R
rinnie
Guest
Again this is not true. The bible would never tell you to break one of God’s commandments. Again please show me where it says that. You have not done that!
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
Why the name calling? All I did was ask a simple question. Why would I have to attack Josephs Smith’s character, I am not responsible for what he did he is. But how can someone claim to be a leader of Jesus Christ and break his commandments? Thats all I asked. I know what the bible says about more than one wife it is called adultery. But why would God send a leader to teach one thing and do another? If what you are saying is true. Especially when we are warned to stay away from anyone who stray’s you from the truth, and the true teachings of the Church.
B
BDawg
Guest
I showed you where God sanctioned polygamy in post #293 of this thread.
Now it’s your turn, rinnie. Tell me where the Bible says polygamy is adultery.
I’m waiting…
B
BDawg
Guest
Rinnie,
Check out Majick’s post I’ve quoted above. Majick is a Catholic and an ex-Mormon. He agrees with me that at least the OT doesn’t define polygamy as adultery. Can you at least admit that much?
M
majick275
Guest
i will state my belief that the NT supersedes the OT when directions appear to conflict. Much of the OT was “tolerated” rather than directed and much of it was directed by moses as the leader of the israelites rather than the divine will of God.
Jesus tells us in the NT quite clearly that God intends us to be in monogamous marriages (if/when called to the married life), that it was so from the beginning and that even being mentally unfaithful is adultery.
I believe that from a scriptural basis there is absolutely no allowance for polygamy after Jesus came
C
cazayoux
Guest
From South Louisiana … small town called Breaux Bridge (near Lafayette).The area is Cajun French.
Salut !
michel
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
I believe you are confusing me with some one else
S
saralong
Guest
alanjeddy when I read your ignorant and pathetic posts to this thread it makes me think of the Jews that crucified our savior and how ignorant and prideful they where. Your just as bad if not worse! Have you found any time to answer my questions yet or you just going to hold on to your belief that the cc can trace its roots all the way back to the church Jesus Christ formed which it really can’t! Just so you now if you actually ever read the Bible in its original language, It refers to the son of God or Jesus Christ all the time using a lower case “g” and when refering to God the Father it uses a capital “G” This will be the last time I waste my time on your ignorant ***!
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Sara,
I agree that alanjeddy is being ignorant, but I don’t understand what you mean by this. In the Greek NT, God the Father is ho theos, meaning “the God,” while Jesus is sometimes just listed as theos, meaning “God” or “a god”. There is an exception I know of, though. In John 20:28, Thomas sees the resurrected Jesus, and says “My Lord and my God!” I believe the Greek says ho theos here.
Anyway, I already explained in an earlier post to Alan that Mormons do not believe that Jesus is only the God of this world. Therefore, he either didn’t see that post, or he is just being one of those people who can’t admit they’re wrong about anything. There are quite a few who post here.
S
Snow
Guest
So what, exactly, is the RCC’s infallible teaching on limbo that supersedes Augustine’s opinion.
Note: I already know the answer.
S
Snow
Guest
I not certain exactly what your point it but it is indisputable that Catholic beliefs change, dramatically, over time but I think that Catholics, at least some of the educated ones, would hold is that the core doctrines are maintained but enriched and better uncovered as new light and knowledge is gained.
S
Snow
Guest
No one, that I know of, claimed that Catholic infallible doctrines were later repudiated.
The claim by some Catholics was that beliefs don’t change. This is an example of how that belief is misplaced.
S
Snow
Guest
S
Snow
Guest
No - that’s not what he said. Google it and you’ll find that YOU are the only one that said that.
What the Bible (NASB) says is:
“It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” Matthew 15:11
B
BDawg
Guest
Yes, the terminology gets my head spinning. Notice how Rebecca insisted that their doctrine doesn’t change, but then she said, “And you can read what is in the CCC…as that is our doctrine.” What? The current catechism (which does not teach Limbo) is their doctrine, but the old catechism (which did teach Limbo) wasn’t? But then she seems to imply that only something that is infallibly defined is “doctrine.” Whatever.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The old catechism taught that it was a “common belief” that unbaptized infants would go to a place “similar to limbo”.
Common belief does not equal doctrine.
S
Snow
Guest
Abraham comes to mind. Abraham is perhaps the most honored of prophets of the Old Testament and is considered to be the Patriarch of both Christianity and Judaism. The scriptures call him the “friend of God.” Christ spoke of him respectfully in Matthew 8:11, 22:31-32; Mark 12:26; Like 16:23-30, 20:37; and John 8:39,56.
Adultery would be sex with someone other than one’s wife, not being married to more than one woman. Now if you care to prove your assertion of adultery, have at it.
B
BDawg
Guest
I’m sorry–it’s actually worse than I let on. Here’s what the Baltimore Catechism actually said:
"Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven” (Q. 632)
So you’re right–Limbo was presented as a “common belief.” But it said no such thing about unbaptized infants not going to heaven. It said they “cannot enter heaven.”
The change in teaching was actually bigger than I thought.
S
Snow
Guest
I guess there might be a point there. If the clarification is that Catholic doctrine does not change and “limbo” was never a doctrine… well then… We all know that Catholic beliefs have changed dramatically since the time of Christ, but maybe all those beliefs and change were not “doctrinal.” After all, LDS beliefs have changed or been clarified overtime and yet we understand that “doctrines” are something akin to eternal truths that do not change.
In this case the question would be whether or not “limbo” was doctrinal.
St. Augustine, the originator of much of Catholicism belief system believed in limbo. 1500 years later Pope Pius X (1903-1914) declared in his Catechism that limbo was a place where the non-baptized “do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer…they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory,” Though John Paul II dropped it from his Catechism.
Now the Catholic Enclyclopedia says that “Christian Doctrine” “is synonymous with CATECHESIS and CATECHISM.” So that seems to me that if Pius X put it in the Catechism, it was doctrinal.
S
Snow
Guest
I am no polygamy guru. I frankly just don’t get it or understand it, but I can read. For example, in 2 Samuel 12 God is speaking through his prophet Nathan, chastising David for taking the wife of another man (Bathsheba who was married to Uriah, who David caused to be killed to hide his sin). At that time, Davide was already married to at least 7 known wives.
In verse 8 God specifically says that He, God, had already given David multiple wives that had previously belonged to David’s former master. We know from 1 Kings 15 that all else, beside the issue with Bathsheba, that David had always done right in the eyes of God.
So - David had plural wives. You want us to believe that even though God set it up, he didn’t sanction it.
Why would God set up David’s polygamy and say he was doing the right thing if he didn’t sanction it?
- Status