As you have pointed out below, I wasted my time trying to
convince you of the truth. Since you cannot understand, it would be
pointless to continue. I am truly sorry.
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.
