the big questions of life thread
 

no this thread will not answer what came first the chicken or the egg? neither will it tell if God is dead. instead there are much bigger questions......

1.Why does Iceland have a mild climate while Greenland is covered with ice and makes Alaska look like Florida?
2.Did Adam and Eve have navals?
3.Why does Adam cop all the blame for the first sin? Wasen't his wife who did it first? Is it all part of a feminist conspiracy to get rid of men forever? :eek:
4.If Adam went fishing instead of talking to his wife would the world be a better place?
5.Why do women go to the toilet in pairs?
6.Why do they go shopping and not buy anything?
7.Why won't Lindsay Lohan return my calls, emails or agree to go on that date?

Why does life suck?
Now theres a question for ya :confused:

I second that question....

1.Why does Iceland have a mild climate while Greenland is covered with ice and makes Alaska look like Florida?
A- when danish settelers came to greenland and found it was a frozen world, they knew noone would want to come to it so they gave it a nice green name, tricking settelers into thinking it was green and warm, the people who founded iceland were just honest in their naming,

2.Did Adam and Eve have navals?
-No

3.Why does Adam cop all the blame for the first sin? Wasen't his wife who did it first? Is it all part of a feminist conspiracy to get rid of men forever? :eek:
No he took the apple, eve was buisy cleaning the dishes

4.If Adam went fishing instead of talking to his wife would the world be a better place?
Yes

5.Why do women go to the toilet in pairs?
Because they are insane

6.Why do they go shopping and not buy anything?
- Referr to answer #5

7.Why won't Lindsay Lohan return my calls, emails or agree to go on that date?
Because shes going out with me

Life is your own perception on how you feel to yourself, if you tell yourself it sucks, then it sucks. IF life sucks then it is because of how you are preceving it.

Speaking Of Life Sucking X :D Im Glad You Put Your Old Signature Back Up That Dosent SUCK :jam: :jam: :jam: SUCKETH ON

HAAAAAAAAAAAAA FREAKING EVE,

some good questions there...must ponder these

Probably because one has to go for a pee, and the other one needs to check her makeup. :D :rolleyes:

Because they have spent all of their money already. ;)

Awwww. :( I can't answer that one, lol.

lol i like this guy and his answers.......:D
how can you be sure they didn't have navals?
the explantation about greenland seems to make some sense. the vikings when they settled there, refused to interact with the locals (who they thought were uncivilized) and because of a lack of knowledge most died and the rest returned home.
eve was busy cleaning the dishes! lol watch out those feminists will stab you in the back for that! ;)

check make-up hey? its not to gossip about that cute guy by the bar?
don't worry hayley its purely fantasy, just like you with pat rafter lol. hehe

Oh he would have already been dealt to. ( :makeout: ) Hehe. So most likely I would be in there checking my make-up for the hot guy at the bar. ;)

Oh sorry to tell you, but there is more too it than that. We're actually married. I took this photo one some beach in the Caribbean on our honeymoon:

http://www.lallybroch.com/LOL/guests/pat.jpg

:p

ok dont kill me on this one...but a theory my friend has on girls going to the bathrooms in pairs/groups. No one wants to touch a public toilet thats just kinda gross, so one pees and the other(s) hold the peeing one up so that she doesnt have to touch the seat.

uhhh i don't buy that one.....sounds a bit too out there.

married? :( *runs off and sulks at the bar* ;)

8. When Donald Duck gets out of the shower, he puts a towel around his waist, but he never wears any pants. Why?
9. Why is it that when Bruce Banner turns into the Incredible Hulk, he gets huge and his shirt rips off, but his pants don't?
10. How far is up?
11. It is possible to be overwhelmed, and it is possible to be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?
12. Why are there Interstates in Hawaii?
13. What is the point of Thanksgiving? The pilgrims and Indians didn't even celebrate it. They just ate together once.
14. If life evolved from a single-celled organism, where did that organism come from?
15a. Why do so many people think that Mormons in the 1800s were the only people that practiced polygimy?
15b. Why do so many people think that Mormons still practice polygimy?
15c. Why do so many people not know that polygimy was never a Mormon practice/commandment?
16. Who was the first person to say "Let's squeeze that thing under the cow and drink what comes out."?
17. If a cow laughs, will milk come out of it's nose?
18. Why doesn't anyone ever post in threads I create on this board?
19. Is the chihuahua really a dog?


H-D :pimp:

8. When Donald Duck gets out of the shower, he puts a towel around his waist, but he never wears any pants. Why?
To dry himself off, du

9. Why is it that when Bruce Banner turns into the Incredible Hulk, he gets huge and his shirt rips off, but his pants don't?
The movie is rated PG-13, not XXX

10. How far is up?
As far as you want it to be

11. It is possible to be overwhelmed, and it is possible to be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?
Yes

12. Why are there Interstates in Hawaii?
Because I said so

13. What is the point of Thanksgiving? The pilgrims and Indians didn't even celebrate it. They just ate together once.
Cheap holiday excuse to get off work

14. If life evolved from a single-celled organism, where did that organism come from?
Nobody knows, but they have theorys of the suns nuclear radiation + Water and oils.

15a. Why do so many people think that Mormons in the 1800s were the only people that practiced polygimy?
Because there stupid

15b. Why do so many people think that Mormons still practice polygimy?
Referr to Answer a

15c. Why do so many people not know that polygimy was never a Mormon practice/commandment?
Referr to answer a

16. Who was the first person to say "Let's squeeze that thing under the cow and drink what comes out."?
Well considering the baby calfs drink it to live and every mammal baby drinks it as a baby, it cant really be bad for you

17. If a cow laughs, will milk come out of it's nose?
No

18. Why doesn't anyone ever post in threads I create on this board?
Because your not me

19. Is the chihuahua really a dog?
No its a German secret weapon, half dog half rat super smart animal that serveys the area and sends them valuable information



YOU QUESTIONS ARE TO EAZY FOR ME

8. good question and what is he covering up? he doesn't have man parts! :)
9.maybe bruce banner doesn't have any man parts either
10.i'm not sure
11.no
12.good question, silly people eating too many coconuts instead of naming their roads with proper names.
13.to give thanks for what we have?
14.whole other thread but its because macro-evolution is the biggest fraud to ever hit the scientific community.
15a.who else was doing it? as far as i know the mormons are the only christian sect who believe we become gods and that jesus and satan were once brothers, and that dark people come from the third of angels who didn't fight valiantly enough.
15b.i don't believe its still practised but i'm convinced it would be if it was legal. after all what man wouldn't have more than one if he could hehe.
15c.it was never practised? i'm not convinced.....
16. a new zealander! *wink to hayley*
17.yes....yes it will
18.not sure
19.yes but because a cat can beat it up, its on very thin ice! :)

It was a cultural practice. People had been trying to form laws against it for many years prior.
Well, God created all. Satan is referred to as "The Fallen Angel". He must have fallen from something, right? If God is the God of all, he must be over EVERYTHING.
Not quite. The Book of Mormon states that "the skin of their enemys were darkened." There is also anthropological evidence of warriors painting their bodies with dark black and brown paints when they went into battle. Also, it is shown that their skin was in ways permanently colored from the pigments of the paints. This could be the same thing that happened in this case.
True dat, but I can't even get ONE woman. I don't think there should be guys who take more away from me.
In the Bible, we read of people who practiced polygimy. We also read of "concubines." Concubines were not nececessarily prostitutes or whores, but WERE additional women in relationships. In each of these cases, men took more than one woman as wives to build the kingdom of God. This was the same thing that happened with some Mormon peoples in the 1800s. When an angel appeared to Joseph Smith requireing hem to do it, he refused. The angel eventually threatened him that if he did not obey the commandment from the Lord, he would be cut off from the work. It also took urging from his wife, Emma Hale-Smith, that he needed to do what the Lord asked. He eventually agreed. (You can read about this in some books about Joseph Smith.) Brigham Young also had more than one wife. So did Parley P. Pratt. So did many others, but in each case, it was only for a short time, and only to those commanded. It was NEVER commanded that everyone do it, and it has been and is still believed that marriage is "the sacred union between one man and one woman."


H-D :pimp:

this is not the faith and religion section but i'm happy to have a friendly debate on the subject. joseph smith had 40 wives whilst brigham young had 60 wives. so the founder and great prophet of this religion had between them 100 wives!

no where in the scriptures does it state or even hint that jesus and satan were somehow biologically linked or via some quasi-spirtual state. it saids that satan or lucifer was the highest of the archangels and he led a rebellion and a third of the angels went with him. no where is there a 3rd class and that third class become black people is downright racist. there is really no-one such as races according to biologists and many "black" people would be closer to genetically to me than my white "cousins". it simply doesn't stand up to the scientific evidence availiable to us in modern science.

yes its true that concubines were a common occurence particulary with men like solomon but it was never a commandment and in fact it goes directly against "one man and one woman" like you stated from adam and eve. this mormon theology then goes directly against scripture.

talking about scripture mormonism i understand teaches that scriptures were lost and changed and joseph smith was to reverse this and teach truth. the only problem here is that we have new testament manuscripts from the 2nd century A.D and old testament writings from very early on and its clear that changes were not made, at least those affecting doctrine.

another problem i have with mormonism is that in the book of abraham joseph smith apparently interpreted some egyptian hierogryphics (sp) and stated it was to do with abraham. this was all well and good until modern archologists and anthropologists can state categorically that these describe embalming procedures and i believe joseph smith was a false prophet. we all have our beliefs and you're unlikely to change because of what i've stated here but i believe christianity is the one true religion and fits the evidence best, whilst mormonism has big gaping holes in theology, science and the like.

anyhow good talking to ya......:)

poor jospeh dude was a little mixed up, I Mean After Having 40 Or So Wives That Would Mess Anybody Up,,,,HAAAAAAAAAAAAA No I,ve Read The Book..And I Find A Lot Of Truth In It And Then I Find Falsehood...AND THE TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIGHT..Will Always Pour it out Mix It All Up And Show You The Truth,

What's your point?
But if God is the father of all, and Satan was an archangel, he had to have been under God. There is no power equal to God's, so if we are all children of the same father, which are we the children of? God or Satan? One of them has to be more powerful, and we are therefore their children.
I'm not being racist. I am not racist. There is evidence that supports this.
Quite a lot of Mayan art shows dark and light skinned peoples. The Bureau of American Ethnology calls this "wearing the skins of one's enemy," and dismisses it as as religious ceremony without explaining where the dark skins came from in the first place! On the north coast of Peru, from 400-1000 AD, a culture called the Moche or Mochica flourished. According to modern archeologists, the Moche painted thier bodies black before going into battle.
But, as I said, it was used for the building of the kingdom, and only for a short time. They did not permanently stay married to all of them. Yes, Joseph Smith did have near 40 wives, but that was only at one point. He didn't marry each one for, like, 50 years. In most cases, it was around 5 years. Plus, did he really have kids with all of them? As I also said before, it was only to those commanded by God. Not everyone did it. And it wasn't forever.
In a sence that's true, but not completly. It's not so much that they say it was translated wrong, so much as it is that they don't know what is exactly right. There is no exact way of knowing exactly what was written by ancient peoples becuase they didn't leave a translator into english. For many years, archeological remains were stored in secret places in museums and such, and no one knew what many of them said until the Rosetta stone was found, which helped translate. If you ever take an anthropology course in college (even an introductory one) they will tell you that the way archeologists decide what things say, they all come forward with a bunch of ideas, and then vote on which to say it is. At least that's what my professor told us. And she is not religious in any way.
Refer to previous answer
Absolutely true. As we've ended in other threads before, we have to agree to disagree. In the end, God will judge all as he sees fit.
Actually, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity. Just like Methodists, Presbiterians, Episcopalians, and many others. Mormons are Christians.
Yeah. Same here. I like it when people challenge my religion. So far, the answers I have found satisfy me. One of my personal opinions is that if a religion can withstand the tests, there must be truth there. In the end, who goes to Heaven is God's decision. Mormonism may not be perfect, but it works for me. (and a couple other people on the board)


H-D :pimp:

if you have enough of this discussion say so, but i'm willing to keep at this because i honestly believe there is error here. when the scriptures say we are children of the ruler of this world (ie satan) its not biologically but in a spirtual sense until/if that person is saved via grace through faith. There is simply NOTHING in the bible which points to Jesus and Satan being brothers (or Jesus having one plan for salvation and Satan other in fact there was no need for human salavation until Satan came along) and the whole premise of this belief stands and falls with Jospeh Smith. Would you agree that if Joseph Smith is shown to be a false prophet the whole religion falls?

The colour of people's skin has nothing to do with what angels they came from. A simple genetics course will tell you its all genetics and so this doesn't stand up to the very simple laws of science. If this theory (not a theory in the scientific sense) were true you would expect great differences in the races but no such divisions exist as I stated earlier.

It is historical fact that Joseph Smith was killed by gunfire after trying to escape after being imprisioned for polygamy (what happened to obeying the laws of caesar?). If he was so sure of his eternal fate why would he be willing to shoot others to stay alive? Look at Paul for example who had no fear of death whatsoever, same deal with all of the other 12 apostles after Christ's ascension.

We know exactly what the texts say from their orignal languages of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek because we can translate them. They were not changed (at least not affecting doctrine there were words here and there) and so Smith was just plainly wrong. Same deal with the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian illustrations, we know he was wrong.

You are right in that God will judge us all but I was fairly sure Mormons would not few other "christians" as christians if you get what i'm saying. Most evanglicals would not view the Church of Christ and Later Day Saints as a true church. Anyhow good talking to ya......:)

I think what this comes down to is that we just have our own different opinions. As humans, we have the power of thinking, and people think differently. There's always more than one opinion. I just believe it makes sence given that since we are told he was and angel, and as the Bible states, we are all children of the same father, and that includes Lucifer.

Also, I also don't mind keeping the discussion open so long as it is done in a respectful manner, and doesn't turn into finger pointing, he-said/she-said, there's no chance for you, yadda yadda yadda that's happened in the past.
Absolutely. The whole premise our church is built on is that God and Jesus Christ appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the sacred grove. Even our President, Gordon B. Hinckley, has stated that if that did not happen, then this is the greatest apostacy that has ever happened. He has also stated that if it did happen, then this is the singlemost greatest work to ever occur.

Also, it must be LIGITAMENT proof against him. Not one or two half points that are not part of the big picture.
I never said the color of people's skin had to do with what angel they came from. I'm not sure where you picked that up.
Not quite. He wasn't trying to escape, and he was not in prison for polygimy. He was in prison many times because people saw him as a false prophet and wanted to get rid of him. He was shot and killed by a mob who thought he was false and leading people away from God. And about the law of Caesar, if we still had to obey all the same laws they use to, why are we not offering burnt sacrifices?
When did he shoot people? He was not afraid to die. As he was going to be put to death (one of many times) he said "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer's morning. I have a mind devoid of hostility to God or my fellow man." It is true that he tried to hide in the room (as did the others in there), but wouldn't you hide if a bunch of guys came charging at you and trying to shoot you? Just because he wasn't afraid to die, didn't mean he wanted to die.
Yes, we do know how to translate Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, but the writings he translated from were NOT any of those three. They are only what have been described as "Egyptian-like in nature." THAT is what I was talking about that no one knows EXACTLY what it says. No one in any country with any degree from any school knows precisely what it says.
Not sure that I understand. We are Christian. There's no way around that. Who's to decide who is the most "Christian."
Well, to each his own. And for future reference (only personal nit-picking here), the full name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


H-D :pimp:

This is a massive case of

too long didnt read

higher desire i'm open to keep this going and i won't start the finger pointing. what this boils down to me is that jospeh smith stated that the true message was lost through the ages and the corruption of the church perhaps in the medieval period. the problem here is that this is plainly false because we have the ancient texts and we can prove they were not changed at least to any degree worth worrying about.

if joseph translated from a language other than those three and its a language that we can't translate fully (like we can for those three) then how is anyone supposed to make sure it says what joseph said it says? the golden tablets apparently came and gone so we can't check those. with the christian bible we can check all of those writings and other texts that are not believed to be inspiried that are mentioned in the new testament by paul for example.

if you look at charecters like paul and peter (well peter after christ's ascension) you will see zero fear of death and they never hid from anyone and john the baptist you may remember called the religious leaders a "brood of vipers" and pointed out herod's adultery and was killed for it.

The TEXTS were not changed. The way the texts were PREACHED and the practices of the people were what changed and corrupted early churches. That's what Martin Luther was rebelling against way back when and led the reformation for into Lutheranism. Than he began to set it back to how it was. That's kind of the same as what happened with Joseph Smith.
Yeah. That's what I told you.
Like I said before, we don't know exactly what they said. That's why there's so much controversy among opposing sides. It's a matter of faith.
What do you mean "christian bible"? The bible is the bible. Sure there's different translations, like the King James, New King James, New International, New Revised Standard, Good News, and all the countless others, but they're used in many religions. I don't think I understand what you're saying in the second half. Mormons use the Bible just like the Book of Mormon; they're companions to each other. There are parallels between them and support each other. As for the Bible supporting claims that the BoM is false... in any situation, you can find ways to make anything match your view. Sure there may be some contridictory things, but there's supportive things too. The bible says different things in different areas that contradict itself, so are we to believe that the Bible is therefore false? I don't think so. Just as the Bible was written by different people (aka Prophets), so was the Book of Mormon.
Let me ask you this... Are you afraid to die AND do you want to die? Just becuase you're not afraid doesn't mean your going to go out looking to get shot. If someone a group of people came yelling at you with guns, wouldn't you do something to protect yourself? Paul and Peter weren't afraid of dying, but do you seriously think they were wanting or wishing to die?
Yeah. Once again, not everyone who had more than one wife was doing for "the right reason" as commanded by God. Just like now, there's guys in many countries, including America, that have more than one wife. Does that mean they're doing it in the same way as everyone else? And, there are opposing views on every topic.

Look, remember that we're talking here about three very different times. Around 35 A.D. (after Christ's death), 1800s A.D. (Joseph Smith's time) and 2000s A.D. (our time). Things aren't going to be exactly the same all the way throughout; word-for-word, letter-for-letter, number-for-number. If it was the same, we'd be living in a cave somewhere still amazed with these wonderful new inventions of fire and wheels.
God changes things. His laws change. For example; the Law of Moses, which included offering burnt sacrifices to the Lord. After the crusixion of Christ, that was done away with because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, the most perfect lamb, and no sacrifice could match up. So because one great thing happened, the law was changed.

Do you understand?


So it makes perfect sence to post something, right? :wtf:


H-D :pimp:

i understand fully what you are saying but i do not see the mormonism is a return to truth like luther, calvin and others were for their day. luther and his contempories were rebelling against the catholic church and how tradition had become more important than what the scriptures say. they did not add new doctrines like joseph smith so clearly did. furthermore the new testament instructs us to test all spirits and prophets. how is one supposed to test smith when we can't translate the language fully? it is impossible to verify the truth or otherwise of his sayings other than on blind faith.

the bible never instructs blind faith and reasoning is certainly not excluded from faith and quite the opposite in fact. if smith was so sure of the truth of what he said he shouldn't have acted in the way he did. have a look at christ when he rebuked peter for cutting the ear off a soldier and how he had no fear before pilate or as the roman soliders spat on him and treated him like a dog. why do we need a secondary authority like the book of mormon when 2 timothy 3:16 saids that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking......and revelation instructs not to add or take away from the holy scriptures and this is added instruction?

anyhow see ya round and have a good new years.....:)

I Love Reading Massive Cases , ive already give my opion on this subject before, :D but hey i will read it, with delight, as a matter of fact i would like to know everybodys opion on jehovha witness, :D they to have a few good pointers, you know, : :peacelove You Massive Little ASS, :D

lol sorry you'll have to explain that last part to me! :confused: i have found jw's are very knowledgable but how they interept certain passages just baffles me.

I understand what you mean about how it seems odd that in this case scripture was added, but if the story is true (as I believe it), then the full truth was not the earth, and therefore had to be brought to light, or, so to speak, fill in the holes. Absolutely one must test spirits and prophets, but we also cannot prove everything there is to know about the Bible, either. Testing spirits has a lot to do with feeling. Somewhere in the Bible (can't remember where right now) it says that if something is true, you will feel a "burning in your bosom." That's what people must test with the BoM, too. I've known people of other religions that were devout to that religion and became Mormon. I also know 3 people who were stongly anti-Momons and anti-Mormon activists that became converted. They all say they felt that burning in the bosom that only comes from asking God if something is true or not.
I don't remember saying that reasoning was excluded from faith or anything about blind faith. But in a literal sence, everyone who believes in God is following blind faith (in a sense). I mean, have you ever seen God? Has anyone you know ever seen God? I know I haven't seen him. All we're going on is what the Bible says and we believe to be true. Faith (in a religious sense) is blind because you're putting all of your trust in something you have not physically seen to exist. Though, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that blind faith is everything. Personally, I don't look as faith as blind.
As for why we need a second authority like the BoM, it may be debatable that we don't, but it's support. The way I have heard it before, the bible and BoM are like nails. When you use one nail to hold a board to the wall, you can, but the board will spin. Having two puts another nail into the board holds is firmly in place (ie, like you life).

Yes, Revelation does say not to add or take away from scripture. But there are two things you must remember: first, the Bible is not arranged in chronological order. When the Romans arranged it, they did it in order of what they thought was important. Hence, after the five gospels they had (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles) they put the book of the Romans. With that being historically true, isn't it true that any book of the bible written after it would therefore be wrong? Also, what has also been said (by someone who was NOT Mormon, and I can't remember his name, but he was a Bible scholar) was that John could be talking about that if HIS teachings were changed. He was shown many things by the Lord (especially in Revelation) and if those things are changed or left out, then hellfire would rain upon us.


H-D :pimp:

what you've said there at the end adds up and i'll give you that but the rest just doesn't do it for me at all. so a "burning in your bosom" will tell the truth? what if i have a burning in my bosom to go and rob a bank? to become a muslim? the bible generally is against making decisions on feelings and the love throughout the bible for instance is more of a decision based upon actions, rather than warm and fuzzy feelings (although they're excluded). what makes the burning of your bosom any more legimate than anyone elses? feelings are totally subjective and can't be tested for any evidence. at least the belief in God is a rational decision because life without some form of higher power i'm sure you would agree is laughable.

so if the book of mormon adds to a mormon's spirtual walk isn't the bible sufficient for that? doesn't the bible claim to the inspired word of god and sufficient for all teaching? is a mormon without the book of mormon or who doesn't recongise its authority worse off or even a true mormon?

You have to know if the feeling is coming from God or Satan. Absolutely people have said that the feeling they got was from God, especially things like killing other people, but society has a set of rules and guidelines (ie, laws) that tell us what is morally acceptable as right or wrong, and religion is deemed as right so long as it stays within the contexts of national law. If things are right, you can feel they are right.

So what about the Muslim extremists (suicide bombers) who say what they're doing is right? They claim that what they are doing is right because they are killing for God (Allah). Now by what we as Christians believe, they'd go to hell because we're not supposed to kill. But they think they're going to heaven. It's God's judgement. Not ours.

So do you mean to tell me that you've never had a feeling that the Bible was true based solely on what you've read in it or your faith in it? If you did have that feeling, how did you know where it came from?
What do you mean we're not supposed to make decisions based on feeling? I agree it's not the only reason to do or not to do something. Here's an example. Jesus taught in parables and taught that people should follow him. They followed him by what they felt. Parables are not literal statements about things that happened. In Matthew 13:10-17, the deciples ask Jesus why he speaks in parables. Jesus' basic answer is so people can draw their own conclusions. I want you to go read it, and tell me what you think of it. Especially verse 15. (See with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts.) How are we supposed to draw our own conclusions if we don't have some type of feeling?
Is belief in God a rational decision? Not everyone believes in God or the Bible. There are still many people who believe in evolution and that there is no higher power. A good friend of mine named Jay is an athiest, so is he going to hell? Can he go to hell if he doesn't believe in hell?
It's not that the bible isn't sufficient, by all means it is believed to be the most correct of any book on earth, but remember, the bible is not complete. There were books left out if the Bible, for example the Macabees and the book of Jasher to name a couple. The bible, though very right, is not 100% correct and void of holes.
A Mormon without the BoM or recognize it's authority? What do you mean by that? All Mormons have the BoM, and if they don't recognize an authority, they wouldn't be a member.


H-D :pimp:

Its easy to draw a conclusion that muslim extremists are wrong in taking innocent life in their quest to be accepted by Allah but what about socially accepted religions. One can easily have a "burning in their bosom" to become a buddhist, hindu, muslim, jew or any of the world's main religions. They all feel its right and are moral people but based on feelings you can't say which one is right. Only one can be right and they all have the burning in their bosom.

Yes I do feel that christianity is the right path but that doesn't help your case. We both have a "burning in our bosom" and yet only one of us can be right or perhaps we are both wrong. Having no god is illogical because there must have being something to start whatever process took place, to create the matter and life and its ecosystems are way too complex for no creator.

The bible is the most correct book? So by most correct it has error? Where are the errors? If there any errors the whole book is basically useless as it proves that its not an inspired book and is not any better than the Quran for instance. BTW if something is void of holes then it doesn't have any holes.

Everyone has different feelings about what is right. I thought we already established that. I have friends who are passionate about being Methodist, Presbeterian, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, and a few others. They have feelings for what they believe is right. It is something that works well for them. But is isn't impossible to say that they haven't tested another, as I have done.
Perhaps we are both right or wrong. But in the long run, what does it come down to? It comes down to a faith and belief in God that HE will judge us on. In Revelation 20:12, we are told that we will be judged by our works, and Ecclesiastes 12:14 adds that God will bring all works and secrets into our judgement whether they be good or evil. So does another book really matter? I believe it is an additional guide to living a good life. Is that really such a bad thing?
Not having a God is not illogical because there are a lot of people who don't believe in him, and find the belief in him illogical (as I stated above). It only seems illogical to have no God when you have a background in religion.
It is MOST correct even though there are SOME errors. It is the most complete history we have of the history of the world, customs of the Jews, and Jesus' ministry.
Anywhere there isn't much information, where the B isn't clear between A and C, anywhere that leaves you guessing what exactly is going on, or anywhere the BoM seems to clarify or give a better understanding of. Go find some areas you're not sure about.
No, that's not true. If I write a book about the history of the world before 1500 (commonly called the modern era), but switch the names of Constantine and Confucius, does that mean that every other piece of information in the book is also wrong? No. What I'm getting at is this: Neither the Bible nor the BoM are inspired books. They are translations of early writings of what God showed to his prophets. Some things were not written down in their entirety.
I know that. If you read my post properly, I used it in the right sense.


H-D :pimp:

the bible claims to be in the inspired word of God and yet you say its has errors. that means the whole premise is built on a fraud and it is no better than any other book. please point out what you believe are errors or contradictions and why someone should accept the BOM over the bible where they contradict.

everything has feelings about what is right but not everyone can be right, surely that has to be obvious. lets for arguements sake pretend that the islamic god is the one and only god. if he claims that all who reject him will go to hell and we have because we're not muslims then what would our fate be? our works are not enough and do nothing to bring us closer to god. the NT in particular makes it clear its salvation by grace through faith not works. jesus describes those who say "we cast out demons.....etc" and yet he saids "depart i do not know you". one can sincere and yet sincerly wrong and the bible seems to say clearly they will pay for that wilful ignorance.

you really need to point out specific areas in the bible that are clearly wrong i think.......

Premise does not indicate fraud when the words are truth. I never at any time said that the Bible was not truth. It is truth, and I believe it. As I said, not everything in the Bible is written in its entirety. There are places that say things like "I will not write any more about this right now." Examples... where is heaven? If Jesus Christ was perfect and without sin, why did he need to be baptized? What is in store for us after this life? What is the purpose of life? What is the point of working for God? Are all of Jesus' teachings and parables that were ever taught in his life contained in the Bible?
Well, if the Islamic God is the one and only, we are subject to his judgement. All Gods say that they are the only way to truth. Let me clarify that by saying that all followers of a God say that they have the truth. The basic answer is that there is only one God. He will judge us how he sees fit. We have NO 100% evidence for ourselves who that God is because we have never physically seen him.
What the hell are you talking about? We must show our belief through our works. Just saying "I believe" isn't enough to be saved. Go get your Bible and look up Proverbs 24:12 ("...and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"), Matthew 5:16 ("Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."), and James 2:14-26 ("...though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?...Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone...But wilt thou know, O van man, that faith without works is dead?...Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only...") Go read those passages in their entirety, and then tell me again that works don't matter.
Jesus is talking about the blasphemers and unworthy. Those who do it for show. Here's an example, James 5:13-15. Go read that. That passage refers to the sick and afflicted who are tended to by the worthy.

All of my references were King James version.


H-D :pimp:

salvation is by faith although james rightly clarifies that if there are no works then there is no salvation. however it is a VERY important distinction that works do NOT save a person.

None [of them] can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul [is] precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

Psalms 49:7-8
*A Song of degrees for Solomon.* Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh [but] in vain. [It is] vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: [for] so he giveth his beloved sleep.

Psalms 127:1-2
I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all [is] vanity and vexation of spirit.

Ecclesiastes 1:14
Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

Isaiah 43:26
I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.

Isaiah 57:12
But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Isaiah 64:6
They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.

Ezekiel 7:19
Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his [righteousness] in the day that he sinneth. When I shall say to the righteous, [that] he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; [If] the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

Ezekiel 33:12-19
O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.

Daniel 9:18
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

If someone is saved by works then there is no need for grace. Furthermore what would be the point of Jesus dying on the cross if we can save ourselves. Jesus then ceases to be the saviour and we become the saviour becaues we are doing the work and becoming acceptable to God. Don't you think its a little arrogant to take this stance? Also Hebrews 11 documents great men and women of faith such as Abraham and Noah and repeatedly saids "by faith they were saved" when they obeyed. Their obedience was the proof of their faith but its not what saved them.

There is no problem in Jesus being baptized because baptism does not save but is a public profession of faith and Jesus obeyed God and humbled himself to John the Baptist by immersing himself in that river.

Holy Christ. We're going around in circles here and it's getting really old. You are not SAVED by works, and I never said you were. The references I quoted stated that you are JUDGED by your works. God judges based upon what you did and how he judges our rightousness and our passage into heaven. That is grace. It is because we are each judged individually and there isn't only one judgement for everybody.

How can you dispute those verses that as clearly as day say "Faith without works is dead."?
You said contradicted yourself. You said that they were saved by faith, and then that faith is not what saved them. They worked through their obedience to God and showed their faith. Also, they were tested and still stayed focused on God.
It's good how out of all my questions you only attempted one. Though baptism is public, it's not just a way of saying "Hey world! Look at me!" Baptism is the physical declaration one makes to God to show that they promise to live by his commandments and to turn away from the sins of they world and their own personal idolitary ways. Last time I checked, Jesus didn't need to have any sins washed away because he didn't have any.


H-D :pimp:

yeah we're going around in circles but in your reply just now you stated no your works don't save you and then later on said its not faith that saves you. what is it? anyhow we're not getting anywhere........i'm not disputing faith without works is dead. what i am disputing is that works save because they clearly do not. i thought it was a relatively simple concept......