 |
| |
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
Ah yes, the racist LDS. Persecuted in Missouri because it was feared a LDS majority would rid the state of slavery. The LDS church has neither practiced nor preached anything that was not first done so by the Lord to the Israelites.
And polygamy is not condemned. It is no longer practiced, and thus those who continue to do so are condemned, but the concept/principle of it is not something rejected by the church. |
This is my point. It would have been very easy for a political leader(Constantine, King James or even King David) to change the wording of the bible to fit there needs. In fact a corruption of the bible helps explain its many contradictions.
Now take your Mr. Smith. Any information that said that slavery was okay would have either come from the bible or the history of the victors. If we are all god's people it does not make sense that god would have some of his people subjugated by others. If there is only one god then he probably does not want his creations to bow before eachother but only to him. So somewhere in the bible it condones slavery and Joseph Smith went with that or somewhere in some history text it said the isrealites practiced slavery and J. Smith saw that it was good. It's not. It's and evil dehumanizing practice. I cannot believe that god would condone it at any point in time in any shape or form. SO WHATEVER THE PROPHETS SAY THAT SAYS IT'S OKAY TO SUBJUGATE A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE IS A PRIME CLUE FOR A CORRUPT ORGANIZATION WITH CORRUPT PRINCIPLES
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
As far as marriage. I don't see why any man would want to marry more than one woman. How much of a headache do you need!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
To be fair what Verto was saying is that the LDS never condoned slavery. Since the Mormon church originated in the North that's probably an accurate statement.
That does not however excuse the Mormon doctrine in the earlier part of the 20th century (pre-1970s?) that black people were inferior to whites, or creations of Satan.
I don't recall any Catholics here accusing me of apostacy. Like I said, they're more likely to lump all Protestants into one basket with the more radical fundamentalists, and label us all a bunch of ignorant bigots.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
That does not however excuse the Mormon doctrine in the earlier part of the 20th century (pre-1970s?) that black people were inferior to whites, or creations of Satan. |
Black people are not creations of Satan. Brigham Young said, "all spirits are pure that came from the presence of God." The mark of darker skin was placed upon the descendants of Cain, and other people throughout the years. However, their darker skin was not their curse, it was simply a way in which they could be distinguished.
Joseph Smith baptized several blacks, and conferred the priesthood on at least one that I know of, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy. There was some debate about the restrictions placed on blacks with regard to the priesthood, whether the time had come for them to be allowed the priesthood, whether Joseph Smith intended for them to have it. This was not something that had never 'popped up' before the 70s. It had been going on from the late 1800s. The Church had continued to state blacks should have full equality under the law, and would be allowed into the celestial kingdom(which is the highest degree of glory the LDS believe one can reach). Several committees, prophets, apostles and other Church leaders expressed a desire for the blacks to be granted the priesthood, and it was finally allowed in 1978, at which time the Lord permitted it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
There was some debate about the restrictions placed on blacks with regard to the priesthood, whether the time had come for them to be allowed the priesthood, whether Joseph Smith intended for them to have it. |
Meaning that other than those whom Joeseph Smith ordained in the early 19th century blacks were barred from the LDS priesthood until 1978.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
Black people are not creations of Satan. Brigham Young said, "all spirits are pure that came from the presence of God." The mark of darker skin was placed upon the descendants of Cain, and other people throughout the years. However, their darker skin was not their curse, it was simply a way in which they could be distinguished.
Joseph Smith baptized several blacks, and conferred the priesthood on at least one that I know of, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy. There was some debate about the restrictions placed on blacks with regard to the priesthood, whether the time had come for them to be allowed the priesthood, whether Joseph Smith intended for them to have it. This was not something that had never 'popped up' before the 70s. It had been going on from the late 1800s. The Church had continued to state blacks should have full equality under the law, and would be allowed into the celestial kingdom(which is the highest degree of glory the LDS believe one can reach). Several committees, prophets, apostles and other Church leaders expressed a desire for the blacks to be granted the priesthood, and it was finally allowed in 1978, at which time the Lord permitted it. |
Your statements are very nuanced. The foundation of your argument is apparently Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
I am questioning the legitimacy of any and all christian sects that originated on after during before christ on the basis that anything in the bible is probably corrupt and for each day of existence. That is to say each moment from when the original words were spoken the possibility of corruption and contamination increased exponentially. There are questions about statements that were written 30 minutes ago for things that were witnessed an hour ago.
As far as the Mormons, I don't know very much about them except for the things I picked up from Mormon Sci-Fi authors. This is probably not the best reference point. I can say however, that you have not argued that Joseph Smith was oblivious to christianity prior to forming the LDS. You have also stated that he has had knowledge of the bible and has attended a christian church prior to forming the LDS. The only way I could believe that he formed the LDS without any influence from the Catholic church is if he was totally ignorant of christianity and one day he came out of the desert with holy scrolls. At this point it sounds like he adapted the already tainted Catholic originated bible.
In other words you can put a BMW body on a Hyundau but underneath it's still a Hyundai.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Can you probe that the LDS has no link to Christianity. My point is that it still looks like it was based on RC to me. Especially the concept of saints.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
Pax,
Your argument just doesn't work. (I actually agree with the result you get, just not how you go about getting there.)
Lets call original Christianity C, Christianity with Pagan influence (or just attrition through time) C(P), 'modern' (at the time of any reformation or reconstitution) RC Christianity C(M), and use C(X) to denote a nebulous version of Christianity.
You say C existed at one point. So it's a given.
You say C became C(P). This is arguable, but for berevity we'll just assume it as another given.
Then you say C(M) must be C(P). This is where it just falls apart.
The factors involved in C are obviously not static, as C became C(P). So the factors in C(P) are also not static, and could change to C(X). Why then couldn't C(X) = C? Why couldn't C(X) be based on C instead of C(M) as claimed in Mormonism, or be based on a changed version of C(M) that returns it to C as claimed by reformation?
It just makes no sense to assume that C->C(P)->C(M)->C(X) is the only way C(X) could exist, even if the first two step are givens. This is because C(P) is a type of C(X), so saying C(X) must be derived from C(P) makes C(P) impossible to be derived. C existed without being derived from C(P) or C(M) and so it obviously is possible that C(X) can be derived without being based on C(P) or C(M). C became something else, and so C(P) could become something else as well, even reverting to C.
You need to show how C(M) is based off of C(P), and how various versions of C(X) are then based off C(M). Just saying there was contact between C(X) and C(M) does not mean that C(M) transfered it's properties of C(P) to C(X). C(X) could very well have only taken properties of C(M) that conformed to their original states in C, or could have derived properties of C without going through C(M) at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
It is my firm belief that the scriptures in the bible have been altered many times. I don't understand how you could really argue the obvious.
The two most obvious people to corrupt the bible in modern times have been King james and Emperor Constantine. Let's just focus on Emperor Constantine. Instead of math let's try evidence.
A= Orignal words/Inspirations of god
A is a totally uncalculateble variable
B = Available words of God at Jesus Death including Jesus words.
B is a variable that is lost.
C = First Council of Nicea
C represents a point in which Emperor Constantine could potentially exercise extreme influence on the Cult of Christianity.
D = Is the point when Emperor Constantine sponsored the creation of the bible itself.
We have just established opportunity.
His decision to convert to christianity at a crucial point in his career shows that he is more than willing to lie to suit his own goals.
When measuring the Bible's biggest hero vs the bible's creator we have a contradiction in character and occupation. Jesus Christ was a revolutionary. He challenged the powers of the day. He would not have condoned the actions Constantine in his name. So it is quite mysterious that the Emperor is a follower of the anti establishment Jesus. Not only that but it's right there in the bible where Jesus is giving the Emepror the ultimate product endorsement. Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Almost as if Jesus and the Romans had entered into a very lucrative contract. Christianity by the Roman Empire. Detective would question whether or not Jesus given his character could have said such a thing. I know that the context has been explained to the point where it's okay that he said it. But it's not okay, Jesus as the sun of god would have been more savvy than to allow his words to be twisted so easily. I believe the conclusion is foul play.
Like I stated previously there are many points before and after Constantine when the bible scriptures could have been tampered with. That is just one of the more obvious times.
Any water from a poisoned well is poison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
umm, why do you keep going on about constantine
the Bible books, as we know them, were mostly agreed upon by Constantine
you are talking BS
JOn Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
further more we have preconstantine history, and Christian history at that
we can actually trace ideas as they entered the church
you can easily (And many protestant churchs have) go back and see wha t is false
there are even gnostics arround now
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
If you could go back and see what really happened we would have fewer sects of christianity because there would be no doubt as to the truth.
We don't even have conclusive evidence as to wear Osama Bin Laden is hiding let alone what happened over a thousand years ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Just because you disagre is no reason to label my opinion as B.S.
I could be absolutely right and you could absolutely wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax Africanus
It is my firm belief that the scriptures in the bible have been altered many times. I don't understand how you could really argue the obvious. |
I'm glad you can see that what I am arguing is obvious.  (you're looking for the word "against" I think)
If you understood what I said at all you would see that I gave you "the bible ha(s) been altered many times" as a given in the equations. I'm not arguing against that.
You say there is an ideology that became corrupted. You then claim that because it was corrupted, no one could possibly ever have the original ideology again. This is bogus, as the ideology is obviously obtainable from a situation where it previously didn't exist. How else did it come into being in the first place?
From an aethiestic standpoint there are plenty of ways to explain it. Regardless of which way you go with, if it happened once, it can happen again. It's physics at work and the laws are still the same.
From a theistic standpoint, the ideology is based on God and Jesus the Christ. They have the ability to either preserve or restore the word in this case. With God all things are possible. You seem to be in this category as you feel there was something to corrupt in the first place, a holy word so to speak. You give God the credit for having created something pure in the first place, and deny His ability to create it again or purify the original. With God all things are possible, so it's an untenable position.
Either way the ideology that was before the 'corruption' is obtainable again. Doesn't mean it is being practiced, just that it is possible that it is, and possible that it can be even if it isn't. Denying that possibility is denying that it ever existed to be corrupted, whether or not you believe in God.
quote:
Any water from a poisoned well is poison. |
To use your analogy:
There are many wells. Just because an idea is drawn from one and corrupted, doesn't preclude the same idea being drawn from another. It also doesn't mean that the same idea from another well will be corrupted.
You also have purification processes, ways to undo corruption. Wells can be reclaimed, and baring that, new wells can be dug.
You make it sound like because someone pissed in a well 1700 years ago that no one will ever be able to drink pure water anywhere again...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:35
|
|
This whole idea that the evolution of religious belief and understanding is "corruption" is very dubious. Only fundamentalists think like that.
Also religion and theology in the USA is just one strand of religious debate and the way the debate is played out there is shaped along national lines to do with US history and culture, as it is in every country. You can't extrapolate much from that national debate to the global level.
Take the King James Bible. It's very important to some Christians in the USA because their forebears brought it with them to the new world as religious refugees. It has a lot of symbolism for some Americans, picked up and popularised by Hollywood, which has nothing to do with theology. Those christians were then largely cut off for generations from biblical scholarship outside the USA, particularly trends in Europe.
The mainstream view of the KJV bible is it's a beautiful piece of literature but a poor translation of the bible. It's hardly the last word in biblical translation. Most Christian communities both inside and outside the USA have long since moved on from the KJV, except in parts of the USA where it still seems to have a strong following, but mainly as a cultural artefact.
Google "errors in translation in the King James bible" to see what I mean.
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 10-05-2004 at 08:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Just because you disagre is no reason to label my opinion as B.S.
I could be absolutely right and you could absolutely wrong. |
well I guess you could say that the roman empire never existed
and that julius ceaser never existed
and while yet, you could be absolutely right and I absoltuely wrong
but I would still label your oppinion as BS, just like I am labeling it here
when there is archeological evidence against you, than your argument can be labeled as BS
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
If I told Jon Miller my deepest secrets before I died. Then he told Aeson only what he could remember and even that was not exactly what I told him then Aeson decided he would write this knowledge down but it did'nt quite make sense to him so he changed it to make sense then he handed this version to Alexander's Horse as the Secrets of Pax. It would be corrupted and since there is no way to go back to the root, there would be no way to correct it.
I'm definitely not fundamentalist in my views. If anything I believe the bible and any other religous text is probably corrupted to the point where it needs to be thrown out.
it's not evolution of religous beliefs that I'm talking about. I'm talking about changing documents to fit one's political goals. I'm talking misusing documents to fit one's goals. I'm talking about corruption.
I chose Emperor Constantine because that is closer than King James to the original words of god. maintaining that this point is still corrupted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
well I guess you could say that the roman empire never existed
and that julius ceaser never existed
and while yet, you could be absolutely right and I absoltuely wrong
but I would still label your oppinion as BS, just like I am labeling it here
when there is archeological evidence against you, than your argument can be labeled as BS
Jon Miller |
So you have archeological evidence that the Emperor Constantine NEVER was in a position to tell someone to put anything into the bible. Was an ancient taperecorder found somewhere? I call BULL on your evidence. You have no proof that he did not speak to someone about what he wanted in the bible. His character gives him will. His position gives him power and opportunity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
we have books of what is considered the Bible now that dates back to 110-150 AD
we also have books which people haven't liked overall (like the Gnostic versions (although I do note that the Coptics seem to like them a lot more than the rest of us))
if you want to get down to what christianity could be, study those (and a lot of people do)
you will find some very different beleifs (and note that common christian beleifs now weren't determined by Constantine, they were already often commonly held before him)
every church and every individual should study to determine what they think is right, but your point of correuption is BS (especially the point of purposeful corruption that is still within the church (well some now argue that Paul corrupted christ (like my freshman theology professor) but I think that that is the exception (if it is an exception) that proves the rule))
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
1. If you make the point that the gnostic version if different from the Catholic version that solidifirs my point.
2. It's a preschool trick to form a circle and pass a secret around the circle. The secret never gets back to the source the way it was sent.
3. Apply an everyday concept to a historical text and you should come to the same conclusion. If a single truth could be obtained then the scholars that study these facts for years would all come to the same conclusion but they don't. They debate what the facts are. They debate the origin. They can't decide.
4. Why would a Politician who would change his religion for political gain not change a text for political gain. Look at the current political gain situation. In a time when it should be hard to get away with twisting words and documents to fit one personal goals it's easy. At that time not everyone knew what was in or had access to a bible. Someone had to tell them what was in there. The best way to control the message is to change the original text. Any sermon from that point would start with words that suit your purpose.
5. Ask yourself this question. Would you trust a bible if it was a Politician who was responsible for its creation. President Bush?
King James?
Margaret Thatcher?
Napoleon?
Emperor Constantine?
Abraham Lincoln?
Adolph Hitler?
6. All of these people enjoyed a certain amount of popularity among there people but none would I trust to formulate a bible.
7. The English formed the Anglican church in response to the power of the catholic church.
8. Americans seperated church and to avoid undue influence of the church on government.
9. It would be naive to think that Emperor Constantine a person who changed his religion for political gain would not recognize the power of religion and use it to their benefit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
If the originator of the message and all the people that knew the truth are dead then the truth will never be known.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2004 11:15
|