Peace and cheers!

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Peace to you as well. In Christ, forgiveness is not an option; it’s a way of living and commanded of us. Apology gratefully accepted.

Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Well, shut my mouth! That’s close enough to what I believe to not even be worth mentioning.

Forgive me for judging you so harshly.

Peace and cheers!

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 12:15 PM

This is now in archives, so I don’t know if it will post or not.

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three-in-one God. God the father is what he is. He is not described as a bodiless spirit except when he wanted to be. He appeared in the form of an angel when he wrestled with Jacob. He appeared as a still, small voice. He appeared in person in Job. He appeared as a pillar of fire to the Isrealites.

Jesus was fully man and fully God. He said “I and my Father are one.” That means one in mind and spirit. Jesus also said to his disciples, “I will send you a comforter,” speaking of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit also appeared as a tongue of fire to the disciples at Pentecost.

God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all of one mind and purpose, but they are three separate coequal beings defined as the Holy Trinity. One God (Of one mind) but three totally different entities.

Your assumption that God has to put on the body of Jesus is incorrect. Jesus has his own body. God the Father has whatever aspect he wishes to be. Indescribable because we have not the ability. He said to Moses, “I am.” All-encompassing answer.

Further, in the Bible, blasphemy is describe as the unforgivable sin, if the Holy Spirit is blasphemed — not God the Father; not Jesus Christ, his Son, but the Holy Spirit.

Buy Danish on July 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Like I have any influence on anyones campaign. Thanks for trying but I don’t buy it.

Spare the group your sensitivities. You can’t answer the question so you attack the way the question is worded. You are attempting to frame the issue in the way it most suits you instead of dealing with the concept. What does God do with Christs body when he is being the bodiless God?

Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 8:42 AM

Well, I’m not surprised you’d rather use a straw man argument than deal with the fact.

What does God do with Christs body when he is in the form of the bodiless God?

You can’t answer it so you attack me.

Nice.

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

csdeven,

If anyone doesn’t deserve to be at the “adult table” that would be you. That^^comment is in unbelievably poor taste, and if you want Romney to win I suggest you edit your comments before you print them as you are not doing him any favors with this sort of crude and disrespectful commentary.

You couldn’t do a better job if you were trying to sabotage his campaign.

So, you can’t cite the basis of your standards that allows you to decide whose religion is “loony” and whose is not? And then you’d rather call me names?

hahaha Excuse me for dismissing your opinions as uninformed then.

hahaha

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:49 AM

A secular liberalist arguing about theology is like… Well, actually, I guess that’s it. There isn’t ANYTHING that compares with that kind of idiocy.

Seriously though. You’ll note that these people will constantly cut down whatever YOU happen to believe. But will one of them ever have the balls to even say, let alone try to defend, anything that HE believes?

Does anybody else see a trend here? Sure he “supports” Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani or somebody; sure he’s devoutly – even beligerently – Mormon, or whatever…

But it’s always ad hoc, isn’t it?

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:57 AM

There’s a huge difference attacking one’s belief system and belittling the Creator of the Universe. If you want to discuss the Trinity on an intellectual level, I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity in another thread, as AP likes to challenge Christianity. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! If I can’t explain my faith, I’m not much of a follower of it.

The Nicene Creed is not a core tenet of Biblical faith. It’s an attempt to explain the core tenets of Christianity by reducing to a few words understanding of God’s Word to man.

My beliefs and my understanding of the Bible come from the Bible, from “every word that uttereth out of the mouth of the Lord.”

So the moonbat turns out to be rabidly anti-Christian?

Well, knock me over with a feather.

logis on July 17, 2007 at 2:13 AM

That is not the way to be invited back to the adult table.

CS, that was offensive on many levels. Most of us here have not attacked the LDS church on any level. We would appreciate the same courtesy when referring to the Holy Trinity.

Tennman on July 16, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Sorry, but if a person is going to hold another persons faith up to a standard of truth, then I expect that person to establish that proof as fact before I accept his judgment.

And that wasn’t an insult. If God and Jesus are one in the same, and Jesus has a body, and God has no body, where does God put Jesus’ skin when he is in the God role?

My suggestion is that you ask those who decided what parts of the teachings of Christ were omitted from the Nicene Creed. Maybe the answer is in there? Or, stop assuming that so-called “Christians” are the arbiters of all things Christian and let God judge us all. And if you REALLY feel that your religion shouldn’t be attacked, then I expect the next time ANYONE attacks anyone else’s religion, you will be the first to defend them.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 10:47 PM

So, you can’t cite the basis of your standards that allows you to decide whose religion is “loony” and whose is not? And then you’d rather call me names?

hahaha Excuse me for dismissing your opinions as uninformed then.

hahaha

I’m still trying to figure out what God does with his Jesus skin suit when he wants to be the bodiless God. Does he hang it in the holy closet?
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

So the moonbat turns out to be rabidly anti-Christian?

Well, knock me over with a feather.

I’m still trying to figure out what God does with his Jesus skin suit when he wants to be the bodiless God. Does he hang it in the holy closet?
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

CS, that was offensive on many levels. Most of us here have not attacked the LDS church on any level. We would appreciate the same courtesy when referring to the Holy Trinity.

I know for a fact that the first title is actually the name of a newspaper. As for the second, I’m not going to bother looking it up.

But of course it’s insane to imagine that THESE PEOPLE are really doing their best to help us find the best possible conservative candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Once again, I’m not saying the moonbats are “wrong”; there is no need. All I’m doing is pointing out that you don’t differ from them in any way.

logis on July 16, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Brilliant, logis. Regardless of the truth, this is what I believe. Well put.

I don’t know if it’s true, but I’m curious. You, on the other hand, aren’t. This speaks poorly of your intellect.

I throw that label out reluctantly, but it so obviously applies to you.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Well, since you are admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about….

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 10:44 PM

That wasn’t for you Jack. I still had your info on my clip board.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

Well, since you are admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about…..

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Well, since you are admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about….

Since we’re talking about the LDS church only recognizing blacks as equal in 1978 and prior to this, actually physically banning them from Mormon temples, and prior to that, having sex with “negroes” one of the (several in this case) sins that can’t be forgiven based only on Christ’s sacrifice, and in fact requiring additional actions by temple-worthy, and therefore non-black, church members, it’s my opinion — not hard and settled fact — that this is “loony”.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 7:37 PM

I’m still waiting for the standard you use to judge Mormons as loony. Do you have a book, or a teaching that is in fact the truth that you would like to present in order to prove “loony”?
Why are handshakes loony?
Why is a third heaven loony?
Why is man becoming as his creator loony?

So, you come to this board to pass judgment on who is and is not a Christian. OK, Where do you get the information that you use to decide who is a real Christian?

From Webester’s Online:

Since the 1960s, in English-speaking countries, especially in North America, most English speakers have adopted the term cult in a pejorative sense to denote groups, many of them with religious themes, that exploit their members psychologically and financially using group-based persuasion techniques (sometimes called “mind control”). Unlike legitimate religious movements, cults are characterized by high levels of dependency, exploitation, and compliance with demands of leadership that are unrelated to religion.

Among the laity and lower levels of the LDS, this is currently not considered true, as members are not under any undue burden or threat in precisely how they believe. Approaching the inner circles of the “temple”, however, moves distinctly into this category.

At the same time, the Bible is quite clear that God has no beginning and no ending, that Jesus is a co-equal member of the Godhead, and is in fact the Creator of the universe we experience. These Biblical principles are contradicted by LDS doctrine, and that alone sets them outside of traditional Christianity by any measure.

Does believing the above make it impossible for me to consider a Romney presidency? No. His positions relative to Constitutional issues do, and likewise Rudy.

To tuck this in as on-topic, nobody running for office needs the approval of any religious “leader”. I personally recognize two religious leaders: The triune God, and the pastor of my local congregation. No others are recognized nor approved by the Bible. Dobson is a good man, but he has no place to say who is an acceptable candidate or not, if he is speaking from a position of “church authority”. Still, I’d be more likely to give value to his opinion than, say, Martin Sheen’s.