jack@hp-dcd.UUCP (06/02/83)
#R:altos86:0:hp-dcd:8300004:37777777600:461
hp-dcd!jack May 31 05:56:00 1983
"If you don't belive in God, then PLEASE don't tell us that he can't
be doing anything cause he doesn't exist (If you don't have any interest in religion, why not unsubscribe?)."
I agree, non-believers should not respond to that note. However:
Just because we don't believe in God doesn't mean we don't have any interest
in religion. It just means that we don't agree with *you*.
-Jack Applin IV
An agnostic interested in religionjack@hp-dcd.UUCP (06/05/83)
#R:utastro:0:hp-dcd:8300005:37777777600:81 hp-dcd!jack Jun 3 10:28:00 1983 I thought Jesus was just the Son, not the general name for the entire trinity...
pat@avsdS.UUCP (06/08/83)
I am a reader not a debater; I joined this net to learn a little bit about other religions. Here and there tidbits come through. In the meantime, I am entertained by the debates. My enquiry now is prompted by a small statement I read in an article a little while back. Someone stated that Jews practiced baptism by immersion. I was not aware of this before. I would like to know when a person is baptised and by what authority and for what purpose. I know that most Christian religions baptize by the authority of the Holy Trinity. Thanks in advance for any help. pjj
tim@unc.UUCP (06/10/83)
"So if someone wants to give the credit to some
god, well, why not? That's as good a description
as any, and it is an honest and faithful state-
ment of the experience."
It is not as good a description as any. It's a self-
delusion. The implication is that religion is a harmless
thing, but I don't think it is. People kill other people
(Moslems & Jews, Christians & Heathens) in the name of
religion. It causes Falwells and Ayetollahs (sp?) and
Crusades.
Is it a self-delusion to say that you have thoughts? After all,
what is really happening is that neuro-transmitter emission pat-
terns at synaptic receptors in your central nervous system are
changing. The use of the term "god" does not imply some vast
universe-model in which these odd gaseous humanoids have always
existed and shaped the course of history in unprovable ways. It
could equally as well be a CNS phenomenon as a pre-existent entity.
Knee-jerk atheism, the sort where the person not only doesn't
want to have religious experience, but is terribly offended when
someone else claims to, is just another brand of dogmatism and
intolerance. (Of course, not all atheists are this type.)
As to your final point, of course religion is not harmless. Nei-
ther is love. Nothing strong is harmless, or ever can be. Does
that mean we should forego everything excellent, simply because
it has a potential for abuse?
Tim Maroneylevy@princeton.UUCP (06/12/83)
The Jews do not practice baptism. You may have heard that (certain sects of)
Jews around the time of Christ used to practice baptism, and this is one
possible source for the Christian tradition of baptism.
-- Silvio Levy hutch@dadla-b.UUCP (06/14/83)
jack at hp-dcd gives us a nice but extremely oversimplistic view of religion, and a simple counter is possible. So, religion gives us Ayatollahs and Fallwells and Crusades, eh? In that case, what has anti-religion given us? The "cultural revolution" in China, where millions were killed for being educated; Hitler and his cronies, and the systematic suppression of Jews and Christians in the USSR. On the other hand, religion obviously has not ever inspired anything positive in human history, right? It had nothing to do with Mohandas Gandhi, or with Mother Teresa, or with Saint Francis of Asissi. Right. Sure. And while we are on the subject of self-delusion, it looks to me as if the oversimplistic and arrogant views that claim that there is unequivocally NO deity, NO validity to personal experience, is a fairly deluded one. Hutch
mam@rabbit.UUCP (06/15/83)
How can you say that what someone believes is a self-delusion? It isn't to them. I resent the fact that you are saying that I am deluding myself because I am a Christian. Also, I don't kill people who don't believe what I do. Sure, some people do. But people kill each other for other just as illegitimate reasons such as race. Another thing. While I don't approve of Ayahtollahs(?) or Falwells or Moons, I don't believe in Reagan either. No one said that you had to listen to or believe any of these people, and there are avenues of recourse if any of these people harm you.
rand@orstcs.UUCP (07/25/83)
#R:ihuxi:-41300:orstcs:14800001:37777777600:207 orstcs!rand Jun 2 07:26:00 1983 It is your *doctrine* which says that Jesus IS the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Not all of Christianity would agree with that, a careful study of the Bible could reveal a different *doctrine*. rand@orstcs
andree@uokvax.UUCP (11/15/83)
#R:drux3:-85700:uokvax:8300015:000:647 uokvax!andree Nov 13 00:44:00 1983 Yes, evolution is taught as if it were a fact instead of a hypotheses. But everything we know (outside of the field of mathematics) is a hypotheses in which we have more or less faith. Nowdays, nearly everyone believes that Newton knew what he was talking about when it comes to motion and that the earth is round because we have no counterexamples for them; there is a small minority who think Einstein was wrong; phycists are split over the Bell hypotheses. Given this, I will object strenously to evolution being taught as a hypotheses if the equally valid (or equally invalid) theory that the earth orbits the sun is taught as a fact! <mike
andree@uokvax.UUCP (11/27/83)
#R:unc:-599000:uokvax:8300002:37777777600:1411
uokvax!andree Oct 30 13:35:00 1983
I feel that I must respond to Paul's long (LOOONG) letter, even though there
is a fair chance that he won't see it. So as to prevent the reoccurrence of
long, multi-topic letters, I am breaking the reply up by subject.
The first subject I'd like to look at is the general topic of the entire
letter. It seems that Paul is complaining about the `persecution' of
Christians, in that they can't promulgate their views in all the manners
they would wish. The first thing this brings to my mind is a paraphrase
from L. Sprague DeCamp's {\i Lest Darkness Fall:} `Religious freedom
includes the right to persecute those not of our religion.' This may seem
silly, but Christians are no more restricted in their ability to spread
their views than any other religion.
Well, they have almost as much freedom as any other religion; there is some
backlash since they have been the `privileged majority' for most of the
history of the western world. This arises from the same sillyness that
led to `affirmative action,' and is just as objectionable. However,
Christians feel this restraint far more than other religions, as they
haven't had to suffer from it until recently.
So, to make Christians happy, let us have prayer every morning in class.
However, to maintain fairness, let's have one prayer for each religion
represented in the class. Of course, atheists can have a `to whom it
may concern' prayer. :-)
<mikekechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (01/31/84)
#R:utcsrgv:-306500:ecn-ee:18600001:000:318 ecn-ee!kechkayl Jan 23 23:52:00 1984 [bug food] To repeat a tired argument to those who won't learn, if there is enough food for every human being on this planet, soon there will be many, many, MANY, more humans. I submit for your scrutiny the startling idea that we CANNOT feed an infinite number of people! Thomas Ruschak ecn-ee!kechkayl
dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (02/03/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-69700:iuvax:1700001:37777777600:1493 iuvax!dsaker Feb 2 16:35:00 1984 In the main I heartily agree with Laura Creighton's reply. However, there are a few points I would like to make. Proving the existence of a historical Jesus is only the first step ( and an extremely tiny one ) towards proving Christianity's claims as to his divine status. As for the morally repugnant nature of Christianity, RIGHT ON. When you view the suffering (mental and physical) in the world , it is hard to understand how anyone could regard favourably the supposed Originator of this state of affairs. Sure, if we could only be reassured that in the end all would be compensated for, that we would all meet in Heaven smiling joyously, then we could start to talk of His divine love. But we cannot begin to imagine how such compensation could be, and the grim tales in the Bible inspire us with little hope. The "not my will but Thy will be done" attitude makes me sick. How anyone who is human could even attempt to cast aside his own judgements, loves and values, I do not understand. I am giving a purely personal response here, but it seems to me a moral obligation to look out at the world, to feel the aching need of an Answer, to live with that distress, and never to betray one's own loves and values to avoid that distress. Let us affirm what we value and hold dear; let us feel our needs and make our demands for justice; and never, never betray these things in order to ease our days or to assuage the wrath of some outraged deity. Daryel Akerlind iuvax!dsaker
dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (02/03/84)
#R:unc:-648300:iuvax:1700003:37777777600:1816
iuvax!dsaker Feb 2 17:55:00 1984
Alan,
There are a few problems with your HOPED FOR truths:
If the experiences of this life are as nothing in the long run, then
how can the lessons learnt in this life themselves be other than as nothing.
Can you really embrace the idea that all of your thoughts, hopes, dreams,
loves, longings and aspirations should eventually come to be as nothing
- even to you? Remember your mother fussing around you some time when
you were young and ill (it was years later that you realised how tired she
must have been that night)? Remember your first heavy infatuation and how
your heart was broken? Remember your child and the pang of love and pain you
felt at its vulnerability? Can you really embrace the idea that these things
(and countless other tendernesses) will come to seem as nothing?
To my mind, the loss of these things into the blackness of time is one
of the (if not THE) hardest things to bear in life. The failure of my memory
in regard to such things is an additional horror.
What I feel the need for is something to give "meaning" (oh vague word)
to human passions and values - not the promise of their "meaninglessness".
As for spiritual growth as the reward for suffering, does your spiritual
growth warrant the tears of even one small child? (This is Dmitri
Karamazov's argument.) And it is hard to see just what lesson a 3 months old
child screaming with meningitis is learning.
The problem is that we cannot imagine any adequate compensation for the
pain of this world, we cannot envisage a SOLUTION to the PROBLEM -
other than to be hit on the head until our sense of distress dissolves.
We are stuck longing for something which we cannot ever imagine having.
(By the way, Mahler's "Resurrection" is a magnificent evocation of
that longing.)
Daryel Akerlind
iuvax!dsakerdsaker@iuvax.UUCP (02/03/84)
#R:hou3c:-16900:iuvax:1700004:37777777600:246 iuvax!dsaker Feb 2 18:04:00 1984 Reply to Ed Hall: When I consider the world as a many-faceted whole, it does not seem more harmonious. When I consider the world as a many-faceted whole, I feel bewildered (and, on my sensitive days, frightened). Daryel Akerlind iuvax!dsaker
dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (02/03/84)
#R:hou3c:-16900:iuvax:1700005:000:549 iuvax!dsaker Feb 2 18:18:00 1984 Reply to greg (gds): Hey come on now! Take a walk through a hospital and notice the many babies whose suffering is most certainly not being inflicted on them by "man". Indeed, every human being associated with those babies is being wiped out by the sight of their pain, is trying to alleviate their pain, or is just being plain neutral. Such cases of suffering fall squarely on god's shoulders. By the way, if people are to be blamed for allowing suffering, shouldn't god also be blamed for doing the same thing? Daryel Akerlind iuvax!dsaker
carey@seismo.UUCP (Marie Carey) (02/08/84)
In reponse to Daryel Akerlind who states: > "Take a walk through a hospital and notice the many babies whose > suffering is most certainly not being inflicted on them by "man"... > "Such cases of suffering fall squarely on god's shoulders". > "By the way, if people are to be blamed for allowing suffering, > shouldn't god also be blamed for doing the same thing?" Why lay it all on either man's or God's shoulders? I was raised a Catholic and have always believed that there was some "evil presence" in the world that does just what you were describing as "the suffering of the babies". I have never blamed any of the suffering of anyone or anything on God. The God I have faith in (and it is just that by the way, faith. I can't help laugh at all these people who give as an argument that they can't believe in a God that no one can "prove as fact" exists) is a warm and loving God and would never make babies suffer. Now the "evil presence" (Satan in some religions) that I was talking about may be a true "presence" that actually makes bad things happen in the world. Just like God made the good things happen; like the creation of Earth in seven days or miracles that have been performed on people. There are just so many unexplained events, both good and evil that occur. Anyway, this is just my personal belief (as simple-minded as it sounds) and I am not trying to impose it on anyone. Just asking a question, then giving some personal views, so please no flames. M. Carey P.S. I do have another question though and it is: Why do I never see the word Satan in this newsgroup and why does everyone blame God for bad things that happen, but I never see anyone blame Satan for the bad things that happen? Is this a totally dumb question or does it deserve an answer even? Thanks to anyone who cares to answer it, in advance.
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (02/09/84)
>> Why do I never see the word Satan in this newsgroup and why does >> everyone blame God for bad things that happen, but I never see anyone >> blame Satan for the bad things that happen? Is this a totally dumb >> question or does it deserve an answer even? Thanks to anyone who cares >> to answer it, in advance. Blaming things on Satan does not solve the logical problem that Tim Maroney and others have raised. If God is omnipotent, and allows Satan to exist, then the blame rests on God's shoulders for not removing Satan from the scene. If God is not omnipotent, then he isn't the God that those who are defending Him claim He is. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (02/09/84)
As for the morally repugnant nature of Christianity, RIGHT ON. When you view the suffering (mental and physical) in the world , it is hard to understand how anyone could regard favourably the supposed Originator of this state of affairs. Seems to me that mankind is responsible for this state of affairs. It wasn't Jehova-out-of-the-clouds that brought us nuclear war, traffic accidents and abortion... on the other hand, it was God who gave us desease and often painfull death. The number of horrors devised by the hand of man far outnumber those supoosedly devised by the hand of God. As for the morally repugnant nature of Christianity, I won't argue this point except to say that the Bible SHOULD be taken with a grain of salt. We have no proof that any of the attrocities depicted, were indeed committed by God. Sure, if we could only be reassured that in the end all would be compensated for, that we would all meet in Heaven smiling joyously, then we could start to talk of His divine love. But we cannot begin to imagine how such compensation could be, and the grim tales in the Bible inspire us with little hope. Agreed. Glad to see that you were perceptive enough to say, "We cannot percieve..." rather than make absolute declarations. The "not my will but Thy will be done" attitude makes me sick. How anyone who is human could even attempt to cast aside his own judgements, loves and values, I do not understand. I submit that such people are not fully human. People are always looking for a God to take away their troubles, fears, or solve their deepest inquires... this God takes many forms. Gotta go. -- - Speaker speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (02/10/84)
But if the "warm and loving God" you believe in is all-powerful, why did He/She/It allow evil to exist (even flourish) in the world? Most of the objections to believing in a God that I've read on the net were based on "the problem of evil" and not on an inability to prove, factually or otherwise, God's existence. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
scc@mgweed.UUCP (Steve Collins) (02/20/84)
There was a comment on the net that everyone must of missed!! Satin is the one that brings on sickness, misery, and ect.. God brings good things.... There are several scriptures in the Bible relating this. If you would like the verses let me know....
scc@mgweed.UUCP (Steve Collins) (02/20/84)
God gave you a free will. You have the freedom to fight against the powers of satin if you wish. Its all in the BOOK.
lied@ihlts.UUCP (Bob Lied) (02/20/84)
> God gave you a free will. You have the freedom > to fight against the powers of satin if you wish. > Its all in the BOOK. And if you read carefully, you will also find the secret to defeat the powers of cotton, nylon, and polyester. It's all in the BOOK.
crigney@uok.UUCP (02/23/84)
#R:umcp-cs:-504200:uok:7300002:37777777600:318 uok!crigney Feb 22 05:34:00 1984 /***** uok:net.religion / ccieng2!kfk / 8:24 pm Feb 13, 1984 */ . . . He had the form of a man, yes; but he did not behave as a man would on very many occasions. . . . /* ---------- */ Is this not Hitler? Certainly very few men have acted in such a way. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!uok!crigney ..!duke!uok!crigney
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/29/84)
I don't have much to say in response to that, except you might as well
blame God for causing you to trip and break your leg, or causing your
car to stall.
--
By the power of Grayskull!
Greg-bo, Prince of Eternia, Defender of the Secrets of Castle Grayskull
{decvax!genrad, eagle!mit-vax, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds (UUCP)
Gds@XX (ARPA)emjej@uokvax.UUCP (03/05/84)
#R:cbscc:-166900:uokvax:8300042:000:815 uokvax!emjej Mar 1 12:25:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.religion / mgweed!scc / 5:58 pm Feb 20, 1984 */ There was a comment on the net that everyone must of missed!! Satin is the one that brings on sickness, misery, and ect.. God brings good things.... There are several scriptures in the Bible relating this. If you would like the verses let me know.... /* ---------- */ I don't think I've ever seen the prolem of evil related to cloth before (perhaps I should avoid satin curtains/marriages (aren't wedding gowns often made of satin?) henceforth... :-) Anyway...God created Satan, and being both omnipotent and omniscient, he was (if tense has any meaning in this context) aware of the suffering Satan would cause and yet has not done anything about it, or at least not about all of it, so why is not God responsible for evil? James Jones
mr@isrnix.UUCP (Michael Regoli) (04/28/84)
There is no God.
kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (05/01/84)
#R:isrnix:-15700:ecn-ee:18600019:000:18 ecn-ee!kechkayl May 1 03:17:00 1984 There is no YOU
crm@duke.UUCP (Charles R. Martin) (05/04/84)
"There is no YOU" Somebody is slipping off into Buddhism here... If the Rabbi hits you in the nose, who feels the pain?
karl@hpfloat.UUCP (karl) (01/08/85)
> As we mortal humans can create increasingly sound explanations for the > workings of the universe without having to appeal to the existence of a > God for those sound explanations, then doesn't God (even if God exists!) > become increasingly not necessary? > What is the use of a God which is not necessary? Why should one > believe in an unnecessary God? Why should one worship an > unnecessary God? > Steve Nelson There are some that believe the "Glory of God is Intelligence". In fact many honest scientists are led by their discovery of sound explanations for the workings of the universe to a reverence/belief in God who would order our universe as it is. Your question implies that the only reason for worship of God is an appeal to "sound explanations" of the universe. God's purpose involves much more than physical phenomena. A brief list includes but is not limited to God endows life and gives purpose to life... The above gives some response to your first question and if accepted will make your other questions unnecessary. Karl Black
karl@hpfloat.UUCP (karl) (02/11/85)
If a Christian is defined to be someone who conscientiously trys to follow Christ (implied belief in same) then does it matter which religion (if any) they practise? Karl Black
karl@hpfloat.UUCP (karl) (03/07/85)
Holly, You seem to have some strong feelings on the Mormons, why the interest? Just Curious... I noticed you didn't give any references for the "quotes" you gave?
holly@hpfcly.UUCP (holly) (03/16/85)
Anyone interested in reading a book on Mormon doctrine buy the book the
"The Godmakers" and then decide for yourselves if the Mormon Church is
built on the Word of God or whatever. If found it to be a book not to
be missed - a real eye-opener!!! To support this book, get your hands
on some of their own books and compare.
holly@hpfcly.UUCP (holly) (03/17/85)
Read the book "The Godmakers" and then decide for yourself. It's a real eye-opener into the foundation of the Mormon doctrine.
holly@hpfcly.UUCP (holly) (03/17/85)
As of late, I have been doing an awful lot of reading about the Mormon church and their doctrine; both pro and con. As far as the Mormon's believing that all people are going to heaven IS WRONG! Only if you are Mormon will you achieve the different levels of heaven. Joseph Fielding Smith once quoted what Brigham Young once said, "...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith". Right there the Mormons are saying unless we are Mormon we will not enter Heaven. Another quote from Brigham Young, "Every spirit that confesses that Joseph Smith is a Prophet, that he lived and died a Prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true, is of God, and every spirit that does not is of anti-Christ". I think it's about time that the Mormons start taking a deeper look into their religion. They believe what they are told to believe. From what I've been reading, there is a lot that MOST of them and their fellow church-goers don't even know about their own church. I'm much less than convinced that the Mormon is the true church. Joseph Smith claimed to do what Christ failed to do and that is establish His church. I find that blasphemous! I think before you start condemning me to eternal damnation you better start raking through the piles of rubble in your own backyards for some HONEST answers, not quotes from the Living Authority. Try the Bible!!!!!!!
holly@hpfcly.UUCP (holly) (03/17/85)
I have just read all of the previous responses. You all sound like very
intelligent people, so why don't you find out the facts before you comment.
The Mormon doctrine is VERY different from Christian doctrine. I think
it is worth everyone's time and effort to learn more about their doctrine.
Here are some items you might research.
1. Blood atonement. (I am not talking about the blood of Jesus.)
2. Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers.
3. God is an immortal physical man of flesh and bone. He is also eternally
married.
4. They only way a woman can get into the Celestial Kingdom is if her
earthly husband calls her name from beyond the grave. The name he uses
is given to her in the Temple marriage. If he does not call her secret
name, she is out of luck.
5. Their spiritual origin (before their physical birth on earth).
6. The head of the church is their Prophet, Revelator and Seer and anything
he says supercedes anything previously written or spoken (including the
Bible.)
7. The secret oaths, temple ceremonies, etc.
8. The marriage and baptism of the dead.
9. The temptation by Satan in the Garden of Eden to Eve was a blessing in
disguise.
10. The Mormon "Zion" is in Jackson County, MO. where Joseph Smith declared
the Garden of Eden was located. The second coming of Christ will be in
Independence, MO. despite the fact that the Bible says He will come back
to the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem....that Zion IS Jerusalem.
11. Joseph Smith taught that there were people living on the moon. People
6 feet tall, dressed like Quakers and lived a thousand years. Brigham
Young went as far as to say that there were people living on the sun.
I have been doing a lot of reading lately on Mormon doctrine, both pro and
con. Find out for yourselves. Then make your comments. For those
of you who are Mormon reading this, I am not trying to hurt anybody's
feelings. Read the Bible and find out for yourselves. holly@hpfcly.UUCP (holly) (04/15/85)
The Mormons are going to the Celestial Kingdom. Understood! But as I look at it my heaven and their heaven are not the same. Their God is a different God than the one in the Bible. I've read enough on Mormon doctrine to believe that. In my heaven I will be at the right hand of God, not a goddess having spiritual babies for eternity. My husband will be at the right hand of God, not a God himself. No where in the Bible does Christ or God make such a promiseto any of us. Those promises are only in the Book of Mormon and the other doctrines of the Mormon church written by a man who saw all of this supposedly by revelation by putting a rock in his hat...his "seer stone". I retract the word written. I will instead say spoken. I find the validity of Joseph Smith has a lot to be desired. This man committed many sins during his life time. He broke nearly every commandment that God gave us. Christ obeyed all of the llaws God set before us. It was the lust for other women that led Joseph Smith to have a "revelation" that led to polygomy. Yet here are five million people following the beliefs of a real con artist as I and many others see it. I don't understand this at all. What about the five point upside down star on the temple? In the occult, this means the goat of geddes (Satan). Explain this to me. If this is the Lord's temple, why is the star of Satan on the front of it? Why are the rituals so similar to that of Freemasonary? (Joseph Smith was really into this in case some of you don't know this.) No where in the Bible does Christ tell us to keep secrets or hold secret rituals yet everything that goes on in the temple is a secret and all who partake of the rituals swear to a blood oath of death should they reveal the secrets of the temple. No where in the Bible does God or Christ say that by some ritual in a temple can we "seal" dead people in marriage or have them baptized. Why do so many people believe this? Why are so many people willing to believe this man over Christ himself? There has not been one archeological find to support the Book of Mormon; the Bible has many. I would really like some answers to some of the above questions because I honestly don't understand where the Mormon faith is coming from at all.
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/17/85)
Someone named Holly makes the following comments about Mormonism... >Those promises are only in the Book of Mormon and >the other doctrines of the Mormon church written by a man who saw all of >this supposedly by revelation by putting a rock in his hat...his "seer >stone". >This man committed >many sins during his life time. He broke nearly every commandment that God >gave us. >It was the >lust for other women that led Joseph Smith to have a "revelation" that led >to polygomy. >Yet here are five million people following the beliefs of a >real con artist as I and many others see it. >I don't understand this at all. What about the five point upside down star >on the temple? In the occult, this means the goat of geddes (Satan). >Explain this to me. If this is the Lord's temple, why is the star of Satan >on the front of it? >Why are the rituals so similar to that of Freemasonary? (Joseph Smith >was really into this in case some of you don't know this.) No where in the >Bible does Christ tell us to keep secrets or hold secret rituals yet >everything that goes on in the temple is a secret and all who partake of >the rituals swear to a blood oath of death should they reveal the secrets >of the temple. and then ends her article by saying: >I would really like some answers to some of the above questions because I >honestly don't understand where the Mormon faith is coming from at all. To which I can only respond, cut the crap, Holly. Your questions are no more sincere inquiries than Don Black's little questions about the Jews were. Is Mormon-baiting really the best use you can think of for this forum? If so, at least try to be honest about it. Your hypocritical "just a question" approach offends the intelligence of anyone who can recognize propaganda when they see it. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
holly@hpfcly.UUCP (holly) (04/18/85)
Joseph Smith did make the statement that he did what Christ failed to do.
I do not have my references at hand, but I believe the statement appeared
in the History of the Mormon Church. I will find this and quote it to you.
Things you said may make a lot of sense to you and others especially since
you don't consider the Bible to be the only true word of God. In the Bible
God said that time and man could not change the true word. He would see to
that.
I don't understand how something can be part of your doctrine from the
beginning but doesn't show up in your doctrine until a few years ago. God
didn't do that with the Bible.
I know what is in my heart is good. I can't and never will agree with your
doctrines. The resemblence between the Latter Day Saints and the Freemasonary
makes me very uncomfortable. Maybe that's something you ought to read up
on. One of your own church elders even admitted this at a conference at
BYU after which he was required to sign a document stating his loyalty to
the church.
I am not trying to condemn you, I am very concerned. Read beyond the
doctrines of the church. Try some unbiased history books. There are many
things I believe that many members of the Latter Day Saints are not aware
of. Why was Joseph Smith the only one to see the angels and Christ? Jesus
and God made Themselves visible to many people. The Latter Day Saints have
based their religion on the "visions" of one man. I don't remember anyone
in the Bible having revelations from God through a "seer-stone". God,
Jesus or the Holy Spirit came to them in person or through an angel of the
Lord and they appeared to many. Where is the justification in what you say
besides that Joseph Smith said it?
I just don't understand and I doubt that I ever will! Your explanations
don't make it any clearer. I feel more troubled than before - not with
my faith, but with the teachings of the Latter Day Saints. I guess only
God will judge who is right. That's why I have faith and trust in what
God and Christ said to us in the Bible. They didn't give the answers
to all our questions. That's where the trust and faith come in. We just
have to entrust our lives to God and know that he'll take care of us. He
promised us that. I honestly believe that your God and my God are not the
same. I do not believe that Christ and Satan are spiritual brothers.
Please do some reading beyond the boundaries of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints. Many have and have found the true word of God.
tonym@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Tony Martinez) (04/26/85)
Holly, You seem to expect that I (as a latter-day-saint), or any other person can recieve a witness of truth through thier study of books. (Bible, Book of Mormon, Church History, Etc.) This is simply not the case. A knowledge of the truth comes ONLY by revelation from God which comes by the Holy Ghost. Prayer, Obedience, and Study are all essential. Study by ITSELF can assure nobody of truth. My testimony of God has come through prayer and personal revelation. Only after this can I now know that God has restored his Kingdom on earth through the instrument of a modern prophet. All of the scripture bashing in the world can never convince you or I to change our convictions. Don't ask your books, ask your Father in Heaven. Do not suppose that this is all. Upon recieving a witness from the Spirit, we must continue in faith, prayer, study of the revealed word, and obedience to the commandments that are contained therein. Tony Martinez "If any of ye lack wisdom, let him as of God" James 1:5
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (04/28/85)
In article <1928@sdcrdcf.UUCP>, tonym@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Tony Martinez) writes: > > You seem to expect that I (as a latter-day-saint), or any other person > can recieve a witness of truth through thier study of books. (Bible, > Book of Mormon, Church History, Etc.) This is simply not the case. A > knowledge of the truth comes ONLY by revelation from God which comes > by the Holy Ghost. Prayer, Obedience, and Study are all essential. Study > by ITSELF can assure nobody of truth. My testimony of God has come through > prayer and personal revelation. Only after this can I now know that God > has restored his Kingdom on earth through the instrument of a modern > prophet. All of the scripture bashing in the world can never convince you > or I to change our convictions. Don't ask your books, ask your Father in > Heaven. This is one of the dangerous errors that the Bible warns of when it refers to false teachers. The Bible clearly commands believers to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." You are right in saying that the Holy Spirit gives wisdom and guidance, but that is not man's only means to enlightnment. Throughout the Bible, there are examples and commands to seek God with ones mind and to discern for ourself truth. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness in men who *supress* the truth in unrighteousness. For that which is known about God is evident within them for God made it evident to them." (Romans 1:18,19) Here the Bible clearly says that we are a source of knowledge of good and evil. In Acts 17, the writer commends the church at Thessalonica because "they received the word with great eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Here believers are being commended for taking an active part in the procurement of truth. They don't just sit around, reading and waiting for the Holy Spirit to hit them on the head, they "examined" the scriptures for themselves. The Bible definitely talks about people being hard to God's word and the Spirit's ability to bring understanding, but these need to be taken in conjunction with the fact that God created us in His own or re, alinghe ability to tell right from wrong. If God's only method fro revealing devine truth were to be the Holy Spirit than why do we have the Bible? Is it just a history text? If we can make no good out of it ourselves then what purpose does it serve? One last point I want to hit on is the idea that no amount of scripture bashing can have any effect on a person's convictions. In Romans 1:14, Paul says, "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation." The Bible also says, "the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." I'm not sure what you claim for the teachings of Joseph Smith, but the Bible claims to be a book that shows "the power of God for salvation." In your post you made the statement that truth comes only from a revalation from God and *not* from books. But how do you deal with a book that claims to be a revalation from God? "Sanctify them in truth Lord, thy word is truth." (John 17:17) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:1,12) "The grass withers and the flower fades but the word of our Lord shall stand forever." (Isaiah 40:8) > We must continue in faith, prayer, study of the revealed word, and > obedience to the commandments that are contained therein. "Study to show thyself approved to God, a workman that need not be ashamed, handling accurately the WORD OF TRUTH." (II Timothy 2:15) Rick Frey (ix415@sdcc6.UUCP)
tonym@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Tony Martinez) (04/29/85)
In article <2036@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >If God's only method for revealing >devine truth were to be the Holy Spirit than why do we have the Bible? >Is it just a history text? If we can make no good out of it ourselves >then what purpose does it serve? > I'm sorry that Rick misunderstood the point I was trying to get across. I did not say that the revealed word of God is not essential to our learning. On the contrary, the scriptures are one of God's greatest blessings. My whole discussion was based on the assumption that a person did not yet know the truth. Once one has faith that the Bible is the word of God (which faith I have), then one must use it as a resource to gain truth. But what of the person who does not know if the Bible is true. If a person has for the first time before him the Bible, the writings of Mohammed, Sacred text from Buddhism, etc., how would that person know what of the text before him is the truth and word of God. The person would have to study the literature diligently. But the only way he could find out what was from God would be through prayer, and having God reveal to him, by the Holy Ghost, which was true. This is my whole point. A person could study and read these books all of their lives, but until one recieves from God a witness of the truth, that person will NEVER know truth from error. After having recieved that initial witness of truth, then the picture changes. We then have an obligation to diligently study and obey all the word of God. Rick mentioned that we can not sit around until we are hit on the head with the truth. I could not agree more. May I close with a quote from modern revelation concerning the subject of prayer, study, and the receipt of truth: "Behold, you have not unerstood, you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore you shall feel that it is right." Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-8
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (05/03/85)
In article <1932@sdcrdcf.UUCP>, tonym@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Tony Martinez) writes: > I'm sorry that Rick misunderstood the point I was trying to get across. > I did not say that the revealed word of God is not essential to our > learning. On the contrary, the scriptures are one of God's greatest > blessings. My whole discussion was based on the assumption that a person > did not yet know the truth... But the only way he could find out > what was from God would be through prayer, and having God reveal to him, by > the Holy Ghost, which was true. This is my whole point. A person could > study and read these books all of their lives, but > until one recieves from God a witness of the truth, that person will NEVER > know truth from error. > Well if I missed the point of your first article, I still disagree with the point of this article so I'll either start over (or continue, however you want to see it) with my complaints of your idea of how we as people gain enlightenment and find truth. Not to make it sound so esoteric, this "search for truth", but again you've said that the only way for a person to come to know anything about God (i.e. the "truth") it must come from personal revelation from God to that person. While you've qualified it to people who don't have faith in the word of God (something you do and a point I'll get to in a minute) you still say that they need some supernatural witness from God (by the way, what is this witness?). But the Bible, while it does say that God is responsible for our salvation and the source of truth, does *NOT* say that even unbelievers cannot find out the truth. Often throughout the Gospels, Christ makes reference to the hardness of men's hearts and to ears being closed, but equally often he makes statements like, "Him who has ears, let him hear." People in the New Testament (many of the people Christ healed) immediately came to saving faith in Him because of His words. Unless you want to say that Christ is that touch of God and that He is God (which I know you don't) than how do you account for that? And again we come to the question of God having prepared man to receive this truth. You say that God has to tell men that they have found the truth, but the Bible says that, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Even with your change in topics, the verses in Romans 1:14-24 still refute your statements. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness in men who *suppress* the truth in unrighteousness. For that which is known about God is evident within them for God made it evident to them." How much clearer can it be. God's truth has been revealed to man through supernatural means once already, the divine life of Christ and the divine inspiration of the scriptures. God has not promised any more divine revelations. The comment you made in your article (about having faith in the word of God) I wanted to question before I finished. The Bible says that whoever adds one word to the revelation contained in this book shall be accursed (Revelation something, see Charly Wingates posting for the verse). I gave you all of those quotes from the last time about the word of God but the Mormons have freely and libeally gone away from the Bible's teachings. If you feel that Christians have blown what Christ taught then say that, but don't claim that you still believe the Bible. You don't believe that Christ *is* God (John 1:1,8:58,10:32), that salvation comes through grace and not works (Ephesians 2:8,9) and that there is only one God (numerous verses throughout Isaiah). Your theology is a conglomeration of the teachings of Joseph Smith mixed with divine revelations spawned by the United States Government prompting God to make a "holy revelation" (i.e. polygamy, blacks as partors) and in no way to do you accept the Bible as the authoratative word of God which it claims to be. If you wish to follow a man who created languages that don't exist (old egyptian) and said that Christ was an arian (A jew from Galilee an arian??) and used magic sunglasses from God to translate these mystical texts be my guest but *DO NOT* say that you still have faith in the word of God. Not to be overly harsh, but the only faith you can have that comes from the Bible is that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all un-godliness and unrighteousness in men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness ... For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature wrather than the creator who is blessed forever, amen." Rick Frey (ix415@sdcc6.UUCP) "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks and their foolish hearts were darkened."
jlp@faust.UUCP (07/09/85)
{}
Perhaps one of the main consideratoins is also linguistic: Yuroba, Ebe,
Xosa, and even Arabic have phonemes which are more difficult to assimilate
than Swahili does. The structure of Swahili grammar resembles the root
languages of American culture as well.
Jerryl Payne
...!ihnp4!inmet!faust!jlpjlp@faust.UUCP (08/27/85)
{}
I fail to see the correlation between being "willingly led" and being a
"zombie". Christianity is not a religion which imposes a uniformity upon
its believers. Christianity does rejoice in diversity. The uniformity might
be derived from the belief that Christians all relate to Jesus Christ, but
since each relationship is on an individual basis, I would really
appreciate substantive data on why you belief Christians are nothing more
than walking-talking-bible-packing-Jesus-machines.
Jerryl Payne
...!ihnp4!inmet!faust!jlp