[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Got it.
Thanks for your answer, Tiribulus.
Mufasa[/quote]No trouble Buddy. Good night.
forlife - No, the psalmist is upset with the death of the children and he is sharing with God, their anger! Please read the context of any scripture and think about the words, if it were a letter or whatever. The Bible is something you need to UNDERSTAND the scriptures and not just recite line after line. Also remember the intent of words is often lost in a translation, especially more than one translation! Just something to keep in mind.
As for your request/s, look up the scripture and tell me what you believe the intent is supposed to be. Are they directed at God or another or sharing or a letter? Maybe look at the preceding chapters. After you tell me what you believe, I will try to help you. However I will be gone during the next three weeks, so please do not expect a speedy reply. Instead you could even go talk with a local Catholic priest and he will be busy, but he try to help you!
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
This is taken from an email sent to me from a close priest friend of mine.
"The psalmist is speaking about when Israel was attacked and their own children had been murdered. The psalmist who is upset with the death of the children is sharing with God their anger. The psalmist is not saying they will bash the enemies�¢?? children in with a rock but that they feel like they would like to do it.
It is a psalm where one expresses their pain and anger to God. The theological importance would not be in the words themselves but in what the words express about prayer. This psalm is not like the other ones and does not confine prayer to just ask God for something but is a prayer that simply expresses pain and anger. In expressing our pain and anger to God, then God can start to heal us. Many people today mistakenly think that prayer has to be confined to sharing happy feelings like thanksgiving or praise to God. They think to express anger or pain to God is an expression of doubt in God so they put on this false front before God. This is a psalm that shares one�¢??s deep anger with God. Sometimes the most authentic prayer is the one that expresses our anger. In expressing the dark anger of wanting to murder the enemies�¢?? children, the psalmist ends with trusting in God. The psalm is teaching us to be honest and authentic with our feelings before God and not to just pretend to be happy."
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Psalms 137:8-9
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ah, so it’s just the psalmist wanting to murder children, not god.
I wonder what your priest friend has to say about 1 Samuel 15:2-3, where god clearly commands Israel to destroy the women and children of the Amalekites, or Hosea 13:16 where he commands them to destroy the little ones in Samaria, and rip open their pregnant women.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
forlife - No, the psalmist is upset with the death of the children and he is sharing with God, their anger! Please read the context of any scripture and think about the words, if it were a letter or whatever. The Bible is something you need to UNDERSTAND the scriptures and not just recite line after line. Also remember the intent of words is often lost in a translation, especially more than one translation! Just something to keep in mind.
As for your request/s, look up the scripture and tell me what you believe the intent is supposed to be. Are they directed at God or another or sharing or a letter? Maybe look at the preceding chapters. After you tell me what you believe, I will try to help you. However I will be gone during the next three weeks, so please do not expect a speedy reply. Instead you could even go talk with a local Catholic priest and he will be busy, but he try to help you!
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
This is taken from an email sent to me from a close priest friend of mine.
"The psalmist is speaking about when Israel was attacked and their own children had been murdered. The psalmist who is upset with the death of the children is sharing with God their anger. The psalmist is not saying they will bash the enemies�?�¢?? children in with a rock but that they feel like they would like to do it.
It is a psalm where one expresses their pain and anger to God. The theological importance would not be in the words themselves but in what the words express about prayer. This psalm is not like the other ones and does not confine prayer to just ask God for something but is a prayer that simply expresses pain and anger. In expressing our pain and anger to God, then God can start to heal us. Many people today mistakenly think that prayer has to be confined to sharing happy feelings like thanksgiving or praise to God. They think to express anger or pain to God is an expression of doubt in God so they put on this false front before God. This is a psalm that shares one�?�¢??s deep anger with God. Sometimes the most authentic prayer is the one that expresses our anger. In expressing the dark anger of wanting to murder the enemies�?�¢?? children, the psalmist ends with trusting in God. The psalm is teaching us to be honest and authentic with our feelings before God and not to just pretend to be happy."
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Psalms 137:8-9
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ah, so it’s just the psalmist wanting to murder children, not god.
I wonder what your priest friend has to say about 1 Samuel 15:2-3, where god clearly commands Israel to destroy the women and children of the Amalekites, or Hosea 13:16 where he commands them to destroy the little ones in Samaria, and rip open their pregnant women.[/quote]
[/quote]
I’ve read the bible in its entirety several times, and I have a pretty good contextual understanding of 1 Samuel 15:2-3 and Hosea 13:16. These are direct commandments from god to kill children.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
VERY GOOD! I think Elder Havens was still a bit better though. Great Testimony, seriously. The trouble is your Jesus doesn’t exist and Satan is more than happy to have you and anyone else passionately testifying of absolutely ANY jesus imaginable except the one gloriously exalted in the pages of His word.
I’m gonna go ahead and help elder forlife out a bit by asking you a question to which you will give me some version of the LDS answer and maybe he’ll have a hint.
How do you know that Joseph Smith was a prophet God used to “restore” the one true church to the earth and that the angel Moroni gave him golden plates conveying the book of Mormon which is a true witness of Jesus Christ written in “reformed Egyptian” through which “a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.”? How?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:<<< Remember, a house divided against itself cannot stand. How can you claim that Satan is behind our church when we preach for the cause of Christ and against Satan? Your argument is ridiculous. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” >>>[/quote] You are IN Satans house. There is no division. He doesn’t care what anybody believes or does as long he gets to lead them to hell. He loves to have religious people talking about Jesus even more than rank, perverse God deny pagans running violent and naked through the streets. The devil disguises himself as an “angel of light” 2nd Cor. 11:4.
He doesn’t always show up all hideous and terrifying. Many times he looks like a couple fine clean cut upright young men smiling n friendly carrying a message of death. He will help you himself become a “better” father, husband, neighbor, and friend; just a better man period, if that’s what he thinks will most effectively keep you in bondage and it looks like in your case he’s been right so far. My heart and my hand go out to you man. I mean that, Let’s see what elder forlife says.
[/quote]
I think you know exactly what I would say, since I’ve already made the point several times.
This man has a witness through the power of the holy ghost that Joseph Smith really did see god the father and Jesus Christ. He has read the book of Mormon, prayed about it with a sincere heart and pure intent, and been told directly by god that it is true.
In contrast, you claim that god has told you Calvin really had the truth, and hence you know the real Jesus.
You’ve both studied, you’ve both prayed sincerely, and you both know with 100% certainty that god has told you the truth.
Of course, logically you can’t both be right. No matter how sincere, at least one of you must be mistaken about god speaking to you, and if one of you can be so horribly mistaken, the other one could similarly be horribly mistaken.
Now maybe you’ll understand my point about faith, prayer, and personal revelation meaning squat.
Thank you elder forlife. Still no cigar though. I knew the real Jesus before I met Calvin BTW.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thank you elder forlife. Still no cigar though. I knew the real Jesus before I met Calvin BTW. [/quote]
Nice dodge. Your claim to know the real Jesus is no more demonstrably valid than his. You’ve both prayed, and god has told you different things. If Satan deceived him so thoroughly as an angel of light, he could similarly have thoroughly deceived you. Your certainty is no different, and is no more justified, than his certainty.
There you go with this “demonstrable” stuff again after you promised we can’t KNOW anything. Looks like that agnostic honesty is a bit tougher to hang onto than than you thought. No, in your world it isn’t any more valid. However, his God/s are incapable of providing any certainty whatsoever rergardless of whatever subjective witness he claims. Why? Come on. Make me proud.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There you go with this “demonstrable” stuff again after you promised we can’t KNOW anything. Looks like that agnostic honesty is a bit tougher to hang onto than than you thought. No, in your world it isn’t any more valid. However, his God/s are incapable of providing any certainty whatsoever rergardless of whatever subjective witness he claims. Why? Come on. Make me proud.[/quote]
There you go again with your black and white thinking, which refuses to acknowledge that certainty is a scale. It’s a childishly transparent tactic to justify believing in whatever you want. Just because we can’t know anything with absolute certainty doesn’t mean some ideas aren’t more probable than others.
Prove that his god is incapable of providing certainty. Prove that you heard the real voice of god, and he did not. You can’t.
Come on man. Can’t you even try for a minute. Mormonism is polytheistic. You see no philosophical issues in terms of the conversation we’ve been having for like a month now? That won’t even work in Aristotle’s world to say nothing of the bible. His view is 10 times (estimation) more vulnerable than yours. He claims certainty with multiple divine beings ALL of which are contingent. Only the God I worship is contingent upon nothing beyond Himself. Is THE ultimate explanation for everything comprehensively (including evil) and is hence truly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and thereby not only alone capable of, but IS Himself absolute certainty. I really believe somebody we may never hear from (though we may) is getting this.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Come on man. Can’t you even try for a minute. Mormonism is polytheistic. You see no philosophical issues in terms of the conversation we’ve been having for like a month now? That won’t even work in Aristotle’s world to say nothing of the bible. His view is 10 times (estimation) more vulnerable than yours. He claims certainty with multiple divine beings ALL of which are contingent. Only the God I worship is contingent upon nothing beyond Himself. Is THE ultimate explanation for everything comprehensively (including evil) and is hence truly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and thereby not only alone capable of, but IS Himself absolute certainty. I really believe somebody we may never hear from (though we may) is getting this.[/quote]
Momonism is not polytheistic. God the Father is above all. He is the only one who possesses His qualities and power.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:<<< Momonism is not polytheistic. God the Father is above all. He is the only one who possesses His qualities and power.[/quote]How many Gods are there?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:<<< Momonism is not polytheistic. God the Father is above all. He is the only one who possesses His qualities and power.[/quote]How many Gods are there?
[/quote]
Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are part of the Godhead, but neither is above the Father. There is only one Heavenly Father.
You don’t believe in eternal progression? Do you plan of exaltation one day? Is the Father an exalted one time man? Are the Son and the Holy Spirit God? Separate beings altogether? Define the “Godhead”? I know. The Journal of Discourses and other early/ier LDS documents don’t count thought they were certainly believed in their day right?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You don’t believe in eternal progression?[/quote]
Yes. That doesn’t change what I wrote. Nobody will ever be God’s equal.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You don’t believe in eternal progression?[/quote] Yes. That doesn’t change what I wrote. Nobody will ever be God’s equal. [/quote] Do you plan on exaltation one day? Is the Father an exalted one time man? Are the Son and the Holy Spirit God? Separate beings altogether from each other and the Father? Define the “Godhead”? I know. The Journal of Discourses and other early/ier LDS documents written by the highest church authorities don’t count though they were certainly believed in their day right?
Did some editing
EDIT 2: Forgive me man. My attitude with you has been abrupt, impatient and generally short on Christian love. I don’t have anything against you my friend. I have tons of personal pressures, which is not an excuse though. I KNOW your church has a history of teaching many gods and I would however still like answers to the above questions. I also still owe you one on heaven too from before. (Actually I still owe about a dozen answers to other people too).
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
VERY GOOD! I think Elder Havens was still a bit better though. Great Testimony, seriously. The trouble is your Jesus doesn’t exist and Satan is more than happy to have you and anyone else passionately testifying of absolutely ANY jesus imaginable except the one gloriously exalted in the pages of His word.
I’m gonna go ahead and help elder forlife out a bit by asking you a question to which you will give me some version of the LDS answer and maybe he’ll have a hint.
How do you know that Joseph Smith was a prophet God used to “restore” the one true church to the earth and that the angel Moroni gave him golden plates conveying the book of Mormon which is a true witness of Jesus Christ written in “reformed Egyptian”? How?
[/quote]
Probably the same way that you know the Bible to be word of God. Faith, prayer, and the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Now let me ask you something Trib. What is required for a man to get to heaven?
[/quote]
It helps if you show up with pizza and beer, I heard St. Peter is a sucker for anchovies…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
VERY GOOD! I think Elder Havens was still a bit better though. Great Testimony, seriously. The trouble is your Jesus doesn’t exist and Satan is more than happy to have you and anyone else passionately testifying of absolutely ANY jesus imaginable except the one gloriously exalted in the pages of His word.
I’m gonna go ahead and help elder forlife out a bit by asking you a question to which you will give me some version of the LDS answer and maybe he’ll have a hint.
How do you know that Joseph Smith was a prophet God used to “restore” the one true church to the earth and that the angel Moroni gave him golden plates conveying the book of Mormon which is a true witness of Jesus Christ written in “reformed Egyptian” through which “a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.”? How?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:<<< Remember, a house divided against itself cannot stand. How can you claim that Satan is behind our church when we preach for the cause of Christ and against Satan? Your argument is ridiculous. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” >>>[/quote] You are IN Satans house. There is no division. He doesn’t care what anybody believes or does as long he gets to lead them to hell. He loves to have religious people talking about Jesus even more than rank, perverse God deny pagans running violent and naked through the streets. The devil disguises himself as an “angel of light” 2nd Cor. 11:4.
He doesn’t always show up all hideous and terrifying. Many times he looks like a couple fine clean cut upright young men smiling n friendly carrying a message of death. He will help you himself become a “better” father, husband, neighbor, and friend; just a better man period, if that’s what he thinks will most effectively keep you in bondage and it looks like in your case he’s been right so far. My heart and my hand go out to you man. I mean that, Let’s see what elder forlife says.
[/quote]
You do realize that the whole “Satan is deceiving you and you are following satan” can be turned around on you right? You can go back and forth all day and never be able to prove it either way so it’s wasted reasoning. Have I not demonstrated that? I can simply say that ‘Calvin was a follower of Satan and is leading all his souls to hell’ and you couldn’t prove me wrong. It’s a waste of reasoning and a colossal waste of time.
Jesus said we judge the tree by it’s fruit. Super Saiyan does not to be a sower of rotten fruit and therefore not a follower of satan.
The golden rule of evagelization is don’t evangelize to those who already believe, just not as you.
If you want to lead people to God, lead people who don’t believe and let God put them where he wants them.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You don’t believe in eternal progression?[/quote]
Yes. That doesn’t change what I wrote. Nobody will ever be God’s equal. [/quote]
You haven’t met my wife!
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There you go with this “demonstrable” stuff again after you promised we can’t KNOW anything. Looks like that agnostic honesty is a bit tougher to hang onto than than you thought. No, in your world it isn’t any more valid. However, his God/s are incapable of providing any certainty whatsoever rergardless of whatever subjective witness he claims. Why? Come on. Make me proud.[/quote]
There you go again with your black and white thinking, which refuses to acknowledge that certainty is a scale. It’s a childishly transparent tactic to justify believing in whatever you want. Just because we can’t know anything with absolute certainty doesn’t mean some ideas aren’t more probable than others.
Prove that his god is incapable of providing certainty. Prove that you heard the real voice of god, and he did not. You can’t.[/quote]
I’d further say ‘Prove his God isn’t God’…I think we are all talking about the same, uh “person”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Come on man. Can’t you even try for a minute. Mormonism is polytheistic. You see no philosophical issues in terms of the conversation we’ve been having for like a month now? That won’t even work in Aristotle’s world to say nothing of the bible. His view is 10 times (estimation) more vulnerable than yours. He claims certainty with multiple divine beings ALL of which are contingent. Only the God I worship is contingent upon nothing beyond Himself. Is THE ultimate explanation for everything comprehensively (including evil) and is hence truly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and thereby not only alone capable of, but IS Himself absolute certainty. I really believe somebody we may never hear from (though we may) is getting this.[/quote]
Your doctrine is plagued with inconsistencies as well, to which your only response is that somehow it all MUST make sense, and your beliefs are only illogical according to man’s limited intellect. You’ve painted yourself into a corner, because the same defense can be used by any believer, including Mormons. God’s ways are higher than our ways, remember? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
No, you’re better off eschewing logic entirely, as you’ve counseled Pat to do. It comes down to a spiritual conviction that you are right, apart from anything logic, reason, and evidence may or may not dictate.
Course, Mormons are entitled to that same spiritual conviction, and are 100% convinced that they are right and YOU are wrong.