brotherofJared

Sorry I was pretty clear that we aren't here to learn the difference between Good and Evil. I interpret learning good from evil as a difference between them. That's Not what we're here to do. We were given the knowledge to know the difference between Good and Evil when Adam and Eve took of the forbidden fruit. We don't need to learn it. what we are here to do perhaps is to learn the consequences of evil over good. But even that's not what we're here to do. I believe that we're here to learn about ourselves and what our disposition is towards those two poles. Consider Abraham who was commanded to sacrifice his only son buy a God who saved him from the very same to my eyes and indirect contradiction to everything Abraham new of that God. It was wrong on every level but God commanded him and he carried God's commandment. It had nothing to do with learning the difference between Good and Evil. Instead, it has everything to do with learning about ourselves and what we will do in given situation.

Yep. But it doesn't say who the Word is. It is implied. Who wrote that and when did the early Christians come to accept it. John knew, but it was many years before the apostles knew.

This assumes that we can judge who accepts Jesus Christ and who rejects him. Commonly, among modern Christians, Mormons are thought and taught have rejected Christ. Are they right? Can they judge that Mormons have rejected Jesus and therefore stand condemned? Mormons, on the other hand, don't reject any modern Christians belief and tell them to keep what they have and let us add to it (and there is a lot to add). The point here is that John 3:18 makes a claim that no man can judge. It also makes a claim without a timeframe in which such a judgment should be executed. for example, does one have to accept Jesus Christ before they die to be saved? At what point in their life should they accept him for it to be counted? Can we condemn Muslims categorically just because they are Muslims? I don't think so. It's popular in modern Christian theology to live life riotously (or however we want) and at the end be saved on our death bed by accepting Jesus. In fact, it was so popular that at one time, it was deemed acceptable to torture converts into accepting the Jesus and then letting them die do their exaltation (I know this is probably a wives tale to scare little children, but I think the idea is sound as both concepts are ridiculous). The problem with John 3:18 is that there are many who never heard the name of Jesus, so it fits nicely that some are born to salvation and some are born to damnation. I really don't care if it's the theology of some religions to accept this hogwash. It is a dark ages concept and government can't afford to be steeped in leaders who have no problem with witch hunts. That being said, Sanders was still out of line because as a public servant, his job doesn't allow for religious tests. There are other ways to deal with zealots if they think they are carrying a banner into war, because no sooner than Vaughn becomes a public servant, he becomes chained to the same engine that is biting at the heals of Sanders.

You're entitled to your opinions. I didn't think Mormons were a bunch of Muslim haters. If you can't see the parallels in Mohammed's life to those of Joseph Smith's life, then I think you're just not looking. Common links between the, just roughly prophets scripture polygamy revelation lead a people established a religion united a people Please remember that we had God himself, and the greatest prophet who ever lived present on earth at the same time to establish the gospel. It didn't last 70 years before it was destroyed by men. I would expect much more could be accomplished by Mohammed in his lifetime. Joseph Smith was correct in his boast that we, his people didn't abandon him, though there was a lot of apostasy conspiring with its walls. I think it a miracle that this fantastic gooney bird has finally taken flight. The fullness of the gospel was reserved for one man to restore, but the Muslims had received a promise of success and prosperity similar to that which was given to Abraham (I realize that many question the reality that Muslims descended from Ishmael and that argument can go on for eons), it seems only fitting that at a time when they Muslims needed a prophet most, that God would send one to preserve them. Mohammed's purpose was different that Joseph Smith's, but that doesn't mean God didn't send him.

I thought I asked you not to make me explain it. Please just use your imagination. It is possible.The choice isn't "not to die". You are thinking in one-dimensional concepts. None of us ever really die. We may leave one plane of existence and move into another, none of us will ever die. The choice isn't to end life, it is how to live and one kind of life that will be.

Often times, those elect don't know they are elect and are not known as such. Consider the 7000 reserved who would not bend the knee to Baal. They were not known nor, do I think that they knew themselves to be elect. All they saw was that they would not bend the knee to Baal. Of these, I wonder how many suffered in life, barely able to sustain themselves, much less their family? Of these, how many were burdened with sin and cried day and night to be relieved of the monkey on their back? We only know of one. The other 7000 we do not know. Not their names, their station, their gender or their age and yet. These are the elect that early church compared themselves too.

I like how you see the best in others. (just an observation).

Limited and bound, imo means our condition can't be changed. Our present state can be changed. Out future state is completely in our control. There are places we can't go, but we can change our state. I hope I don't have to give the drastic example to explain how this works. As far as our future, I believe it depends enitrely on what we do here. What we do is our choice. The gift we have from Adam is freedom to chose and to act and not be acted upon. Our future is completely in our control.

Not on what he believed, no. On what he DID.

He also made it equally clear, in public dissertation, that he didn't really believe that when he supported the stand Wheaton took to fire a fellow Christian. So, not only does he show a propensity to judge people who are not of his faith, he also appears to be willing to judge those of his faith when they disagree with him or his views. It's fine to claim to treat people equally, but when they don't treat people equally, especially when someone is stepping out to treat people equally, which he claimed God commanded that Christians do, then obviously Sanders has a point.

I've been through this with modern Christians many times. I really don't want to argue it again. It is my belief that there are NO verses in the Bible that state that Jesus is God. He is always the Lord and the Father is God. That is my belief. Now, if you want to show me a verse, one verse, that you feel unequivocally disproves my statement, then, by all means, show it. By acquiesce, I mean I'm not going to waste a bunch of time disputing that one issue. I've stated my belief. BTW, Ehrman has written quite a few articles on how the apostles and early Christians didn't think of Jesus Christ as God initially and that it developed over time. He used the New Testament and many secular studies to present that theory. For all I know, Ehrman might also disagree with me, but it is his comments on the subject that got me to think about it. It is questions such as this that lead me to this site. The question I had was about the cherubim and who does the voice from between the cherubim represent, actually; who is it suppose to be. I recognize Jesus as God and I realize that we do also, but I believe that idea developed. It was not immediate. Even with Peter's statement... Thou art the Son of God, doesn't really define Jesus as God, but instead, the Son of God. He was the Messiah, who I don't believe the Jews ever believed was God. The problem that we have is that as the Jews were being exiled, the Old Testament went through a rewrite to eliminate references to a heavenly Mother and a Son of God, both of whom were getting "undo" attention in worship. What we have now is a morphed Old Testament that often times makes it confusing about who was speaking? Jesus, the Son of God or His Father and so frequently, we say that Jesus was speaking as the Father. We are viewing the past and ancient scripture through a haze of intentional obfuscation in order to present a new order of belief that did not exist before these people who exerted a powerful influence on what we have today. Very good. I think if someone had come from the dead, I would have said something similar. Some might even conclude that Thomas was a Freemason. The problem with this teaching, that Jesus is God, is the immediate question, among monotheists, is, who then is the Father? The Trinity, as it became known through the creeds, was not ever defined in the Bible. Declaring that Jesus is God is a monotheistic catastrophe. Only through modern revelation do we come to understand that they are all three Gods, even though our worship is solely confined to the Father. These are just my thoughts. I had no intention of arguing who Christ is. I know who He is, but many here will take umbrage with my position, make fun, claim I'm apostate and the abuse will go on and on. Oh well. These two statements are not equal. As far as I know, Mormons believe that it is entirely up to God who is condemned and who is not. Because, as far as we know, Muslims don't accept Christ as the Son of God, they are condemned? To where? The idea that we can decide what people know, what they believe and if they are condemned or not is ludicrous. We are not in a position to condemn anyone. And, frankly, the issue with Vaugh? is his condemnation of a fellow Christian because she sought solidarity with Muslims. This is getting out of control fast. Pretty soon, the modern Christians will be condemning Mormons. Heaven help anyone who tries to extend a helping hand to them, especially with Vaughn doing the judging... No. I don't really care. Your explanation is interesting, but; attacking the white vote by supporting a minority is not really the way to win an election. True politics would be to either talk a lot and say nothing, support both sides or support neither side while leaving the door open to escape at any moment to the winning side.

Oh. I think Vaught represented mainstream Christians just fine. I disagree with mainstream Christians on a daily basis. Now. It appears that I also disagree with Mormons on a daily basis. I feel like a snow ball in hell.

That's possible. I wasn't trying to rebut Sander's actions. Politically, his question is flammable, even though I agree with Sanders' accusation. I believe it is wrong for anyone to condemn anyone simply because of what their faith teaches them. Depending on which modern Christian denomination they belong too, some seem to believe that God made Muslims to be condemned from the beginning. Mohammed believed. Muslims, like Christians, without the proper guidance, have gone far astray from Mohammed's teachings. They are a religion of performances, but; from my observations, those performances hardly do anything for them. Same as did the performances the Jews were ladened with. Again, I wasn't trying to rebut. I was just offering my observations. I personally disagree with the assertions made and I gave my reasons I don't really expect anyone to agree with me. I know my position is unpopular, probably on both sides. The Muslims won't agree with me and the Christians won't agree with me. I would think that the Mormons would. There is very little difference between Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

It makes no sense for someone to be consigned to hell forever who is not a Son of Perdition. Maybe these are the people who are stuck in limbo. Jesus must have forgotten about them. You realize that everyone in the telestial kingdom has denied Christ? Take a look at the list of people who end up there. These aren't church goers.

It is my interpretation which I think I spelled out. The vague reference that "God has no need of a son" that really doesn't quite say that in the above translation, is in fact, true. God doesn't need a son. Why is that a problem? Mohammed was much closer to that time frame that we are. Presentism is not going to solve the issue. I realize that these creeds stated that Jesus was God, but those are not the early Christians to which I was referring and while the creeds were in place, the notion that Christ was God was not as firm then as it is now. We recognize that Christ is God, but we worship only one God, unlike most modern Christian organizations. This is presentism. I know what we state now. The apostles didn't say anything about Jesus being God. They called him Lord and that there was one God which Christ also stated. Even after the resurrection, Christ commanded us to pray to the Father, though He accepted the prayer offered to him by the disciples after his resurrection. Which one of these isn't true: "The Christ Jesus, son of Mary" "was but God's Apostle", messenger in the other translation. I might remind you that Paul called Christ an angel, which also is a messenger. "[the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary" "and a soul created by Him." (I might point out here, that this is an odd statement in its form since none of us are created by God. God created Adam and Eve and Christ. He didn't really have much to do with human creations after those three - speaking in explicit terms). In the translation I used, the word Christ is translated as Messiah. Christ is the Greek word for it. One cannot, or should not, miss the significance of Mohammed's use of it. Nothing in the passage states that passage address who Christ was outside of his mortal existence. It is not fair to bring that identity to bear in what Mohammed did say. It's clear to me that Mohammed was only stating that it was overstepping our religion to state that Jesus was God which at that time in history, it was in question. He was basically saying the creeds are false even though we don't like the way he said it. These are only my opinions. I don't think Mohammed was off base. Further, to state that He was will only alienate Muslims who must also, eventually, hear the word of God, which; apparently, Vaughn appeared to believe was a complete waste of energy and effort since Muslims are already condemned. That, as with my statements in another thread, is the wrong approach. I disagree with the way you read it. I have already stated the passage that where I believe Mohammed clearly states that Allah did beget Jesus. I realize that Muslims will also disagree with me. And I wouldn't argue it with them. I strictly go with the idea that Jesus was not created for Allah. He was created for us by Allah. The Muslim concept of heaven seems to me that it would be ridiculous to claim that Allah couldn't produce a son if He so chose. The idea behind all of these statements is only that Allah is alone, God. And I am fine with that definition of Allah. I believe that describes God, the Father, just fine. It's shaky, but when dealing with Muslims, I am agreeable to that definition.

What part? Justify and reward? Where else will they go? I'm guessing the idea here is that no one can save themselves and that's what makes you feel uncomfortable? That the Telestial Kingdom is a type of salvation. It works out the same in the end, doesn't it? None of us would ever have the chance for any kind of salvation without Christ. Am I to understand that their suffering is a way to force salvation on those who don't want it? Wouldn't that mean that they are being punished for not accepting Christ or his atonement? Is it not possible to just pay for our own sins? (Paying for our sins is not the same as works based salvation. These people aren't being good. They are suffering for their sins. There is a difference). Please remember that the resurrection, which enables all mankind to be restored, spirit and element. Man cannot possibly accomplish that alone, but being restored means that those who are resurrected must go some place and those who refuse Christ's atonement shouldn't warrant outer darkness forever. I don't believe the Telestial Kingdom is any kind of salvation, but it is better than no glory at all. Those who obtain this kingdom are evil wicked men whose deeds were evil. We're not talking skipping church or smoking or throwing a frozen turkey through the windshield of a car. I can see a lot of people in this kingdom would refuse Christ and yet still not be a son of Perdition.

Ok. I'll by that. But those who suffer, do so in hell and when they repent/change, they can obtain a telestial glory. Right?

I'm not sure you can. Live is not good or evil only. But please, keep trying.

Hell isn't even in this statement. It doesn't even remotely agree with what you're suggesting. Do you have any other verses that might agree with your point of view? These don't.

Compare and contrast. There is no statement of where one will dwell, only that one would be more miserable in one place than they would the other.

reproving what they do, not what they are.

I think that's what I was doing.

I don't know how you can possibly think that I'm the one judging here.

After reading more on this and finding yet another translation of the Quran, I am wondering if anyone has more information, the actual dialog between Sanders (who I ignorantly mocked before and shouldn't have) and Vaughn. Having drilled down to the area of question in that dialog, I found the person that Sanders was directing his questions about to be worthy of consideration. If anyone has access to the actual dialog, please, if it is permissible, paste a link to it. Sanders certainly knew that he was stepping very close to the line so I'm curious if he actually did. I still don't see how the above scripture from the Quran is not correct. While it doesn't align with the modern Christian view of the Trinity, it clearly does state that the Father of Christ is Allah, who happens to also be our God. Considering that this was recorded early 600AD, I believe there was a big issue about that time on who was God and who was Lord. Originally, the early church did not see Christ as God, but as Lord and so the Trinity didn't exist until much later. This passage is actually to Christians and not to Muslims. The "followers of the gospel" are Christians. The fulfillment of God's promise to Mary is exactly that. That He, God, would give Mary a son. Mohammad's words were to the effect, don't call Him, Christ, God. That there is only one God, which Christ Himself said. These parts are true. The passage: "utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son" (the alternate translation I have is "Exalted is He above having a son"), are a little archaic which to me doesn't amount to meaning anything, except as I stated, that He doesn't need a son. We do. Now, as I did a little more research, I discovered that the entire line of questioning resulted over a public rebuttal that Vaughn gave against a Facebook post against a professor at Wheaton University (or is it College??) that sought solidarity with women of the Muslim faith, based on an article by yet another person who addressed the question, in effect, do Muslims and Christians share the same God. In other words: Is Allah the Father of Christ? I was very impressed with the Facebook post. I didn't finish the article which the professor linked too. I saw that Sanders was particularly upset that Vaughn's published rebuttal specifically stated that she was entirely incorrect and that Muslims, by their faith are, already condemned. I can see how someone's judgment on a group of people based on his religious beliefs could be a problem for public office, but it depends on how Sanders addressed it. One article stated that Sanders flirted with the religious test issue, basically stating, in so many words, that he may not have crossed the line. I was surprised to find out that Sanders was Jewish. I don't like his socialist position so I wouldn't vote for him, but it is interesting to see where his mind is at on the Muslim vs Christian issue.

I think it interesting that you think you know what the philosophies of men are. I think it even more interesting that you think you know enough to judge my understanding as such. Who do you think you are? I guess I shouldn't expect better of Mormons, but I do. It's a weakness of mine. One would think, that after the fiasco with race in the priesthood, that they'd stop doing it, but I can see that will not happen soon. (I doubt anyone here will understand what I mean by that statement and probably assume that I'm condemning the church for the restriction, but I am not. It is the excuses that Mormons created to explain the reason for the ban to which I am referring...) I remember sitting in a priesthood class where the instructor made the statement: "We have the priesthood and the Holy Ghost, we can talk about the mysteries of heaven" and invited a candid discussion. What a mistake. No sooner than he opened the floor for discussion than we had one priesthood holder condemning another for the "philosophies of men". How do you know that what is there is actually supposed to be there? You don't. You don't have the originals. How do you know that the way you've interpreted it is what was meant? Well, you don't. You aren't the author. What makes you think my understanding of the passage is the philosophies of men and yours the philosophies of God? Well, you can't. You're not God. Does it make sense that the person who has the beam in their eye can remove it? Apparently, they didn't even know it is there? How can they remove it if they don't know it's there? Who can tell them? It is clear to me that the intent of the passage was that we don't know it's there and to stop trying to fix other peoples problems. The latter portion of that verse was quite clear. "cast out first the beam out of thine own eye", assuming you can even do. Don't presume that you can tell me anything about what's in my eye.