on the Mormon Church. I was upset at the other fellow's intolerance of you.

I really don't understand your statement at all. I love history and I've been studying the Bible in an effort to understand what and why people have believed in it, but I'm pretty thick when it comes to modern religious-speak.

I've been studying the history of Christianity for quite some time, and what I've wondered about is that throughout time, there were all these forks in the road. And what became mainstream Christianity always seemed to take the easiest road at each fork. It makes sense to me that when there was a split in the faith, a majority of the faithful would follow the doctrine that was the easier to understand or follow. I'm guessing that some of the roads not taken would have been too demanding. I only have the vaguest understanding of Morman Church history because my interest has been in the early time periods.

[catatonic]

Racer, if you would put away the anti-Mormon websites you might look up all the prophecies of Joseph Smith that did come true. He predicted the civil war in detail, his own death, that everything is made up of matter, that Latter-day Saints would flourish in the Rocky Mountains, deliverance from execution, and an election that totally seemed to be going the other way which turned out extremely one-sided.

You can read here http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml#douglas with links at the bottom to more fulfilled prophecies.

Racer, if you stop going to anti-Mormon websites and spend some time on the pro-Mormon websites for a month or two, I promise to give you a strong link promoting the Church.

[catatonic]

Documad, our Church claims to be the restored original Church.

[racer5.0stang]

1500---Years it took to write the bible

66---Total books in the bible

40--Total authors

3--Continents

3--Languages

What other book in the history of man, has these credentials and still coincide?

Documad, our Church claims to be the restored original Church.
Cults often make such outrageous claims. Caught any comets lately?

Racer, if you would put away the anti-Mormon websites you might look up all the prophecies of Joseph Smith that did come true. He predicted the civil war in detail, his own death, that everything is made up of matter, that Latter-day Saints would flourish in the Rocky Mountains, deliverance from execution, and an election that totally seemed to be going the other way which turned out extremely one-sided.
Wow he was a real prophet!! Whatever, this guy was wacked out on opium and stealing horses. He predicted his own death? Wow, chances are I could analyze my life and predict my death. Guess what 10 out 10 die. Good Job Joseph. Saying that everything is made of matter is not a prediction. As far as "flourishing" in the Rocky Mountains, I thought you guys were driven to Salt Lake City. Joseph was a joke and it pains me that you and your fellow followers cannot see that. Here is a prediction of my own, in about twelve hours of the sun coming up, it will go down and the moon will arise. As far as anti-moron websites, I have looked at the official web site and concluded that it is a false doctrine. I posted a scripture the other day that blows your doctrine out of the water, here it is again.

Matthew 24:23,24
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Now Joseph claimed that Jesus told him to write "another" testament. But according to the bible, Jesus said not to believe if any man said here is Christ. I hope you see the point. This scripture was written some 1900 years ago.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I believe I can send you that evidence, racer, but you would then be responsible in terms of your salvation for that evidence. Because you would be responsible, I wouldn't want to give this to you unless I knew you wouldn't revile against it. I don't think, in your growing up with all this anti-Mormon literature, it would be appropriate.

First of all I am saved. Salvation is spiritual and does not require your high counclemen to lay hands on every part of the body or the wearing of "holy underwear". Second I did not "grow up" with anti mormon literature. I did not grow up in any kind of church. Through the grace of God a friend led me to the Lord and showed me the truth. I would be responsible if I did not tell others.
I find it hard to believe that in one breath a self professed mormon would say that the bible is corrupt and in the next breath say that it is the word of God. God cannot be corrupt neither his word.

And we use the Bible since most verses in it are correct.

In order for something to be true, it must always be true. Would you use a dictionary if some of the words and/or definitions were known to incorrect? How would know that other words that may be unknown are correct?

The bible gives no basis for the mormon doctrine, except you use the same names.

And I've been trying to say all along, because of the Bible's getting messed up man isn't expected to believe it, but the Book of Mormon is a witness to its own truth and stands as a witness of the Bible.

See what I mean.

We read the scriptures too you know. I read them about 30 minutes a day. I believe after that verse it says that "By their fruits ye shall know them." Joseph Smith's fruit was, among other things, the Book of Mormon. It's considered one of the top 20 most influential American books.

Just because you read something does not mean that you understand it. I'm sure the book of mormon is right up there with Harry Potter.

Gordon B. Hinckley, our current prophet, has the fruits of a very large and effective humanitarian aid program for the whole world and a perpetual education fund to bring members out of poverty.

Someone who is a true prophet hears the word of God and speaks it. So whatever the prophet speaks, it is just like God said it himself.
Has Gordon ever commanded fire to rain from heaven?

If you truly believe in the bible, you would be able to point out the false doctrines that mormons hold.

You might try understanding what you are reading.

[catatonic]

I see that you'regoing to revile my Church and forget things that I've already said, even after quoting them. I'm not going to try to convince you but I will reply same as I always do in a PM.

[racer5.0stang]

I see that you'regoing to revile my Church and forget things that I've already said, even after quoting them. I'm not going to try to convince you but I will reply same as I always do in a PM.


You can respond in public view as I have.

[catatonic]

I'm not going to contend against you. But if you will say something polite I will answer your questions, and if you calm down I will give my replies.

[racer5.0stang]

I'm not going to contend against you. But if you will say something polite I will answer your questions, and if you calm down I will give my replies.

I have not been rude or impolite in my responses to you nor have I gotten upset.

I would appreciate a mature response instead of you trying to play games.

[catatonic]

You started off polite, and I answered everything you said, but now that we are getting this way, it's important that we make up before we can settle our differences.

[catatonic]

Did you check out that completely unrelated website, The meru foundation?

http://www.meru.org/Lettermaps/symmgrup.html#genwords

It's pretty exciting. Maybe we can talk about it instead.

[racer5.0stang]

You started off polite, and I answered everything you said, but now that we are getting this way, it's important that we make up before we can settle our differences.

It is important that you realize the truth before it is too late.

[catatonic]

Yes I agree. Don't you think I may be feeling the same thing about you?

But if you're speaking of the truth of my Church, I've already gone to the Temple over a dozen times. But I'll listen to you and if you say something legitimate I will tell you that I have feelings for it. When you said that Joseph Smith had many false prophecies, he did say some things that he didn't say in the name of the Lord that turned out false, but that doesn't contradict Deut 18:22. But I listened, and I felt it that he was a man of mistakes.

[catatonic]

That was polite, so I will answer your questions and probably reply to the whole thing at some point in the future.

[racer5.0stang]

Yes I agree. Don't you think I may be feeling the same thing about you?

But if you're speaking of the truth of my Church, I've already gone to the Temple over a dozen times. But I'll listen to you and if you say something legitimate I will tell you that I have feelings for it. When you said that Joseph Smith had many false prophecies, he did say some things that he didn't say in the name of the Lord that turned out false, but that doesn't contradict Deut 18:22. But I listened, and I felt it that he was a man of mistakes.

I am talking a/b the false teachings that your church presents. What temple are you talking a/b?

I'm saying that everything Joseph said was false.

[catatonic]

1500---Years it took to write the bible

66---Total books in the bible

40--Total authors

3--Continents

3--Languages

What other book in the history of man, has these credentials and still coincide?


The Book of Mormon: about 3000 years to write
15 books
about 29 authors
2 continents
4 languages that can be identified accross the translation into English
and all written by the Spirit of God.



Cults often make such outrageous claims. Caught any comets lately?


Have I done anything amazing in my Church lately, no, except things like repent, which is a miracle.

He predicted his own death? He predicted it soon before it happened, and another time he was going to be executed and he predicted he would survive. It was like Martin Luther King, Jr., predicting his death by saying he'd been to the Mountaintop in great detail.


Matthew 24:23,24
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

I already answered this. "I believe after that verse it says that 'By their fruits ye shall know them.' Joseph Smith's fruit was, among other things, the Book of Mormon. It's considered one of the top 20 most influential American books. Gordon B. Hinckley, our current prophet, has the fruits of a very large and effective humanitarian aid program for the whole world and a perpetual education fund to bring members out of poverty."

Also, the Book of Mormon doesn't say "Here is Christ" but "Here was Christ."


In order for something to be true, it must always be true. Would you use a dictionary if some of the words and/or definitions were known to incorrect? How would know that other words that may be unknown are correct?

I would still use it if there was nothing better or if I cared enough for the authors. You can tell by the spirit. Christ said if thy right eye offend thee pluck it out and if thy hand cut if off but nobody does that. We have it written that this was a parable, but everybody else just has the light of Christ to know that he meant it as a parable even though that part may have been removed. Nobody plucks out their eyeballs.


See what I mean. No. I have answered all your attempts to use scripture.

Has Gordon ever commanded fire to rain from heaven? No.

[catatonic]

Well, you're calm, I'll give you that. I'm talking about the LDS Temple, the Provo and Mt. Timpanogos ones if you want to know.

So would you say everything in the Book of Mormon is false, since you think Joseph wrote it? www.mormon.org/bookofmormon .

I don't know what false teachings you are talking about. We've been producing scripture since 1830, and if there are mistakes they are the mistakes of man, but nothing that's been given by the spirit has been shown false.

[Funkaloyd]

Racer, what makes Mormonism a cult?

[ASsman]

His stupidity, obviously.

[catatonic]

[racer5.0stang]

His stupidity, obviously.

It is quite remarkable, that now you decide that you would try and tell me a/b your "religion". And after all this time I had you pinned as some racial punk who had no regard for other human life, imagine my surprise.

Also, the Book of Mormon doesn't say "Here is Christ" but "Here was Christ."

No but Joseph Smith did. Jesus clearly stated that if any said that here is Christ, not to believe him.

Why do you think that the bible is not enough, that another testament must be created? Is God's work in the bible not enough? Why didn't Jesus tell us in the bible of another testament?

Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Holy Spirit (http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,860-1,00.html)

This is one of your false doctrines that I found while browsing through the official web site.

The Holy Ghost lives within you, when you accept Jesus as your saviour, not when your so called priests lay hands on you.

Here is another one (http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,884-1,00.html)

Everyone that lived on earth will not be resurrected to live.However, all will give an account at the judgement seat. The verse that is quoted on the mormon web site states that Paul is refering to the believers and the order of the resurrection. You have to look at the verse in context.

Racer, what makes Mormonism a cult?

Check out these links.

Here (http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_ifur.htm)

Here again (http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsresponse.htm)

Last but not least (http://www.carm.org/cults/cultterm.htm)

[Funkaloyd]

Deleted now that Racer has posted a third link.

[Funkaloyd]

Ok, the first two links don't even mention the word "cult," and the third is just a comparison between three different interpretations of the Bible. Are you saying that Mormonism must be a cult because a web page implies (without any reasoning) that it is?

[Ali]

Ali, why can't people can think as a group too?People either think for themselves or let other people do their thinking for them.

Which, do you think, is going to get them exploited?

Do you think for yourself or do you express the opinions of the group to which you belong?

[racer5.0stang]

Ok, the first two links don't even mention the word "cult," and the third is just a comparison between three different interpretations of the Bible. Are you saying that Mormonism must be a cult because a web page implies (without any reasoning) that it is?

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

No, I am saying that mormonism is a cult because they claim that their book of mormon is comparable to the bible. This belief is wrong due to the fact that their book contradicts the bible on several accounts. Their doctrine is not biblical, but based merely on their book. In order two things to be comparable, they must agree with each other.

I do have a question though, What if someone is a mormon and this person decides to leave the church for whatever reason, what are the consequences?

[ASsman]

Silly man, questioning God almighty. You are not suppose to understand his will, merely follow it.

I do have a question though, What if someone is a mormon and this person decides to leave the church for whatever reason, what are the consequences?
Same as if you would leave yours.

[racer5.0stang]

Same as if you would leave yours.

That did not answer my question.

[catatonic]

When it said on the page that all men would be ressurected, why didn't you read the verse that went with it, straight out of your Bible: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Questions about the Bible being enough: Read this (http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/29/6#6)

Would you quit with the anti-Mormon websites? How many Christians believe your religion is the wrong one, but they don't make anti-racer's religion websites. Mormonism claims to be the restored Church so nobody wants anyone else to learn for themselves. Use the Mormon websites and I can answer from them. If you hadn't read from the anti-Mormon website you might have understood what this website is saying about the Holy Ghost. The website clearly in black and white says the opposite of what you said. It says that you don't have to have the laying on of hands to experience the Holy Ghost. It does however say that if you want to have the Holy Ghost ALL THE TIME, you have to have this experience.

Joseph Smith didn't say Christ was here.

Just raise your concerns without bringing in anti-Mormon websites, and I will be glad to answer all of your concerns.

Why not use the Mormon method to determine if Mormonism is true? Read the Book of Mormon with an open heart, and then follow Moroni 10:3-5 and by the power of the Holy Ghost (you don't have to have the laying on of hands) the Holy Ghost will tell you the truth, just like the Holy Ghost has told me.

[racer5.0stang]

Why not use the Mormon method to determine if Mormonism is true? Read the Book of Mormon with an open heart, and then follow Moroni 10:3-5 and by the power of the Holy Ghost (you don't have to have the laying on of hands) the Holy Ghost will tell you the truth, just like the Holy Ghost has told me.

God cannot lie.

Titus 1:2

[catatonic]

Exactly. He didn't lie to me. This is not a reason to not try the Mormon method. In fact it is a reason to try the Mormon method, to simply ask God with a sincere heart, with real intent, in the name of Christ, having faith in Christ... as said in the verse. What could be a better way to tell if Mormonism were true than that? Just do as James 1:5 directs, but don't forget James 1:6-7. Millions of people have prayed over the Book of Mormon correctly, and millions have testified that the Holy Ghost told them the Book of Mormon was true. God cannot lie.

It says don't believe anyone saying they are Christ and don't believe anybody saying they are a prophet unless they have fruits. Matt 7:15-16.

Christ didn't say He was Christ when Joseph Smith saw him. God introduced Him. And then Joseph Smith didn't tell anyone that Christ was still there, for He had returned.

[racer5.0stang]

Exactly. He didn't lie to me. This is not a reason to not try the Mormon method. In fact it is a reason to try the Mormon method, to simply ask God with a sincere heart, with real intent, in the name of Christ, having faith in Christ... as said in the verse. What could be a better way to tell if Mormonism were true than that? Just do as James 1:5 directs, but don't forget James 1:6-7. Millions of people have prayed over the Book of Mormon correctly, and millions have testified that the Holy Ghost told them the Book of Mormon was true. God cannot lie.

It says don't believe anyone saying they are Christ and don't believe anybody saying they are a prophet unless they have fruits. Matt 7:15-16.

Christ didn't say He was Christ when Joseph Smith saw him. God introduced Him. And then Joseph Smith didn't tell anyone that Christ was still there, for He had returned.


John 8:44

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

2 Timothy 4:3,4

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[catatonic]

[catatonic]

[catatonic]

What would your father say if he knew you were here?

[SobaViolence]

truth is a hooker you fuck at your convenience.

[Funkaloyd]

I am saying that mormonism is a cult because they claim that their book of mormon is comparable to the bible. This belief is wrong due to the fact that their book contradicts the bible on several accounts.
The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament in numerous passages (they both contradict themselves even more). And your dictionary definition has nothing which can be applied to Mormonism and not all other Christian denominations.

God cannot lie.
1 Kings 22:21-23 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 suggest otherwise.

[catatonic]

I do have a question though, What if someone is a mormon and this person decides to leave the church for whatever reason, what are the consequences?
They write a letter to the bishop, and in 90 days they should be off the membership records. I don't know what will happen to them in the afterlife. They could have been taught wrong for instance. If they rebelled against God knowingly they'll be punished, but hopefully not by us.

[catatonic]

Racer, I believe you are trying to be good, but your arguments simply aren't logical enough to make me think about leaving my Church.

And the last two scriptures were really mean. I don't believe I qualify for those scriptures, why do you?

Over a billion Muslims believe the Qu'Ran is comparable to the Bible, and many seem to believe Jehovah's Witnesses have failed prophecies, but you don't call Islam a cult.

[catatonic]

I don't call Jehovah's Witnesses a cult.

[ASsman]

This has gone from retarded, to downright gay.

[catatonic]

OK, I was just trying to help.

[ASsman]

In vain.

[racer5.0stang]

I like how catatonic will post a reply and then delete it.

I don't call Jehovah's Witnesses a cult.

You should, they are a/b as unbiblical as your church.

1 Kings 22:21-23 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 suggest otherwise.

These verses do not suggest that God can lie. Try reading the verses in context. For example--
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

These verses state that God will send a strong delusion to make everyone believe a lie. This is refering to the 7 year tribulation period that will take place after the rapture of the church (which are the people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour). The strong delusion is people will believe that the Anti-Christ is God. In verse 12, it gives the reason behind the action.

What would your father say if he knew you were here?

Which father are you refering to?

And the last two scriptures were really mean. I don't believe I qualify for those scriptures, why do you?

My opinion of you is irrelevant. I am merely trying to get you to open your eyes.

Ephesians 2:8-10

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Over a billion Muslims believe the Qu'Ran is comparable to the Bible, and many seem to believe Jehovah's Witnesses have failed prophecies, but you don't call Islam a cult.

How can the Qu'Ran compare to the Bible when it refers to another god? Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is God.

If you have any knowledge of the Bible, then look at the beliefs and doctrines held by the Jehovah's Witnesses and tell me if they are based on biblical principles.

They write a letter to the bishop, and in 90 days they should be off the membership records. I don't know what will happen to them in the afterlife. They could have been taught wrong for instance. If they rebelled against God knowingly they'll be punished, but hopefully not by us.

And what of this person's friends and/or family who are still in the mormon church? How will they treat this person after they have left?
How would you punish them?

[Schmeltz]

I like how catatonic will post a reply and then delete it.


Yeah, maybe you should start doing it too.

[Documad]

^^ HA HA HA!

[Ali]

truth is a hooker you fuck at your convenience.and who fucks a hooker at their inconvenience?

What kind of a lame-assed saying is that?

[catatonic]

I would expect that the friends and family of someone who left wouldn't punish them. I wouldn't punish them. What good would that do anyway?

[catatonic]

Ali, he was saying what he was pretending racer's father would say.

[ASsman]

I would expect that the friends and family of someone who left wouldn't punish them. I wouldn't punish them. What good would that do anyway?
Duh, it all depends on the family. Jesus... I've grown tired of Racer.

[catatonic]

[ASsman]

Ooops! Jews just called Racers church a cult.

[catatonic]

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=756560&postcount=156If I want to snort some coke, pay someone for sex, worship Satan, and bet all of my money that I can drink more without passing out than Qdrop and Ace42 put together, then that's really none of your business, and it doesn't have any bearing on your life or your freedom. You might be disgusted, but so what? I'm disgusted by sushi.
If, on the other hand, I were to spend the night stealing, raping, and killing, then that clearly has a negative effect on the freedom of others.

I care for liberty and might side with it, but I also think people affect each other and that one man doing the things at the top can influence others to come down to his level. Usually I try to be for this board and keep my mouth shut if I disagree, but this is important. If you snort some coke, there may also be people who risked their lives fighting the drug war who may have died so you could have it. If you pay someone for sex, you are also damaging your potential family. If you worship Satan, and some Christian comes to your door, you will also likely try to infiltrate his religion and destroy him. If you bet all your money, you are also encouraging spending money on things without a good or service in exchange.

[ASsman]

Proverbs 3:5
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart

and lean not on your own understanding;

[catatonic]

ty

[Funkaloyd]

one man doing the things at the top can influence others to come down to his level.
Why are Satanism, prosititution and all the rest considered to be somehow below, say, Christianity? Can anybody here provide logical proof that their system of morality is the right way? I certainly can't, which really freaked me out at first.

[Ace42]

Why are Satanism, prosititution and all the rest considered to be somehow below, say, Christianity? Can anybody here provide logical proof that their system of morality is the right way?

Yes - quite simply because Satanism is an off-shoot of Christianity. As such, its deity is intrinsically inferior to the deity that is depicted in their (Judeo-Christian) source texts.

To be a (proper) Satanist is to say "Yeah, I believe in the Christian source texts [and thus we can operate under the faith based assumption they are correct], but then without any rationale or substantiation I decided to believe in a deviant line of though.

That is inherantly contradictory.

"I believe in the Bible enough to have a faith on it, but I don't believe the core principles and message"

Dumb ass posturing.

[Funkaloyd]

I'm looking for logical support for a system of morals. It seems to me that the selfishness preached in some Satanist (and Capitalist ;) texts cannot be proven to be wrong without making major (and no doubt biased) assumptions as to what good and evil are.

But I'll take this up anyway:

How many people out there have faith in the Bible yet don't follow key Biblical rules of conduct?
Is Christianity not an offshoot of another religion?

Besides, Satan is a feature in many religions, not just Judaism/Christianity.

[Ace42]

I'm looking for logical support for a system of morals. It seems to me that the selfishness preached in some Satanist (and Capitalist ;) texts cannot be proven to be wrong without making major (and no doubt biased) assumptions as to what good and evil are.

Yes, but that does not prohibit logical deduction and refutation. If there are errors of internal consistancy, then the absence of external objective evidence to prove the point is irrelevant.

How many people out there have faith in the Bible yet don't follow key Biblical rules of conduct?

Irrelevant. Popularity or populism are not part of the logical argument.

Is Christianity not an offshoot of another religion?

Not necessarily, and certainly not in the same sense. Christianity is merely a naming convention given to what is essentially a sub-jewish sect. Jesus was a Jew, all his disciples were Jews. For quite some time they did not preach to non-Jews until there was a revelation.

Indeed, the whole concept of a messiah is intrinsically Jewish. A lot of the theology involved in the New Testament is based around proving the significance of the divine and prophisied nature of the Christ.

Satanists would be hard-pressed to argue that the bible / torah arguably show that Satan is of omnipotent power, or that his followers receive any benefit.

Besides, Satan is a feature in many religions, not just Judaism/Christianity.

An "evil deity" is. Satan, in the *literal* Satanistic sense is not "just an archetype". Satan is a very specific facet of Judeo-Christian religion. While the Moslems do have an evil "Shaitan" (trns:?) that is analagous (or even the same person exactly) - their religious texts do not say "oh, and following him might be a good idea." - So even if these "Shaitainists" were of Islamic preference, it would still not change the fact that their belief structure is totally divorced from the origins that give it meaning and context.

Making Satanism stupid and for particularly stupid people.

"Hyuck... I'm going to put my faith in 'The Prince of Lies'"

Great thinking there, sport.

[Qdrop]

I'm looking for logical support for a system of morals.

evolutionary biology.
sociobiology.

[catatonic]

Sociology is a good resource.

The Ten Commandments are quite a useful starting point for a system of morals if your goal is to uphold civilization. Stealing, adultery, and murdering, for instance, if widely practiced, degrade civilization a lot. The law of the Sabbath teaches that even if you are atheist taking breaks is useful to building yourself up. Honoring your father and mother means that if you seek to start off without all the traditions of your ancestors, you will not last as long (this is your evolutionary biology - you don't have to be like your parents, but you have to know what they know).

When I said sex with a prostitute and following satanism are a lower level than say, building a family and having tolerance for other people, I meant because the sex degrades the family which is necessary for some people to have to maintain civilization and if a Christian knocks on a Satanists door he will likely try to destroy him whereas tolerance is a time-honored principle among atheists and Christians alike. Satanism in that sense is like racism and counterproductive to a strong society, but then again the Christian knocked on his door, but then again the Christian also left.

[racer5.0stang]

Satanists would be hard-pressed to argue that the bible / torah arguably show that Satan is of omnipotent power, or that his followers receive any benefit.

According to the bible, Satan also known as Lucifer, is an angel. Angels were created by God. I don't see how a created being could possess omnipotent power.

If they (Satanists) believe what the bible says about Satan, then they already know his doom and theirs for following him.

Making Satanism stupid and for particularly stupid people.

"Hyuck... I'm going to put my faith in 'The Prince of Lies'"

Great thinking there, sport.

Agreed.

Thats a first.

[Ace42]

Agreed.

Thats a first.

Don't get used to the idea. Being able to spot a plot hole in a kid's story doesn't make you an intellectual.

[Funkaloyd]

Qdrop, elaborate. Sociobiology can be used to justify anything.

Satanists would be hard-pressed to argue that the bible / torah arguably show that Satan is of omnipotent power, or that his followers receive any benefit. [...] Popularity or populism are not part of the logical argument.
...And "sanity is not statistical." But my point is that Satanists can support their beliefs just like any other denomination; by emphasizing some parts of the Bible, ignoring others at will, and making their own interpretations of certain passages. Maybe Anton LaVey also claimed divine revelation. You can't argue with claims of divine revelation :rolleyes:.

I don't see how a created being could possess omnipotent power.
So, can your God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?

[Ace42]

But my point is that Satanists can support their beliefs just like any other denomination; by emphasizing some parts of the Bible, ignoring others at will, and making their own interpretations of certain passages.

No, they can't. While some christian sects bend interpretations to breaking point, they are not in flat out contradiction with their source texts. When they are, then they (as individuals) are conceivably just as stupid and wrong as satanists are as a denomination. However, individual stupidity (while just as dangerous as) is not the same about institutionalised stupidity.

It is the difference between flawed implementation and a flawed initial premiss. It is the difference between saying "We base our lives on assumptions which we believe are true" and "We base our lives on assumptions which we believe are false."

Yeah they are both assumptions, but the later is not *equally illogical*. There is a difference, even though the level of assumption is the same.

Maybe Anton LaVey also claimed divine revelation. You can't argue with claims of divine revelation

Oh no? And if this divine revelation claimed the Earth was flat?

[Funkaloyd]

Then the "science" which proves that the Earth is spherical is wrong. The photos which show a round Earth were either taken from possessed cameras, or scientists manipulated them to fit with their heretical agenda.

When they are, then they (as individuals) are conceivably just as stupid and wrong as satanists are as a denomination.
Agreed, though I'm sure we have different ideas as to where the line is drawn.

But why the distinction between individual and institutionalized? If another Christian denomination's beliefs inherently contradict scripture, then it's institutionalized stupidity, no?

[Funkaloyd]

if a Christian knocks on a Satanists door he will likely try to destroy him whereas tolerance is a time-honored principle among atheists and Christians alike.

Depending on your definition of "tolerance."

According to many Christians, I'm going to be eternally tortured for holding a belief, as are Satanists. Atheists frequently point out the stupidity of Christianity and Satanism, is that considered an attempt to "destroy" their respective religions? Satanists are at odds with Christians just as much as Christians are at odds with Satanists, though not necessarily any more than.

[Ace42]

If another Christian denomination's beliefs inherently contradict scripture, then it's institutionalized stupidity, no?

Not really. As much as racerstang would like to say otherwise, most scriptures are intrinsically self-contradictory. Most sects are different not in their core beliefs, but in how they reconcile contradictions (both internal textual, and textual vs reality).

Satanism and scripture are irreconcileable, and thus this does not apply to them.

If a christian sect's belief were irreconcileable with scripture, then that Christian sect would be in the same boat. However, they would arguably cease to be a *christian* sect at that point.

Thus it is the incompatibility with (mainstream) Jewish thoughts about the Messiah and the teachings of Jesus that led to Christianity becoming an independant religion, rather than merely a Jewish sect.

[catatonic]

...most scriptures are intrinsically self-contradictory.
You could try reading the Book of Mormon. I won't nag the board about it for a while.

[Ace42]

Don't get me started on Mormonism. Like that chap... Can't remember if it were Smith or Young, going on about how Adam was God, and that there were types of God, and then Mormonism fracturing.

There are just as many sects under Mormonism as there are in any other mainline branches of Christianity.

[Qdrop]

Qdrop, elaborate. Sociobiology can be used to justify anything.

i think you already have a good understanding of what i mean....you're a pretty smart guy.

i just mean that most "moral or ethical" believe systems are based (at thier root) on species survival- group interaction, hygiene, ect.
laws, morals, ethics (for the most part) are man simply giving a name and documentation to natural law or evolved, necessary behaviors required for survival.



So, can your God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?
we are waiting, racer.....

[ASsman]

There are just as many sects under Mormonism as there are in any other mainline branches of Christianity.
Some more interesting than others, mutiple wifes, etc.

[racer5.0stang]

So, can your God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?

we are waiting, racer.....

You refer to him as my God, but he is your God as well, whether you admit it or not.

There are several things that God cannot do. God cannot lie. God cannot sin.

What would be the justification him to make a burrito in the first place? The bible says that God is a spirit, so why would he need to eat?

Don't get used to the idea. Being able to spot a plot hole in a kid's story doesn't make you an intellectual.

Just because we agreed on something for the first time, doesn't mean either one of us is an intellectual.

You could try reading the Book of Mormon.

What would be the point?

Oh, because it is "another" testament of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that the first one was not good enough? Or that Joseph Smith didn't agree with certain parts so he thought he should write another?

If the bible is with errors, who decides what those errors are?

If one part is wrong and said person decides it is true, is it still wrong?
or
If one part is right and said person decides it is false, ist it still true?

In order for something to be true or correct, it must be entirely correct.

[Ace42]

You refer to him as my God, but he is your God as well, whether you admit it or not.

Unless you are wrong. Which, given your track record of gross incompetence, is not just likely, but highly probable.

There are several things that God cannot do.

Then he is not omnipotent. In effect, you just made your God fallible.

What would be the justification him to make a burrito in the first place? The bible says that God is a spirit, so why would he need to eat?

Or making sinners.

Just because we agreed on something for the first time, doesn't mean either one of us is an intellectual.

Nothing short of brain surgery could make you an intellectual.

If the bible is with errors, who decides what those errors are?

Those errors are present, whether you admit it or not. They are not "decided upon", they are merely there. What you mean is "how can you argue that your position is the correct one on something that is unknowable?"

And the answer is very very simple - the same way that you argue your beliefs. Your beliefs have no basis in subjective fact or rational reasoning, and yet that doesn't stop you from insisting they are and acting like they are undeniable fact (something which is quite quite wrong incidentaly).

Him saying that Mormonism is The Truth is just as valid as your argument that your beliefs are "The undeniable Truth".

Infact, his are better because at least he isn't as much of a jackass about it. Yet.


In order for something to be true or correct, it must be entirely correct.

By that argument, your belief structure is wrong then. As your arguments and beliefs have had holes poked in them so many times it is not funny.

Your belief structure held that monkey's didn't have opposable thumbs. By your own argument, your beliefs cannot be correct.

[Qdrop]

There are several things that God cannot do. God cannot lie. God cannot sin.

God has limits i see.

What would be the justification him to make a burrito in the first place? The bible says that God is a spirit, so why would he need to eat?

wow...i've seen people duck and avoid a question.....but that was pathetic, racer.

can got make a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it.

answer it :yes or no.....

[catatonic]

Adam participated with God in forming the Earth, that's how we would say it although we don't talk about it. We also believe Jesus formed the Earth, as it says in John 1:10.

There are no major divisions of Mormonism, all the other Mormon sects like the Community of Christ are very few in number.

I don't believe God is a spirit, but I hope I never become a jerk about my religion to anyone.

[racer5.0stang]

Unless you are wrong. Which, given your track record of gross incompetence, is not just likely, but highly probable.

I guess time will tell.

Then he is not omnipotent. In effect, you just made your God fallible.

No, just stating the bible.

Or making sinners.

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Adam participated with God in forming the Earth, that's how we would say it although we don't talk about it

So basically it is one of those beliefs that you do not tell the public.

Read Genesis 1:1-31 in a King James Version.

Man was the created on the sixth day and on the seventh God rested. Nothing was created after man so how can Adam help God form the earth?

I don't believe God is a spirit

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

[Funkaloyd]

Genesis 1:26-27.

[catatonic]

John 4:24 is the first scripture I think that you've brought up that I actually believe is translated wrong. We have, "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth."

Besides which Funkaloyd's right, Genesis 1:26-27 does kind of go along with this.

As for Adam, it's not something we talk about to anyone including ourselves outside the temple, because it's sacred, and I can respond to your objection but think it best to just not bring it up further, but I've already said that Adam wasn't the only one participating so why can't you do the math?

[catatonic]

And to anyone who still thinks I'm a fundamentalist, that I just believe what my religion tells me just because, there were three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. They were shown the gold plates the record was translated from and bore witness. Two of them left the Church, but none of them, to the day they died, ever denied having seen the plates. They all said they knew they were translated by God until the day they died. There were also eight witnesses which felt and saw the plates and never denied that Joseph Smith had them. The 3 were Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. The eight were Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith. You can search the ends of the Internet to try to show me wrong but they never ever denied it.
I haven't even started on how the Book of Mormon also stands as a witness of itself.

[Ace42]

I guess time will tell.

Unfortunately, by then you'll be dead and it will be too late to say "I told you so."

However, if we both end up in Hell due to Islam being the correct religion, then I will still be saying "I told you so."

And slapping your pudgy face for all eternally.

No, just stating the bible.

Either the bible, or your interpretation of the bible states that God is fallible then. If God is fallible, then this is all moot because *he* might be the one in the wrong.

By your own argument, that is. If you had more sophisticated beliefs like myself, such a fundamental logic error would not be a problem.


Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Therefore that man was a sinner, and he was created by God, therefore God made sinners like I said.

Dumbass.

[Ace42]

I haven't even started on how the Book of Mormon also stands as a witness of itself.

Good, because that would be a circular argument and thus totally without merit.

[Qdrop]

Good, because that would be a circular argument and thus totally without merit.

i smiled......

[catatonic]

I meant stands as a witness of itself through external evidence, but I appreciated the joke.

[racer5.0stang]

Unfortunately, by then you'll be dead and it will be too late to say "I told you so."

However, if we both end up in Hell due to Islam being the correct religion, then I will still be saying "I told you so."

And slapping your pudgy face for all eternally.

*Runs through the flames and clothes lines Ace*

Therefore that man was a sinner, and he was created by God, therefore God made sinners like I said.

Adam was perfect and had free will when he was created. Adam was given a choice, to obey God or to disobey God. God told him not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and Adam made his choice. Because of Adam's choice, all of his decedents (which includes you and me)inherited the sin nature. That is the whole purpose of Jesus being born and giving his life for us, to pay the sin debt.

The 3 were Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. The eight were Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith.

It is funny how they are all related. I guess these 12 are the "true" apostles. But in order to be an apostle, you would have to see Jesus.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 4:24 is the first scripture I think that you've brought up that I actually believe is translated wrong. We have, "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth."

I'm sure you do think it is mistranslated, other wise you and your pharisee friends would be wrong.

As for Adam, it's not something we talk about to anyone including ourselves outside the temple, because it's sacred, and I can respond to your objection but think it best to just not bring it up further, but I've already said that Adam wasn't the only one participating so why can't you do the math?


Because you are trying to put man at the same level as God.

[Ace42]

Adam was perfect

So perfect that he disobeyed God's will, dooming himself and his descendants for all time? Very perfect... So then, Sin was created out of nothing? Funny, as your arguments supporting creationism involved "you can't make something out of nothing." And yet, by your argument here, that is precisely what happened.

You can't even make your own interpretations make sense, let alone the contradictions that are inherant in the text... Pathetic.

[Qdrop]

I meant stands as a witness of itself through external evidence, but I appreciated the joke.


:confused:

[catatonic]

from external evidence. Actually internal as well as external evidence.

[racer5.0stang]

So perfect that he disobeyed God's will, dooming himself and his descendants for all time? Very perfect... So then, Sin was created out of nothing?

Perfect yes but with the ability to make his own decisions. It was a test and Adam failed.

God proved his love for humanity by sending his son, Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt on the cross so that our sins will be forgiven. All one has to do is pray, repent, and believe. Jesus Christ was the ultimate, perfect sacrifice.

Sin
1. An offense against God

2. Fault

3. A weakened state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God.

Sin became present when Lucifer tried to exalt himself above God.

[Schmeltz]

If he was perfect, why did he fail the test? Should he not have been able to resist the temptation? If he was prone to temptation, is that not an inherent weakness that mitigates against inherent perfection? Same with Lucifer - as a perfect spirit being, what led him to exalt himself above God? Is that not indicative of imperfection even in allegedly perfect creatures?

It's all crap.

[racer5.0stang]

If he was perfect, why did he fail the test? Should he not have been able to resist the temptation? If he was prone to temptation, is that not an inherent weakness that mitigates against inherent perfection?


It is called free will.

Same with Lucifer - as a perfect spirit being, what led him to exalt himself above God?

Pride.

[Funkaloyd]

God proved his love for humanity by sending his son, Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt on the cross so that our sins will be forgiven. All one has to do is pray, repent, and believe. Jesus Christ was the ultimate, perfect sacrifice.
Why require belief? Does your God have self-esteem issues?

[Schmeltz]

So you're telling me that perfection does not necessarily dictate the proper use of free will, and that perfection is no impediment to the sin of pride?

If that's not a complete contradiction in terms, I don't know what is. You have a pretty bizarre definition of perfection, I tell you what.

[racer5.0stang]

So you're telling me that perfection does not necessarily dictate the proper use of free will, and that perfection is no impediment to the sin of pride?

If that's not a complete contradiction in terms, I don't know what is. You have a pretty bizarre definition of perfection, I tell you what.

Perfection being that the creature needs nothing or is not corrupt in any manner, physical etc.

[Schmeltz]

So if the creature needs nothing, as was the case with Adam, what swayed him to make the wrong choice? How could temptation have worked on him if, as a perfect creature, he needed nothing?

If the creature is not corrupt in any manner, as was the case with Lucifer, what produced his disastrous pride? How could there have been room for the corruption of such a sin in his heart if, as a perfect spirit being, he was inherently incorrupt?

You're not making any sense.

[racer5.0stang]

So if the creature needs nothing, as was the case with Adam, what swayed him to make the wrong choice? How could temptation have worked on him if, as a perfect creature, he needed nothing?



The same way that it works on me and you.

Lets say that I am at a party. At this party is are my friends and they pop out a joint. I have never smoked weed before. My friends ask me to join in.

If you were perfect, what decision would you make?

There are many things (not just drugs, for instance) that may tempt me to do, regardless if I "need" it or not.

If the creature is not corrupt in any manner, as was the case with Lucifer, what produced his disastrous pride? How could there have been room for the corruption of such a sin in his heart if, as a perfect spirit being, he was inherently incorrupt?

A more important question would be, Why was Lucifer created in the first place if God (being omniscient) knew what he would do?

[Schmeltz]

Your weed analogy is poor because of your assumption that drug use is immoral. If you had no reason to believe that smoking marijuana was wrong, what would there be to stop you from doing it? But Adam and Eve were well aware of the command not to eat the forbidden fruit, as well as the consequences that would follow their violation of this order.

In addition, what you or I would do is irrelevant to a discussion of perfection. As you say, we are all subject to the wages of sin and hence subject to temptation. But a perfect human, free of inherited sinful tendencies, would not be subject to temptation, especially in a setting like the Garden of Eden.

Your "more important question" is nothing but a dodge. Answer mine and we can then move on to yours.

[Ace42]

Heh, once again Racerstang proves his total incomptence.

"Yah... They're perfect... Except for their flaws, which God didn't want to put into them, but did anyway, which makes him and the rest of his works imperfect, which is OK because I don't believe God is omnipotent anyway..."

Face it, stang, you don't know WHAT you believe. All you know is how to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the blatant, self-evident, undeniable flaws and contradictions in your puerile and ignorant arguments.

[racer5.0stang]

Your weed analogy is poor because of your assumption that drug use is immoral.

No, I created a simple scenario that you had to choose whether or not to smoke some cannibas. I never said anything about morals.

With that said, what is your decision?

If you had no reason to believe that smoking marijuana was wrong, what would there be to stop you from doing it?

This would determine your ability to make the correct decision. Which is exactly my point, unless you knew it was wrong what would keep you from doing it?

As you say, we are all subject to the wages of sin and hence subject to temptation.

True, but we (just as Adam did) still have the ability to make the choice whether or not to give into the temptation.

But a perfect human, free of inherited sinful tendencies, would not be subject to temptation, especially in a setting like the Garden of Eden.

Had it not been for Lucifer who first tempted Eve, Adam would have never been tempted. This was a test to prove Adam and Eve's obediance to God. God said don't do it, Lucifer said it will be o.k. go ahead.

If the creature is not corrupt in any manner, as was the case with Lucifer, what produced his disastrous pride? How could there have been room for the corruption of such a sin in his heart if, as a perfect spirit being, he was inherently incorrupt?

The bible says that Lucifer was the angel closest to God. He was God's most beautiful creation. The bible also says that inquity was found in him. This inquity was pride. He was so puffed with his own beauty, that he decided to try and over-throw God's throne. A war was waged in Heaven, Lucifer and the angels who sided with him (which are a 1/3 of the angels of heaven) against Michael and his angels. Lucifer was cast out along with his angels.

It is apparent that angels have free will also.

Thats the thing with free will. God has given us a choice to make and no one can make it for us. Our choice now is whether we accept Jesus Christ as our Saviour or not.

Do you think God would drag someone kicking and screaming into Heaven?

[Funkaloyd]

He has no problem sending those he loves to Hell.

[Schmeltz]

unless you knew it was wrong what would keep you from doing it?


Uhh... I believe I said exactly that in my own post. Adam and Eve, according to the Bible, knew that eating the fruit was wrong, and were perfect so therefore ought not to have been prone to temptation. Yet neither of these barriers stopped them from making the wrong decision and eating the fruit. If Adam was perfect, he would have made the correct decision; his free will would have been informed not only by knowledge of the immorality and consequences of his deed but by his inherent freedom from sin. So why did he eat it? Your reluctance to explain this discrepancy is puzzling.

My decision on the joint? Your analogy is all backwards. I'm the guy at the party who rolls up the blunt, man, not the guy who's tempted. :D


This was a test blah blah blah the Bible says blah blah blah


Yes, I know. I know what the Bible says. That doesn't answer my question (you're going to have to think on your own for this one, difficult though that seems to be). If Lucifer was perfect, and if he was God's most beautiful creature, where did this iniquity come from? It was simply to be found in a perfect creature? How can a creature be described as perfect if it is characterized by iniquity and pride? That is a total contradiction in terms. Free will doesn't have anything to do with it, you're setting up a strawman. Perfect creatures always make the right decision because they have no basis on which to formulate a wrong one.

Answer the question and quit going in circles.

[racer5.0stang]

So why did he eat it?

I really do not know why Adam chose to eat it. Maybe because Eve had already eaten it and he chose to share her fate. To be honest I don't know why he made the decision.

My decision on the joint? Your analogy is all backwards. I'm the guy at the party who rolls up the blunt, man, not the guy who's tempted.

At one point, you were a rookie.

If Lucifer was perfect, and if he was God's most beautiful creature, where did this iniquity come from?

I don't know. I have asked myself the same question.

Free will doesn't have anything to do with it,

Free will has everything to do with it. Without free will, our decisions are at someone else's disposal. The choice is already made for us.

Perfect creatures always make the right decision because they have no basis on which to formulate a wrong one.

They must weigh each choice in a decision, so the basis for each choice is there. Good or bad.

[Qdrop]

Answer the question and quit going in circles.

From Racer?
HA! you might as well ask him to fly....

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, I was a rookie at one point. The first time I ever smoked weed I did so because I didn't see anything wrong with doing it. I still don't. There's nothing immoral about it, unless you buy it from the mob or something.

The basis for each choice is of course always there, but wouldn't a perfect creature always make the right choice? Isn't that the essence of perfection? Wouldn't a wrong choice be indicative of imperfection?

I'm sorry to see you can't provide me with an answer to this contradiction - surprising, given its foundational nature to your belief system. But then, I could never find one for myself either, which is why I am who I am.

[racer5.0stang]

Yeah, I was a rookie at one point. The first time I ever smoked weed I did so because I didn't see anything wrong with doing it. I still don't. There's nothing immoral about it, unless you buy it from the mob or something.

Although I have smoked weed in the past, I choose not to now. I don't believe morality played a part in my decision, I simply chose not to.

I'm sorry to see you can't provide me with an answer to this contradiction - surprising, given its foundational nature to your belief system. But then, I could never find one for myself either, which is why I am who I am.

I'm not sure that anyone (other than God) knows the true reason.

As the bible puts it, The Mystery of Inquity.

[Schmeltz]

Or maybe there is no real reason, and it's simply a fallacy in a text constructed by human beings.

[catatonic]

[Qdrop]

I believe Adam took of the fruit because, although he was commanded not to take it, he was also commanded to multiply upon the earth with Eve. By having taken of the fruit, Eve would be kicked out of the garden, so Adam, in order to be with her, took the fruit.

Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy. God was ready for this scenario when the earth was created; he created Adam with the ability to choose. If that means Adam wasn't perfect, then yeah He created a sinner, but the important thing is that Adam was created with the ability to choose. God created weaknesses for mankind so that they would be humble and show forth mighty ability through Christ, I believe. I'm not sure if I'm right about all this.

although not your intention....
i laughed so hard at this post....people in the hall were looking at me.

[catatonic]

Adam might have been made perfect originally, but he may have been given weakness so that he could be tempted, so he could choose for himself.

[Schmeltz]

The very stuff of mythology. Thanks for your explanation.

[racer5.0stang]

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I meant by perfect.

Perfect in the sense of health, mental ability, and physical.

I guess innocent, would have been a better choice.

My apologies.