Mormonism is either solipsism, or chaos.

[love-bias]

The state of being a created being is also the state of involuntarily being affected by outside forces (i.e. involuntarily affected by will other than your own 1).

In order to be God, one mustn’t be unwillingly affected, ever; nor have been: a finite cannot cross an infinite.

(First Cause cannot be secondary without existence collapsing altogether: it ain’t a mystery, but instead is a convoluted “cycle” of impossibility… Lemme say it this way: we have this created line, but no Creator of this line, however long? *Ha! Good luck with that: *it’s chaos)

Thus, either you (this created reader) are in fact not ever affected at all by will(s) not of your own (nor have you been), or simply you are not (able to be) God (i.e. God = not affected without choosing to be).

That which has ever been affected cannot naturally/logically/scientifically become as though never affected (i.e. the “first cause:” God). The created cannot create its own Creator.

Hence, (if Mormonism is true) either solipsism is true, or there is no God/“First Cause” (i.e. then, chaos): Mormonism is either solipsism, or it is chaos.

Now both solipsism and chaos are fallacious theories.

Arguing responders: please do not post illogical and/or incomplete and/or rhetorical “explanations.” Please keep your post(s) short and sweet, as I’ve done: not many words are needed for this; please give only concise bits of logic. Also, this is no historical matter. (Not one word about History, please!!! Not even if you are Roman Catholic, okay?)

Thanks.

jason

1 It may be said that there is no “higher will” in the Universe. Well, there ya go: that’s chaos. But for context-sake, I’m either referring to such will of God’s, or to scientific laws which determine Man, and not the other way around: as would be seen upon reading further.

 

[fruitloops_10]

I dont have any comments on this…
just lettin you know i did stop by and read this
…good job

seeking God’s will
Dayna

 

[love-bias]

thanx Dayna!

 

[FightingFat]

This interested me and since we weren’t getting any answers here (can’t thik why ) I decided to email it to a Mormon friend of mine who’s very religious and quite clever. This is his response-

Now THAT’S one I have never heard of before. However the logic is
flawed as seen by me. First, the author is trying to express God with
limited, mortal understanding and explanation. You and I both know
that’s impossible with our current minds. We are unable to fathom the
concept of eternity, no beginning and no end. Second, the idea that
“In order to be God, one mustn’t be unwillingly affected, ever; nor
have been” makes no sense to me. Why? Is he saying God cannot grow,
cannot learn? To say such is saying that God is damned, His
progression stopped. So then if God can grow, then He must have grown
from somewhere from a less than divine position. But now I’m starting
to dip into the author’s blunder and use mortal logic to express God.
Can we use logic to express certain attributes of God? Yes. He is a
God of law and order, therefore must have his own governing laws and
rules that he cannot cross, else He would cease to be God.

But the author makes one more mistake. In what way were we
involuntarily affected by God? In our scriptures, I particularly like
Abraham’s account of the creation. He usually uses the words “formed”
and “organized” rather than create or synthesis, signifying that raw
matter and things were already about, but Christ organized them and
formed them into a working system. In a like manner, I believe ( and I
think this is official doctrine, not quite sure though ) that
intelligence is an eternal principle, neither beginning or ending.
Abraham states that he saw the intelligences that were organized before
the world was. My own thoughts: did God create us from nothing, or did
he find other, but far weaker, intelligences, and nurture and care for
us? If we were indeed created, we could not have been involuntarily
created for we would not have had a will to accept or reject until
AFTER the creation had taken place. Agency and free will are eternal
principles as well. This entire earth and plan of salvation are bound
by that and love. God will NEVER interfere with man’s ability to
choose. Influence his decisions, yes. But never force or coerce us to
do anything.

I know some of the “logic” in the upper portions may be flawed a bit,
but it was a quickie reply. Hope it gives you a bit of insight.

 

[oat_soda]

This interested me and since we weren’t getting any answers here (can’t thik why ) I decided to email it to a Mormon friend of mine who’s very religious and quite clever.

i don’t think you can use clever and mormon in the same sentence.

 

[PaulDupre]

FightingFat:

This interested me and since we weren’t getting any answers here (can’t thik why ) I decided to email it to a Mormon friend of mine who’s very religious and quite clever. This is his response-

Is he saying God cannot grow,
cannot learn? To say such is saying that God is damned, His
progression stopped. So then if God can grow, then He must have grown
from somewhere from a less than divine position.

This is the problem when trying to communicate with a Mormon. All of their words have been redefined. This guy assumes that if God is not learning and progressing, then He can’t be God. That is exactly opposite the Judeo-Christian concept of God as uncreated, complete, self-existent and all-powerful. The Mormon “god” is a created being who was promoted to godhood for his obedience to Mormon authority. He cannot create from nothing, cannot be omnipresent, is not omniscient, etc. He is not God, but rather an acsended master - not really different from us, just more advanced in his “progression”. The Mormon “god” is still learning, still increasing in wisdom and glory - which means the Mormon “god” is not God at all. Mormons worship the creature rather than the creator. In fact, Mormons do not believe that the universe had a creator. Rather, they believe that the universe had no beginning, but their “god” was not always a “god”.
This guy uses the word “eternal”, but they have redefined that word as well. Eternity, in Mormon-speak, is the amount of time between the ascension of a man to godhood and the ascension of that man’s last offspring to godhood.

 

[deltaguy]

ok if you don’t believe in “mormonism” (might i add the term momonism is made up and has nothing to do with them) then don’t get on with things im sick of people bad mouthing them there no different to you and if you’ve got nothing better to do than sit here n try n proove them wrong you need to get a life… for one what makes them so different to yourselfs and your religion…

*you both worship christ (all though people think they worship joseph smith which is not true)

*both believe in god

*both honour the 10 comandments

*both beleive jesus suffered and atoned for us

both beleive that the only way to heaven is through christ…

i could keep going on and on… sure they have some different things but is it wrong for them to beleive that… whether it is right or wrong its none of yuor buisness… its religion is based on almost the same priciples as any christian one… i could continue forever but my point is back off and leave them alone its not your place to judge them… do not judge unless ye be judged i recall a scipture saying… you and all you other people who spend there lives trying to prove other religions wrong you should be ashamed of yourselves get a life…

… by the way im only 16 and a normal guy with a life and friends and lives normally but i thought this message needs to be shared… any anti religion is wrong… stick to your own you beleive it good for you…

Bye… take care

 

[PaulDupre]

FightingFat:

In our scriptures, I particularly like
Abraham’s account of the creation. He usually uses the words “formed”
and “organized” rather than create or synthesis, signifying that raw
matter and things were already about, but Christ organized them and
formed them into a working system. In a like manner, I believe ( and I
think this is official doctrine, not quite sure though ) that
intelligence is an eternal principle, neither beginning or ending.
Abraham states that he saw the intelligences that were organized before
the world was.

He is quoting from The Book of Abraham, which has been proven to be a fraud. Joseph Smith claimed (and the title page states) that the papyrus scroll he used to translate the B of A (he bought it from a traveling carnival show) was written by Abraham himself, in his own handwriting. Then after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, Egyptologists cracked the code of hyroglyphics and could read the scroll. They discovered that the scroll was a common pagan funerary text, The Book of Breathings, and dated from just a few hundred years before Christ. Even the LDS Church acknowledges that Abraham did not write the scroll, and Joseph Smith could not have translated the B of A from that scroll like he claimed he did. Yet they still cite it as scripture. Now they have changed their story, saying that Joseph did not translate from the scroll (as Joseph himself claimed), but rather was inspired by the scroll to receive the Book of Abraham by direct revelation.
Sheesh.
Paul (an ex-Mormon by the grace of God)

 

[deltaguy]

I might point out as a momonshave been taught that you are not totaly condemed if you are not mormon that when the judgment comes that you will be judged acordily to your knoledge and your life. eg. if your catholic you follow all the rules do what is right and are a great and righteous person what says that you cannot enter because you wherenot mormon you would be given the opertunity to learn all that needs to be learned so no condeming other religions with us…

to answer your creator question heres something i found on this site wreitten in by a catholic person explained what the mormons beleived quite well…

What can be detemined is that Mormons simply do not view the fall of man as a negative event. It was in the plan of Heavenly Father. As you may know if you have some knowledge of LDS teaching, Mormons believe we all preexisted as spirits with God prior to creation. The purpose of our lives here is to have free will, the ability to follow or reject the gospel (as Mormons see it) and therefore become gods ourselves (Heavenly Father went through a similar process at some point in his past). For this to be possible, good and evil had to exist in the world. The Fall accomplished this. Adam was actually the being known as the archangel Michael, and was sent to Earth to begin the human race and open the door for men to make these choices and become gods.

ok if you beleive this is so hoaky explain to me this how did god become god? why is he god? who made him god? how did time start? who came first time or god?..also another thing we get knocked as un christian because we do not beleive in the trinity…explain theis to me …if they are all the one person how could jesus come to earth and get a body if he is god and the holy spirit? god has to stay in heaven son’t he and dosn’t the holy spirit meant to guide us… so your saying the “trinity” was able to make jesus on earth god in heaven and the holy spirit all at once you expect to beleive this… they are separtate people …jesus is gods son it says so so i can’t understand the trinity…

btw “mormons” or preferably latterday saints are not stupid they do not talk like they were born before christ they are normal smart people… you’d be surprised howmay celebritys are mormons… are they so strupid… might i point out one of the most recognised mormons… Corniel sanders Creater Of KFC joined the religion in his later days FACT it is …look it up he spent 1 million dollars revoking all the posters with a cigar in his mouth …

as again lata
thanks

 

[deltaguy]

I want to point out that i beleive no religion is totaly wrong yet we can neva no how totaly right they are… I have friends from every where and i know alot of stuff from every where… and i see no evil or total wrongness… we are all sons and daughters of god no matter wat flag you go by our blood is still red and our bones are still white… we gota learn that bagging each other dose no good…

Also I might point out I am a less active mormon due to some of the people at my wards… and some things i am not cirtain about in it but i know what is right and what is wrong… i see no bad with them or n e christianity technically we worship the same person…i mean christian religions must bag each other more than bagging people who worship a different god all togetha…

Where all on the same side were all sons and daughters of god lets act that way

 

[love-bias]

Thank you for your time and energy. It means a lot to me, everyone.

Now regarding post #4: I’m sorry my friend, but we’ve exchanged my God for blind chaos. I’m truly sorry, but in all honesty, we’re speaking of two different sorts of a “God” here. That tells me there is ignorance of my God.
First:

Well friend, if it is possible to refute the existence of One Alpha and Omega in “Whom” and from “Whom” everything is (including all the “other gods”) with such “moral understanding,” then I assure you: it’s possible also to express God (i.e. “First Cause,” not involuntarily caused by anything/one Himself). Because if it isn’t possible to express this “God” of mine, then you can’t honestly deny this God’s existence. In this case: I’ve already one the argument, because you can’t prove me wrong (but conversely, the way I see it, I can prove chaos wrong; and I’ll soon give it a shot in a later post–remind me plese, if I forget).

As well, you can’t make that (blind, I say) leap to defining “how” this God of mine came about: you wouldn’t be capable of understanding that “God once was created too,” if you couldn’t even begin to fathom this non-human God of mine.

In other words, if you would take the agnostic’s position and say “we cannot know of God,” then there is no way you can also say: “thus, this (not-caused) God cannot exist above/outside that which is caused.” Because you yourself admit: “[you] can’t know.”

Thus, Mormonism’s denial of such a non-caused “First Cause” is a fallacy. That is, if truly (as you yourself say) “…to express God with limited, mortal understanding and explanation… [is] impossible with our current minds.” In this case, how are you a Mormon? Would not existentialist be a better term for what you believe in? Well as it happens, existentialism is chaos.

Just to drive it home now: if you can’t express God, then you can’t express what God is not. So you can’t even begin to say “God” was a creation, too.

I’ll be happy to elaborate on that if requested.

We are unable to fathom the
concept of eternity, no beginning and no end.

Why? Because your teacher said so? Please don’t rely so heavily on your feelings, my friend. Eternity is this: not ending in a “forward” direction. That describes us human “gods” well enough, right? Even I would agree to that: obviously we’re both theists, God bless us both for that! At least you and I are closer to the truth than many others!

Anywho:

Now, infinite direction (which, a caused being cannot have: that’s you and me, friend) is this: not ending both “forwards” and “backwards.”

Infinite direction is really just another word for: not affected–never having been affected; and thus, not created. This “God” that I speak of has infinite direction. (You can’t prove me wrong, seeing as how you can’t in your current mind express/understand my God)

Only this One God that monotheists speak of, has infinite direction: I’ll explain why only this One God has this, shortly in my response (i.e. I’ll explain why it’s either this one, infinite direction being, or it is chaos which is responsible for existence, period)…

 

[love-bias]

Second, the idea that “In order to be God, one mustn’t be unwillingly affected, ever; nor
have been” makes no sense to me. Why?

Yes, I should have specified. I’m very glad you pointed this out. I think this is where we find the “fork in the road.”

Whew boy… this is where it gets complicated, but I’ll sure try my best. Okay, to begin:

My God is not subject to cause & affect (if my God were, then my God would cease to be God: effect would then be “God”)… Instead of using the word God, I’ll use: FC (First Cause); which means, “Affector” as appose to affected.

My friend, here we find, between our philosophies, the differing God: your God is chaos (i.e. affected by not-entirely knowable variables; thus chaos), and my God is FC (i.e. my God creates all variables; thus is “First Cause”).

You don’t believe in FC. You believe that the line of creation has no FC behind it. You believe no FC caused or created this line of cause & affect. You think (most don’t realize this) something was created by nothing (e.g. '"the ‘infinite’ finites of cause and affect aren’t subject to a Higher Creator;" and that is why you Mormons must learn so much: truth be told, you’d never stop learning, because your God is not a living being; it’s chaos. Apparently you missed when I said a finite cannot cross an infinite… sorry).

Forwithout my lovely FC, there is no (“first”) cause for this line of cause & affect, other than random chance. Your entire “Universe,” dimension(s), “SPACE” is only sequences of natural cause and affect. With your philosophy, there is no being outside of cause and affect, because this being of yours is subject to affect (i.e. involuntary change). The only higher being of yours, again: is chaos.

Is he saying God cannot grow,
cannot learn? To say such is saying that God is damned, His
progression stopped.

Damned is sorrow and misery; not lack of learning.

I’ll say as Einstein said: time exists only because it is relative; time is nothing more than measure “between” existence.

Thus, so is this “thing” you speak of, which you call “growth:” growth is merely a change between two or more points. Progression = cause and affect (the distance between less and more, is changing–i.e. being affected). If God can be affected involuntarily, then who/what exactly is God? Again I tell you, CHAOS is your God.

Suppose all were known. Well, so? So that’s the end of progression. Right? (No: that’s the end of learning)

Now in order for a being to have created reality, (the First Cause of reality–unless Godless “reality” supersedes God, in which case = chaos), this being must know all which is created/caused by this own being. Thus: the true God needn’t learn anything new about God’s own creation. Whatever God learns, God didn’t create. So in your case, if God is learning, who is really “God” here? Chaos, I tell you.

Now granted, we have living beings FC has created, who can act as they choose, which could allow for a change in FC’s “awareness.” However, FC is still learning nothing new which FC didn’t already know–after all, FC created all the options of which FC’s creation chose/choose between.

Don’t worry though: God (FC) is still entirely infinite, or else God (FC) couldn’t have created to begin with. (That is, God can always choose to “know” more. In no way however is this to be confused with “learning” (for FC): learning is involuntary (the material to learn supersedes the learner).

While God’s infinite ability to know more is indeed a change of God (FC), this goes back to what I said in my first post: this is a voluntary change*. God can change, but only voluntarily. This is not the same thing as learning. Learning is reserved for one who is not the Creator of the Universe. *

 

[love-bias]

So then if God can grow, then He must have grown
from somewhere from a less than divine position.

To me, a Divine Person is a Person Who is totaly infinite (i.e. eternal both “forwards” and “backwards”). To me, because of the Holy Spirit’s revelation, a Divine Person is FC (again, that is “First Cause”).

First Cause (my God) cannot change (“grow”) involuntarily as we know the meaning of change. That is, unless my God is chaos. If chaos is my God, then sure, there’s always more to “learn” for your God, because your God then doesn’t know everything: your God isn’t the first cause; rather, He is subject to your real, unrecognized ruler of Space: chaos.

This is also an area where I refer you to what I mentioned in my first post: (“God” can change if God chooses, but God cannot change involuntarily. That is, unless God is subject to a higher “authority;” which in your case, is chaos.

But now I’m starting
to dip into the author’s blunder and use mortal logic to express God.

Smith should have thought of that too.

Can we use logic to express certain attributes of God? Yes.

We use logic to refute evil claims. ***My best friend is Logos! Logos is God! *Logos was with God in the beginning, and Logos was God in the beginning. Viva el Logos! Lucifer’s very being is held together by Logos Himself! Hahahahahhaaa! And so are you, and so am I, held together by Logos. Logos = Jesus Christ.
(That’s not History, so I’m not breaking the ground rules–it’s logic)

He is a God of law and order, therefore must have his own governing laws and
rules that he cannot cross, else He would cease to be God.

No friend, it’s the other way around: if God couldn’t cross rules, then the rules would be the one(s) running the show. Rules obey the Father’s every command. Otherwise, the Father would not be God.

Indeed you may want to try turning your sentence around now, my friend: God has rules that “he” cannot cross? Ugh! Well thar certainly is a raw deal for being God! Oie! I would have thought that God preceded cause & affect; but, it would seem chaos (i.e. a non-existing person) is running the show…

Again: my friend, your God = no one. If there is no one runing everyone (i.e. running all “the Gods”), then chaos is “God.”

 

[love-bias]

But the author makes one more mistake. In what way were we involuntarily affected by God?

We were created.

In our scriptures, I particularly like
Abraham’s account of the creation. He usually uses the words “formed”
and “organized” rather than create or synthesis, signifying that raw
matter and things were already about, but Christ organized them and
formed them into a working system.

Well I’ll overlook the historical reference this time, because this works well for a philosophical claim.

Both “form,” and “organize” are synonyms for: create.

“…‘formed’ and ‘organized’ rather than create or synthesis, signifying that raw matter and things were already about…”

Alright there we have it again: “God” is subject to SPACE? Your God has to gather matter which already exists before “Him?” Why can’t your God create matter? My God can. All things are possible with my God: that’s why I call my God “God.” Perhaps you have a mistaken idea of what it means to be God.

Well: nothing ca(nnot!) beget something; so what is the cause of this something (i.e. the matter which Christ is “gathering”)?

Ah yes, there is no cause… No cause at all. No conscious one, anyway. Again: that’s what we call chaos.

So… there is ultimately no one out there in command of and in charge of (creating) existence–existence of materials, even. Well: that’s indeed chaos. For in your book (no pun intended), nothing is running the show; which is why “we must learn all we can about reality in order to become its God.” As though there isn’t already a First Cause of reality and existence: see what I mean? Some are ignorant of my God.

Friend, how do you even know that the outside world around yourself is even real? All you truly “know” is yourself, and other beings. For all you know, each time you walk down the street, you could be walking on a treadmill somewhere, inside of a virtual reality helmet… etc etc. Or something like that. lol.

Anyway my point is, existence precedes (your) understanding and realization of reality (again, because you’re not the First Cause–and thus, you aren’t the creator of reality).

If there were not a being (such as my God) which didn’t ever involuntarily “learn” (know) anything new, then there would only be chaos.

In a like manner, I believe ( and I
think this is official doctrine, not quite sure though ) that
intelligence is an eternal principle, neither beginning or ending.

Believe it or not, there are some humans who are older than you are. This means that there was in fact a time when you (and your intelligence) did not exist. Can you remember personally, intelligently figuring your own opinion of Jesus when He walked the Earth? (Does your intelligence not have a “backwards” ending?)

Eternal? Oh I would definitely agree with you. However, eternal only in the “forward” direction.

Abraham states that he saw the intelligences that were organized before
the world was.

Okay, so there were angels before the world was created… either that, or I think Abraham was referring to the Everlasting God. Not trying to talk about doctrines though…

My own thoughts: did God create us from nothing, or did
he find other, but far weaker, intelligences, and nurture and care for
us?

Do you remember being found and nurtured by God? (This is reincarnation we’re starting to go into, which is completely off topic)

 

[love-bias]

If we were indeed created, we could not have been involuntarily
created for we would not have had a will to accept or reject until
AFTER the creation had taken place.

lol yeah, existentialists find that ironic too. “The only choice we didn’t have, was to exist.”

How can will will, unless it is first brought into existence (created)? How can that which is not, allow itself to be created?

You, my friend, are starting to get into reincarnation… I need not disprove reincarnation to prove that, without a First Cause, there is chaos in the Universe.

I will however say this: how far back can you remember? If there are any memories that you “have” to your “soul’s” name, which you cannot remember: I dare say those aren’t actually your memories. That would be, to equate your identity with nameless energy. Nameless energy cannot remember anything. I for one know, that I am more than nameless energy. Nameless energy is chaos. (Nihilism, if you’d prefer…)

Agency and free will are eternal
principles as well.

Wow, in all honesty I wish I had you for a personal friend of mine. I really do love your philosophies on existence (except, well, you know: the whole anti-First Cause part ). I really must say (seriously), I totally agree with you; that agency and free will are eternal. Though sometimes I do wonder how a being can choose the absence of (my) God in the fullness of my God’s presence… I dunno.

In any case yes, agency and free will certainly are (or “were”) necessary in order for a being to thoroughly have its own personal existence. After all, that’s why God gave Adam and Eve that evil tree. It wasn’t the choice that was evil; it was making that choice that was evil. (Not to mention their little deceptive friend, the serpent: his choice to affect them was evil too)

Anyway that was a segue… Now: yes, maybe eternal, but if so: eternal only in the “forward” direction. (Again: because only a being immune to involuntary cause & affect could be eternal both “forwards” and “backwards.”

This entire earth and plan of salvation are bound
by that and love. God will NEVER interfere with man’s ability to
choose. Influence his decisions, yes. But never force or coerce us to do anything.

Well, yes… except, for God to influence our decision of choosing God is to interfere with the decision. Indeed, God must (in order for us to have the fullness of existence (i.e. free will)) show no more of “His” good self (i.e. love) than what would overcome our possible choice of evil. God should not overpower us before we’ve made the decision. Hence, God cannot interfere in, or influence our decisions (i.e. interfere and influence mean the same thing) with our ability to choose.

Also: friend, just so you know, the Adam and Eve’s awareness of that forbidden tree in the garden was enough to give them a free choice. The serpent was not necessary for us to be free choosers. (God even bluntly raised Adam and Eve’s awareness to the tree! However, God did what Satan didn’t: God also told them the real truth about what would happen upon eating of the fruit–God gave them a balanced choice; and that was all that was necessary)

I know some of the “logic” in the upper portions may be flawed a bit,
but it was a quickie reply. Hope it gives you a bit of insight.

Wow. For a “quickie reply,” you’ve sure blown my socks off, lol. Not to give you any more pride than you already have now… lol. Friend, I personally figure this: okay, what if were the God of the Universe? So what? What then??? In all honesty, it would not mean a thing, without love. God is love.

To be self-seeking is to seek: nothing. Who would I be without those I love? Oh boy, oh boy: I would be nothing!!!

jason

p.s. note the lowercase “j” which shows my preference for selfless love, as appose to selfish pride. lol

 

[love-bias]

more tomorrow…

 

[love-bias]

FightingFat:

This interested me and since we weren’t getting any answers here (can’t thik why ) I decided to email it to a Mormon friend of mine who’s very religious and quite clever. This is his response-

God bless you buddy!
and thank you very much for your participation.

 

[love-bias]

PaulDupre:

This is the problem when trying to communicate with a Mormon. All of their words have been redefined. This guy assumes that if God is not learning and progressing, then He can’t be God. That is exactly opposite the Judeo-Christian concept of God as uncreated, complete, self-existent and all-powerful. The Mormon “god” is a created being who was promoted to godhood for his obedience to Mormon authority. He cannot create from nothing, cannot be omnipresent, is not omniscient, etc. He is not God, but rather an acsended master - not really different from us, just more advanced in his “progression”. The Mormon “god” is still learning, still increasing in wisdom and glory - which means the Mormon “god” is not God at all. Mormons worship the creature rather than the creator. In fact, Mormons do not believe that the universe had a creator. Rather, they believe that the universe had no beginning, but their “god” was not always a “god”.
This guy uses the word “eternal”, but they have redefined that word as well. Eternity, in Mormon-speak, is the amount of time between the ascension of a man to godhood and the ascension of that man’s last offspring to godhood.

Hey Paul this is a most excellent post. I’m sorry but yesterday I focused all my attention on post #4, and skipped the rest of the posts (until today).

I should have quoted you and given you some good credit, becuase you definitely deserved it. You still do.

God bless you!

p.s. “Mormon-speak.” lol, I’m going to use that in the future. (Is it a reference to newspeak? )

jason

 

[love-bias]

deltaguy:

ok if you don’t believe in “mormonism” (might i add the term momonism is made up and has nothing to do with them) then don’t get on with things im sick of people bad mouthing them there no different to you and if you’ve got nothing better to do than sit here n try n proove them wrong you need to get a life… for one what makes them so different to yourselfs and your religion…

Hey friend, it sounds like the only one “bad-mouthing” anyone here, is you. (You’re calling me a meanie) Think of it this way: I’m fighting an idea… not any one particular person for goodness sake!!!

Mormonism is just as made up as the word religion. Both describe a belief system. I’m not arguing against a word: I’m arguing against a belief system. I assure you, others here know exactly what I’m talking a about when I use that “mere made up word.”

Now you seem to favor the idea of jumping into a group, and also classifying persons. “These persons are black… those are white… those are Germans…” And so on. No? What about this: “…im sick of people bad mouthing them there no different to you…”

Mmm… friend, if “they” are no different than myself, then… who is “they”??? Turn your attention once again please, to my very first post: “MORMONISM” okay? not “MORMONS.”

You’re acting as though I shouldn’t warn people about the terrorist’s theory of nihilism, because if I do, I’m then “badmouthing terrorists.”

Jumping into a boat is your own choice. My saying that there is a leak in that boat is not the same thing as saying I don’t like the person(s) in that boat. Truth be told, I love persons who subscribe to Mormonism! Whether they like me? that’s their choice.

So you do see my friend, that I’m only speaking against a PHILOSOPHY. Now go ahead: if you wish to become a “sociologist” and group people into categories by what philosophy they subscribe to, that’s your choice. I do however advise against it.

*you both worship christ (all though people think they worship joseph smith which is not true)

I’m sorry but I don’t think you have a full grasp on what Mormonism really is. Like “PaulDupre” said, there are similar words, but they have entirely different meanings. If you wish to learn more about those differing meanings, I refer you to both A. the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and B. the Book of Mormon.

It’s okay though, we all make mistakes in reasoning… after, we’re only human, right?

*both believe in god

Was this “god” of yours ever created? If so, then you again fail to grasp my meanings. You should then learn more about the Catholic Church.

*both honour the 10 comandments

Amen… Who gave these to us?

*both beleive jesus suffered and atoned for us

How so? What’s this whole “atonement” thing good for, anyway? Why did we need atonement? What is atonement? Who is Jesus?

both beleive that the only way to heaven is through christ…

There’s a lot more to it than what you may be realizing.

What’s heaven? *Who is Christ? *Why is He the only way? How is He the only way? By what authority do you understand these things?

i could keep going on and on…

Please feel free to do so. I’ll be more than happy to address any thing more.

sure they have some different things

Like… down is up: down is down… The Universe is run by God: the Universe is run by chaos… Yea i tell you, different.

but is it wrong for them to beleive that…

Well, if a child steps on a nail, he’ll soon find out if such a thing to do was wrong. Or somebody could just warn him first…

CONTINUED------->

 

[love-bias]

CONTINUED------->

whether it is right or wrong its none of yuor buisness…

Do you know where you are, my friend? You’re on a Roman Catholic website!!! Speak for yourself. Because believe it or not, there are some here who might like to know what others have to say about “right and wrong.” Please don’t try to limit our freedom to voice ourselves, okay?

its religion is based on almost the same priciples as any christian one…

“[to murder] is based on almost the same principles as [to give birth].”

i could continue forever but my point is back off and leave them alone its not your place to judge them…

Again, my friend you are generalizing again. As my French Professor once solemnly declared, “to generalize is to murder!”

And I am judging no one (especially not “them”). I am (by the grace of God) revealing fallacies of a doctrine of Hell. In a way, I’m doing the opposite of “judging” them: I’m saying hey look! You who believes this: listen now, because you deserve better! So maybe you’re right… maybe I am judging others… but I’m only judging that others deserve better. (To judge a philosophy is not to judge a person, and please don’t forget that!)

do not judge unless ye be judged i recall a scipture saying…

I have scripture that says, “*expel the immoral brother!” *Does it not require a certain degree of judgment to do such?

Besides, (yes I know, that scripture refers to those already inside the Church) I wasn’t judging anyone. I was doing what Abraham told us do: testing.

you and all you other people who spend there lives trying to prove other religions wrong you should be ashamed of yourselves get a life…

I’m trying to. I’m also trying to help others get a life. His name is the Catholic Church.

Besides, I don’t really need to try proving other religions wrong: I just speak the truth, and the cookie will crumble as Truth sees fit.

Also, I already am ashamed of myself. For that very reason, I need God’s mercy.

… by the way im only 16 and a normal guy with a life and friends and lives normally but i thought this message needs to be shared… any anti religion is wrong… stick to your own you beleive it good for you…

Bye… take care

You have much to learn young Skywalker. Much to learn, you do… Yeeess…

Thanks for posting. I very much appreciate it. Now, God love you, you can be a shining example for others who think along the same lines as you! You are a leader of sorts.

p.s. you’re 16? I’m only 19. That’s just three years difference! Age doesn’t mean a thing.