Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What advantage
is there to Mormonism? None
To Judy:
You have laid out a flawless arguement (overstatement for effect, right?
:>))
that would prompt any reasonable person to at least search
the scriptures (to me, an unreasonable
conclusion)
but it has fallen on deaf ears. (Not necessarily so, as I try to give serious consideration to
all that I take time to read--otherwise, I would not read it.
(:>)
All that you have accomplished is to pour fuel on
the fire
that is waiting for Blaine when the Lord condemns
him to Hell (Moral judgement, unjustified by any
facts that might support the judgement. You ascribe your own opinion to the
Lord, here, which may or may not be true. I disagree that it is
true.)
If you are now ready to stamp the dust off your feet
( Congratulations! This is a nice allusion to
an obscure scripture involving a ritual reserved for special witnesses of
Christ-- mostly Apostles. I
am surprised you were aware of it. Is Judy a special witness?)
and move on, I would like to hear what you have learned about
demon possession ( does this mean you are
into demon possession yourself? (:>) Your statement leads me to believe
you understand it pretty well, have you ever experienced it either
first hand, or even seen it second hand? This is usually considered to
be an occult subject. I am not convinced by your brief
mentioning of it that you know a lot about it. It is a
good term for casting aspersions, however. I'll have to remember
it for future use. LOL)
To Blaine:
Way back in A.D. 49 there was a guy named Paul who started
a church in Galatia. He then went on to start other churches in other
areas. While he was gone, a group of judaizers (?? explain term, please--never heard this word--is it used in
the scripture? Would you mind giving me a reference? I may have
read the term but not noticed it?) came, teaching the
Galations (Galatians) that Jesus alone was
not enough; they also needed to be circumcized.
Paul's response, when he heard this, was "If you get
circumcized to be saved, then Christ would be of no benefit
to you". In other words, adding something to Jesus does not make
you more saved ( seems true as far as it
goes). It makes you lost. (I am not sure I
agree, but go ahead) It is not Jesus plus anything. (This might be true, as far as your understanding of Jesus
goes, which seems to me to be quite limited by your adherance to your
traditions, many of which I seriously question.)
Not Jesus plus the law (Mormons
believe the law of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus Christ--you seem to be
assuming incorrectly we believe otherwise? Not clear here what or whom
you are referring to), not Jesus plus a foreskin, not Jesus plus
tithing (A latter-day commandment given when the
Latter-day Saints proved unable to live the greater law of having all things
in common as did the early Saints--it shows the kindness and mercy of God
that enables us to live a lesser law after having failed to live a greater
law.), or baptism (Are you saying you do not
believe this ordinance is needed? "Except ye be born of water and the
Holy Ghost, ye can in nowise enter the Kingdom of God," Also see
Romans 6-10) or Joe Smith (Only his
enemies called him "Joe," mainly as a means of detracting from his true
dignity as a child of God See Romans 8:16-17)
By adding to Jesus, you have condemned yourself to
Hell. (An unsupported
moral judgement AND a putdown!!)
Wake up man! (Another put
down!)
Terry
Blaine: To Terry-- I went through your material
thoroughly, not to insult you, but to indicate the true responses your
comments are engendering in me. In other words, I often know what to
think, I don't always know what to say, when some individuals discuss me as
if I don't count. I hate to say this, but your comments seem more
motivated from religious intolerance than from a true desire to correct and
prevent me from going to hell--which place I am not sure even exists,
although I do believe in a condition of Hell, a burning of the conscience,
engendered by a bright recollection of all my unrepented of
sins. I would fear this more than any literal flames, which I
consider an old secterian notion. In my opinion, all references
to literal flames in the scriptures are to be taken metaphorically, not
literally.
