You fail to see the point of my debt. It doesn't just end in this life. I suppose it goes on to the next.

I guess in reality I am truely breaking down inside and starting to trust a few people at a time. However, just because I trust them doesn't mean I am not watching their every motive with me. I refuse to be taken advantage of again.

I would suppose that love is something a bit more than lust. It's indescribable. However, love also brings hope. And there hope is (to me) distainful. If you expect the worst then there can be no let down. Also when two people say they love each other, then get divorced, did they stop loving each other? How about when a mother kills her kids? Did she stop loving them? Love (in the generic sense and the text sense) is supposed to be Eternal and never ending, even in death. (Consequently, this another problem I have with Christianity. When someone says that "God is love" and I do not believe in a true form of love, then that means that God is not real. Besides, if God is love, and love fails, as in divorce, then does that mean that God fails too? Why use a human word to describe something that is supposed to be perfect?)

I owe my friends what they gave me. In each of those examples above, they saved my life and sometimes with the risk of their own. To say I would not do the same thing for them, even in death, is a lie.

okay, well, i do believe as well that no matter how many times you "accept jesus as your personal saviour" and are saved, you must pay for your sins when you die. call it catholicism, but even though i have repented, done contrition,and let it leave my guilty place, i belive that i still have to answer for it when i face God in death. call it fatalism, who knows. but what i DO know is "love" as is described by people who are in loving relationships are loving one type of love. there are many forms of it. God's love and our love for him is something we cant explain, not even to ourselves, it is complete trust and knowing that no matter how rotten we have been or can be, God still loves us, it surpasses anything we can, as humans comprehend or accompish. as far as married love, i believe that when married and divorced or previous love realationships then marrying someone else, you can love, but it isnt the "right" love for you. at least with my husband and i, we discovered that true love is left when lust is nowhere around, affection may be low and circumstances may be bad. it is lasting and is undenyable, undoubtable. that kind of defines "when ya know, ya just KNOW" kinda epitaph.

God stands the test of time, even when your faith in church, people and anything that is supposed to be belived is shattered and unreachable, GOD will still hang in there, He always seems to float to the top!

Just watch !

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SenorElMouse:
You fail to see the point of my debt. It doesn't just end in this life. I suppose it goes on to the next.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. So you do believe in life after death???

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess in reality I am truely breaking down inside and starting to trust a few people at a time. However, just because I trust them doesn't mean I am not watching their every motive with me. I refuse to be taken advantage of again.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is actually bordering on common sense with a teeny touch of pessimism and a whole lot of "have been hurt badly in the past." It's human.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also when two people say they love each other, then get divorced, did they stop loving each other? How about when a mother kills her kids? Did she stop loving them? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the first scenario, it could be that infatuation and lust got mistaken for love...or in some cases, even after divorce there is still a love between the two, but a severe incompatibility and dislike. The only one who loves perfectly is God. There are alot of reasons for divorce. In the second scenario, the lady is deranged, disturbed, sick, or evil.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Love (in the generic sense and the text sense) is supposed to be Eternal and never ending, even in death. (Consequently, this another problem I have with Christianity. When someone says that "God is love" and I do not believe in a true form of love, then that means that God is not real. Besides, if God is love, and love fails, as in divorce, then does that mean that God fails too? Why use a human word to describe something that is supposed to be perfect?)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You've got it backwards. Why use such a perfect word to describe somthing so human?

It sounds to me as if you have alot of fear, because you will not let yourself experience the perfect love. The scriptures say that perfect love drives out all fear. Therefore in the absence of fear there can be trust, there can be peace. We, as humans, cannot completely fathom that. I say that I love and trust God, but it is still in my nature to question/doubt/be fearful at times. Right now is a great time, for example. I'm fearful for my husband's safety. If I REALLY trusted God 100%, I would not be afraid. In other areas of my life, the same is true...if I REALLY trusted my husband, I would not be afraid to let him go certain places without me. But he has made mistakes in the past, and I am reluctant to feel the pain caused by those mistakes again. God has never let me down, but I tend to judge God by human standards, and God falls short of perfect when I do this.

Let's look at a little (true) story that I find very relevant here:

Duane's son, when he was three years old, had a favorite game. He would launch himself off of the foot of the bed and into his daddy's arms. He wouldn't think twice, he would just jump. But as Duane's son got a little older, he found other games that brought more enjoyment, and the jumping game took a back burner. One day, Duane and his son were in the bedroom, and Duane stood at the edge of the bed and held out his arms. His son, standing on the edge of the bed, looked at his father, looked at the floor, looked at the space between the bed and his father, and stepped down from the bed to the floor to hug his dad.

Had his dad ever dropped him? No! So why was he not so sure anymore that his dad was capable of catching him? Life experience.

We do that to God. We attribute our own falls and our own mistakes, the mistakes of others, the wrongs of others, and the signifigant hurts caused by these to every aspect of our lives. Has God ever really let us down? No...but do we ever completely trust him once life has had it's way with us? Not completely (or for most people, that is the case).


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I owe my friends what they gave me. In each of those examples above, they saved my life and sometimes with the risk of their own. To say I would not do the same thing for them, even in death, is a lie. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">2.So even if you saved their lives by some freak coincidental circumstance, you would not considered the debt repaid?

Personally, I cut Mouse some slack.

I don't blame anyone who gets either confused or fed up with traditional Christianity. The loudest voice of Christianity in the Country, the Christian Coalition, is not always that Christlike in their treatment of those opposing them politically.

Moreover Christianity is confusing:

God and Jesus are the same person, but Jesus had a body and God didn't.

All you have to do to be saved is accept Jesus.

All you have to do to be saved is accept Jesus and do good works.

In purgatory, even though Jesus paid for our sins through the atonement we have to pay for them as well - double billing.

A loving God ignoring the eternal plight of souls who never learn of Jesus.

The list goes on and on, these are just a few off the top of my head that have been discussed recently. The doctrine is confusing - God however is not confused and there is such a thing as eternal, absolute truth.

I contend the truth is what is taught in my church others think my church is heretical.

How is one to know what is right?

Nabster will now come in with a slew of scriptures stating that such and such is the way it is and that's that. But I could respond with a similar bunch that say the opposite of nabster's verses say. And then we'll simply argue about interpretation.

How is one to know what is right?

The author of all truth is God. Although he may not seem it at times, he is a loving God. I believe (casting aside my Mormon beliefs for a moment) that logic dictates that a loving God would establish his truth somewhere on the earth in pristine clarity rather than murky confusion. In other words someone is right and someone is wrong. It's too easy to say that Christianity is right and Islam or Buddhism is wrong, because there are too many versions of Christianity that conflict with one another. One version must be right and everything else must be wrong or at the very least, mostly right, but in error on some crucial points.

Truth is a zero sum game, we can't all be right.

Whoever finds the truth can authoritatively point the way home to God, no one else can.

Joel, I believe I owe you an appology. I had you pegged as a Mormon who refused to even hear the thoughts and ideas of others. However, after reading your last post, my mind has been completely changed of you.

Unfortunately, I am writing this at school on a limited time schedule so I will post more later.

I just wanted to say here that I agreed with everything Joel said in his post. More to come when I get off work tonight.

Lest I be thought of as anything other than a close-minded Mormon, I thought I should add that I am firmly convinced that the "pristine truth" I spoke of is found in its entirety in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and no where else.

Moreover, the few paradoxes of Christianity I posted above do not exist in Mormonism. We have answers.

The larger point I was attempting to make is that Christianity is very empty for many people that see through it's logical and doctrinal flaws. It's not people like mouse that are to blame, but rather those who have propigated incorrect doctrines and false dogmas that have confused the common man and left him faithless.

So, Joel, I'm sure you've posted it somewhere, but I don't know much about mormon docterine. How do you get to heaven? I don't think I've actually had the pleasure of actually conversing with you before... Howdy.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:
It's interesting that no one has mentioned the Atonement of Jesus Christ so far.

I will try to explain the Mormon doctrine on this question, but must start by stating that our concept of heaven is somewhat different.

I think that entrance into heaven is a combination of faith and works. I don't think any of you will disagree with that. Without faith in Jesus Christ, our works are worth nothing. Without good works, our faith in Jesus Christ is likely shallow and hollow.

There is an interesting scripture in the Book of Mormons which is often used against Mormons, it states, "we are saved by grace, after all that we can do." Many people seem to think that any focus at all on our responsibility to work out our own salvation somehow dimishes the Savior's role. I disagree, I think that what that verse teaches is that even if we are perfect in every way - like Job, that is still not enough to get us to heaven. Without faith in Christ and the merits of his atonement, we cannot make it.

As for what it will be like when we get there, that's another topic... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's from upthread in this topic - I think none of what I posted above would be to hotly disputed - that is until someone asks the question - "exactly what type of works are you referring to?"

Aside from those works of being a good person and keeping the commmandments and serving and helping others. I believe that Christ does require an outward profession of belief in him via baptism in the proper manner and by the proper authority.

What about those on their deathbed who accept Christ? Well, I've written elsewhere about "Baptism for the Dead" (1 Corinthians 15:29), but suffice it to say that God has provided a way for those who did not accept Christ in a timely manner in this life to accept necessary ordinances (like baptism) performed by proxy on their behalf after they are dead. This also ties into our belief about spirit prison, which I recently commented on in another thread.

What about the sinner on the Cross who Jesus said would be with him that day in paradise? Well, again I think if you read in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4-6, you'll see where Christ went and what he was doing immediately after his death. He was preaching to souls like the penitent thief on the neighboring cross and was indeed with them.

I could go on, but I'm already way off topic.

To get to heaven, believe in Christ and act according to that belief - that includes baptism, that includes (if you're a parent) being a good parent, that includes (if your married) honoring and revering your spouse, that includes charitable work (like what your husband is doing), and I also think it includes just generally being nice.

I know alot of Christians who think that way as well...

You know a lot of Christians that believe in baptism by proxy for the deceased? honestly, they must be Mormons, because I haven't found anyone who believes that who isn't.

I also think that it is likely there are many Christians who believe Baptism is necessary for salvation in all cases. However, this complicates their view of God as it limits his ability to be perfectly just, unless there is a doctrine regarding salvation for the ignorant dead.

Lastly, we Mormons place a lot of emphasis on proper authority. God ordained men in the Bible - and no where in the bible does it record any of these men as simply "feeling called" either God called them directly, with his own voice or he had his prophet at the time or his Son call them and ordain them with authority to minister in the Gospel. We have all been called to be witnesses for Christ, but that is different than the call to be an Apostle or a Prophet or a Bishop or Priest. These are offices of the Priesthood of God - you get that priesthood through ordination by those who've been authorized of God to do so.

If I go on much longer I'd rather move over to the Mormon thread, because honestly, this thread wasn't about Mormonism or Mormon beliefs or doctrines.

I was just curious on what gets mormons to heaven...which I think you are on topic just fine. No, I don't know any Christians who believe in the baptism after death. But everything else you said in your first response to me, I have heard from Christians.

I know some Christians who believe that you must be baptised in the proper place by the proper person...and then I know some who believe that God made a way for people who didn't accept in a timely manner (though not after death...that is the only difference between thier belief and yours). Though usuall the ones who belive that baptism is necessary are a different group from those who belive that there is grace extended to those "last minute" people.

I know Christians who believe that they have to do lots of good works to be saved, and they have a list of dos and don'ts, but then I know some who believe that it is by grace alone, and that it's the condition of the heart that matters...

But yes, aside from the baptism after death, I know of Christians who believe in most everything you described in that first reply.

So I guess the question really is, who's beliefs are right?

Are we saved by grace and grace alone? or are our works evidence of the "condition of the heart" and thereby play a role.

Just to be clear, we don't exhume dead folks and baptise them, we are baptized in their place and they have the opportunity in death to accept or reject that ordinance performed on their behalf.

But the real question is, who is right?

enter in man's translation of scripture to make it fit his or her views. and a new denomination is born.
To think you can be baptized for someone for salvation is odd...it is not the baptism that saves us. it is a decision for Christ while we live...it is appointed a man once to die and then judgement.
Man's variation on the Word has divided the church for centuries. However we are still the church...all vines in the vinetyard so to speak...

We can talk about baptism for the dead in the Mormon thread

As for the rest are you really willing to stake your salvation on that?

Truth is absolute

And yet, what is truth? Truth should not be made by human standards. Human standards screw everything up.

Truth is absolute....and unchanging at it's core.
Then same yesterday today and forever. Prophets over the years have shined the light on truth not new standards or new anything but existing truth. This is the reason for Biblical truth and Biblical standards. Not Buddha, or Smith or New age or Mohammed or any other than Jesus. For me i do not have to understand that JEsus and God are physically different but the same... I dont have to understand EVERYTING about God, our earthly minds will never know all of God's mind or God's ways...we woiuld screw it up even more if we did.
Biblical full gospel Christianity is right. Prophetically, historically, morally, theoretically and emphatically. Jesus is the only living God, the only resurrected God and the only God in which prophecy has held true hundreds of times..He did live and die and rise again. He is real and He does save and change lives on this earth. He heals, He forgives, He loves.
The scriptures of the Bible Are in fact perfect, no errors. God-inspired and do not contradict.
Truth speaks spirit to spirit...deep to deep. Deception, when the soul is at stake also speaks deep to deep, but in lies, lies that are discernable and lies that at the core can be proven lies...but man thinks he knows truth, and decides for himself, justifying himself that His version or someone elses version of religion is better or right or real or whatever. But is never stands against truth...excuses are made and interpretations are spewed but they never stand against truth , which is absolute. So in the end confusion and tolerance says we all go to heaven...bunk. Heaven is a place the God of the BIble created and to get there you and everyone else must abide by the "rules" so to speak. Accept Christ as your personal saviour while living, repent of your sins and be baptised for the remission of sins. Works are not necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven. Works are necessary for rewards in heaven. Baptism is not a requirement, but something we should do out of obedience to publicly profess Christ. It isnt that hard people, and all this "who is right stuff" is crazy....ahem, in my humble opinion.
You see i have been unsaved , unloved, and a mess of a man. I have been changed and first hand, experienced the love and power of Christ and the HOly spirit. I have studied, searched and reaserched, counseled with others from other religions and denominations, i have found truth. It is Jesus Christ..It is the God of the HOly Bible. It is not moral relativism, it is not Hindu, it is not BUddha, it is not the Great SPirit, it is not Bahai'ism or Jehovah Witness or MOrmonism( sorry Joel33). Discussion of scriptural differences is always reconciled through study. interpretation is always reconciled through diligent study and historical implications.
Man.....what a way to start the day huh?
I am in love with my Jesus and my God, and i will defend them and my position until I go to be with them in eternity.
Nabster

Have to stand with my brother on this one! /

One thing nabster

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Truth is absolute....and unchanging at it's core.
The same yesterday today and forever. Prophets over the years have shined the light on truth not new standards or new anything but existing truth. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't disagree with this statement. I guess I just don't know how a Christian can say this and at the same time not know who a modern day prophet is. If God and the truth are unchanging, there would still be a prophet. Who is it? Let's ask whoever the prophet is how we can best get to heaven.

Who is God's prophet today?

This is another inconsistency in Christianity. If God is unchanging, then why does modern Christianity in no way resemble what Jesus established. Jesus came to earth and died for our sins, but he also preached the truth while he was here - again, in pristine clarity. Moreover, he set up a church so that the Gospel could continue to be preached in clarity. That church had 12 apostles and the seventy. The chief apostle, Peter, lead the church after Christ's ascension.

If God is unchanging, then why is it permissible for Christianity to have established different governing processes, that have done nothing but engender confusion? Wasn't what Jesus established good enough?

So who is the leader of the church today? Don't answer Jesus, because we both know that ultimately, He is, but who does he speak through, authoritatively, for all of Christendom? In the Bible is was primarily Peter and the Apostles. So who is it now? Or has it changed?

As far as whether or not we understand the details you said </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I dont have to understand EVERYTING about God, our earthly minds will never know all of God's mind or God's ways</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I couldn't disagree with you more. The Bible and Jesus himself promises that unto the believers and the faithful, it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. Don't you want that? Your Savior has promised it to you? And yet, you don't seem to think it's important. Paul even states that he, in his office as an Apostle is a "steward of the mysteries of God." Don't you think he knew? I do? Where is the modern day equivalent of Paul? An Apostle in the posession of the mysteries of god, called directly by the voice of Christ - not a feeling, but a "I'll knock you off your feet and make you blind, and reprimand you personally" calling.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You see i have been unsaved , unloved, and a mess of a man. I have been changed and first hand, experienced the love and power of Christ and the HOly spirit.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">for that I am grateful.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I have studied, searched and reaserched, counseled with others from other religions and denominations, i have found truth. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How have you come to that conclusion? I'm honestly curious and would like to know the whole process. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but did God speak to you and tell you that you were right? Or after your study did you come to the conclusion that you were right? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not to thine own understanding</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't doubt that much of what you believe is true. As I said above, I believe many Christian denominations and creeds to be almost entirely accurate and only lost on some key points. Mostly, I believe it comes down to authority. God authorized a select group of men in the OT it was the Prophets, in the NT, through Jesus it was the Apostles, and after Christ's ascension, Peter functioning as the chief Apostle recieved revelation directing the church and acted essentially as a prophet. In Peter and the other Apostles was vested the authority to lead God's church. In Hebrews we learn that </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and in the OT we learn that Aaron was called by Moses (a prophet) who was told by God (directly) to call Aaron.

So why doesn't that pattern apply now - obviously it hadn't changed from the OT to the NT so who is the prophet, that is authorized to call folks to the ministry? Who? Don't answer with we live under grace now, because it was an "under grace" NT verse that made this point - to act with the authority of God (priesthood) you must be called of God by a Prophet.

Too many holes - that's why folks like our friend the Mouse can't buy into Christianity. Sometimes I think that traditional Christianity is only loosely based on the Bible itself. There just isn't enough meat.

I am much maligned as being a Catholic basher around here, however, even though I don't agree with their doctrine, at least there is some meat to it. Much of Christianity today is religion-lite. All of this "Oh, we can all be saved, just accept Jesus" has nothing in common with biblical accounts like this </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is agood, save one, that is, God.

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That sounds like a little bit more that simply "accepting Jesus as your personal savior."

Too many holes and too much confusion surrounding a truth that is absolute. Where is God's mouthpiece on the earth today to clear everything up?

When Christ left this earth, who did he send?
The holy spirit. It is by the Holy Spirit that
God reveals himself and Jesus to us. The Holy Spirit reveals truth through the Word of God as well. MOdern day prophets are not a necessity (there are some who have the gift of prophecy) because the Holy Spiritis our One who reveals truth.

Gotta go get some car parts...more later.
nab

No kidding, he did, but he also left behind the Apostles and continued the building up of the church through them.

Who debated doctrinal issues in Acts?

Who decided that non-Jews could be taught the Gospel?

Who decided you didn't need to be circumcised anymore?

In each of those cases there was some influence from the Holy Spirit, but the final word was decided by a council of the Apostles.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">MOdern day prophets are not a necessity (there are some who have the gift of prophecy) because the Holy Spiritis our One who reveals truth.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So God has changed. you can't have it both ways, either God is unchangeable and has a prophet or God changes and doesn't have one. It's either or and not both.