ChristianForums banned Christ.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Sarcastikus
New member
godrulz said:
Yes, I tend to think abstractly and forget about simple things like 2+2=4, etc. :sigh:
Unfortunately divine revelations are filtered through and interpreted by human consciousness. Unless we actually experienced what is reported in the Bible we have to take it on faith that what it reports is true. I have no doubt that the prophets actually had visions, but it's difficult to know exactly what they saw. They could only give discriptions using the language they had to work with. I'm not saying that it's incorrect, but it should be kept in mind that human error has most likely crept in during the centuries of copying and editing, etc. that took place. I personally have no doubt that Jesus actually existed, if he didn't then we've all fallen for what has to be the biggest con in recorded history. Language is such a slippery thing to work with.
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
2+2=11
Somethings, like the above, can be correct with regard to objective reality. Judeo-Christianity has had the difficulty of getting so caught up with one perspective on God's laws, on one view of objective reality, that they forget there are other workable sets. They forget that God can have others know the truth about God and His ways even if it does not, at present, seem to fit into their pre-conceived notions as to what objective truth can and can't be. The Jews got stuck in viewing the gospel only from an augmented Mosaic base. The "Traditional Christians", those that base their views around the creeds, take their incorrectly augmented view and cannot, generaly see beyond that. Just as 2+2=11 doesn't seem like it can be correct to one unaware that the equation was set in the context of a base three system instead of a base ten system, those accustomed to only viewing objective reality from the blinders of their 'base' system will often refuse to accept more truth simply because it's not what their use to seeing, or because it reveals problems in the way they've formulated their equations when they've tried to force one base upon an equation not native to that base.
The irony of this is that one, such as myself, can fully accept the above, and still be rejected from what some consider Christianity. Simply because I hold both 2+2=4, in proper context AND accept 2+2=11, in it's proper context.
Mustard Seed
New member
Shimei said:
I'm sure there are those that are great people on that site but I was a bit concerned when I was rebuffed for asking questions about the Bible in the Chat board. No one would, of a sizable group, dare talk about simple biblical questions. It's disturbing when a location or entity claiming to love a book forbids conversation on the book, it brings to mind the whole Index thing the Universal church imposed. Can't have people discuss the Bible, people might actually learn about it.
Mustard Seed said:
They may be concerned about you proselytizing. The cults are the unpaid bills of the Church. I agree that truth does not run from error, but we should not needlessly expose new Christians to the chaos of the cults if it will possibly lead to deception.
In what context is 2+2= eleven?
Mustard Seed
New member
no avatar said:
Ahh yes. Can't be facing the Bible when we aren't expecting it. Might make someone un-coooommmmfortable.
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
I did no proselytizing. Simply trying to discuss biblical passages.
It's not inherently "eleven." I was simply showing that in a base three system you could get 2+2=11 just as you could get 11+2=20 or 1+2=10.
10 here could be called 'ten' but it would not be the same 'ten' referenced in our current base 10 system. Same with eleven. You could call it eleven but the base then equivilant, in terms of actual quantity would be four(4).
Last edited:
It's for light chat because it is (very close to) live, and therefore more vulnerable to rule violations.Mustard Seed said:
Remember the Academy Awards that one year that was live, and whoever the host was (some crass comedian) used a bunch of 4-letter words, and because it was live, there was no way it could be taken back? Well, now, the Awards are no longer live. They are one-two seconds delayed so "mistakes" like that can't happen again in the future.
Same sorta thing with the chatbox.
In what context is 2+2= eleven?[/QUOTE]Mustard Seed said:
It's not inherently "eleven." I was simply showing that in a base three system you could get 2+2=11 just as you could get 11+2=20 or 1+2=10.
10 here could be called 'ten' but it would not be the same 'ten' referenced in our current base 10 system. Same with eleven. You could call it eleven but the base then equivilant, in terms of actual quantity would be four(4).[/QUOTE]
2+2= 4 is absolute. If you talk about another relative concept, it does not change the well understand concept of Grade 1 math.
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
I never disputed such in it's context. 2+2=11 is also absolute in the context of a base three number system.
I never said it did. I was simply saying that Grade 1 math will not get you terribly far if you are looking to find out things more consequential then how to balance a bank account. The things taught in Grade 1 math can be 100% correct in basic principle but they are woefully deficient in grasping the world and the universe on a scale sufficiently large to intellegently act upon. If one thinks that simply because they know 2+2=4 means that 2+2=11 cannot ever be true then you have someone taking an absolute and incorrectly extrapolating a perceived reality around it. That's what the Creeds do with what the Bible says of God. They make vast assumptions as to what the words can and cannot mean, and the absolute nature of their context, and then they pretend to make authoritativev statements based on that. It's not the Bible that they reference that is the problem, just as your reference to 2+2=4 isn't the problem. It's the assumptions and extrapolations they've constructed in their mental paradigms that are in error.
Is this an attempt to justify why Mormonism has no biblical, historical basis? We accept revelation from God. So-called new revelation will not contradict old revelation. Either God is triune or he is triplex. Either Smith is a prophet or he is not. Either the BOM is Scripture or it is not, etc.
Mormonism is not biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity. It is a modern invention.
Mormonism is not biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity. It is a modern invention.
Mustard Seed
New member
no avatar said:
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Well there's a problem with that. You see that's the same basic premise the Catholic Church used for limiting the access of the Bible. They felt (or at least the reasoning they presented was) that if the common people had it (the Bible) in their possession that they would horribly missunderstand, or contort, or whatever to it. And once it was out in the public then you couldn't very well get rid of it completely. Just like a chat box a true public discourse on the Word of God is problematic for those who want to control how the Word of God is read. Censoring for profanity is entirely understandable. Censoring for dialog centered around trying to understand the Bible is "Making the word of God of none effect" in that forum "through your tradition" which ye have made to "protect" others from the "dangers" of actualy thinking about the Bible.
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
You have this same problem I just mentioned. You start with the assumption that "Mormonism has no biblical, historical basis." You also assume that it contradicts the "old revelation"
Pagan religious thinkers claimed the same of Christianity when it first came. They had records to certify that they were far more ancient in their distinct religious tradtition. You like they are assuming, presupposing, the correctness of your position and all it's corrolaries. That's why you and they are blind. 2+2=11 does not contradict 2+2=4 so long as the context is remembered and the transition between numerical systems is dones correctly.
2+2=10 also works in a base four system.
Mustard Seed said:
This is not circular reasoning/begging the question. There is a wealth of information that undermines the credibility of Mormonism's claims. Hundreds of millions of Christians would be Mormons if they honestly felt the evidence for it was true. Just as you are not a JW because of their teachings, so I am not a Mormon because it is not truth. I am not merely assuming this out of prejudice. It is based on a mountain of evidence. You are in the ranks and are the one prone to deception and spiritual blindness. There would also be personal cost for you to have to admit it is wrong. I am sure you are sincere and believe it is true, but sincerity does not create truth.
The rules of the chat room are reasonable. There is a different forum for detailed discussion. I have chatted in detail in chat rooms, but would not feel a conspiracy theory if guidelines limited it somewhat. Every religious kook could create confusion and defeat the fellowship purpose of the Christian board. We also have some responsibility to protect seekers and young believers. I would get censured from Mormon boards if I was persuading people away from Mormonism or spreading false information.
Everything Mustard Stain says is a crock. He's a Morno avatar said:
Mustard Seed
New member
no avatar said:
If simply clicking on a forum is how you determine truth or error than that would explain why you hold to the beliefs you hold to. I don't take that path to determining what is and isn't a "crock", I prefer that the search for truth concist of thinking for one's self rather than simply following what one thinks is best portrayed on an internet theological forum.
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
Only if you give heedance to the claims of atheistic academia that are not any kinder to your view of Christianity then they are to mine.
Duhh... that doesn't mean that the evidence they perceive, or the reasoning they abide to is what they perceive it to be. The same could be said for all the atheists in the world, one could say that if all other non-christians in the world honestly felt the evidence for Christianity was true that they'd join up.
No. You are not a Mormon because you are blinded to the truth.
No. It's not. The evidence you have has as much relevance as the evidence that non-Christian's have against Christianity.
That's the very same thing claimed by the Scribes against Jesus and His followers.
And there would be none for you to become a Latter-day Saint? Please, to act like this is all one sided is abured.
A principle that applies to you also. And the extension of such, neither do sincere assertations make the assertations true (such as your assertations as to the evidence being contrary to my faith but the refusal to see the same standards as condemning equaly, or to a greater degree, your faith.
For false information. I could see that. But if all you were doing was discussing, in the spirit of mutual belief, the scriptures. I don't see any board that could call itself a 'Mormon' theological board that banned discussion about the standard works, the whole of our scriptural cannon.
- Status