Why Isn't The World More Perfect?

[Who?]

I believe that those things are in the process of being fulfilled or will be. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

 

Where in the OT does it leave room for fulfilling at a later time? Besides, until Judah AND ISRAEL agree accept the covenant, it is left unrenewed. The gentiles are not even part of that prophecy. Where does it say that if Judah and Israel don't accept that the deal is open-game for the gentiles...WHERE? Also, WHERE does it state that the New Covenant happens before it happens?

 

I do not know. I do know that the Old testament prophets testified of the coming Christ. I do know that the Savior will fulfill all his words.

 

The joys of life. Free to worship who, how, or what we choose, right?

 

And, so whats wrong with that?

 

Nothing. I was answering your question to the best of my ability, you can still choose whether to believe or disbelieve. (AoF 1:11)

[Who?]

I do not know. I do know that the Old testament prophets testified of the coming Christ. I do know that the Savior will fulfill all his words.

 

That prophecy was for over 4000 years ago, it didn't happen then and it didn't happen with Christ. It will never happen because it is a myth.

 

(AoF 1:11)

 

Are you a Mormon? The article listed took me to a site for the Church of Latter Day Saints.

I try.

Edit: Nevermind, I was told that Mormons and LDS are one in the same. So, is it still taught that African Americans are the cursed seed of Cain or was that a big boo-boo?

 

I don't know, many within the Church view it as a big boo-boo. I'm not versed enough to say one way or the other. I do know that there is nothing wrong with race.

 

The article states that you follow the laws of the gospel. Does this mean you obey the OT laws as Jesus said he did not come to abolish them? Do you worship on Saturday, the real Sabbath?

 

Most of the OT commandments are kept, the sacrificial laws are fulfilled however and are not practiced.

 

We worship on Sunday. It is true that Saturday is the seventh day, however I believe the early Apostles put on Sunday in honor of the Saviors resurrection.

[Who?]

I don't know, many within the Church view it as a big boo-boo. I'm not versed enough to say one way or the other. I do know that there is nothing wrong with race.

 

Brigham Young taught that African Americans were the cursed seed of Cain, their curse being flat noses and black skin. So, do you agree or disagree with Brigham Young?

 

I am aware of what Brigham Young has claimed, however there is a lot of contreversy here which I do not think I can give a straight answer to. Whether they are the seed of cain or not, it doesnt matter.

 

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

 

 

 

Most of the OT commandments are kept, the sacrificial laws are fulfilled however and are not practiced.

 

Really? Then why do the OT prophets have blood sacrifices going full swing during the millenial reign?

 

In the D & C it speaks of these sacrifices as offerings. Whether these offerings are of the animal type or the broken heart and contrite spirit. I don't know. I would venture to guess the latter.

We worship on Sunday. It is true that Saturday is the seventh day, however I believe the early Apostles put on Sunday in honor of the Saviors resurrection.

 

That isn't in the bible although I know that the later non-biblical followers did, I believe the Council of Nicene. Of course it was done in order to separate from the Jews. Nowhere in the bible is the Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday.

 

You are right, we observe Sunday as a result of this. We believe that these are modern day revelations instructing how the Church should be run in this day.

 

The principle of Sabbath observance is more important than the day it is observed.

[Anakin]

3. Why does a loving, forgiving, perfect, omnipotent god need a sacrifice of blood for sin? We are suppose to forgive freely, but God didn't. He required blood.

 

Because mercy cannot rob justice. The Savior's sacrifice made it possible for the demands of Justice to be met and mercy fully offered. Additional reading here.. Does that answer your questions?

 

I'm not a deist, but I like the following quote.

 

"I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making

God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son, when he could not revenge

himself any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing,

I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons." .........

"..God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity

of doing it."

 

Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason.

[SkepticOfBible]

Most of the OT commandments are kept, the sacrificial laws are fulfilled however and are not practiced.

 

The OT doesn't make any distinction between the sacrifical laws and other laws.

 

All of the laws need to be kept, including the one with Sabbath.

 

So do you

 

1)Abstain from eating pork

2)Abstain from celebrating pagan festival of Christmas and Easter

3)Abstain from wearing clothes of mixed fabric

 

 

We worship on Sunday. It is true that Saturday is the seventh day, however I believe the early Apostles put on Sunday in honor of the Saviors resurrection.

 

That is far from the truth

 

 

Sabbath (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday(Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day. (See SUNDAY.)

 

Christians adopted a pagan day of worship in their ritual, in exactly the way the OT told them not to.

 

Lev 20:23,26

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nations, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine

 

Jer 10:2-5

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

.

 

Btw the above prohibits celebration of christmas.

 

How are Christians serving God by following and adopting the custom of recognizing a pagan god's(Mithra) birthday as the birthday of Jesus, and the day of worship?

 

The principle of Sabbath observance is more important than the day it is observed.

Not according to god of the jews

Exo 31:15-16

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

 

A man was killed for picking up sticks on the sabbath, and the punishment for breaking it was Death by stoning.

 

So the observe of Sabbath on a sunday is not observance, it is a clear violation

[Who?]

Most of the OT commandments are kept, the sacrificial laws are fulfilled however and are not practiced.

 

The OT doesn't make any distinction between the sacrifical laws and other laws.

 

All of the laws need to be kept, including the one with Sabbath.

 

So do you

 

1)Abstain from eating pork

2)Abstain from celebrating pagan festival of Christmas and Easter

3)Abstain from wearing clothes of mixed fabric

 

You got me! I eat pork, celebrate Christmas and easter, and wear mixed fabric .

 

How can this be? Disagreeing with the law? Simple, the circumstances they (ancient Israel) found themselves in was much different from the world we find ourselves in. One of the bonuses of claiming a god with continued prophets is that commandments can be tailored for his followers according to the circumstance they find themselves in. IE for whatever reason pork is banned and wine is allowed is not told, however In these days I believe that pork is okay (cooked properly and eaten [is eaten a word?] sparingly) and alcohol is not.

 

We worship on Sunday. It is true that Saturday is the seventh day, however I believe the early Apostles put on Sunday in honor of the Saviors resurrection.

 

That is far from the truth

 

 

Sabbath (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday(Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day. (See SUNDAY.)

 

Christians adopted a pagan day of worship in their ritual, in exactly the way the OT told them not to.

 

Lev 20:23,26

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nations, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine

 

Jer 10:2-5

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

.

 

Btw the above prohibits celebration of christmas.

 

How are Christians serving God by following and adopting the custom of recognizing a pagan god's(Mithra) birthday as the birthday of Jesus, and the day of worship?

 

It prohibits Pagan festivals, true. You are correct in gauging the origins of Christmas. However what the holiday is regardless of its origins is good. It causes the less religious to consider the Christ even if for a season. It increases peoples tendency toward giving. Why rebel against that which I have nothing against?

The principle of Sabbath observance is more important than the day it is observed.

Not according to god of the jews

Exo 31:15-16

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

 

A man was killed for picking up sticks on the sabbath, and the punishment for breaking it was Death by stoning.

 

So the observe of Sabbath on a sunday is not observance, it is a clear violation

 

I think you are reading into scripture what is not there. Just because we labor for a different set of six days and keep a different day as the sabbath is not against scripture, so long as that change is made by proper authority. The spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.

[SkepticOfBible]

Simple, the circumstances they (ancient Israel) found themselves in was much different from the world we find ourselves in. One of the bonuses of claiming a god with continued prophets is that commandments can be tailored for his followers according to the circumstance they find themselves in.

So God's moral and absolute Law and code for his worshippers depends on which part of the world the live in and the time they were born?

 

Congratulations. You've reduced God's Law to moral relativism which fundamentalist Christians hate so much.

 

Where does the Hebrew Bible, say that God's Laws aren't in effect in certain countries and at certain times?

 

IE for whatever reason pork is banned and wine is allowed is not told

 

The reason for not eating pork is clearly written (Leviticus 11)

It prohibits Pagan festivals, true. You are correct in gauging the origins of Christmas. However what the holiday is regardless of its origins is good. It causes the less religious to consider the Christ even if for a season. It increases peoples tendency toward giving. Why rebel against that which I have nothing against?

I thought in christianity personal opinion doesn't count. It is what God wants.

 

So here we have god telling you not to adopt Pagan tradition, yet you want to claim that it's ok.

 

Mormons says that it was wrong for a Pagan king to decide at the Council of Nicea, but on the other hand you have no problems with christmas

 

I haven't even started on the Pagan concept that exist in the NT theology.

 

I think you are reading into scripture what is not there. Just because we labor for a different set of six days and keep a different day as the sabbath is not against scripture

Changing the day of worship according to the convience of the Gentiles is a violation of great proportion. You have the verse in front of you

 

One would expect God's law to change the society not the other way round.

 

So long as that change is made by proper authority. The spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.

 

Once again there in nothing in the OT, says that changes would be made. On the contrary it says the complete opposite

 

Deut 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

 

Deut 11:1

Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.

 

Deut 13:4

Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave(hold fast) unto him.

 

The Bible also says the Law of God is perfect(Psa 19:7), and again it mention it will last forever (Psa 119:152,160).

 

If it changes then it means that laws will not loss forever.

 

There is nothing in the hebrew bible which says that in the New Covenant "most of the OT commandments are kept, the sacrificial laws are fulfilled however and are not practiced." (BTW The observance of Sabbath, abstainting from pork, wearing mixed garment hasn't got anything to do with sacrificial system.)

 

Paul contradict the OT god by saying that "law is curse" (Gal 4)

 

On the other hand there is enough scriptural evidence which shows that in the messianic era the laws would be kept to the fullest(even the sacrifical temple)

 

The Hebrew god made it quite clear, that those who will attempt to change the law, are consider wicked, and are not "authorised" by the Hebrew God to do so

 

Isa 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

 

Christian fit the above the description quite well

 

The Hebrew God directly addresses those who mock his Law and those who only pretend that they worship him properly.

 

Psa 50:16-17

But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

 

 

Source:

Christians Who Are Wicked In God's Eyes

[jrmarlin]

The world isn't more perfect because xians polute it with their false propoganda and completely insane rhetoric. Idle banter for Idle Fools!

[Who?]

Simple, the circumstances they (ancient Israel) found themselves in was much different from the world we find ourselves in. One of the bonuses of claiming a god with continued prophets is that commandments can be tailored for his followers according to the circumstance they find themselves in.

So God's moral and absolute Law and code for his worshippers depends on which part of the world the live in and the time they were born?

 

Congratulations. You've reduced God's Law to moral relativism which fundamentalist Christians hate so much.

 

Where does the Hebrew Bible, say that God's Laws aren't in effect in certain countries and at certain times?

 

I'm saying god's laws are in effect as they are given by revelation. IF you'll remember the original law was destroyed as a result of ancient Israel's idol worship. In place Moses was given the carnal commandments and the law of Moses as "a school master to bring us to Christ".

 

It prohibits Pagan festivals, true. You are correct in gauging the origins of Christmas. However what the holiday is regardless of its origins is good. It causes the less religious to consider the Christ even if for a season. It increases peoples tendency toward giving. Why rebel against that which I have nothing against?

I thought in christianity personal opinion doesn't count. It is what God wants.

 

So here we have god telling you not to adopt Pagan tradition, yet you want to claim that it's ok.

 

Mormons says that it was wrong for a Pagan king to decide at the Council of Nicea, but on the other hand you have no problems with christmas

 

I haven't even started on the Pagan concept that exist in the NT theology.

 

You are correct. Authority becomes an important part of Mormonism, when the councils decided on doctrine, they did politically rather than through the appointed means of revelation. With that a lot of error crept into the once simple Gospel.

 

However that does not mean that we must deem everything that came out of there as evil. For example much of what I have read, especially the earlier versions, hold many truths in them.

 

I think you are reading into scripture what is not there. Just because we labor for a different set of six days and keep a different day as the sabbath is not against scripture

Changing the day of worship according to the convience of the Gentiles is a violation of great proportion. You have the verse in front of you

 

One would expect God's law to change the society not the other way round.

 

Why?

 

Don't you think that the Spirit of the Law is more important than the Letter?

 

In an example other Christians probably find a little... different

 

We use water instead of wine as a part of the sacrament, even though the scriptures say that wine was used.

 

We accept this change because of A) It came by revelation. The Lord clearly states the principal is more important than the letter. I believe the change of the Sabbath was made for the same reasons.

 

So long as that change is made by proper authority. The spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.

 

Once again there in nothing in the OT, says that changes would be made. On the contrary it says the complete opposite

 

Deut 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

 

Deut 11:1

Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.

 

Deut 13:4

Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave(hold fast) unto him.

 

The Bible also says the Law of God is perfect(Psa 19:7), and again it mention it will last forever (Psa 119:152,160).

 

If it changes then it means that laws will not loss forever.

 

What then of the Prophet who would come as foretold in Duet 18:15,18?

 

The not adding or subtracting (which didn't necessarily prevent the later apostates from doing) was to preserve the law as it was, not to prevent continued revelation being recieved by the lord.

There is nothing in the hebrew bible which says that in the New Covenant "most of the OT commandments are kept, the sacrificial laws are fulfilled however and are not practiced." (BTW The observance of Sabbath, abstainting from pork, wearing mixed garment hasn't got anything to do with sacrificial system.)

 

Paul contradict the OT god by saying that "law is curse" (Gal 4)

 

On the other hand there is enough scriptural evidence which shows that in the messianic era the laws would be kept to the fullest(even the sacrifical temple)

 

The Hebrew god made it quite clear, that those who will attempt to change the law, are consider wicked, and are not "authorised" by the Hebrew God to do so

 

Isa 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

 

Christian fit the above the description quite well

 

The Hebrew God directly addresses those who mock his Law and those who only pretend that they worship him properly.

 

Psa 50:16-17

But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

 

The law Paul is referring to and the one you are making him out to refer to I believe to be 2 different laws. The people made certain additions in order to make sure the law was kept, these additions became so burdensome that the whole purpose of the law of Moses was lost to a long list of does and do nots. Letter of the law killing the spirit of the law.

 

 

Is the animal blood type of sacrifice the only type of sacrifice?

 

 

 

The question then is who is apostate, who is guilty of "transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." Remember that Israel too, is apostate. Remember the whole scattering of Israel and persecution of Prophets by those who should have been most willing to accept such. Amos 8:11 is telling. Note that this was after Isa. and documents the universal apostasy. If there was no restoration of the Covenant through the Christ and the restoration of that covenant, then we are in that state of Apostasy. Apostates arguing with Apostates.

[Who?]

3. Why does a loving, forgiving, perfect, omnipotent god need a sacrifice of blood for sin? We are suppose to forgive freely, but God didn't. He required blood.

 

Because mercy cannot rob justice. The Savior's sacrifice made it possible for the demands of Justice to be met and mercy fully offered. Additional reading here.. Does that answer your questions?

 

I'm not a deist, but I like the following quote.

 

"I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making

God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son, when he could not revenge

himself any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing,

I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons." .........

"..God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity

of doing it."

 

Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason.

 

Again Mercy cannot rob justice (it wouldnt be just). You cannot dissolve either the law of Justice or the law of Mercy without defeating a large portion of the purpose of life. There had to be a mediator to fulfill the requirements of Justice in order for Mercy to be extended. It is the only way.

[Eponymic]

 

 

Work on fixing the quotes in your posts.

 

It's very difficult to follow when none of them are working correctly.

[Anakin]

There had to be a mediator to fulfill the requirements of Justice in order for Mercy to be extended. It is the only way.

To murder one's own son because of an offense committed by another is not justice.

Not by a long shot. To say we cannot rob justice is apologetic is nature. It is a mental

back flip to justify in one's mind the completely immoral, sick and absolutely unnecessary

actions in the story of Jesus. The only thing necessary to forgive is the will to forgive.

Hypothetical situation: Let's say you have offended me in some way or committed a crime

against me. Then you came to me and sincerely apologized. I then tell you I accept your

apology, however, I must kill my own son to serve as "justice" for the offense.

Is that acceptable? Why or why not? What would you think of a person who would say or

do that? Why would my son have to be a mediator to meet the requirements of justice

in order for me to extend mercy to you in a conflict between you and I?

[SkepticOfBible]

Congratulations. You've reduced God's Law to moral relativism which fundamentalist Christians hate so much.

Where does the Hebrew Bible, say that God's Laws aren't in effect in certain countries and at certain times?

I'm saying god's laws are in effect as they are given by revelation.

 

What is the proof that NT and Book of Mormon is revelation from the same god. The fact they is contradicting the OT is good sign that it doesn't come from the same god.

 

IF you'll remember the original law was destroyed as a result of ancient Israel's idol worship. .

What part of "eternal" and "keep the laws always" do you not understand?

 

You are contradicting the OT god by saying the laws need not be kept, and also you contradict your original statement

 

Most of the OT commandments are kept, the sacrificial laws are fulfilled however and are not practiced.

 

If the law is destroyed, then you don't keep the OT commandments

 

But no, you will keep the law you want and declare them binding, whereas the laws you don't like, you will say that they are "destroyed".

 

The OT laws are not meant to be followed in a "Buffet" style adherance.

 

In place Moses was given the carnal commandments and the law of Moses as "a school master to bring us to Christ"

 

The purpose of God's law through Moses wasn't to "bring the people under christ", it was to represented righteousness which uplifted his people over others.

 

Deut 4:8

And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I(God) set before you this day?

 

Do take time to read this

The New revised Covenant Of Christianity

 

You are correct. Authority becomes an important part of Mormonism, when the councils decided on doctrine, they did politically rather than through the appointed means of revelation. With that a lot of error crept into the once simple Gospel.

However that does not mean that we must deem everything that came out of there as evil. For example much of what I have read, especially the earlier versions, hold many truths in them.

 

I didn't mention anything about authority, but still.......

 

So once again you will cherry pick from the decision of the council. And who gets to decide which part the correct decision and which is not?Ooohhh,.... wait a minute...... It is HS filled christians.

 

God doesn't even come into equation in these councils

.

Please check out my post regarding the whole Nicean creed here (Post 827)

 

Till date the other christian couldn't present me any proof of the authority of these councils?

 

One would expect God's law to change the society not the other way round.

 

Why?

 

Because it proves that christianity(and it's offspring Mormonism) is man-made religion just like anyother. Rules are changed at the whims of men, not God.

 

Second of all it goes completely against the OT, where God made it quite clear to his follower to what not do ie not to pick up heathen customs and laws.

 

Don't you think that the Spirit of the Law is more important than the Letter?

 

Apparently the Hebrew God thinks that the following to the letter of the law is quite important, which is why he ordered a execution of a man who picked up stick on a sabbath.

 

Please show me a verse from the OT which proves your assertion regarding the spirit of the law vs letter of the law.

 

And how does understanding the spirit of the law gives you the license to BREAK it?

 

We accept this change because of A) It came by revelation. The Lord clearly states the principal is more important than the letter. I believe the change of the Sabbath was made for the same reasons.

 

There is no evidence that the NT and the book of Mormon is a continued revelation from the hebrew god.

 

And I gave you the reason behind the change of Sabbath. It is was changed because of the convience of new converts, not God.

 

Show me in the OT where The Lord clearly states the principal is more important than the letter. It is in fact quite the contrary.

 

 

What then of the Prophet who would come as foretold in Duet 18:15,18?

 

That prophecy could have been fulfilled by any of the prophets. Please check this out, if you are interested in the truth.

 

Does Deuteronomy 18 Foretell the Coming of A Special Prophet?

 

If Jesus was prophet, then he was just one of those false prophets which the Hebrew God sent to test his people-the Jews.

 

The question then is who is apostate, who is guilty of "transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." Remember that Israel too, is apostate.

So if people are breaking the traffic signals "Traffic signals" do you remove them?

 

PS: You are only allowed 10 quotes at a time. So start color coding your answers

[Anakin]

Where are you Who? Are you finished?

[Who?]

There had to be a mediator to fulfill the requirements of Justice in order for Mercy to be extended. It is the only way.

To murder one's own son because of an offense committed by another is not justice.

Not by a long shot. To say we cannot rob justice is apologetic is nature. It is a mental

back flip to justify in one's mind the completely immoral, sick and absolutely unnecessary

actions in the story of Jesus. The only thing necessary to forgive is the will to forgive.

Hypothetical situation: Let's say you have offended me in some way or committed a crime

against me. Then you came to me and sincerely apologized. I then tell you I accept your

apology, however, I must kill my own son to serve as "justice" for the offense.

Is that acceptable? Why or why not? What would you think of a person who would say or

do that? Why would my son have to be a mediator to meet the requirements of justice

in order for me to extend mercy to you in a conflict between you and I?

You are right, you can extend mercy freely yet that does not change the consequences of my actions. The consequences of my crime towards you are still in effect until someone, me, you or a third party reconciles those actions.

 

The results of the fall are many, the ones that pertain to this concept are physical and spiritual death. Physical death (the seperation of body and spirit) and Spiritual death (seperation of man from god) cannot be reconciled by you and I, we do not have the ability to reconcile these. One had to come with both the will and ability to do so. That is what the savior is, he did it freely of his own volition to make it so that the consequences of our actions do not have to be eternal.

 

 

Congratulations. You've reduced God's Law to moral relativism which fundamentalist Christians hate so much.

Where does the Hebrew Bible, say that God's Laws aren't in effect in certain countries and at certain times?

I'm saying god's laws are in effect as they are given by revelation.

 

What is the proof that NT and Book of Mormon is revelation from the same god. The fact they is contradicting the OT is good sign that it doesn't come from the same god.

 

IF you'll remember the original law was destroyed as a result of ancient Israel's idol worship. .

What part of "eternal" and "keep the laws always" do you not understand?

 

You are contradicting the OT god by saying the laws need not be kept, and also you contradict your original statement

 

Most of the OT commandments are kept, the sacrificial laws are fulfilled however and are not practiced.

 

If the law is destroyed, then you don't keep the OT commandments

 

But no, you will keep the law you want and declare them binding, whereas the laws you don't like, you will say that they are "destroyed".

 

The OT laws are not meant to be followed in a "Buffet" style adherance.

 

In place Moses was given the carnal commandments and the law of Moses as "a school master to bring us to Christ"

 

The purpose of God's law through Moses wasn't to "bring the people under christ", it was to represented righteousness which uplifted his people over others.

 

Deut 4:8

And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I(God) set before you this day?

 

Do take time to read this

The New revised Covenant Of Christianity

 

You are correct. Authority becomes an important part of Mormonism, when the councils decided on doctrine, they did politically rather than through the appointed means of revelation. With that a lot of error crept into the once simple Gospel.

However that does not mean that we must deem everything that came out of there as evil. For example much of what I have read, especially the earlier versions, hold many truths in them.

 

I didn't mention anything about authority, but still.......

 

So once again you will cherry pick from the decision of the council. And who gets to decide which part the correct decision and which is not?Ooohhh,.... wait a minute...... It is HS filled christians.

 

God doesn't even come into equation in these councils

.

Please check out my post regarding the whole Nicean creed here (Post 827)

 

Till date the other christian couldn't present me any proof of the authority of these councils?

 

One would expect God's law to change the society not the other way round.

 

Why?

 

Because it proves that christianity(and it's offspring Mormonism) is man-made religion just like anyother. Rules are changed at the whims of men, not God.

 

Second of all it goes completely against the OT, where God made it quite clear to his follower to what not do ie not to pick up heathen customs and laws.

 

Don't you think that the Spirit of the Law is more important than the Letter?

 

Apparently the Hebrew God thinks that the following to the letter of the law is quite important, which is why he ordered a execution of a man who picked up stick on a sabbath.

 

Please show me a verse from the OT which proves your assertion regarding the spirit of the law vs letter of the law.

 

And how does understanding the spirit of the law gives you the license to BREAK it?

 

We accept this change because of A) It came by revelation. The Lord clearly states the principal is more important than the letter. I believe the change of the Sabbath was made for the same reasons.

 

There is no evidence that the NT and the book of Mormon is a continued revelation from the hebrew god.

 

And I gave you the reason behind the change of Sabbath. It is was changed because of the convience of new converts, not God.

 

Show me in the OT where The Lord clearly states the principal is more important than the letter. It is in fact quite the contrary.

 

 

What then of the Prophet who would come as foretold in Duet 18:15,18?

 

That prophecy could have been fulfilled by any of the prophets. Please check this out, if you are interested in the truth.

 

Does Deuteronomy 18 Foretell the Coming of A Special Prophet?

 

If Jesus was prophet, then he was just one of those false prophets which the Hebrew God sent to test his people-the Jews.

 

The question then is who is apostate, who is guilty of "transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." Remember that Israel too, is apostate.

So if people are breaking the traffic signals "Traffic signals" do you remove them?

 

PS: You are only allowed 10 quotes at a time. So start color coding your answers

 

 

If people are breaking traffic signals you appoint authorized servants to restore knowledge of the meaning of those lights and to enforce consequences to breaking them. These servants should be listened to even if they say that yellow means you should stop if you have the ability, when it has always been thought it meant close your eyes, gun it, and pray.

 

That is what the Book of Mormon claims to be. The authority and truth which was lost through apostasy, has been restored, complete with prophets just as Moses!. Do you suppose that the centuries without prophets, that great famine, could not result in error? With so many opposing views how could it not?!

 

 

What evidence is there that it comes from the Hebrew god? Its fulfillment of prophecy.

 

Isaiah 29 contains a prophecy of a people who cried from the dust. A book which would be brought to the learned and the learned response would be I cannot read a sealed book. A book in response to the people who "draw nigh with their lips, but whose hearts are far from him". The book of Mormon is that Book! This is not bad news, it is good! We have prophets again! They understand what the traffic lights mean! Are we to look to the unauthorized, who recognize a loss of prophets, who recognize this loss of communication from the author of those laws for understanding of those laws? How could we? Do not treat Mormonisms claims so lightly.

 

 

I realize I did not answer you point by point, but if the book of mormon is what it claims to be, than your concerns are answered, right?

 

 

 

oy, I guess quoting just is not for me. Anakin and Skeptic my responses to both your boths are found at the end of your quoted posts. Sorry for my forum illiteracy.

[NotBlinded]

The results of the fall are many, the ones that pertain to this concept are physical and spiritual death. Physical death (the seperation of body and spirit) and Spiritual death (seperation of man from god) cannot be reconciled by you and I, we do not have the ability to reconcile these. One had to come with both the will and ability to do so. That is what the savior is, he did it freely of his own volition to make it so that the consequences of our actions do not have to be eternal.

His sacrifice was to make people aware that the ability and will to do so comes from within themselves as the Christ-nature/or divine spark. This is not a force that only Jesus had...everyone has this force and Jesus addresses this often. When he said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" he was speaking about their separation from god as an internal force of ego vs divine nature (double-minded).

 

The divine nature is always there, it is just obscured by thoughts and desires of the ego.

 

Don't make me have to go verse hunting!

[Anakin]

You are right, you can extend mercy freely yet that does not change the consequences of my actions. The consequences of my crime towards you are still in effect until someone, me, you or a third party reconciles those actions.

If I forgive you and extend mercy freely to you then there are no consequences. If I, being the

one whom the offense was against, decide to forgive you and that satisfied me then it's

finished. There is no need for third party involvement. If I'm not satisified then I would seek

other means of "justice". Even that does not require third party involvement.

 

Is it acceptable to murder a third party so that I can forgive you? Going back to my question above;

Would it be acceptable for me to murder my son to settle a dispute between you and I?

Why or why not? What would you think of a person who would do that? I'm not interested

in a bible response. I'm asking you as a human with a heart. Is it acceptable or not?

[Who?]

You are right, you can extend mercy freely yet that does not change the consequences of my actions. The consequences of my crime towards you are still in effect until someone, me, you or a third party reconciles those actions.

If I forgive you and extend mercy freely to you then there are no consequences. If I, being the

one whom the offense was against, decide to forgive you and that satisfied me then it's

finished. There is no need for third party involvement. If I'm not satisified then I would seek

other means of "justice". Even that does not require third party involvement.

 

Is it acceptable to murder a third party so that I can forgive you? Going back to my question above;

Would it be acceptable for me to murder my son to settle a dispute between you and I?

Why or why not? What would you think of a person who would do that? I'm not interested

in a bible response. I'm asking you as a human with a heart. Is it acceptable or not?

 

Um the consequences are still in effect. Lets say I broke a window. Your forgiving me does not make the window whole. What if I could in no way of myself fix the window. It would have to remain broken until someone with greater craftsmanship took it upon themselves to right the consequences of my actions.

 

As for you question, no it would not. Because murdering your son is against his will, and does not fix the consequences brought about by the broken window. However your son can volunteer to fix the window, allowing the consequences and necessary work to remit those consequences fall on him rather than the inadequate me. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

(I probably won't be able to post again for a while, but I will try to clarify further if you need further clarification.)

[NotBlinded]

Um the consequences are still in effect. Lets say I broke a window. Your forgiving me does not make the window whole. What if I could in no way of myself fix the window. It would have to remain broken until someone with greater craftsmanship took it upon themselves to right the consequences of my actions.

Does the craftsman work for free? He can show you a way to fix it yourself.

 

I probably already know your answer. You will tell me that his sacrifice was for all time and that he does it for free...it's a sacrifice. Then, do you sit there and watch as the craftsman repairs the window you broke or do you get up and do it because the craftsman has showed you how to make the repair? Surely you are not saying the former. Where is your responsibility to repair the harm you did? Can you forgive yourself?

[Anakin]

Um the consequences are still in effect. Lets say I broke a window. Your forgiving me does not make the window whole. What if I could in no way of myself fix the window. It would have to remain broken until someone with greater craftsmanship took it upon themselves to right the consequences of my actions.

 

As for you question, no it would not. Because murdering your son is against his will, and does not fix the consequences brought about by the broken window. However your son can volunteer to fix the window, allowing the consequences and necessary work to remit those consequences fall on him rather than the inadequate me. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

(I probably won't be able to post again for a while, but I will try to clarify further if you need further clarification.)

If I forgive you there are no consequences still in effect. I either forgive you or I don't.

If I forgive you, then whether my window is whole or not is irrelevant. If I am satisfied

with your apology then nothing further is required of you. If I hire a craftsman to fix it

he's not righting your wrong. Or if my son volunteers to fix it, which by the way is very

different than murdering him, he's not righting your wrong either. They would be third

parties and have nothing to do with the conflict between you and I. In my opinion

once it has gotten to the point of someone fixing my window, their not "righting" anything.

The wrong was already been delt with. By the way, a craftsman or my son fixing the window is not what I would consider taking on the consequences of your actions. Using the bible god's

standards, in order for the craftsman or my son to take on the consequence of your actions

they would have to be put to death. At the very least, I would have to go to the magistrate

and get a warrant for property damage against the third party (not you) and they would go

to jail on your behalf. That is not justice. The magistrate would think I was nuts and wouldn't

issue the warrant anyway. I understand what you're saying. But the mere fixing of a broken

window is trivial, and has nothing to do with the murder of a third party in order to

forgive.

So many thoughts in my mind. I'm not sure how well I'm communicating them here.

 

Are you saying that if my son was willing to be murdered, then my killing him to settle our

dispute would be OK? And I agree the murder of my son would not fix the consequences

of the offense. Of course neither would the murder of the son of god fix the consequences

of a dispute between god and I.

[NotBlinded]

By the way, a craftsman or my son fixing the window is not what I would consider taking on the consequences of your actions.

You make perfect sense.

[Anakin]

Thanks NBBTL.

 

Who?

I think maybe I should put this window breaking example into a complete bible god

scenario.

I have complete control over the whole situation from start to finish. It was all part of

my plan. I even gave you the baseball. I then engineered everything so that you

would throw the ball through my window. It was all my idea afterall. You fell for it

and broke my window. Eventhough I am the root cause, you feel bad about it

and apologize to me. Normally that would be good enough but I'm after blood.

So when the craftsman (or my son) shows up to fix the window I murder him.

I now consider your debt to me paid. A debt you really didn't owe because I

arranged for the whole thing to take place according to my design.

Is this justice?

[Who?]

Thanks NBBTL.

 

Who?

I think maybe I should put this window breaking example into a complete bible god

scenario.

I have complete control over the whole situation from start to finish. It was all part of

my plan. I even gave you the baseball. I then engineered everything so that you

would throw the ball through my window. It was all my idea afterall. You fell for it

and broke my window. Eventhough I am the root cause, you feel bad about it

and apologize to me. Normally that would be good enough but I'm after blood.

So when the craftsman (or my son) shows up to fix the window I murder him.

I now consider your debt to me paid. A debt you really didn't owe because I

arranged for the whole thing to take place according to my design.

Is this justice?

 

 

You seem to be describing predistination, that is different from foreordination. Predistination is rightly unjust.

 

 

Isn't the broken window still relevant though, it was the direct consequence of my actions. Or in a biblical sense, because thou hast eaten the fruit thou shalt surely die. Unless someone with the ability to over come that death (which was twofold Physical and spiritual) forgiveness alone is not enough to right the consequences. Seeing as neither you or I or anyone else I am aware of can correct these consequences we are doomed to die physically and be forever spiritually dead (the soul is eternal, it cannot be destroyed). Thus someone with the ability and the willingness had to come forth to overcome these consequences.

 

Does that make sense?

[Skankboy]

You seem to be describing predistination, that is different from foreordination. Predistination is rightly unjust.

 

LOL... you do know these are synonyms right?

 

Dictionary.com:

 

pre•des•ti•na•tion P Pronunciation Key (pr -d s t -n sh n)

n.

1. The act of predestining or the condition of being predestined.

2. Theology.

a. The doctrine that God has foreordained all things, especially that God has elected certain souls to eternal salvation.

b. The divine decree foreordaining all souls to either salvation or damnation.

c. The act of God foreordaining all things gone before and to come.

3. Destiny; fate.

 

 

fore•or•dain P Pronunciation Key (fôr ôr-d n , f r -)

tr.v. fore•or•dained, fore•or•dain•ing, fore•or•dains

To determine or appoint beforehand; predestine.

 

Soooo... exactly what do YOU think they mean?

[Anakin]

Thanks NBBTL.

 

Who?

I think maybe I should put this window breaking example into a complete bible god

scenario.

I have complete control over the whole situation from start to finish. It was all part of

my plan. I even gave you the baseball. I then engineered everything so that you

would throw the ball through my window. It was all my idea afterall. You fell for it

and broke my window. Eventhough I am the root cause, you feel bad about it

and apologize to me. Normally that would be good enough but I'm after blood.

So when the craftsman (or my son) shows up to fix the window I murder him.

I now consider your debt to me paid. A debt you really didn't owe because I

arranged for the whole thing to take place according to my design.

Is this justice?

 

 

You seem to be describing predistination, that is different from foreordination. Predistination is rightly unjust.

 

 

Isn't the broken window still relevant though, it was the direct consequence of my actions. Or in a biblical sense, because thou hast eaten the fruit thou shalt surely die. Unless someone with the ability to over come that death (which was twofold Physical and spiritual) forgiveness alone is not enough to right the consequences. Seeing as neither you or I or anyone else I am aware of can correct these consequences we are doomed to die physically and be forever spiritually dead (the soul is eternal, it cannot be destroyed). Thus someone with the ability and the willingness had to come forth to overcome these consequences.

 

Does that make sense?

Your god does predestine so I guess by your standard god is unjust.

 

Forgive: to give up resentment against or the desire to punish; pardon(an offense or offender)

Webster's New World Dictionary.

 

The window is not a direct consequence of your actions. A consequence of your actions is something

that directly effects you the offender. If I obtain a warrant or make you pay for the window

that is a direct consequence of your actions. In other words you the offender would be paying

the consequences for your actions. If I forgive you I give up the desire to punish you. I have

pardoned the offense and offender. Being forgiven, nothing else is required of you. You are

off the hook. There are no longer consequences. The offense has been delt with. I, the victim,

am satisified. So at point the window is no longer relevant. And all that was necessary to forgive

you was simply my will to forgive. I'm just a human and can do that. Surely an omnipotent

god can do that too. Is god omnipotent?

 

Earlier you said that it would not be acceptable to murder my son because it would be against

my son's will and would not fix the consequences. I agree it wouldn't fix anything.

But if my son was willing to die so I would forgive you, would that make his murder OK?