Blaine: What's to understand? All you did was bash
Mormonism. If you have a story to tell, or a philosophy to teach, then do
that, and I will undoubtedly be interested. I was intensely interested in
the Baptist religion, as Kevin and others got into the discussion. Kevin
does a lot of bashing too, so you shouldn't feel lonely here on TT.
Even I get into sometimes. But knocking another's
religious views just comes across as relgious intolerance, which even another
religiously intolerant person despises. Right? None of us like
this religious intolerance we all get into.
Maybe we need to lengthen our stride a little and put it behind us. -----
Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What advantage
is there to Mormonism? None
To Blaine:
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.
