‹‹ Back to the Serious discussions Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Posts: 116  
Users visited: 167  
Search this topic:  


The original post

Posted by Zombie on 11.10.2010 at 15:16
Old thread locked, new thread here.
resume the discussion



Page 4 of 4

Cynic Metalhead
Atrocious Virgin

Posts: 4390

Age: 25
From: India

  15.03.2013 at 09:04
Written by Bad English on 15.03.2013 at 02:09

Written by R Lewis on 13.03.2013 at 21:46

Man the new Pope is damn swag


pfedopfyle


Oh my.....what on earth could that mean?!
----
Daniell
GlenDronach!

Posts: 5153
From: Poland

  20.03.2013 at 12:28
It simply means that the poster is deranged.
----
Now loving:
Avatarium - Pearls and Coffins
Iron Maiden - Empire of the Clouds
Ahab - The Weedmen
Finsterforst - Mach dich frei!
My Dying Bride - Feel the Misery
K†ulu
Seeker of Truth

Posts: 2488

Age: 27
From: Czech Republic

  31.03.2013 at 22:53
Quote:
Written by K†ulu on 29.03.2013 at 10:29

By the way, I wonder what your faith is...

My faith is non-denominational Christian so I follow my own personal interpretation of Christianity, not what some priest or pastor tells me I should believe or follow lest I go to Hell for all eternity.



Written by psykometal on 31.03.2013 at 09:32

Written by Edmund Fogg on 31.03.2013 at 06:59

Isn't that agnostic rather then full blown christianity?

Sort of. Straight agnosticism is when you're not sure of what to believe and you acknowledge that there may or may not be something out there in the form of a higher power and therefore don't really conform or claim to worship/follow any specific deity or religion. What you're referring to is agnostic theism in which one believes in something (whether it be a single deity or multiple deities depends on the person in question) but still isn't entirely sure what to believe about that deity or deities and how that deity or deities actually operates.

I guess you could say I'm an agnostic [theistic] Christian because I do believe in God and Christ but I'm not entirely sure what to believe with regards to how God actually is and I prefer not to assume he is the "stringent asshole" that a lot of Christians can make him out to be. I have always found it odd and ridiculous that a lot of Christians say he is a forgiving God but then turn around and say that God will damn people like me who choose to have premarital sex and curse/swear to Hell for all eternity for our sins. I prefer to think that God will look at the sum of a person's actions as a whole throughout their lives and pass judgement based on our actions as a whole rather than just damning us to Hell because you made a few bad/poor choices in life.


Judging by the descriptions above, it is no big deal to conclude that you do not believe in Christianity. You talk about "interpretation of Christianity" and what you "prefer to think" about God. Christianity is believing that Christ died for you sins, accepting his sacrifice personally, building a relationship with Him while obeying his commandments, and staying loyal to the end (death).

As far as pastors or priests, they are instruments in God's hands to lead churches and educate people in the dogmas of Christianity, but also to inspire and support. They are not there to tell you will go to Hell. Also a church of people is needed for Christians to share their faith, their hardships, testimonies, and again inspire others. It is a place of common prayer, where the Holy Spirit acts in a special way "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I [Christ] among them." In other words, it is impossible to be a Christian without a (local) church, and it is only normal to have such a community. You love metal, that is why hang around on Metal Storm and other fellow metalheads. You love God, you go hang out with other people who love God.
----
Savor what you feel and what you see
Things that may not seem important now
But may be tomorrow

R.I.P. Chuck Schuldiner

Satan was a Backstreet Boy
BlessedMetal

Posts: 33
From: The Netherlands
  13.11.2013 at 14:59
Why he is not a christian?
He is saying that he believes in Christ, okay not in a church.
But there are many christians who dont suppor the actions of a church, i can understand that because of the history.

And second God is judging the hearts of ours not the people here
Bad English
Masterchief

Posts: 43184

Age: 31
From: Sweden

  18.01.2015 at 17:22
What is origin of 7 deadly sins, basically of this number idea ?
7 dead lu sins, 7 ancient seas, hmm if someone put curse on you it can go up to next 7 generations, same I heard some woman told, those who have no children be curses 7 genetions backwards

what is whit this 7? where it come from,?
----
Life is to short for LOVE, there is many great things to do online !!!

Stormtroopers of Death - ''Speak English or Die''

I better die, because I never will learn speek english, so I choose dieing
IronAngel

Posts: 4561

Age: 26
From: Finland

  18.01.2015 at 18:28
Seven is a pretty common number in ancient tradition. Some will probably tell you that there is some hidden numerological significance or a meaningful connection between different instances of the number. But personally, I don't buy that shit. There are plenty of other frequently appearing numbers, too. Three, nine, twelve etc. Some of it is no doubt just tradition - medieval authors liked to list things in threes just because it was the literary custom, without any single deep reason for it. And some of it is common sense/connection between the inherent qualities of the number and human psychology. That seven is a prime number may have something to do with it, for example.

Old cultures in general liked to make lists. That it happens to be precisely 7 sins you need to beware of is part coincidence, part literary tradition (the contents of the seven sins were modified by Gregory and reinterpreted later, but the number remained the same). The reason for lists is that it's easier to memorize in a predominantly oral, illiterate culture, that it's probably easy to comprehend pyschologically when it's laid out in clear order, and (I suspect) because it was a way of structuring your writing at a time when things like punctuation and paragraphs were irregular and often not used at all.

Seven deadly sins, though, in the version they came to be recognized in Latin Christianity, come from pope Gregory the Great's (540-604) work, which was itself a modification of an earlier list.

If anyone tries to give you a simple, conclusive answer to the question, they're bullshitting you or buying into some sensationalist TV documentary ("the secret of seven revealed!").
Bad English
Masterchief

Posts: 43184

Age: 31
From: Sweden

  18.01.2015 at 20:35
Written by IronAngel on 18.01.2015 at 18:28

Seven is a pretty common number in ancient tradition. Some will probably tell you that there is some hidden numerological significance or a meaningful connection between different instances of the number. But personally, I don't buy that shit. There are plenty of other frequently appearing numbers, too. Three, nine, twelve etc. Some of it is no doubt just tradition - medieval authors liked to list things in threes just because it was the literary custom, without any single deep reason for it. And some of it is common sense/connection between the inherent qualities of the number and human psychology. That seven is a prime number may have something to do with it, for example.

Old cultures in general liked to make lists. That it happens to be precisely 7 sins you need to beware of is part coincidence, part literary tradition (the contents of the seven sins were modified by Gregory and reinterpreted later, but the number remained the same). The reason for lists is that it's easier to memorize in a predominantly oral, illiterate culture, that it's probably easy to comprehend pyschologically when it's laid out in clear order, and (I suspect) because it was a way of structuring your writing at a time when things like punctuation and paragraphs were irregular and often not used at all.

Seven deadly sins, though, in the version they came to be recognized in Latin Christianity, come from pope Gregory the Great's (540-604) work, which was itself a modification of an earlier list.

If anyone tries to give you a simple, conclusive answer to the question, they're bullshitting you or buying into some sensationalist TV documentary ("the secret of seven revealed!").


another evidence that Christianity has deeper pagan roots and seems most are stolen , I am not expert in hebru, arab nation history, but Europe - paganisnm, I know a lot and same whit Christianity seems its stolen , most things
----
Life is to short for LOVE, there is many great things to do online !!!

Stormtroopers of Death - ''Speak English or Die''

I better die, because I never will learn speek english, so I choose dieing
IronAngel

Posts: 4561

Age: 26
From: Finland

  18.01.2015 at 20:59
I am not sure how you read that from my reply. That it is common to human culture at a certain period, even common to human nature perhaps, to make lists and ennumerate things and that seven happens to be a convenient number, does not imply any kind of "stealing". It's just common sense.

How could any literary tradition, religion or school of thought remain immune and detached from the society and culture around it? In this, Christianity is no different from any religion, and no biblical scholar would deny the influence of several strands of religious practice and thought on Christianity.

In defining the seven deadly sins, the Christian authors were quite unique and original. There is much continuity between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and Greek philosophy and Christianity on the other, but early Christian authors did make novel contributions to mainstream thought and ethics. You won't find an equivalent list of seven vices from Greek philosophy, for example. Compare Gregory to Aristotle, and you'll see plenty of difference. The sin of pride, or of spiritual sloth, are not something mainstream pagan culture would have readily understood and condemned, for example.
Nucky

Posts: 106
From: Slovenia

  22.01.2015 at 10:15
Written by Bad English on 18.01.2015 at 20:35

Written by IronAngel on 18.01.2015 at 18:28

Seven is a pretty common number in ancient tradition. Some will probably tell you that there is some hidden numerological significance or a meaningful connection between different instances of the number. But personally, I don't buy that shit. There are plenty of other frequently appearing numbers, too. Three, nine, twelve etc. Some of it is no doubt just tradition - medieval authors liked to list things in threes just because it was the literary custom, without any single deep reason for it. And some of it is common sense/connection between the inherent qualities of the number and human psychology. That seven is a prime number may have something to do with it, for example.

Old cultures in general liked to make lists. That it happens to be precisely 7 sins you need to beware of is part coincidence, part literary tradition (the contents of the seven sins were modified by Gregory and reinterpreted later, but the number remained the same). The reason for lists is that it's easier to memorize in a predominantly oral, illiterate culture, that it's probably easy to comprehend pyschologically when it's laid out in clear order, and (I suspect) because it was a way of structuring your writing at a time when things like punctuation and paragraphs were irregular and often not used at all.

Seven deadly sins, though, in the version they came to be recognized in Latin Christianity, come from pope Gregory the Great's (540-604) work, which was itself a modification of an earlier list.

If anyone tries to give you a simple, conclusive answer to the question, they're bullshitting you or buying into some sensationalist TV documentary ("the secret of seven revealed!").


another evidence that Christianity has deeper pagan roots and seems most are stolen , I am not expert in hebru, arab nation history, but Europe - paganisnm, I know a lot and same whit Christianity seems its stolen , most things


Like everything in christianity is stolen.. Most of the holidays mean something in paganism.. Christianity is a religion of lies..
Bad English
Masterchief

Posts: 43184

Age: 31
From: Sweden

  18.04.2015 at 02:53
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2014/06/st-louis-archbishop-claims-he-wasnt-sure-it-was-illegal-for-priests-to-have-sex-with-kids/



sex before marriage , whit prostitute and use condom is sin, but children is not .... people whit good education, retards cant be priests , its long and hard education, don't know it...
----
Life is to short for LOVE, there is many great things to do online !!!

Stormtroopers of Death - ''Speak English or Die''

I better die, because I never will learn speek english, so I choose dieing
Bad English
Masterchief

Posts: 43184

Age: 31
From: Sweden

  27.10.2015 at 02:18
Suicide cult in medieval ages, ppl run to others attack in Africa, wanted be killed, because they will be reunite whit God.. when ppl didn't want kill them, they jump from clif, cant remember name of cult, so in original bible and church suicide was not sin, but became it later... why people don't use own brains, read, re search, look skeptically, believe in aliens, not make omw theories, wjay they accept what weput in the brains
----
Life is to short for LOVE, there is many great things to do online !!!

Stormtroopers of Death - ''Speak English or Die''

I better die, because I never will learn speek english, so I choose dieing
FUCK Vietnam

Posts: 3483

Age: 28
From: Vietnam

  28.10.2015 at 01:24
Most of you all that disscuss Christianity from view and stance of scientistic people, i mean most of you speak about being skeptical and criticizing the religion.. Non of you are christians or even not serious christians, as ive never seen even one in ms..

Some hint: you need to understand the religion before criticizing. People says how to do is by to learn and by to understand how to do. You want to do business, you got to study business in colleges than to criticize christianity, you got to study and understand it and the religion is thousands years of history n evengot more so you cant bash it when you dont actually understandit..

Anyway, i indeed agree that pedophiles in church, pastors is bullshit thing. But church is church, one christian thing is you should not trust even the one who lecture about christianity or like church, its God not the one human flesh who claim to be.. I remember Ernis said Jesus said build your own church..
I would research more about that part of Jesus saying..

If summary to christianity ican say that it applies to personal, and helpful for vairous lives destinies catastrophet, which lighthearts and kids dont undertstand.. The religionis very metaphysical in term of undestand..
bj_waters

Posts: 256

Age: 31
From: USA

  28.10.2015 at 03:25
I'd consider myself a "serious Christian". But then again, I'm a Mormon, so that complicates things sometimes.

That being said, there will always be people who criticize religion from a purely scientific point of view because science is their "religion", if you will. It is the framework they have chosen through which they see EVERYTHING in their existence in this world. With that perspective, it's understandable that these people see religion as mass delusions or the manipulations of the conniving (or what have you) because that's what they perceive through that specific framework.

It all depends on how flexible you allow your perceptual framework to be. (Or so I think.)
FUCK Vietnam

Posts: 3483

Age: 28
From: Vietnam

  28.10.2015 at 04:40
Written by bj_waters on 28.10.2015 at 03:25

I'd consider myself a "serious Christian". But then again, I'm a Mormon, so that complicates things sometimes.

That being said, there will always be people who criticize religion from a purely scientific point of view because science is their "religion", if you will. It is the framework they have chosen through which they see EVERYTHING in their existence in this world. With that perspective, it's understandable that these people see religion as mass delusions or the manipulations of the conniving (or what have you) because that's what they perceive through that specific framework.

It all depends on how flexible you allow your perceptual framework to be. (Or so I think.)

Exactly. Whenever people who criticize the Christianity, they aware or unawared that actually they always see it from scientific view when they skept.
IronAngel

Posts: 4561

Age: 26
From: Finland

  29.10.2015 at 03:06
I could criticise Christianity from a dozen points of view apart from the "scientific" one. It's a pretty cheap defense to say that everyone who disagrees is just blinded by scientism. That said, I actually rather like Christanity, at least Christanity that hasn't broken from the apostolic succession and unity with Rome or communion with the ecumenical patriarchy of Constantinople. Protestants are schismatics at best, heretics at worst.

I can't believe, because I am just not wired that way and haven't been presented with any convincing evidence/experience to abandon what I consider rational secularism. But if I were to convert to active Christianity by some epistemic acrobatics or brain-altering experience, it would definitely be to a traditional church. Not only has their ceremony retained more integrity, their argument is actually stronger IMO. The Reformation belief in sola scriptura is naive, because it presupposes that everyone will glean the same basic truth from the Bible - and that the Bible should be the highest authority to begin with. Emprically, this has not been the case, and Protestant churches have kept on fracturing into smaller sects. The dilemma of any religion is why to choose this one over another; how to know that my belief is teh right one. A Catholic who can appeal to the tradition of the church is actually on firmer ground than the individualist who only has his interpretation to rely on. The fact that the church exists and performs efficacious sacraments (if you believe that) may be reason enough to believe its doctrine to contain the truth. And more generally, I just find it naively arrogant that Protestants (or Mormons etc.) believe they can just read a timeless truth from the Bible and interpret it better than patristic theologians who were actually closer to the original context and argued successfully against different interpretations that ended up excluded from orthodox Christianity. If I were religious, I'd take the decrees of the first General Councils, informed as they were by the greatest patristic writers, over the private brain-farts of some 19th century traveling preacher or whateer.

Mind you, this is all academic since I'm not really invested one way or the other. But if I was, I'd crusade for traditional high-church Christianity. Probably become a Dominican or a Jesuit.
bj_waters

Posts: 256

Age: 31
From: USA

  29.10.2015 at 03:50
Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 03:06

I could criticise Christianity from a dozen points of view apart from the "scientific" one. It's a pretty cheap defense to say that everyone who disagrees is just blinded by scientism.


There are plenty of perspectives from which one could criticize Christianity. I once read an Islam criticism of Christianity, which was unusual to say the least! I certainly don't think that all critics of Christianity are "blinded by scientism", just many of the ones on the internet (based on what I've encountered and lurked over).

Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 03:06

I can't believe, because I am just not wired that way and haven't been presented with any convincing evidence/experience to abandon what I consider rational secularism. But if I were to convert to active Christianity by some epistemic acrobatics or brain-altering experience, it would definitely be to a traditional church. Not only has their ceremony retained more integrity, their argument is actually stronger IMO. The Reformation belief in sola scriptura is naive, because it presupposes that everyone will glean the same basic truth from the Bible - and that the Bible should be the highest authority to begin with. Emprically, this has not been the case, and Protestant churches have kept on fracturing into smaller sects. The dilemma of any religion is why to choose this one over another; how to know that my belief is teh right one. A Catholic who can appeal to the tradition of the church is actually on firmer ground than the individualist who only has his interpretation to rely on. The fact that the church exists and performs efficacious sacraments (if you believe that) may be reason enough to believe its doctrine to contain the truth. And more generally, I just find it naively arrogant that Protestants (or Mormons etc.) believe they can just read a timeless truth from the Bible and interpret it better than patristic theologians who were actually closer to the original context and argued successfully against different interpretations that ended up excluded from orthodox Christianity. If I were religious, I'd take the decrees of the first General Councils, informed as they were by the greatest patristic writers, over the private brain-farts of some 19th century traveling preacher or whateer.

Mind you, this is all academic since I'm not really invested one way or the other. But if I was, I'd crusade for traditional high-church Christianity. Probably become a Dominican or a Jesuit.


For the sake of clarification, Mormons are not Protestants. Protestants are historically a break off from the Catholic tradition, and in recent years have been basing much of their authority on the Bible itself. Mormonism wasn't formed this way. Instead, it's based on Restoration, the idea that the church from the first century A.D. (or C.E., if you prefer) crumbled and lost it's priesthood authority when the Apostles were killed, and that priesthood authority had since been literally restored to Joseph Smith through Peter, James, and John (among others), and this authority have since been passed down to our current leaders. They have a direct priesthood lineage going back to the Apostles for the New Testament (and thus, Jesus Christ).

In fact, when you consider this idea of priesthood lineage, there's an interesting comparison that can be made between the Mormon church and the Catholic church that was made once by a Catholic scholar once, as told by one of our early leaders, Orson F. Whitney:

Quote:
"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.'" (Citation)


As a Mormon, I certainly believe that the priesthood authority was lost and needed to be restored through Joseph Smith. Of course, whether or not you decide to take this interpretation of true authority seriously is up to you. I just simply thought all of this was worth sharing this for the sake of clarity.
IronAngel

Posts: 4561

Age: 26
From: Finland

  29.10.2015 at 04:17
Oh, I know Mormons aren't Protestants. Mormons arguably (and it is the pretty neutral consensus, I think) aren't Christians, so I was restricting myself to the more generally-recognised sects. I did not know that Mormons actually had a doctrine of apostolic succession, that's interesting. Cheers! The quote from Whitney is very apologetic, though, and certainly made by the Catholic in a spirit of sucking up to his hosts, if made at all. Because even if the Catholic church was wrong and they had lost the apostolic succession, that would still not imply that the Mormons were right and that Joseph Smith had restored it. There's no logical necessity that it be restored at all, and not much reason to believe it was restored to Smith specifically. Why do you believe that, if you don't mind the personal question?

It is the case with all new sects and "modern inspiration": I personally can't grasp why one would take a contemporary authority more seriously than an ancient and well-established one, in a religious context. Psychologically, doesn't it put your faith on very unsecure ground? If someone a few centuries back got a whole new testament and revealed that everything in the last two thousand years was bollocks, what makes you trust that it won't happen again and it be relieved that this guy, too, was a hoax?
bj_waters

Posts: 256

Age: 31
From: USA

  29.10.2015 at 08:12
Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 04:17

Oh, I know Mormons aren't Protestants. Mormons arguably (and it is the pretty neutral consensus, I think) aren't Christians, so I was restricting myself to the more generally-recognised sects.

That entirely depends on how you choose to define "Christian." Mormons do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. We believe He was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth, that He taught salvation and performed miracles, and that He Atoned for all the sins of mankind, was crucified, and rose again on the third day. We believe that it is through Him (and only Him) that we can be cleansed of our sins, and that He will come again to reign upon the Earth at the end of times. I would think this would qualify Mormons as Christians (IMO).

Of course, there are a few differences that seem to matter to some people. For example, we believe that God and Jesus Christ are two separate and distinct beings (we don't believe in the Trinity), and that Jesus Christ, after his resurrection, went and visited the people on the American continent as recorded in the Book of Mormon, among a few other things that escape my mind at the moment.

Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 04:17
I did not know that Mormons actually had a doctrine of apostolic succession, that's interesting. Cheers! The quote from Whitney is very apologetic, though, and certainly made by the Catholic in a spirit of sucking up to his hosts, if made at all. Because even if the Catholic church was wrong and they had lost the apostolic succession, that would still not imply that the Mormons were right and that Joseph Smith had restored it. There's no logical necessity that it be restored at all, and not much reason to believe it was restored to Smith specifically.

It is the case with all new sects and "modern inspiration": I personally can't grasp why one would take a contemporary authority more seriously than an ancient and well-established one, in a religious context. Psychologically, doesn't it put your faith on very unsecure ground? If someone a few centuries back got a whole new testament and revealed that everything in the last two thousand years was bollocks, what makes you trust that it won't happen again and it be relieved that this guy, too, was a hoax?

Technically you're quite correct. Much (if not all) of the doctrine of the Mormon Church does ride on very little, and it really is up to the individual (and their relationship with God) to decide if it's true or not. However, there are a few things I can explain that may clear up why we believe things the way we do. (Mormonism 101, here we go!)

One of the big things we believe in is the idea that people are free to choose their paths in life, and God respects their agency. Because of that, the history of humanity's relationship with God has gone in cycles, where a prophet will come to preach the word, people will believe for a while, and then fall away into apostasy. We see this in the Old Testament all of the time: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. This is important as we believe these prophets held the authority from God to be prophets. Amos 3:7 even states that: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." [KJV] So, in order for God to reveal His will to His children, he will do it through a prophet. Essentially, we believe that God has "restored" His Gospel multiple times already.

When Jesus Christ began his ministry, it was much of the same idea: restore the Gospel and establish His Church upon the land, calling His 12 Apostles and giving them the authority (the keys of the priesthood) to lead the Church once He left them. However, the Church ended up facing a lot of persecution, with the Apostles dying off faster than new ones could be called to the position. This left the people to try and hide whatever pieces of the gospel and put them back together on their own (without the proper authority!).

This isn't to say that everything after 100 A.D. is "bollocks", but simply incomplete. Imagine the Fullness of the Gospel as taught by Christ as a nice, new mirror. When the Apostles were killed and the priesthood authority lost from the Earth, imagine that mirror being dropped and broken into several pieces. When the remaining Christians were able to reassemble the pieces in an effort to put the mirror back together, using glue to fill in the pieces they had lost. Sure, the mirror still reflects light (truth), but it's broken and incomplete, making it hard to get a complete picture from it.

This is why Joseph Smith is such a big deal for the Mormons. He didn't repair the mirror with his own efforts, but he was given the priesthood authority to restore the mirror back to one single piece. This makes him a prophet just like Noah or Moses. He was given the priesthood keys by Peter, James, and John, which allowed him to restore the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth and provide the true doctrines and proper ordinances for God's children (us).

Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 04:17
Why do you believe that, if you don't mind the personal question?

Okay, this is where I answer this question, keeping in mind with the context I've established.

One of the important things that prophets do is that they provide a kind of proof of their prophetic calling. Sometimes this involves miracles (Moses), other times it involves prophecies of doom and destruction (Noah). For Joseph Smith, his "proof" is the Book of Mormon. One of his duties was to find and translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient, forgotten language into English by the power of God. Essentially, it all boils down to whether or not the Book of Mormon is truly the Word of God, because if it is, then Joseph Smith is a prophet, and he's restored God's Kingdom on earth as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If not, then it all falls apart. I know it's a lot to hinge upon a single book, but we do refer to it as the Keystone of Our Religion for a reason!

So what is the Book of Mormon? Essentially, it's the writings of prophets on the American continents (we're not sure where specifically). A prophet named Mormon was commanded by God to compile a spiritual history of his people (which is [i]why[/] it's called The Book of Mormon!). When it was mostly complete, he passed the project to his son Moroni (who was also a prophet), who wrote the last section of the book and buried in the Earth to be recovered by Joseph Smith. Because Moroni was a prophet, he could see that his writings would end up being translated, so much of his work speaks directly to the reader. Towards the end of his section, he actually gives a challenge to the reader:

Quote:
Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. [Moroni 10:3-5]

I have personally taken this challenge multiple times, and every time, I have felt the witness of the Holy Ghost testifying to me that The Book of Mormon is true and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth. I have had these experiences, and denying that they happened to me would simply make me a hypocrite.

However, while I do stand by my testimony, I recognize that is merely the word of one person, and that it is up to each individual to consider these things. Is it all a hoax? Or was Joseph Smith really a prophet of God? If you (or anyone) is genuinely serious about wanting to know the truth of these things, I recommend that you do as Moroni asks: read the Book of Mormon, ponder what it teaches, and then ask God in prayer about its truthfulness, with real intent on gaining an answer. It's not scientific, or conclusive, or empirical, or logical, but more of a personal decision, based on personal experiences, and your willingness to pray to God and listen to His answer.

Well, I hope that was informative (if not too horribly long). There may have been a shorter way to say these things, but I felt like I needed to at least provide some narrative context to what Mormons believe and why I believe it. (That, and I'm not very good at being concise! Sorry!)

I'm willing to answer any other questions you or anyone may have about the Church and our beliefs. There is also a Mormonism thread here on Metal Storm, so if the moderators would prefer, we could take the discussion there.
bj_waters

Posts: 256

Age: 31
From: USA

  04.11.2015 at 05:14
Azarath

Posts: 579

Age: 32
From: Finland

  04.11.2015 at 17:40
IronAngel

Posts: 4561

Age: 26
From: Finland

  04.11.2015 at 18:31


Well, I didn't have an immediate response in mind. Thanks for your post, anyhow!
bj_waters

Posts: 256

Age: 31
From: USA

  05.11.2015 at 04:20
Written by IronAngel on 04.11.2015 at 18:31



Well, I didn't have an immediate response in mind. Thanks for your post, anyhow!


Thanks, I guess. After I posted it, I wondered if I wasn't getting too preachy (and boring, really). I can just hope it cleared things up for those who were interested. I'll go back to my Mormon corner now.
Bad English
Masterchief

Posts: 43184

Age: 31
From: Sweden

  18.11.2015 at 12:37
Why book of Enoch was origanly rejected from Bible?
I just found out that originally suicide was not sin , that there was that sect, cult what attack in N Africa to travelers and wanted to be killed , because they wanted go to heaven and get salvation. Non killed them, they all jumped from cliff and commuted mass suicide. After it Vatican said its a sin .... o yes , more you know, more you see its bullshit

Ancient alien theory suggests that satan was real and good guy, he was one of aliens who crated us, and then he was send here, helped ppl , they rejected him and he also was pissed. Its like Prometheus stoll fire from the Gods and gave to humans, Gods-ET
Satan was like snake serpent.,... like Kukalkan and other mayan Gods? Book of Enoch tells about Watchers and are missing part of old and early Christianity .... gosh ... AAT are better story as official bible story
----
Life is to short for LOVE, there is many great things to do online !!!

Stormtroopers of Death - ''Speak English or Die''

I better die, because I never will learn speek english, so I choose dieing
IronAngel

Posts: 4561

Age: 26
From: Finland

  19.11.2015 at 13:10
Written by Bad English on 18.11.2015 at 12:37

Why book of Enoch was origanly rejected from Bible?
I just found out that originally suicide was not sin , that there was that sect, cult what attack in N Africa to travelers and wanted to be killed , because they wanted go to heaven and get salvation. Non killed them, they all jumped from cliff and commuted mass suicide. After it Vatican said its a sin .... o yes , more you know, more you see its bullshit


It is a common misconception that books were "rejected" or "censored" from the Biblical canon (whichever it is we're talking about - there is no one Bible, and the Book of Enoch is part of some canons). It's more that they simply weren't included in the first place. It's not like some committee sat down with a bunch of miscellaneous texts and picked their favorites to form a canon. If some authority (like a general council) did make decisions regarding the canon, it was based on already-established practice: what texts parishes really read, copied and considered authoritative. It as only minor disagreements or marginal deviations that would have to be debated. The first Book of Enoch wasn't used by most Jews or early Christians - maybe it wasn't good enough, maybe its claim to divine inspiration wasn't credible, maybe it was hard to come by, who knows, but it wasn't copied or used as actively so it didn't make it into the canon. I am under the impression its theology is a bit weird and non-Jewish/Christian, so that's probably why.

Care to provide a reference for the suicide story? It sounds like exaggerated/misrepresented nonsense to me. Early martyrs certainly exhibited a rather extreme deathwish, at least in later hagiography, but that's still far from suicide. Either way, I don't see why something or the other would be automatically "bullshit" because someone, somewhere, had a different opinion.
IronAngel

Posts: 4561

Age: 26
From: Finland

  19.11.2015 at 13:28
Hm, my answer re: Enoch is a little misleading, because it's concerned with the formation of the canon in general. Usually such questions were actualised in the case of "New Testament" texts. The case was probably very unproblematic with Enoch: it wasn't part of the Hebrew Bible the early Christians adopted pretty much as such. So it's not a question of them having to justify why not add this random text that isn't part of Jewish Scripture to their own holy book - why would they?
Bad English
Masterchief

Posts: 43184

Age: 31
From: Sweden

  02.12.2015 at 14:00
People who I know, who was Christian die hard believer whit modern touch and sin, after watching Ancient Aliens believes Jesus was ana stronaut and he became AET ancient alien theorist .--.-- pope be pleased
----
Life is to short for LOVE, there is many great things to do online !!!

Stormtroopers of Death - ''Speak English or Die''

I better die, because I never will learn speek english, so I choose dieing

Advertise on Metal Storm
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]


Login or register to post here.



Similar topics

Forum Topic Similarity Started
Serious discussions Discordianism 3 11.05.2009 by jupitreas
Serious discussions The Religion and Spirituality Thread 2.5 19.05.2006 by
General forum Judaism: a Religion or an ethnicity? 2 13.04.2010 by Zombie
Rock forum Favourite Bad Religion Album 1.5 27.09.2007 by
Reviews In Silentio Noctis - Through Fragments Of Christianity 1.5 27.06.2010 by muska