Is God unable to create in kind?

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Which of those 3 choices do YOU subscribe to, Andy? Instead of just attacking, mocking, and accusing, how about telling us YOUR beliefs for a change? Or are you unable to do that?

1. Those who think that God lacks the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself.

2. Those who think that God HAS the ability and chooses to use it.

3. Those who think that God has the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself, but God thinks that doing so would be evil, so He chooses to NOT create any such beings, ever.

Why do you have to be reminded that we Christians are not here to defend Christianity....it is a given on this forum that we Christians have the TRUTH and you are here to hopelessly try to defend your anti-Christian cult?

Andy

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

it is a given on this forum that we Christians have the TRUTH and you are here to hopelessly try to defend your anti-Christian cult?

---LOL. Maybe that's a huge part of your problem: You are under the delusion that it's a given that anything you say is correct. Shrinks call that a God Complex, I think. Or at least a horrid case of arrogance and snobbery, to the point of being out of touch with reality.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---LOL. Maybe that's a huge part of your problem: You are under the delusion that it's a given that anything you say is correct. Shrinks call that a God Complex, I think. Or at least a horrid case of arrogance and snobbery, to the point of being out of touch with reality.

And yet mormonism has thousands of so called "elders" going about doing exactly what you are accusing me of and in fact Smith founded his anti-Christian cult doing that exact thing also.

Besides....mormonism has been soundly refuted here time after time here and this forum was founded by someone that reached out in love to try and wake mormons up to the errors of mormonism and yet you guys mock, deny and just plain refuse to listen to sound Biblical exegesis and then accuse us of all kinds of atrocities just to try and steer any and all sound Biblical exegesis away so your cult won't be exposed for the lie that it is.

Alas....you are only fooling yourselves.

Andy

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

And yet mormonism has thousands of so called "elders" going about doing exactly what you are accusing me of and in fact Smith founded his anti-Christian cult doing that exact thing also.

What--you really have evidence that all those missionaries, and Joseph Smith, claimed it as a given that anything they say is correct? I can find you a quote of Smith admitting that he could be wrong--and that he WAS wrong--about some things. Looks like you lied again.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

What--you really have evidence that all those missionaries, and Joseph Smith, claimed it as a given that anything they say is correct? I can find you a quote of Smith admitting that he could be wrong--and that he WAS wrong--about some things. Looks like you lied again.

What kind of wish-washy nonsense.

We Christians are ***ured.

We Christians don't if and or but or make things up as we go.

We Christians don't have to figure out if what the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets is true.....they have given us the Standard for all things pertaining to life and Godliness that is more sure than hearing the voice of God Himself as Peter taught us in 2 Peter 1.

Mormonism has nothing.

Andy

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

Why do you have to be reminded that we Christians are not here to defend Christianity....it is a given on this forum that we Christians have the TRUTH and you are here to hopelessly try to defend your anti-Christian cult?

Andy

I think any LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians that are on this Board, and specifically in this forum would be glad to defend their beliefs. That, of course, begs the question of why you are here.

As I understand it, this forum is here to discuss Mormonism. It is naiive to suppose that one can discuss Mormonism in a vacuum. It is meaningless and impotent to claim that Mormonism is false without providing a comparison.

Perhaps a simple example. Suppose Christopher Columbus had a cousin named Barney who believed the earth was flat. Try to imagine the dialogue between the two of them if Christopher was unwilling to discuss the true shape of the world.

Barney: The world is flat.

Christopher: No. It isn't.

Barney: Sure it is. Look out at the horizon. It's flat, flat, flat for as far as you can see.

Christopher: You lie.

Barney: Do you know anyone who has proved the world isn't flat.

Christopher: You are so deluded, it is sad.

Barney: Everyone I know thinks the same, that the world is all flat

Christopher: You're all wrong. You're just too stoopid to know it.

Barney: So, if it isn't flat, what shape is it?

Christopher: How can you be so dense? Don't you have a picture of the world?

Barney: Yeah, it's printed on a piece of paper, and it's flat.

So, if you want to tell me Mormonism is false, you better be prepared to explain relative to what! Otherwise, save your keystrokes for your . . . oh, never mind.

[akaSeerone]

You start your post out being deceitful and you expect us Christians to believe anything you say....mormonism has totally twisted and redefined the Bible and then have the gall to call themselves Christian.

You have to correct that if you expect to have a honest debate.

You are not Christian.

Andy

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

You've missed a lot of the discussion. Nor did you seem to understand my actual post.

Life begets in kind. That's the pattern of all living things.
We believe God begets in kind. For you, this is beyond God's ability to do.

But God does not beget in kind according to LDS thought because your essence or intelligence is co-existent with God and God can't create or beget this intelligence or essence.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

------Yes, because I try to think logically, therefore if I knew of some OTHER church that came closer to the original, I would be looking to join IT. The fact that I remain happily LDS is a sign that I don't see anything closer out there in the world of "traditional" Christianity..

Every mainstream Christian church is closer in doctrine to the original NT church than the LDS church, so it would not be hard to find a church to join, just look in your phonebook.

Originally Posted by nrajeff

The original church was set up to have, as its human leadership, 12 apostles running it,

There is no question that Christ called 12 apostles to be his witness, to set up his church, and several who went on to write down scripture about His life, miracles, death, and resurrection. But what makes you think that there was suppose to be a continuos succession of 12 apostles eternally?

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Every mainstream Christian church is closer in doctrine to the original NT church than the LDS church

---Then list the doctrines that the original church (apostolic era) taught and practiced. Then rank the Catholic, Orthodox, and the myriad of Reformationist churches in order, with number 1 being the church that does things closest to the original. That would be helpful to people who want to join the church that's closest to the original.

There is no question that Christ called 12 apostles to be his witness, to set up his church, and several who went on to write down scripture about His life, miracles, death, and resurrection.

--You forgot "....and to oversee the bishops, make rulings when disputes arose, decide true and false doctrine, and ordain leaders including their own successors."

But what makes you think that there was suppose to be a continuos succession of 12 apostles eternally?

---Not eternally: Paul said that Jesus ins***uted the office of apostle, et al, to be in the church "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4) Once all of Christianity arrives at that utopian state of spiritual maturity and unity, the need for apostles will probably fade away. Answer me this: Since you guys did away with apostolic-level leadership, has Christendom become MORE united? Or LESS united and more fragmented?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Then list the doctrines that the original church (apostolic era) taught and practiced. Then rank the Catholic, Orthodox, and the myriad of Reformationist churches in order, with number 1 being the church that does things closest to the original. That would be helpful to people who want to join the church that's closest to the original.

I think that the two most important issues are: 1. The nature of God; 2. Salvation


1. Nature of God. I rank this number one because we know that we should not worship a false god. What makes a god false? False ideas about god. The LDS god and the Christian God are completely different. Using logic either the LDS god is true, or the Christian God is true, but both gods can be true because of their conflicting constructs (or a third possibility is that neither is true). The true God is God from everlasting to everlasting, this point alone rules out the LDS god as being the only true god. God was never a man and there are not many gods--addition points that affirm the false idea about the LDS god. Look at all mainstream Christian churches and you will find that they all affirm this concept and thus are worshipping the only true God.

2. Salvation--this is the second most important issue behind the nature of God. Again the LDS concept and the Biblical concept are at complete odds with each other. LDS teaches exaltation is by works in addition to grace and faith. The Bible teaches us that we are not saved by our works. These are completely opposing ideas.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

------Not eternally: Paul said that Jesus ins***uted the office of apostle, et al, to be in the church "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4) Once all of Christianity arrives at that utopian state of spiritual maturity and unity, the need for apostles will probably fade away. Answer me this: Since you guys did away with apostolic-level leadership, has Christendom become MORE united? Or LESS united and more fragmented?

There is no indication that the 12 apostles were to persist in the church after the death of the original 12 apostles died (recall that Judas was never considered a true believer which is why his position was replaced by Matthias to complete the 12th). The apostles were a foundation along with Christ, and we know that a building has only one foundation not foundation over foundation over foundation. . . Also in Revelation, the wall of the city will have foundation stones with the 12 apostles. If there are apostles throughout history (or even from 1830 to present as you ***ume) which 12 apostles were spoken about because there would of been hundreds to choose from.

Rev 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of THE twelve apostles of the Lamb." NIV

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Billyray

There is no indication that the 12 apostles were to persist in the church after the death of the original 12 apostles died (recall that Judas was never considered a true believer which is why his position was replaced by Matthias to complete the 12th). The apostles were a foundation along with Christ, and we know that a building has only one foundation not foundation over foundation over foundation. . . Also in Revelation, the wall of the city will have foundation stones with the 12 apostles. If there are apostles throughout history (or even from 1830 to present as you ***ume) which 12 apostles were spoken about because there would of been hundreds to choose from.

Rev 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of THE twelve apostles of the Lamb." NIV

You remove the foundation, and the building collapses.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

You start your post out being deceitful and you expect us Christians to believe anything you say....mormonism has totally twisted and redefined the Bible and then have the gall to call themselves Christian.

You have to correct that if you expect to have a honest debate.

You are not Christian.

Andy

Andy, quit being such a crybaby, and support your ***ertions.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

You remove the foundation, and the building collapses.

Fig, the foundation has ALREADY been set and consists of THE apostles with Jesus being the "chief corner stone".

Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Notice in verse 14 below it speaks about the wall of the city will have twelve foundations for THE TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb. This clearly is speaking about Christ's original 12 apostles. If there were to be a continuos line of apostles throughout ages this verse would not make sense OR at the minimum be unclear about which 12 it was speaking about.

Revelation 21
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Fig, the foundation has ALREADY been set and consists of THE apostles with Jesus being the "chief corner stone".

---What are those original 12 apostles doing for Christians these days? Have they written any epistle updates to address the problems of OUR century? Seems like those apostles are nowhere to be found outside the LDS church, which continues to have that foundation where the rest of Christendom has abandoned it. Face it, you got no foundation anymore. You haven't had one since the 2nd century. And look at the mess that Christendom is in as a result. Paul is probably sitting up in heaven saying "I TOLD you that Jesus gave apostles to help the work of the ministry and edify the saints until they all come to unity of faith and a degree of perfection comparable to the stature of Christ! You should have listened to me! At the rate you're going, you're NEVER gonna reach that level I mentioned in my epistle to the Ephesians! "



By the way, the topic of this thread is whether or not God is able to create anyone like Himself.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---What are those original 12 apostles doing for Christians these days? Have they written any epistle updates to address the problems of OUR century? Seems like those apostles are nowhere to be found outside the LDS church, which continues to have that foundation . . .

So is this an admission by you that the LDS church has changed the basic teachings of the NT church (i.e. created a new foundation than that which was already laid down)?

BTW what are the 5 most important revelations that YOUR leaders have given us in the last 100 years?

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So is this an admission by you that the LDS church has changed the basic teachings of the NT church (i.e. created a new foundation than that which was already laid down)?

---Of course not. You guys allowed the foundation to be missing for 1600 years, and Jesus rebuilt it in the 1800s. That's not a change of basic teaching--it's a RE-AFFIRMATION of one. I can't help it that the original church was run by apostles, and today only the LDS church has that same setup that the original one had. If YOUR church has DONE AWAY with that setup, it seems like it's YOUR church that changed it, and has some explaining to do as to why it differs so much from the original.

BTW what are the 5 most important revelations that YOUR leaders have given us in the last 100 years?

---I haven't ranked them in importance before, just like I haven't done that to Jesus' revelations to the original church. I would have to do some thinking before I made a judgment as to what the most important ones were. But ANY important revelation from an apostle of Jesus is better than NOTHING, which is what a church that LACKS apostles is gonna get.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

You guys allowed the foundation to be missing for 1600 years, and Jesus rebuilt it in the 1800s.

A "REBUILT" foundation. OK, you admitted it. The LDS church is built upon a new foundation. Thanks for at least admitting it.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

------I haven't ranked them (5 most important revelations by the LDS in the last 100 years) in importance before, just like I haven't done that to Jesus' revelations to the original church.

Can I help you out?

The most important LDS revelations in the last 100 years or so.

1. Allowing blacks to hold the priesthood in 1978
2. Changing the temple ceremony in 1990 taking out the death oaths
3. The Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890
4. Spencer W Kimball disavowing the Adam God theory in the Oct 1976 General Conference.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

A "REBUILT" foundation. OK, you admitted it. The LDS church is built upon a new foundation. Thanks for at least admitting it.

---Um, no. It's STILL a foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus as its chief cornerstone. See, if you build a house on a foundation of stones, and one stone goes missing, you should REPLACE that stone so that you still HAVE a foundation. If you let all the stones in the foundation go missing, you have a foundation-less house. Which is the current state of YOUR church. Which, I guess, we can say that YOU have admitted.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Can I help you out?

--No. If I wanted someone to tell me what MY top 5 picks are, I would have asked.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Um, no. It's STILL a foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus as its chief cornerstone. See, if you build a house on a foundation of stones, and one stone goes missing, you should REPLACE that stone so that you still HAVE a foundation. If you let all the stones in the foundation go missing, you have a foundation-less house. Which is the current state of YOUR church. Which, I guess, we can say that YOU have admitted.

I guess that is where we differ. I believe in THE foundation of the 12 apostles and Christ as the chief cornerstone, not multiple foundations or multiple revisions of the foundation. In your position the building can never really be built because you are continually monkeying around with the foundation.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Um, no. It's STILL a foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus as its chief cornerstone. See, if you build a house on a foundation of stones, and one stone goes missing, you should REPLACE that stone so that you still HAVE a foundation. If you let all the stones in the foundation go missing, you have a foundation-less house. Which is the current state of YOUR church. Which, I guess, we can say that YOU have admitted.

Nothing but utter nonsense.

The way you butcher God's Word is beyond words.

Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Fig, the foundation has ALREADY been set and consists of THE apostles with Jesus being the "chief corner stone".

Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Notice in verse 14 below it speaks about the wall of the city will have twelve foundations for THE TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb. This clearly is speaking about Christ's original 12 apostles. If there were to be a continuos line of apostles throughout ages this verse would not make sense OR at the minimum be unclear about which 12 it was speaking about.

Revelation 21
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Still, if you remove a foundation, the building collapses. Show me in the bible that the foundation exists in the absence of Apostles and prophets.