mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 So you're willing to throw away that entire passage, Romans 9? Am I hearing you correctly? That's a little more than "translated incorrectly." Uh, maybe because we don't think the bible is perfect? Do you think..... at all...just maybe that we have a theme developing here? Like maybe there is no point in whipping a dead horse about this? What part about this don't you understand?
Freedom Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 So you are willing to admit he makes a decision on each individual man? Additionally, did he create the world or not? That doesn't involve the placements of molecules? Based on how you describe God, the message that transfers into my mind is that He cannot Guarantee anything. He is pretty confident, but no Guarantees. Doesn't sound like a God worthy of worship to me. He does guarantee everything. He guarantee that if you reject him you will be without the light of the gospel. He guarantees that wicked people will corrupt his gospel. But he also guarantees that he will restore his truths when there are people willing to accept it. He will not force you to join his true church. You are creating false premises here. This is, in fact, a strawman argument. God allows choice, therefore all is chaos. Choice brings consequences, not chaos. God controls the consequences and will not allow your choices to prevent his plan from unfolding. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I still don't understand why it makes a difference that the bible is supposedly inerrant when ALL CHRISTIANS disagree about what it means. WHAT BENEFIT IS THERE IN BELIEVING IN INERRANCY WHEN NO ONE AGREES ON WHAT IT SAYS??? 3
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 What part about this don't you understand?Just making sure.. I don't feel comfortable entirely disregarding huge chunks of the Bible. Oh and if you're gonna throw chapter 9 out, you should probably toss the whole book, a lot of the message is complimentary. But I won't ask again, I think you have made your point, you're wiser than then those who canonized the Bible. Just a thought, if your view was that of your Church, wouldn't they have officially thrown out quite a bit of the Bible by now?
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I still don't understand why it makes a difference that the bible is supposedly inerrant when ALL CHRISTIANS disagree about what it means. WHAT BENEFIT IS THERE IN BELIEVING IN INERRANCY WHEN NO ONE AGREES ON WHAT IT SAYS???What system do you believe in Sir?? Any? One needs to only peruse the thread on this forum about Adam-God to see that confusion reigns in the LDS world as well.
Freedom Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Just making sure.. I don't feel comfortable entirely disregarding huge chunks of the Bible. Oh and if you're gonna throw chapter 9 out, you should probably toss the whole book, a lot of the message is complimentary. But I won't ask again, I think you have made your point, you're wiser than then those who canonized the Bible. Just a thought, if your view was that of your Church, wouldn't they have officially thrown out quite a bit of the Bible by now? Can you clarify what you are referring to in Romans 9? I have read it a few times and I do not see the connection to your argument.
Michael Sanders Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 What's your feeling on Moroni 8:18? Guess what's coming next: http://www.mrm.org/8:18 http://blog.mrm.org/2011/01/i-agree-with-moroni-818-do-mormons/ Michael SandersBook of Mormon BelieverIndependence, MO 3
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Can you clarify what you are referring to in Romans 9? I have read it a few times and I do not see the connection to your argument. Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated. A decision made before either of them were born. God makes these kind of decisions. The LDS explanation of agency is at best, far too simplistic and anthropocentric.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Guess what's coming next: http://www.mrm.org/8:18 http://blog.mrm.org/2011/01/i-agree-with-moroni-818-do-mormons/ Michael SandersBook of Mormon BelieverIndependence, MOI agree with it also. You missed the point. How do you believe that verse/idea and believe God is an exalted man? That is the question.
Freedom Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated. A decision made before either of them were born. God makes these kind of decisions. The LDS explanation of agency is at best, far too simplistic and anthropocentric. Again, you are taking extreme positions. We say God allows agency, and you say there is anarchy. We fully accept that God is in control but you refuse to accept that he allows his children to make bad choices. Freedom of choice is the foundation of his plan. We get to choose whether or not we obey him. Remember, in our doctrine, Abraham was chosen before he was born. The plan of salvation was put in place before the world was created. But none of this has anything to do with biblical inerrancy.
ERayR Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I agree with it also. You missed the point. How do you believe that verse/idea and believe God is an exalted man? That is the question. Till you wean yourself from your present mindset and you will never know. The truth shall set you free. 3
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 What system do you believe in Sir?? Any? One needs to only peruse the thread on this forum about Adam-God to see that confusion reigns in the LDS world as well. "as well"??? So you admit that Creedal Christians are "no better" than us ??? Great- now you are actually beginning to understand. We are all fallible humans who receive revelation from God on a personal basis- and we do the best we can with it. Remember we have discussed that before? There is no point in your arguing your beliefs - they are no better, and in my opinion, CANNOT EVEN ACCOUNT for the confusion in Christianity. Our beliefs CAN account for the confusion in Christianity. Which is the better belief? THE ONE WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR THE DATA OR ONE WHICH PUTS ITS HEAD IN THE SAND AND SAYS "God Breathed the BibleGod Breathed the BibleGod Breathed the BibleGod Breathed the Bible"over and over until you turn blue??? What good does that do??? Who wrote Romans??? Paul. Was Paul a man? Do you pray to Paul?? Paul also says this in Romans 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.Does that sound like a human being or God wrote that? No, Christ does not lie, but Paul and the others might have gotten it a little wrong. That's all we are saying.
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I agree with it also. You missed the point. How do you believe that verse/idea and believe God is an exalted man? That is the question. Continuing revelation That's the answer. When are YOU going to see the point? 2
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Just making sure.. I don't feel comfortable entirely disregarding huge chunks of the Bible. Oh and if you're gonna throw chapter 9 out, you should probably toss the whole book, a lot of the message is complimentary. But I won't ask again, I think you have made your point, you're wiser than then those who canonized the Bible. Just a thought, if your view was that of your Church, wouldn't they have officially thrown out quite a bit of the Bible by now? My wisdom has nothing to do with anything. But I have God's wisdom IN ME because I am his son, and you are too. THAT is the reason you think the bible is perfect- and this all causes you confusion and the need to defend it. There is no way to even accept any of the bible unless you have God's spirit telling you to, and a willingness to follow that spirit Why do you think atheists would laugh at you? Because your arguments are so good? The point is that bible inerrancy just doesn't make sense. And you will just assert it yet again and give no better reason than I have given you for being Mormon. Get over it. This is a confusing world. Accept ambiguity as a fact of life and get on with it. Understand that personal revelation is all any of us have, period, end of story. We all get to figure it out for ourselves. This is a test. Multiple choice. God gives us a lot of answers and we get to create our own story, but that's ok because he grades on a curve, depending on the information we receive here. But the idea that the Bible is perfect is a non-starter. To take YOUR interpretation as God breathed is just plain ..... unbelievable. Edited January 20, 2015 by mfbukowski 2
Mars Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) mass168: feels like you're playing chess, brother... trying to outmanoeuvre... Edited January 20, 2015 by Mars 2
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 What system do you believe in Sir?? Any? One needs to only peruse the thread on this forum about Adam-God to see that confusion reigns in the LDS world as well. Uh, yeah, I'm a Mormon You didn't know that? We don't have problems with ambiguity because we have the spirit to guide us. That's about the best system I know of. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated. A decision made before either of them were born. God makes these kind of decisions. The LDS explanation of agency is at best, far too simplistic and anthropocentric. Thank you very much for seeing that the bible is anthropocentric. It is God breathed you know. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 mass168: feels like you're playing chess, brother... trying to outmanoeuvre...Yep I noticed that too. He figures out your hot button then comments on it as a smoke screen. He hit me with substance- and I fell for it- no more. He's a very bright guy- he couldn't possibly believe all this stuff and not understand our points. Either that or he is in serious denial 1
Mars Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 maybe it's just a style thing that doesn't mix well with me. me? I'd go "hey how can you believe that when you guys read x, y, and z in romans 9. i feel like that kinda contradicts your position, unless i misunderstand your position" but i'm not on the CARM board riling people up. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 maybe it's just a style thing that doesn't mix well with me. me? I'd go "hey how can you believe that when you guys read x, y, and z in romans 9. i feel like that kinda contradicts your position, unless i misunderstand your position" but i'm not on the CARM board riling people up. Yeah that's the point. I guess God did a lot of random breathing that day, or maybe had a little cough 1
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 What's your feeling on Moroni 8:18? My feeling is that we've explained the entire chapter in context already in other threads and it doesn't refer to "unchangeable" as you interpret it out of context. New material please. 1
ERayR Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 My feeling is that we've explained the entire chapter in context already in other threads and it doesn't refer to "unchangeable" as you interpret it out of context. New material please. and checkmate.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Continuing revelation That's the answer. When are YOU going to see the point?Has any part of the BOM been recanted as doctrine? If not, this point is invalid. Edited January 20, 2015 by mass168
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 My feeling is that we've explained the entire chapter in context already in other threads and it doesn't refer to "unchangeable" as you interpret it out of context. New material please.Yea I know you came up with an explanation you think made sense, but clearly I wasn't convinced, and it would be interesting to hear new people's opinion on it.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Has any part of the BOM been recanted as doctrine? If not, this point is invalid. HUh? I think this is called a non sequitur. 1
Recommended Posts