| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| contrarian wrote: |
blase:
Your incremental (circular?) way of broadening partly or unasked questions is sophmoric, but fun. A liberal arts education seems to promote that.
The link between Abraham and Christ is direct. God, who knew everything, even from the beginning, planned it that way. Abraham was chosen, after this and other tests of faith, to be the first of the line that became the "chosen people". They children of Israel, now that part called the Jews are just that.
Brutality you ask? Such has always been with us and will continue to be with us until the good and evil are sorted out. Even the Son of God, Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace but the sword."
Islam is simply a Satanic imposition upon the world. Its excesses and more fanatical followers need to be stopped. In my opininion the hegemony of the west (mainly the US) must be maintained. Obama is NOT part of that. |
You could substitute Christianity for Islam in the above paragraph for most of the last 2000 years and there would be no marked difference between the two. What is different was the west had the enlightenment, which was the breaking away from religious dogma and science showing the fallacies of the church.
You call yourself a Christian, but what you don't seem to realize is that most of your morality comes not from the bible, but from societies continued evolution from barbaric murderous tribes to civilized, rational, fair-minded people. Christianity had nothing to do with that, period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will start with this.
The Crusades were a counter attack from the Islamic conquest of Christian lands.
Europe did have an enlightenment. The Islamic world did not. That is a big difference.
My doctrinal position is that Christianity has fallen into apostacy about 100 years after Christs death. It remained that way until it was Restored through Joseph Smith in 1830.
That said, I repeat that even the apostate Christianity was superior the Islam in every conceivable way.
You are now getting repitative and boring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will reply with this.
You haven't answered the hardest question of all. How do you reconcile all of the things in the old (and new) testament that go against all morality in the modern age? Is your only answer Joseph Smith? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
You have my answer. Your reading comprehension is lacking.
'nuff said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
You have my answer. Your reading comprehension is lacking.
'nuff said. |
Your tone is very defensive. I would think an LDS person such as yourself wouldn't be quite so dismissive of a question regarding what your faith is mostly built on (along with the BOM). It seems like a tough question though, so I understand your difficulty in answering it in laymans terms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| contrarian wrote: |
You have my answer. Your reading comprehension is lacking.
'nuff said. |
Your tone is very defensive. I would think an LDS person such as yourself wouldn't be quite so dismissive of a question regarding what your faith is mostly built on (along with the BOM). It seems like a tough question though, so I understand your difficulty in answering it in laymans terms. |
I don't think he can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My answer is not defensive in the least. Here is the answer I gave>
"My doctrinal position is that Christianity has fallen into apostacy about 100 years after Christs death. It remained that way until it was Restored through Joseph Smith in 1830. "
That said, I repeat that even the apostate Christianity was superior the Islam in every conceivable way."
It is terse but then blase didn't really want any real answer but a debate on terms set by him. That is not my way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
My answer is not defensive in the least. Here is the answer I gave>
"My doctrinal position is that Christianity has fallen into apostacy about 100 years after Christs death. It remained that way until it was Restored through Joseph Smith in 1830. "
That said, I repeat that even the apostate Christianity was superior the Islam in every conceivable way."
It is terse but then blase didn't really want any real answer but a debate on terms set by him. That is not my way. |
If the new testament was compiled 400 AD, and you believe Christianity fell into apostocy in 100 AD, then are you saying that the bible is not valid? IMO, you have answered what you believe to be the timeline for the establishment of Christianity and then of Mormonism, but you haven't not answered the question about the bible. I will leave it at that if you feel you have indeed answered the question, but I don't see your answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
AS I said asked and ansered. The Nicean creed was about 370 Ad and it was totally eroneous. So the dates are about right.
Our doctrine is the GOD and His SON are totallly separate persons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
AS I said asked and ansered. The Nicean creed was about 370 Ad and it was totally eroneous. So the dates are about right.
Our doctrine is the GOD and His SON are totallly separate persons. |
God is a person? It's refreshing to hear you refer to Jesus as a person, otherwise you get into the whole "3 gods as one" confusion. But I thought Christianity had strayed away from the idea of a man in the sky with a beard etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
blase:
The LDS have always taught of God and Christ as Father and Son, but as separate individuals. Even before the formal church organization in 1830. That is one reason the evangelical don't like us. The other is our rejection of salvation by faith alone.
I have no answer on the beard(s).
Socially we tend to be much like the Jews, our young people serve 2 year missions between 19 and 23. Then go to college, with a tendency to the professional faculities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
