Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Any heathen can start a religion

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default Any heathen can start a religion

    David koresh, william butler, and joseph smith are typical examples.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    David koresh, william butler, and joseph smith are typical examples.
    don't forget hubbard and scientology and the leader of the children of god David something
    magazine is still running, location as changed. contact us for the internet address

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    You mean like Calvin, Luther, John Smyth, Wycliffe, Tyndale, et al.. all of which were considered heretics in a their day. Only two types of religion can claim that they did not start their own. Ones with direct unbroken succession,(Orthodox Christianity) and those that claim a unbroken succession through restoration(Mormons). Meaning all of the Protestant Churches started because of a mortal man or woman.
    So like almost all your criticisms of the LDS Church, you only end up exposing your own false religion.
    If you insist on continuing using this loser of an argument based on nothing more than a worthless biased opinion, you might want to define the word “heathen”, “religion” who is considered the real founder of the Churches you are criticizing by the people in that religion, and you need to state your own religion.
    I know your childish antics never though that far ahead, however I ***ume you are like most “modern” Protestants which claim you do not belong to any religion.
    However that begs the question.... if you are OK with people starting a “Bible study group” or “congregation” based on their own unique interpretation of the Bible, why do you care if others do the same and call it a religion???
    Smells like jealousy to me...
    Last edited by theway; 07-02-2019 at 01:59 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theway View Post
    You mean like Calvin, Luther, John Smyth, Wycliffe, Tyndale, et al.. all of which were considered heretics in a their day. Only two types of religion can claim that they did not start their own. Ones with direct unbroken succession,(Orthodox Christianity) and those that claim a unbroken succession through restoration(Mormons). Meaning all of the Protestant Churches started because of a mortal man or woman.
    So like almost all your criticisms of the LDS Church, you only end up exposing your own false religion.
    If you insist on continuing using this loser of an argument based on nothing more than a worthless biased opinion, you might want to define the word “heathen”, “religion” who is considered the real founder of the Churches you are criticizing by the people in that religion, and you need to state your own religion.
    I know your childish antics never though that far ahead, however I ***ume you are like most “modern” Protestants which claim you do not belong to any religion.
    However that begs the question.... if you are OK with people starting a “Bible study group” or “congregation” based on their own unique interpretation of the Bible, why do you care if others do the same and call it a religion???
    Smells like jealousy to me...
    You make some good points, IMO.
    From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

    "If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

  5. #5
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    588

    Default

    Hi Phoenix,

    Putting aside the term religion, would you agree that there can be only one truth? Meaning that what
    a person or group believes about God is either true or it is not. And if it is truth, time and culture and
    beliefs do not change it, it can be knowable by all and it is absolute.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    You make some good points, IMO.

    Calvin et al whom you listed were considered heretics by HEATHENS a lot like the mormons of today, who had their own 'speshul' manmade religions.

    Calvin et al whom you listed were CHRISTIANS who started CHRISTIAN CONGREGATIONS of CHRIST'S CHURCH. Smithy started a new religion, which he STOLE the description "Christian" for.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Hi Phoenix,

    Putting aside the term religion, would you agree that there can be only one truth? Meaning that what
    a person or group believes about God is either true or it is not. And if it is truth, time and culture and
    beliefs do not change it, it can be knowable by all and it is absolute.
    If phoenix is a mormon, to answer that HONESTLY would be impossible, imho

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Hi Phoenix,
    Putting aside the term religion, would you agree that there can be only one truth? Meaning that what
    a person or group believes about God is either true or it is not. And if it is truth, time and culture and
    beliefs do not change it, it can be knowable by all and it is absolute.


    So which was the one truth in the Bible--the OT commandment to slaughter those caught in adultery, disrespectful children and gays? Or the NT commandment to forgive, to not kill and not even be angry, etc?
    From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

    "If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

  9. #9
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    588

    Default

    Hello Phoenix,
    My question was not really about commandments and the context in which they were given but that what we believe concerning God cannot be relative to a certain group or religion. If something about God is true, it is true for everyone regardless of what someone believes. People can be sincerely wrong. If what is written concerning God in the Old and New Testaments was true it will always be true.

    In Gal 1:11-12 Paul said this,” but I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ”.

    So, Paul lets us know that he got his information directly from God and if that is true then we can rely on what Paul writes.

    In Isaiah 45:22-23 we read the following;

    “For I am God, and there is no other.
    I have sworn by Myself;
    The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
    And shall not return,
    That to Me every knee shall bow,
    Every tongue shall swear”.

    God declares that every knee shall bow only to Him and swear allegiance to Him as the only true God.

    Paul writes the same of Jesus in Phil 2:6-11

    “ Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”.

    In 1 Cor.8:6 Paul writes the following;
    “yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live”, using the same words for Lord and God
    used in Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one”.

    So if these things were true for Paul they are true for everyone.

  10. #10

    Default

    disciple.

    You asked a question about , if what people think is true about God can change?

    The answer is that what we only know about God is via revelation.
    There is no way to learn about God other than God reaching down and showing us something about himself.

    So this means that what we know of God in history depends 100% on the revelation God gave men in history.

    God does not lie about Himself, but he also does not tell us all about himself as well.

  11. #11

    Default

    Phoenix

    You asked a question about how the Old Testament has a lot of stuff called "laws" that are not followed today.

    The answer is found in how we are remember there are many different things called "covenants" that happen within the whole Bible story.

    Under the different covenants we see different laws that supersede the laws found in the past covenant.

    We are not under the laws of the Old Testament covenant.
    This does not mean the Old Test laws were wrong, rather it means that the Laws of the New supersede the Laws of the Old.

    This is pointed out in the idea of new wine not able to be fit within Old Wineskins.
    The old skins had their correct time and place to hold the old wine, but they cant be used at all for the new wine.

    The laws of the Old Covenant cant rule the lives of the dead.
    Once you are dead, all the laws that ruled the lives of men have no longer any reach over the dead.

    This is why we are told we are 'dead in Christ" , and thus well past the reach of the Old Covenant laws to reach us.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Thanks for elaborating. I wonder if truth really can be knowable by all.
    From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

    "If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Thanks for taking the time to give that explanation.
    From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

    "If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

  14. #14

    Default

    if at any time you have questions?

    Just ask.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Hi Phoenix,

    Putting aside the term religion, would you agree that there can be only one truth? Meaning that what
    a person or group believes about God is either true or it is not. And if it is truth, time and culture and
    beliefs do not change it, it can be knowable by all and it is absolute.
    .
    .
    .

    Absolutely, there can only be one truth... however the problem comes in defining "truth".
    What may be true today, might not necessarily be true tomorrow.
    In other words... it was true that man was spirit only, it is also true that man is now a spirit with a body of flesh and blood, yet it is also true that man can become a god with an exalted body of flesh and bones. Or if you don't like that ****ogy, than if you are sitting on a wooden chair, than it would be truth to say that it is a "chair". however, just a few years ago the truth was that it was a "tree", yet in the future it could be true to say that it is firewood, or worm food, or a club.
    Since "truth" can be purely subjective defined by what we see now, or knew was truth, than who's to know what is real or truth?
    So the question you should be asking is "what is the "REAL truth".... Like us or the chair, we need to know what iteration are we suppose to be, and once we know what we are supposed to be, what rules or path are we to follow to get us there?
    Real Truth provides the answer because real truth is defined by the knowledge of things past, present, and of the future, only knowing all three can a person know real truth.
    Only one Being can know real truth, because only one Being knows the past, present and what is to come.
    You can say we can know all three by reading the Bible only, however, given that there are so many different versions of truth in which all claim to be based on the Bible we know that is not correct.
    That is why we not only need real truth as defined by the Bible, but also as confirmed by the Holy Spirit... without both you can never be really sure of truth.
    This is why testimonies and personal revelation from God are just as important as the Bible in determining "real truth".
    So seek for that which can be confirmed by both and you will know what is true for yourself.
    Last edited by theway; Yesterday at 09:09 AM.

  16. #16

    Default

    I was reading along to posted comment above, when I came to the following quote -
    "This is why testimonies and personal revelation from God are just as important as the Bible in determining "real truth"."

    This I may challenge.
    I dont even know what iot understood by the use of the term "Testimonies" when saying they are equal to the Bible?

    What does that mean>????????


    And this other thing you say " personal revelation" is just as important as the Bible in finding truth?
    ?????


    I also may challenge that idea as well...

  17. #17

    Default

    from what I have seen in how people that are just dead wrong typically believe that "God spoke to them", I have come to the conclusion that testimonies and personal revelations , are the worst things to base a search for truth on.


    When Paul stood before a congregation and preached, Im sure he had a great testimony and as well a great story about his personal revelation from God...

    Yet the people listening to him had to still open their scriptures to learn if the things Paul taught were actually found in the text?

    The search for truth is not based on knowing how to tell a great story, or having a tall tale about being "shown this by God", rather it has to start and end with the scriptures.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    from what I have seen in how people that are just dead wrong typically believe that "God spoke to them", I have come to the conclusion that testimonies and personal revelations , are the worst things to base a search for truth on.
    .
    .
    .

    That is why it is called a "Personal Revelation", because your personal revelation is only applicable to you. So unless that person is someone that you know and trust, than their revelation would be useless to you.
    Yet, lets just see if it is true that you actually do receive your truth from the Bible, by you answering this simple question.

    "If the Being you know to be God was to reveal to you that your understanding of the Bible was completely wrong, would you believe it?"
    .
    .
    .
    When Paul stood before a congregation and preached, Im sure he had a great testimony and as well a great story about his personal revelation from God...
    Yet the people listening to him had to still open their scriptures to learn if the things Paul taught were actually found in the text?
    .

    Ah.... you left out the part about what happened after they opened the Bible and searched as to whether what Paul taught them was found in the text or true... How about it; what happened after they searched the scriptures?
    Answer that ,and it will expose the flaw in your theory.
    Last edited by theway; Yesterday at 12:26 PM.

  19. #19

    Default

    Q "If the Being you know to be God was to reveal to you that your understanding of the Bible was completely wrong, would you believe it?"
    .


    A.....no

  20. #20

    Default

    'what happened after they opened the Bible and searched as to whether what Paul taught them was found in the text or true...'





    " Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true. 12As a result, many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men. "


    The key words here in this verse that are supporting what Im saying are the words - - "as a result..."

    The Berean's searching the scriptures to confirm all of Paul's teachings is the thing that caused the faith of the people to spring to life and grow.


    its always this way,..
    The search for truth about God starts and ends with the Bible...

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Q "If the Being you know to be God was to reveal to you that your understanding of the Bible was completely wrong, would you believe it?"


    A.....no
    .
    .
    .
    Thanks for at least answering the question and admitting that you completely distrust God, and would only believe in a narrative you made up yourself.
    I like this question because it exposes how you really view God and how you let your biases rule your life even if they are proven false.

  22. #22

    Default

    …7which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ.

    8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a divine curse!

    9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be under a curse!…

  23. #23

    Default

    so, as the verse I have posted above clearly states, it really does not matter that someone was convinced that it was a messenger from God that gave them their personal revelation.

    In the end, the revelation has to agree with what we have already received in the New Testament Gospel.

    The revelation has to agree,,,

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    'what happened after they opened the Bible and searched as to whether what Paul taught them was found in the text or true...'

    " Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true. 12As a result, many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men. "

    The key words here in this verse that are supporting what Im saying are the words - - "as a result..."

    The Berean's searching the scriptures to confirm all of Paul's teachings is the thing that caused the faith of the people to spring to life and grow.

    its always this way,..
    The search for truth about God starts and ends with the Bible...
    .
    .
    .
    No, the key words in this verse that relate to the question I asked was “MANY of them...” it never says that after they searched the scriptures they ALL found that Paul was speaking the truth, it just says many did. We do not know the percentage that “many” represents or if it is even the majority. I can flip a coin and get it to land heads many times. I guess it’s kinda like saying that Mormons are leaving the Church in “droves” yet I have never gotten an answer from an AntiMormon as to how many or at what percentage is a “drove”
    But that’s not really the point, the mere fact that not ALL of them believed Paul after confirming with the Scriptures proves my point.
    Just because you are diligent in searching the scriptures, or you know your Bible, it is not a guarantee that you will come away with the truth, it’s a good start, but never a sure thing.
    I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to trust my salvation on a 80% or even a 99% chance that I might be correct. Instead I’ll rest my salvation on a sure thing. A sure thing can only come by personal revelation by way of the Holy Ghost. A revelation of the Holy Ghost will come in such a way that you will not be able to deny it. That is why denial of the Holy Ghost is the only unforgivable sin there is.
    If you had ever had a revelation of God you would understand.... otherwise you might as well flip a coin, or take your chance with the Evangelical Salvation lottery.
    Last edited by theway; Today at 06:20 AM.

  25. #25

    Default

    with the scripture as our guide, we dont run the risk of falling for a CULT's claim of special, super-secret , only get it here, type of teachings.

    The key is that we understand why people can believe in Paul's teaching???
    Was it the cool story Paul had?...no

    Was it because Paul claimed to be an Apostle?...no

    The reason the people believed was that they took the words of Paul and tested them by the scriptures...

    Had the words of Paul been found to be in disagreement with the Text, they would have rejected Paul,



    Its this same test I always ask people to put my own words to.
    Take what I say, and open your Bible and compare what im saying the text says, to what you find written.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •