Many "Unpardonable" Sins. The New Theology.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I said it was another poster I didn't say a word about Ma'am.. You are ashamed of your thoughts, not too ashamed to say you had some but too ashamed to say what those thoughts are..
Didn't I specifically say I was reserving them?

Yes you stated that you were having some thoughts but wouldn't reveal them so one is left to imagine why.. The only reason I could come up with is shame of those thoughts.. But then when a person has no curtsey for anyone else I should be surprised that such a tactic is used by a person such as you..




I often scan the forum for posts I may have missed before that I feel need an answer. This was one of them.. No big secret there.. Of course you would find something needy in that.. Well you would be wrong again this time as you are wrong so many other times about so many different subjects.. IHS jim

It's like you live in your own little pathetic world. I feel sad for you that you have to be so whiney and make-up so many silly arguments just to have something to say. It's really a wonder people post to you.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, I read it. And THEN they received the Holy Spirit. Why do you think that the baptism Paul did would be any different than the example Christ gave of what it means to be baptized? Why wouldn't Paul follow Christ's example?

The way I read this is that the baptism they experienced (John's baptism) did not include the gift of the Holy Ghost. The original baptism did not bring them into the fold of Christ. Therefore, they were rebaptized and given the gift of the Holy Ghost. Why would you think that Paul would baptize them in a different way than He was given the example by Christ? This doesn't make sense to me. It would be like Michael Jordan teaching someone how to play basketball and when the NBA shows up and says, what are you guys doing and they say, we are playing basketball as taught by Michael Jordan...the NBA saying--hey, lets make it official and lets get you in a league and and lets get you a uniform and suddenly, you thinking that he word "basketball" means something different because now they have a league and a uniform and that it is not played the same way.

If Paul was going to go by the example of John's baptism then re-baptizing these disciples that came to Paul about receiving the Holy Spirit would have not been required.. Do the LDS rebaptize all who come to them between their first baptism and their confirmation? No, that would be redundant. If all Paul needed to to was bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit on them. That isn't what happened in the p***age now is it? That is because John's baptism is NOT Christian Baptism.. Jesus submitted to John's baptism but never experienced Christian baptism..

Isn't it true that MJ not only knew how to play BB but knew the rules and being a team owner has the authority to add whoever he sees fit to his team and therefore the NBA? How you came up with such a strange metaphor that has no connection to what you are trying to teach is not understandable.. You do understand it's the team owners that decide who joins their teams and by that who is included as a player in the NBA, and not the league? You can keep trying to come up, with a proper metaphor, but since John's baptism is NOT a Christian ordinance it will be difficult.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Ma'am

Sometimes one example is all that it takes to see childishness.

If you haven't yet noticed sir seldom addresses a real issue here.. He is all about diversion.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

If Paul was going to go by the example of John's baptism then re-baptizing these disciples that came to Paul about receiving the Holy Spirit would have not been required..

Who says??, especially in light of baptizing also brings someone into the fold of Christ. I don't know why suddenly the word "baptism" would take on something different. Especially in light of Christ's example.

Do the LDS rebaptize all who come to them between their first baptism and their confirmation? No, that would be redundant. If all Paul needed to to was bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit on them. That isn't what happened in the p***age now is it? That is because John's baptism is NOT Christian Baptism.. Jesus submitted to John's baptism but never experienced Christian baptism..

They are if they are baptized by someone without authority. To copy the way John baptized did not mean that the person had authority as John did. When the disciples learned that they did not know about the gift of the Holy Ghost, this was a pretty big indicator that they were not yet part of the fold and that the person who baptized them didn't have the authority to do so. If the person who baptized them did, there would be no reason to rebaptize them "unto repentance".

It would be the equivalent of someone believing they had paid their taxes and when the IRS agent came asked "did you file a 1040EZ or a 1040?" And the person responding--we haven't heard of either of those things and the IRS agent saying, hmmm, how did you pay your taxes then? And they respond, the same way we saw our neighbors, by sticking a check into an envelope and sending it off to the IRS. And the tax agent saying---hmmm, something is not right here, lets do it right. Let's cancel those checks and lets fill out the proper forms and then you can add a check to that form and send it off. Authority is a big deal to God which is why He states that one must be ordained of God and that man cannot take this on himself. Seems logical to me.

Isn't it true that MJ not only knew how to play BB but knew the rules and being a team owner has the authority to add whoever he sees fit to his team and therefore the NBA? How you came up with such a strange metaphor that has no connection to what you are trying to teach is not understandable.. You do understand it's the team owners that decide who joins their teams and by that who is included as a player in the NBA, and not the league? You can keep trying to come up, with a proper metaphor, but since John's baptism is NOT a Christian ordinance it will be difficult.. IHS jim

It was showing that the word "basketball" did not change its meaning because one was not yet a member of a team.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

If you haven't yet noticed sir seldom addresses a real issue here.. He is all about diversion.. IHS jim

Anti-LDS seldom bring forth any real issues here.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

Matthew 12:31-32
King James Version (KJV)

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Perhaps you could tell us what YOU think that these verses mean (or link me to your post where you feel you have already addressed it).

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Perhaps you could tell us what YOU think that these verses mean (or link me to your post where you feel you have already addressed it).

I think they mean exactly as the LDS church teaches.

You claim to have been LDS.

You should know then.

[neverending]

Sir, I find it surprising that anyone would post to you. When you decide to say something of importance, maybe I will comment. You admit you won't throw scriptures around but I say, you don't know any so you say ridiculous things, mocking others and that is what makes you happy. What a sad life you live.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir, I find it surprising that anyone would post to you. When you decide to say something of importance, maybe I will comment. You admit you won't throw scriptures around but I say, you don't know any so you say ridiculous things, mocking others and that is what makes you happy. What a sad life you live.

The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?

LOL. Yeah, Sir and I don't know any scriptures. Hey, it sounds plausible to the antis, so go with it if you feel you must, no matter how false it might be.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Apologette

The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?

Jeff and Sir. Know they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind. Thus slience on their behalf speack loud and clearn to me.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

LOL. Yeah, Sir and I don't know any scriptures. Hey, it sounds plausible to the antis, so go with it if you feel you must, no matter how false it might be.

Put up or shut up time. Where in the Holy Bible does it speak of Heavenly Father having a father?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

[COLOR=#FF0000]Sir, I find it surprising that anyone would post to you.

Why? You are posting to me right now! And you continue posting to me.

When you decide to say something of importance, maybe I will comment.

And yet, you keep posting to me. So I must be saying important things in your eyes. Otherwise, just ignore me.

You admit you won't throw scriptures around but I say, you don't know any so you say ridiculous things

You can say whatever makes you feel better. You see my comments as ridiculous, but you have yet to prove they are incorrect.

mocking others and that is what makes you happy.

No, pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards of anti-LDS makes me happy. Shining a mirror back onto you with your own arguments makes me happy.

Also, my ***, my family, my dog, my talents, my hobbies, all that makes me quite happy as well!

What a sad life you live.

No, I think that you are just projecting your own pitiful and sad life onto me and hoping that justification will make you feel better. Remember, it is you that takes comments made here and internalizes them and becomes irritated and angry to the point your health is in jeopardy. You come here to argue and to try and tear down others' beliefs. I think THAT would be a sign of a sad life.

But, you can say whatever you want about me. Truly. Because I couldn't care less what you or the other Anti-mos here think.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Jeff and Sir. Know they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind. Thus slience on their behalf speack loud and clearn to me.

Childish taunts to get people to play your games.

What's funny is you guys act like me and Jeff are the only LDS online. You seem to disregard that there are many places online where LDS people/ scholars have defended and used scriptures to support LDS claims and doctrine. But you would reject them as well.

If you really want to see what scholars and apologists have said regarding your questions, look it up.

What's funny to me are the ex-LDS (James, neverending, billyray) who ask questions as if they have never heard of or been LDS. Which means they either really didn't know anything as a LDS or no matter what is told them they will disregard it and believe what they want anyway. So it doesn't inspire me much to throw around bible verses to support my beliefs when I already know your hearts are not in it for learning truth but to argue your own positions. Besides, after seeing James' interpretation of the Bible, I really don't think he would understand truth if it bit him in the booty.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Sir

Childish taunts to get people to play your games.

What's funny is you guys act like me and Jeff are the only LDS online. You seem to disregard that there are many places online where LDS people/ scholars have defended and used scriptures to support LDS claims and doctrine. But you would reject them as well.

If you really want to see what scholars and apologists have said regarding your questions, look it up.

What's funny to me are the ex-LDS (James, neverending, billyray) who ask questions as if they have never heard of or been LDS. Which means they either really didn't know anything as a LDS or no matter what is told them they will disregard it and believe what they want anyway. So it doesn't inspire me much to throw around bible verses to support my beliefs when I already know your hearts are not in it for learning truth but to argue your own positions. Besides, after seeing James' interpretation of the Bible, I really don't think he would understand truth if it bit him in the booty.

Once again, just put up or shut up........Where in the Holy Bible does it say, Heavenly Father had a father?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

LOL. Yeah, Sir and I don't know any scriptures. Hey, it sounds plausible to the antis, so go with it if you feel you must, no matter how false it might be.

Good example of what I stated. Thanks.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Once again, just put up or shut up........Where in the Holy Bible does it say, Heavenly Father had a father?

Right next to the word "Trinity".

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Sir

Right next to the word "Trinity".

I don't care that you'r an A-hole, but if I said, the word Trinity was in the Holy Bible you would be perfectly right to ask me to put up or shut up, but of course no informed Christian would ever make such a statement.
However the LDinc. TBM believe the mormon God had a mormon father, and his father had a father and so forth.
So once again, put up or shut up, Where does it read in the Holy Bible?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I don't care that you'r an A-hole, but if I said, the word Trinity was in the Holy Bible you would be perfectly right to ask me to put up or shut up, but of course no informed Christian would ever make such a statement.
However the LDinc. TBM believe the mormon God had a mormon father, and his father had a father and so forth.
So once again, put up or shut up, Where does it read in the Holy Bible?

One Mormon on CARM once said the Bible really states that Cain was the result of a sexual union of Eve and God. The Mormon god has all gender-appropriate body parts apparently! I'm not sure about Celestial Viagra. It sure must take a whole bunch of other worldly sexual stamina to keep on producing baby after baby with a harem of goddess wives.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

LOL. Yeah, Sir and I don't know any scriptures. Hey, it sounds plausible to the antis, so go with it if you feel you must, no matter how false it might be.

Jeff, since I've never seen any scripture references from you or Sir, then I have to say you don't know any. Your whole reason for coming here is to mock Christians, ignore important questions asked of you and laugh about it. How is that having any kind of discussion?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I don't care that you'r an A-hole,

There's another reason I don't waste time throwing scriptures at you guys. Apparently your brand of "christianity" teaches you to act in a manner that is unbiblical. So what's the point? You guys have shown me what type of "Christian" I should become were I to embrace your version, and I am much happier where I am. Thank you.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Sir

There's another reason I don't waste time throwing scriptures at you guys. Apparently your brand of "christianity" teaches you to act in a manner that is unbiblical. So what's the point? You guys have shown me what type of "Christian" I should become were I to embrace your version, and I am much happier where I am. Thank you.

That doesn't work with me, you do your best to shoot off red herrings, but of course my Christianity has nothing to do with your LDSinc. So what's new?
Once again put up or shut up.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Sir

There's another reason I don't waste time throwing scriptures at you guys. Apparently your brand of "christianity" teaches you to act in a manner that is unbiblical. So what's the point? You guys have shown me what type of "Christian" I should become were I to embrace your version, and I am much happier where I am. Thank you.

And you've shown me the kind of Mormon I would be if I decided to go back....NO THANKS.....been there, done that!! I don't need a house to fall on me to know the lies and the judging that goes on within your church. You treat your own so cruel, and look down your nose at members you don't think are as good as you. Man, I am so very grateful I am not a Mormon anymore.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

And you've shown me the kind of Mormon I would be if I decided to go back....NO THANKS.....been there, done that!! I don't need a house to fall on me to know the lies and the judging that goes on within your church. You treat your own so cruel, and look down your nose at members you don't think are as good as you. Man, I am so very grateful I am not a Mormon anymore.

You're just projecting your angry anti-LDS views onto me, so I understand, and I don't take it personally.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

That doesn't work with me, you do your best to shoot off red herrings, but of course my Christianity has nothing to do with your LDSinc. So what's new?
Once again put up or shut up.

You are correct. The Christianity that is Mormonism is definitely not the same as the one you seem to profess. Which is why I am happy where I am and not in the bitter, angry, need-to-tear-other-peoples'-faith-down, unbiblical-actions, anti-LDS cult.