Discussion of stimpy's debate with Katzpur

[Katzpur]

Input welcomed.

 

[SoyLeche]

One little point. Stimpy asked where you can find that Satan and Christ are brothers in the Bible. Let's try Job chapter 1 (or 2, it's there too). It counts Satan among the "sons of God". Since Christ is also the Son of God, Satan and Christ must have the same father. Males who have the same father are brothers

 

[Katzpur]

One little point. Stimpy asked where you can find that Satan and Christ are brothers in the Bible. Let's try Job chapter 1 (or 2, it's there too). It counts Satan among the "sons of God". Since Christ is also the Son of God, Satan and Christ must have the same father. Males who have the same father are brothers

Good point -- although I'm sure stimpy will not interpret it the way we do. Thanks for reminding me, though... I've got to see what I've got in the way of an already-written post on the subject. Maybe I'll just plagiarize something Squirt once wrote.

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

were is your debait!!!

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

i found it... for some resign the forms got me into a maze the links for a bit didn't go were they were supose to than i couldn't connect to the server... so who knows with these computers now and agin...

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

Katzar you mentioned that you have alot on the trinity... perhaps you might know were i can find the scripture that Jesus said "he is like the father" or something like that i've been raking my brain for a few days trying to find it... oh ya good job on your response!!!! if i know how to give you fribbles i would... haven't figured out that yet...

 

[SoyLeche]

I know, Katz hasn't even answered the current post, but I have something to say.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I hear quite often, "well, this verse doesn't say that if someone isn't baptized that they will be damned". That is true, it doesn't.

This verse, therefore, splits people into at least 3 different groups:
1) Those who believe and are baptized
2) Those who don't believe
3) Those who believe but are not baptized.

This verse does not indicate in any way what will become of those in the 3rd group. It could go either way.

Also, as I've said in another thread - we really don't know anything about the theif on the cross. He very well may have been a follower of John and had already received a baptism. Saying that he definately had not been baptized is guesswork at best. A pretty safe guess, but a guess none the less.

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

the "god is sprit" is only a partal discription not a full discription of God you would also have to include "i am a jealous God" this is also clearly a partial discription of God for God is "a loving God"... in the new testament "we have a sprit" these passage's is discribing man but we know that we have flesh, bones and blood... so if God is so complex i dought that all of the worlds books can hold the full discription...

 

[dawny0826]

One little point. Stimpy asked where you can find that Satan and Christ are brothers in the Bible. Let's try Job chapter 1 (or 2, it's there too). It counts Satan among the "sons of God". Since Christ is also the Son of God, Satan and Christ must have the same father. Males who have the same father are brothers

Satan isn't necessarily referred to as a son of God in Job Chapter 1. Satan is simply stated to have come before the Lord with the sons of God.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among them."

Job 1:6

All boils down to how you interpret that.

Just because Satan presented himself along with the sons of God doesn't make him one of them. AND considering the fact that followers of God are often referred to throughout the Bible as children of God...my hunch is that Satan was NOT part of the "sons of" group. Just my interpretation.

Note: My intent isn't to debate just to point out that others may interpret this verse in this manner.

 

[SoyLeche]

Satan isn't necessarily referred to as a son of God in Job Chapter 1. Satan is simply stated to have come before the Lord with the sons of God.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among them."

Job 1:6

All boils down to how you interpret that.

Just because Satan presented himself along with the sons of God doesn't make him one of them. AND considering the fact that followers of God are often referred to throughout the Bible as children of God...my hunch is that Satan was NOT part of the "sons of" group. Just my interpretation.

Note: My intent isn't to debate just to point out that others may interpret this verse in this manner.

You are right. But then again, the whole Bible depends on how you interpret it

I'm not a hebrew scholar, so I don't know how it reads in its origional language. I read it as basically saying that the Sons of God came to present themselves, and when it was Satan's turn to present himself....

It can definately be read differently.

Note: I don't really care to debate this now either. I was just providing an answer to a question that was asked

 

[dawny0826]

You are right. But then again, the whole Bible depends on how you interpret it

I'm not a hebrew scholar, so I don't know how it reads in its origional language. I read it as basically saying that the Sons of God came to present themselves, and when it was Satan's turn to present himself....

It can definately be read differently.

Note: I don't really care to debate this now either. I was just providing an answer to a question that was asked

I know you didn't. Honestly, I just didn't want to come across as seeming confrontational or anything.

 

[Katzpur]

*bump*

 

[SoyLeche]

*bump*

While I don't have anything to add to the discussion, I would like to say that I am very impressed with your ability to stay on topic in that thread Katz. I've never been one who can turn down a good tangent

 

[porkchop]

Really good posting there, stimpy. I dont understand though, why k.pur keeps saying you drifting off the debate. I thought the whole idea of the debate was to show how mormonism leads people away from God, and you're clearly showing her how.
What do you think??

: hamster : : hamster : : hamster :
Frubals for the post!!!

 

[porkchop]

Really good posting there, stimpy. I dont understand though, why k.pur keeps saying you drifting off the debate. I thought the whole idea of the debate was to show how mormonism leads people away from God, and you're clearly showing her how.
What do you think??

: hamster :
Frubals for the post!!!

Thanks for the frubals, great to have some support!!
Yea, i know, i thought i was staying with the debate subject. Oh well, can't please them all. Gonna go respond.

 

[SoyLeche]

Really good posting there, stimpy. I dont understand though, why k.pur keeps saying you drifting off the debate. I thought the whole idea of the debate was to show how mormonism leads people away from God, and you're clearly showing her how.
What do you think??

: hamster : : hamster : : hamster :
Frubals for the post!!!

Well, the problem is that Stimpy is answering the wrong question. The question is "How Mormonism takes people away from God?" The question Stimpy is answering is "What are the differences between what Mormonism teaches about God and what Stimpy believes?" While the 2 questions may be related, Stimpy has yet to tie them together.

 

[Bishka]

Thanks for the frubals, great to have some support!!
Yea, i know, i thought i was staying with the debate subject. Oh well, can't please them all. Gonna go respond.

Talking to yourself again?


What I'm dissapointed in is stimpy using non-doctrine from the LDS Church

Joseph Smith's Sermon On Plurality of Gods(as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

Didn't anyone ever tell you the "History of the Church" is not canonical scrip;ture, just as something by Augustine is not scripture to you.

I also believe your quip about "gods" refers to the Jesus Christ and God creating the earth. If I'm not mistaken. If you are giont to try to twist peoples words and misinterpret things, I'd suggest you stop now, becaus you'll only embarass youself.

 

[Bishka]

Actually, I'm quite dissapointed in stimpy, katzpur has done very well (and I'm not just being biased), and stimpy brings in all sorts of things that we don't even believe and won't even let the Latter-day Saint give proper interpretation.

 

[Bishka]

Jesus being begotten sexually,\

Would you like to show us where we we believe that? I'd love to hear how you go this one.

How about you let us explain things instead of assuming what you read of the internet or hear from your pastor are true?

 

[SoyLeche]

Would you like to show us where we we believe that? I'd love to hear how you go this one.

How about you let us explain things instead of assuming what you read of the internet or hear from your pastor are true?

That doesn't bother me too much:

sexual reproduction
Reproduction \Re`pro*duc"tion\ (-d?k"sh?n), n. [Cf. F. reproduction.] 1. The act or process of reproducing; the state of being reproduced; specifically (Biol.), the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring.

Note: There are two distinct methods of reproduction; viz.: asexual reproduction (agamogenesis) and sexual reproduction (gamogenesis). In both cases the new individual is developed from detached portions of the parent organism. In asexual reproduction (gemmation, fission, etc.), the detached portions of the organism develop into new individuals without the intervention of other living matter. In sexual reproduction, the detached portion, which is always a single cell, called the female germ cell, is acted upon by another portion of living matter, the male germ cell, usually from another organism, and in the fusion of the two (impregnation) a new cell is formed, from the development of which arises a new individual.

Saying that Jesus was begotten sexually basically means that God the Father somehow introduced his DNA into an egg inside of Mary. How did that happen? I don't know. Scientists have shown over and over that intercourse isn't necessary though.