Let us spotlight and particular teaching

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

Its okay if you wish to whine about me as a poster rather than talk about the topics of threads. Its up to you, but its off-topic and a deflection from the point of the thread. Kinda funny seeing as you are whining about being off-topic when you haven't posted a response on-topic yet. Such deflection lends credence to the idea that you have something to hide or fear. NO big deal...I just hope you learn to deal with it.

love,
stem

And around and around we go. You start a thread that is off topic and completely out of place in the context it is written, and I point it out. You then call me a whiner and accuse me of being off topic since I am not responding to your off topic post in any way other than to try and kindly remind you to try and stay on topic. I then continue being cordial to you even though you have been insulting, belittling and rude. Yup it all makes sense now. I am the problem.. NOT.

Kind regards,
Sentinus

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by Sentinus

And around and around we go. You start a thread that is off topic and completely out of place in the context it is written, and I point it out. You then call me a whiner and accuse me of being off topic since I am not responding to your off topic post in any way other than to try and kindly remind you to try and stay on topic. I then continue being cordial to you even though you have been insulting, belittling and rude. Yup it all makes sense now. I am the problem.. NOT.

Kind regards,
Sentinus

I enjoy that you keep posting comments in this thread about me when you have failed to stay on topic yet accuse me of being off topic. If it was against the purpose of this forum then appeal to the moderator and leave her to her duties. Its easy really. But all of your comments about trying to define my agenda after I already gave you my agenda was nothing but cordial in your mind I"m sure.

I have taken up a mirror and reflected the treatment I've been getting around here, sure. But deep down I love you all so don't take it personally.

love,
stem

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Sentinus

What really matters is how you feel about them, and the perceived value you feel they have to others who encounter them.

---Well, I would be perceiving more of that value if those who have appointed themselves attackers of what I believe, would RESPOND to my questions with real answers. Otherwise, I could start thinking that maybe my questions were not that great.

"A mormon/atheist would say so because they seem to believe knowing that evil will happen makes a person responsible for those actions."
----Don't YOU (and many other Christians) believe that God is the person 100% responsible for all the GOOD things you do, Jim?

"In fact if you had power to stop the evil in men's hearts from manifesting it's self you would be just as evil stopping the free exercise of their will as the person is you would stop from the fulfillment of his evil works.."
---Who is 100% responsible for stopping you from doing the evil things that you could do but don't do? Is God evil for preventing that?

"Are you willing to cast a person into prison for the sin of murder you know they will commit before they commit the crime?"
---Don't you believe that God pre-judged and pre-sentenced all the people---even before they were CREATED--whom He eventually sends to hell? Something to do with predestination, omniscience, and sovereignty....

Every theology on the planet is a finite expression of an infinite en***y.

--But that doesn't mean that all theologies have equal amounts of accurate info about God.

Until God determines to part the skies and speak authoritatively in a supernatural way to all these discussions will continue.

--I am all for having appropriate discussions.

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

I enjoy that you keep posting comments in this thread about me when you have failed to stay on topic yet accuse me of being off topic. If it was against the purpose of this forum then appeal to the moderator and leave her to her duties. Its easy really. But all of your comments about trying to define my agenda after I already gave you my agenda was nothing but cordial in your mind I"m sure.

I have taken up a mirror and reflected the treatment I've been getting around here, sure. But deep down I love you all so don't take it personally.

love,
stem

Around and around we go. I consider it rude not to respond to a post intended for me. I have reread your OP numerous times. It has NOTHING to do with LDS thought, and is completely off focus in a forum designated to discuss LDS beliefs. Perhaps if within your OP you mentioned how LDS thought clarifies things, or why you felt the theology was inaccurate you and I wouldn't be going back and forth so unproductively.

If you are tired of this back and forth, then I offer you an opportunity to simply not respond. I will not think it rude, nor will I believe that your silence is a concession that either of us is right or wrong on the matter. We can simply disagree. Hopefully in the future you will take a little more time in formulating your OP's and I will have nothing to say about them other than to offer my opinions on the topic itself. believe me I am capable of doing so.

I recently started a thread addressed to all LDS, I personally would love to hear your response. Additionally I think if you were to read my exchange with Vlad in that thread you could learn a little more about me. Just a suggestion. Have a great day.

Kindest regards,
Sentinus

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Well, I would be perceiving more of that value if those who have appointed themselves attackers of what I believe, would RESPOND to my questions with real answers. Otherwise, I could start thinking that maybe my questions were not that great.

"A mormon/atheist would say so because they seem to believe knowing that evil will happen makes a person responsible for those actions."
----Don't YOU (and many other Christians) believe that God is the person 100% responsible for all the GOOD things you do, Jim?

"In fact if you had power to stop the evil in men's hearts from manifesting it's self you would be just as evil stopping the free exercise of their will as the person is you would stop from the fulfillment of his evil works.."
---Who is 100% responsible for stopping you from doing the evil things that you could do but don't do? Is God evil for preventing that?

"Are you willing to cast a person into prison for the sin of murder you know they will commit before they commit the crime?"
---Don't you believe that God pre-judged and pre-sentenced all the people---even before they were CREATED--whom He eventually sends to hell? Something to do with predestination, omniscience, and sovereignty....


--But that doesn't mean that all theologies have equal amounts of accurate info about God.


--I am all for having appropriate discussions.

Originally Posted by NRA

--But that doesn't mean that all theologies have equal amounts of accurate info about God.

It doesn't have to mean that they don't either

Originally Posted by NRA

I am all for having appropriate discussions.

As am I, I find that challenging my beliefs by interacting with others who see things differently is helpful in helping me see the diversity that is God. You are someone I believe that has helped me become a better person, and has additionally helped me see God more clearly, for that I am thankful.

I fear my answers to your questions based on my religious outlook will not be helpful, but I will respond.

Don't YOU (and many other Christians) believe that God is the person 100% responsible for all the GOOD things you do

Yes and no.

In fact if you had power to stop the evil in men's hearts from manifesting it's self you would be just as evil stopping the free exercise of their will as the person is you would stop from the fulfillment of his evil works..

It really depends on how you perceive God, and our relationship with Him/Her. Stopping it and allowing it in my opinion are both the will of God.

Who is 100% responsible for stopping you from doing the evil things that you could do but don't do? Is God evil for preventing that?

See above.

Are you willing to cast a person into prison for the sin of murder you know they will commit before they commit the crime?

Nope.

Don't you believe that God pre-judged and pre-sentenced all the people---even before they were CREATED--whom He eventually sends to hell? Something to do with predestination, omniscience, and sovereignty...

No I do not. Nor, do I see things so simplistically

Hope this helps,
Sentinus

[John T]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

This was not an answer to my question. Please try again.

That WAS the correct answer. You simply refused to accept it, and NO, YOU ARE NOT MY TEACHER!

Actually no, my thoughts are strictly LDS, and from that vantage point I see a clear problem with your belief system. Be that as it may it seems you agree that this question is correct too, great.

OBVIOUSLY you have not studied philosophy. That is a description of the cl***ic atheistic position.

NO I DID NOT AGREE

By this non-answer are you conceeding (sic) the point? DId God originally conceive of every evil deed before creating ex nihilo? BTW I am arguing from an LDS position not an atheistic position as you keep suggesting.

LDS may share this with atheists, but atheists had it first. You may want to research Robert Ingersol, he began his career nearby me in Dresden NY.

Wow. I'm not sure what was an error since you never described exactly what was in error. I did not borrow these particular questions no. Just so you know BrianH, at least, answered correct to all the questions. So, it appears you ought to whine to him about he doesn't understand mainstream beliefs before you should whine about me supposedly not knowing. It seems obvious to me, and probably to him, that you are the one who doesn't understand. Oh well. Your jumping to conslusions (sic) instead of answering questions seems to hit the nail on the head here.

I utterly reject your subs***uting condescension for rational dialog. (Besides that, I strongly urge that you use a spell checker before you spew out more rudeness and belittling.

Actually its working perfectly. One great complaint by many a mainstreamer (SIC) --BH, Russell, JD and the like is that LDS haven't thought much, generally about their own beliefs. This thread has shown that you and BH haven't thought much about your own beliefs. I already know JD and Russell haven't thought these things through totally either. For one, the complaint that LDS don't know a lot about or haven't htought a lot about LDs belief is merely a hypocritcal (sic) complaint. For another, this problem is the ultimate, in my imagination, in terms of destructive beliefs. Its a sad and terrible theology you believe in. love, stem

This post displays that you are neither interested in rational discussion, nor civility. Therefore, I end my acting in a Christ-like way with you here. You have this thread to yourself.

YOUR LACK OF COMMON COURTESY AND COMMON SENSE REEK

[stemelbow]

I consider it rude not to respond to a post intended for me.

Then why are you being rude not responding to the OP which was intended for anyone who is criticizing LDS that is a mainstreamer?

love,
stem

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Sentinus

As am I, I find that challenging my beliefs by interacting with others who see things differently is helpful in helping me see the diversity that is God. You are someone I believe that has helped me become a better person, and has additionally helped me see God more clearly, for that I am thankful.

---Thanks, that was very kind of you to say.

I fear my answers to your questions based on my religious outlook will not be helpful, but I will respond.

---And I am grateful for the answers. Please note that my questions were in response to JohnT's arguments, and my questions were really directed to him first. Since he never responded, I was willing to hear from anyone else "on the other side" who had an opinion. So thanks. You are the first and so far only one to address the questions.

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Thanks, that was very kind of you to say.

---And I am grateful for the answers. Please note that my questions were in response to JohnT's arguments, and my questions were really directed to him first. Since he never responded, I was willing to hear from anyone else "on the other side" who had an opinion. So thanks. You are the first and so far only one to address the questions.

Originally Posted by Nra

Thanks, that was very kind of you to say.

It's the truth and was shared because to seldom do we thanks those that have helped shape who we have become and will become in the future. I can only hope that I have influenced others in similar ways..

You are welcome btw for the answers.

Kindest regards,
Sentinus

[stemelbow]

Thanks for avoiding and dodging questions and the poitns I raised. At least by not addressing how any of what I said was wrong, we can see either you don't understand your own beliefs or you are causing a great deflection because you are quite embarr***ed about your beliefs. Either way, I'm cool if you wish to leave your argument as stated. It helps my case, in the long run.

love,
stem

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

Thanks for avoiding and dodging questions and the poitns I raised. At least by not addressing how any of what I said was wrong, we can see either you don't understand your own beliefs or you are causing a great deflection because you are quite embarr***ed about your beliefs. Either way, I'm cool if you wish to leave your argument as stated. It helps my case, in the long run.

love,
stem

While it may be clear to you whom this post is intended for, it may not be so clear to others. I am ***uming John T but you know what they say about ***uming.

A little more clarity would be nice.

Just an Fyi in this very thread my interactions with NRA may help you see a little more clearly my motivation and focus here at Walter MArtin since you seem to be missing them I thought I could point it out for you.

Kind regards,
Sentinus

[stemelbow]

I use the hybrid mode, S, as other posters instructed me to avoid confusion. Therefore all of my responses are direct responses to the posts I click to respond to. I hope my explanation helps because you'll find other posters here do the same. Its easy to follow along when we're all doing the same.

I don't care what your motivations are. All I know is you are frequently avoiding the topic of trheads causing deflections because you disagree with how this board is supposed to be run. Its silliness.

love,
stem

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

I use the hybrid mode, S, as other posters instructed me to avoid confusion. Therefore all of my responses are direct responses to the posts I click to respond to. I hope my explanation helps because you'll find other posters here do the same. Its easy to follow along when we're all doing the same.

I don't care what your motivations are. All I know is you are frequently avoiding the topic of trheads causing deflections because you disagree with how this board is supposed to be run. Its silliness.

love,
stem

Actually no one has stated clearly how it SHOULD be run, so I will continue to point out what I feel is the intent, and you are free to ignore. I have invited you to start new threads reworded to make you point more clear and you have chosen not to do so. Should I ***ume you are "running" or "Afraid"? I don't feel this was, but your logic in other discussions fits this type of thinking.

Originally Posted by Stem

Its silliness.

If you say so. Yet, others have Pm'd me agreeing with my thoughts, and even some of your LDS brothers here have at least been able to understand and see my point. You are the one that seems unable to at least see it from another perspective, accept it as valid and move on.

Originally Posted by Stem

I use the hybrid mode

I have no idea what this is. I would if you are willing appreciate your ***istance or suggestions in how this works.. If not, I understand.

Regards,
Sentinus

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

I use the hybrid mode, S, as other posters instructed me to avoid confusion. Therefore all of my responses are direct responses to the posts I click to respond to. I hope my explanation helps because you'll find other posters here do the same. Its easy to follow along when we're all doing the same.

I don't care what your motivations are. All I know is you are frequently avoiding the topic of trheads causing deflections because you disagree with how this board is supposed to be run. Its silliness.

love,
stem

Originally Posted by Stem

I don't care what your motivations are.

I kinda figured this. Hence yours are becoming crystal clear to me.

Regards,
Sentinus

[stemelbow]

I get it, pouty. You don't like me. Yiptey. I just want someone who is able to discuss this stuff without deflecting or running. It could be a delight.

love,
stem

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

I get it, pouty. You don't like me. Yiptey. I just want someone who is able to discuss this stuff without deflecting or running. It could be a delight.

love,
stem

Originally Posted by Stem

You don't like me.

Honestly, I don't know you well enough to form any opinion either way as of yet.

Again you ***ume incorrectly, and in the process use antagonism and veiled insults to seemingly bolster your position that I am somehow avoiding a conversation with you. Yet, you ignore my many requests to start another thread, any thread that has some amount of focus on the topic of Mormonism.

I agree, it could be a delight, and am sure with the amount of intelligence I personally feel you have demonstrated with others here would be mutually beneficial. Alas you seem content slinging mud instead.

Kindest regards,
Sentinus

[stemelbow]

Again you ***ume incorrectly, in terms of your ***umptions of me. I have no intention of slinging mud. I have every intention of discussing the topic of the thread. Which you continue to avoid and instead try to complain about me. Cute as it may be, I would prefer you actually discuss the topic.

love,
stem

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

Again you ***ume incorrectly, in terms of your ***umptions of me. I have no intention of slinging mud. I have every intention of discussing the topic of the thread. Which you continue to avoid and instead try to complain about me. Cute as it may be, I would prefer you actually discuss the topic.

love,
stem

I have already addressed my opinion on your OP. I even actually participated in this thread by answering NRA's questions on the topic which no one else attempted to do.. You must have missed that, before you ask or conclude that I have broken my own rule doing so, I would add that NRA in my years of conversing with him has earned my admiration and respect as an individual, and I will always make exceptions for those I consider exceptional. (No matter how much we differ he has always conducted himself in a mature and respectful way, at least with me.) Perhaps you could take some posting tips from him? Cute as it may be that you keep bantering back and forth redundantly with me perhaps you could just accept my Opinion as valid for me and move on. As I said I do not perceive silence as "fear" "running" or "avoidance". Nor do I see any opinions as "Silly", "Petty", or "Pouty". I see all as equally valid and useful to learn from. I have learned much about you already and we have hardly even dialogued..

Kind regards,
Sentinus

[stemelbow]

I hear your tooting of your own horn and extend you an Amen. And I agree that NraJeff does a great *** in his posts here....much better than I, certainly better than you. He's not only nicer than I am, overall, but he is also more logical overall. Its good you answer Jeff's questions because he has earned you admiration and respect. I think that's great. I personally don't mind answering any persons questions...they're questions, if respectful, deserve answers. And they as people deserve answers whether my subjective and fallible person respects them or not. With that, I only hope you come to realize that someday.

I have already accepted that you have your opinion and it is valid to you. I simply disagree and for that I get in response a bunch of off-topic complaints about me. Somehow you think you have done so well, but I"m a bad man. Perhaps you hold the same opinion as Andy and other evan posters here? I don't know. I jsut find it all adorable is all.

love,
stem

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

I hear your tooting of your own horn and extend you an Amen. And I agree that NraJeff does a great *** in his posts here....much better than I, certainly better than you. He's not only nicer than I am, overall, but he is also more logical overall. Its good you answer Jeff's questions because he has earned you admiration and respect. I think that's great. I personally don't mind answering any persons questions...they're questions, if respectful, deserve answers. And they as people deserve answers whether my subjective and fallible person respects them or not. With that, I only hope you come to realize that someday.

I have already accepted that you have your opinion and it is valid to you. I simply disagree and for that I get in response a bunch of off-topic complaints about me. Somehow you think you have done so well, but I"m a bad man. Perhaps you hold the same opinion as Andy and other evan posters here? I don't know. I jsut find it all adorable is all.

love,
stem

Originally Posted by Stem

certainly better than you.

I know he wouldn't agree, although based on our limited interaction I can see why you would feel this way. he has solicited my POV and insights numerous times. I however, think you highly logical and intelligent. Time will tell if you ever begin to grasp my true intent for my posts to you, I have explained it very clearly, yet you seem to be missing my point over and over.. And I am not referring to the surface reason we keep going back and forth on. Read some of my other posts to you a little closer.

Additionally I don't think you a bad man, I do see you as quite jaded by constantly rolling up your sleeves in defense of your faith. I perceive that your interactions with "Ev" and "Mainstream Christians" has been so narrowly focused that the whole has become poisoned in your mind.

Originally Posted by Stem

I jsut find it all adorable is all.

Indeed I am adorable, like a BIG teddy bear just ask my wife and kids.

Regards,
Sentinus

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by Sentinus

I know he wouldn't agree, although based on our limited interaction I can see why you would feel this way. he has solicited my POV and insights numerous times. I however, think you highly logical and intelligent. Time will tell if you ever begin to grasp my true intent for my posts to you, I have explained it very clearly, yet you seem to be missing my point over and over.. And I am not referring to the surface reason we keep going back and forth on. Read some of my other posts to you a little closer.

Additionally I don't think you a bad man, I do see you as quite jaded by constantly rolling up your sleeves in defense of your faith. I perceive that your interactions with "Ev" and "Mainstream Christians" has been so narrowly focused that the whole has become poisoned in your mind.

Your perception of me is again wrong. I don't mind though.

love,
stem

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

Your perception of me is again wrong. I don't mind though.

love,
stem

Perhaps. Only time will tell.

Kindest regards,
Sentinus

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

I got some questions

Before creating (ex nihilo) anything God was all there was, correct?

Before God created (ex nihilo) He knew, had to know, that evil things would be practiced, correct?

God being all powerful and able to create anything in any form and with any behavior he wanted, chose to create creatures (like satan) that would do evil things. He certainly didn't have to create Satan, right?

Also before creating (ex nihilo) God knew all the evil acts that would be done, right?

If so, before any being was created, before any evil action could be done, evil ideas originated in the "mind" of God, right?

***uming all the above is in line with your beliefs lets move on...

God created beings and knew each and every action each being would do throughout eternity, right?

He knew, for instance, that little Russ would tell his mom a lie when he was little, right?

But God, being all-powerful, didn't have to create any beings who would do anything evil right?

Without creating there would be no evil practiced there would only be God, right?

A creature would not do evil things if God first did not create that being out of nothing knowing full well all actions that being would do, right?

God knew which beings would be saved eternally and which beings would be ****ed for eternity before creating any of them, right?

God did not have to create any beings who would be ****ed for eternity, right?

There would be absolutely no suffering, of the worst kind, if God did not create, right?

Let us go to this point and see what answers we get.

love,
stem

Let us sum up the evangelical religion then. Based on the only evan who answered the above questions the answer for evans is all correct, although one did suggest without any reasoning that one or two at least were wrong. I don't know which ones or how they were wrong. Either way BH answered them all correct. So that means...

To the mainstreamer...

God created all creatures out of nothing, and all actions, mostly evil but some good, were originally conceived of in the mind of God. Afterall before Lucifer was created God thought of the deeds that would make Lucifer who he is long before God created him out of nothing. Accordingly, even lucifer would not have done an evil deed if God did not first conceive of the evil deeds he was going to do. He wouldn't have rebelled if God did not conceive of his rebellion, how it would come about, what inside him which caused his rebellion, and all. Additionally not one other wise uncreated being would not suffer pain and torture in this life if God did not conceive of ways that these beings would suffer pain and torture. Indeed, each and every evil deed, all according to mainstreamism, can be traced back to the conception of God. the evil doer didn't conceive of the evil deeds...God did not long before. Since God is the originator of every evil deed, according to mainstreamism's belief system if taken to its logical conclusion, then God is the very source of the bad stuff.

Of course for LDS God is not the source of evil. He did not create evil deeds, thus evil deeds were conceived of long before He knew they would occur. Its that simple.

love,
stem

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

Afterall before Lucifer was created God thought of the deeds that would make Lucifer who he is long before God created him out of nothing.

Do you believe that your God did not know what actions Lucifer would take prior to him being born by your mother in heaven?

If you believe that your God did know in advance about Lucifer's actions why did your God allow him to be spiritually born?

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you believe that your God did not know what actions Lucifer would take prior to him being born by your mother in heaven?

Born by my mother in heaven? not really. I do believe God knew all actions Lucifer would do prior to forming his spirit from the intelligences that made him up. Lucifer already existed...just in a different form.

If you believe that your God did know in advance about Lucifer's actions why did your God allow him to be spiritually born?

He wasn't spiritually born. He was formed into spirit form. to be spiritually born is essentially to be baptized with pure intent. God allowed him to be formed into spirit form but God was not the originator of the evil deeds Lucifer would do. That's the difference. To answer your question, God allowed all intelligences formed into spirits a chance to further their existence.

So how's about taken a stab at addressing my argument, posed against your religious beliefs?

love,
stem