- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/20/15 at 9:38 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:there is absolutely nothing fallacious about that. in fact, the philosophical naturalist should have no problem taking on that challenge. at least one that's not a coward. one that hides behind smug, unwarranted superiority taking cheap shots at someone who disagrees with their metaphysical view and then getting indignant when they get called out. so, explain how that is my fault
You asked him to disprove the existence of miracles. You engaged him with a fallacy.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 9:46 pm to bfniii
Eh hem.... Luke 14:26.....
ETA I got all dyslexic and shite
ETA I got all dyslexic and shite
This post was edited on 10/20/15 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 10/21/15 at 11:47 am to LucasP
familial devotion should not supersede one’s call to discipleship and commitment to God through Jesus. The word hate is µ?s?? which shows the stark contrast between affinity for even the most precious things of the world and the kingdom. Dedication to God has no limits; cross bearing means total sacrifice of everything. Anything that causes conflict with the requirements of discipleship must be jettisoned.
Jesus suggesting hatred might seem surprising to modern westerners but, this was a semitic idiom showing contrast as in to love one but hate the other. Luke records the literal words (formal equivalence) but, matthew documents the dynamic equivalence in the parallel passage, 10:37.
I hope that helps.
Great questions! Any others?
eta: i just realized the greek didn't come through, which i didn't think it would. use your imagination
Jesus suggesting hatred might seem surprising to modern westerners but, this was a semitic idiom showing contrast as in to love one but hate the other. Luke records the literal words (formal equivalence) but, matthew documents the dynamic equivalence in the parallel passage, 10:37.
I hope that helps.
Great questions! Any others?
eta: i just realized the greek didn't come through, which i didn't think it would. use your imagination
This post was edited on 10/21/15 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 10/21/15 at 11:54 am to beejon
So people will be marrying multiple cousins?
Posted on 11/9/15 at 3:49 pm to mtnhighTiger
mtnhigh Tiger,
You've obviously had a bad experience with the LDS church. Let me be the first to say that's unfortunate. Almost all of your post, however, is beyond me. I've been a member my whole life. I've been in the temple (multiple) many, many times. I've never experienced anything remotely close to what you've described in your post.
As far as padding our numbers? We don't use the vicarious baptisms for the dead in our membership numbers. Much of what you posted makes me think you have spent more time on websites offering opposing views than you have in an LDS chapel or temple. I mean no offense by that, but much of what you posted makes zero sense to me.
You've obviously had a bad experience with the LDS church. Let me be the first to say that's unfortunate. Almost all of your post, however, is beyond me. I've been a member my whole life. I've been in the temple (multiple) many, many times. I've never experienced anything remotely close to what you've described in your post.
As far as padding our numbers? We don't use the vicarious baptisms for the dead in our membership numbers. Much of what you posted makes me think you have spent more time on websites offering opposing views than you have in an LDS chapel or temple. I mean no offense by that, but much of what you posted makes zero sense to me.
Posted on 11/9/15 at 3:53 pm to StreamsOfWhiskey
You will be taken seriously and many people, including mtnhigh Tiger, will meditate long and deep on your post.
Posted on 11/9/15 at 3:55 pm to StreamsOfWhiskey
quote:
I've been a member my whole life. I've been in the temple (multiple) many, many times. I've never experienced anything remotely close to what you've described in your post.
If it's not too personal, what level are you?
Posted on 11/9/15 at 4:00 pm to bfniii
bfniiii,
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. You need these ordinances to be saved. Christ himself said so. What the LDS church does is perform the ordinances vicariously for the dead. In the afterlife, they'll have a chance to hear true doctrine and accept it or reject it. If they accept it, they will have their baptism because someone performed the work for them when they died. If they reject the gospel, the baptism provided for them vicariously is of no effect.
As far as being rebaptized, yes we view this as essential. We believe that God restored his church here on the earth with his priesthood power. Any ordinance performed without the proper authority is not valid. Now, I know this idea may be controversial, but is it really far fetched? So many different Christian religions out there and not a one of them can agree on doctrine. Each offer their own baptism. Is it far fetched that they may lack proper authority to perform said ordinances?
Scriptures tell us that the House of God is a house of order. In my mind, it makes no sense to me that two religions teaching separate doctrines that conflict with each other could both possess the proper authority to perform these ordinances. We believe the Priesthood was restored through the Lord's church. Obviously we believe that the LDS church is God's church here on the earth, possessing all authority to perform these ordinances.
Hope that helps.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. You need these ordinances to be saved. Christ himself said so. What the LDS church does is perform the ordinances vicariously for the dead. In the afterlife, they'll have a chance to hear true doctrine and accept it or reject it. If they accept it, they will have their baptism because someone performed the work for them when they died. If they reject the gospel, the baptism provided for them vicariously is of no effect.
As far as being rebaptized, yes we view this as essential. We believe that God restored his church here on the earth with his priesthood power. Any ordinance performed without the proper authority is not valid. Now, I know this idea may be controversial, but is it really far fetched? So many different Christian religions out there and not a one of them can agree on doctrine. Each offer their own baptism. Is it far fetched that they may lack proper authority to perform said ordinances?
Scriptures tell us that the House of God is a house of order. In my mind, it makes no sense to me that two religions teaching separate doctrines that conflict with each other could both possess the proper authority to perform these ordinances. We believe the Priesthood was restored through the Lord's church. Obviously we believe that the LDS church is God's church here on the earth, possessing all authority to perform these ordinances.
Hope that helps.
Posted on 11/9/15 at 4:03 pm to beejon
Root beer sales will go through the roof there, they love their root beer
Best root beer I've ever had was in Utah, AKA Mormon paradise
Best root beer I've ever had was in Utah, AKA Mormon paradise
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News