- Topic
@144: If this site is causing people to stay in the wmscog, why don't you just refer them here when they have doubts or questions instead of having them go to Zion? Wouldn't that be easier? And why are there hacking attempts to take the site down, and lawsuits filed? If this site is causing people to stay in the wmscog, then there is no credibility to any reasoning that this site should be taken down, is there? And you could also stop saying the internet is off limits to members (except the ones with special permission, of course)
I guess I just don't understand. It seems like you are contradicting yourself.
144000 wrote:
Obviously you haven't been here very long, and for any new readers, you may notice in the archives I and others have adressed several of theese points very directly in the past. If the explanation wasn't good enough for you then, too bad. I'm not going to re-hash it just because you find it an excuse to say "oh see look, he is running away!" hoping in the most juvenile sense that the people who see it now are misinformed enough not to notice this is the hundredth time you people say such a thing.
Its a running gag among this forum. You raise a point, have it debated, then derail or shift the goalposts, and then when somebody says they're done talking you accuse them of running away. Read the archives, you guys do this every time, and your doing it again now instead of defending the testimonies which I challenged.
The testimonies are personal experiences and each one can be different. One can have a variety of experiences and it would be different from another person's.
However, in this forum there have been many discussions on your church's teachings. These are the discussions where you guys shift the goalposts and fail to address the points that are raised. That is why they come up again and again. Instead of avoiding such issues by saying they were already answered in the past, either answer them here or link the discussion where you or another wmscog member answered the point satisfactorily.
There are many such points. This time of your visit here, you have yet to respond to Genny's question about the 8th month feasts apart from inviting her to Zion. You have also not responded to my point about the 3 persons in one God apart from a vague sweeping comment about having many scripture verses, none of which was specified. Notice that I have given you scripture verses and promised you more if you need. If you have answered these before, kindly link the post or thread here.
Awaiting your response to this as well:
emil wrote:
If you dare, try to dispute the points rather than taking selective phrases or rearranging my comment to make it look stupid.
Here are my points:
Your post compared the treatment of Jesus by his contemporaries to the treatment of Sahnghong. This is inappropriate because –
1. the only sins Jesus was accused of was a) blasphemy for claiming to be God when he actually was and b)not keeping the sabbath correctly
2. Sahnghong sinned when he worshipped as a Buddhist, he lied about heavenly mother in the New Jerusalem book and he took a second wife while his first was still living.
144000-Stroke of Genius!!! How’d you know I was new to the site??? OBVIOUSLY, you could easily find out the length by clicking on the name.
The point is; Manifestation of Ahns having a child before he was married raises a question of his integrity; therefore, nullifies the teachings of WMSCOG. Of course, if you choose to see rather than looking…
Btw, people are leaving the church giving lame excuses so as not to deal with deafened perception of yours. How many contradictions can one swallow? OBVIOUSLY, you have the stomach for it…
At the end of the day, you choose to be who you want to be. All said would be in vain if it is not meant for you to retain. All I can say; pray hard to have fate without destiny-it was fate that you got into this “church”, but you destined not to stay in.
Its funny premarital sex is never called a sin in.scripture
Buddhism isn’t idolatry
There is no evidence ahn was bigamist or a liar
So in a small way 144 is correct
We should be arguing true issues not physical ones or made up ones or we are no better than them
Simon wrote:
Its funny premarital sex is never called a sin in.scripture
Buddhism isn't idolatry
There is no evidence ahn was bigamist or a liar
So in a small way 144 is correct
We should be arguing true issues not physical ones or made up ones or we are no better than them
I will address two aspects of your post; 1. your defence of 144000 and 2. your defence of Ahn Sahnghong. Let me point out that my own post was responding to this statement by 144000:
"Many people tried to refuse Jesus because of his physical family as well."
Members of the wmscog try to portray others' rejection of Sahnghong as similar to the Jews' rejection of Jesus. I made the post in that context. 144000 has not addressed the points I made. He has instead chosen to attack phrases culled from my post or sentences which he has reconstructed from my post. Can you point out in which small way he is correct since he has not said any of the things you have?
Now coming to your defence of Sahnghong, your first assertion depends on what you understand by the words fornication and licentiousness in the gospels and whether these are sin or not. My understanding is that pre-marital sex is fornication as mentioned in Mt 15:19 or licentiousness as in Mk 7:22 and thus a sin.
The second is debatable whether Buddhists worship idols or not but they certainly don't worship God. Their belief is sort of "god is within" so in that way they worship self.
Now lets take bigamist. He was married to Hwang and had children with her. This marriage was still existing when he supposedly married Giljah.
The lie. The wmscog is witness to this. They say he wrote the book refuting the concept of a mother god itself and then withdrew the book later. He knew all along that there is a mother god. I don't know about you but in my book that is a lie.
I completely agree with you that we should be arguing true issues but I don't see 144000 responding to true issues. He is the one who threw the smokescreen of that sentence I quoted.
//Can you point out in which small way he is correct since he has not said any of the things you have?//
The focus on physical things and accusations I see it a lot
It is true they like to push us there but as they say don’t feed the troll
As far as premarital relations as sin it ultimately depends on circular reasoning
The rest I see what you’re saying better now
^ Simon – I don't like to focus on a person's sinfulness as I am not qualified to judge. I do this because they claim him to be God and because they compare his shortcomings to the perceived ones of Jesus.
"As far as premarital relations as sin it ultimately depends on circular reasoning"
I don't see it as circular. I admit that premarital sex is not listed directly in the 10 commandments. But the words I gave you are Jesus' words and he says that fornication/licentiousness is evil. So if you think it is not a sin, it is either because you think that either all evil is not necessarily sin or because you think that fornication/licentiousness cannot refer to it.
I thought the definition of sinning was to disobey God’s command. The bible says to abstain from sexual immortality which is referred to as fornication when the KJV and NIV are overlapped. That’s clearly a command. I think the gods of the WMSCOG are the “do as I say, not as I do” type gods. Which is very different from Jesus.
The notion of using Porneia to mean premarital sex is circular because Porneia doesn't mean premarital sex or unmarried sex or anything like that it means illicit (illegal) sexual activity and no where does the Bible refer to premaritals as illicit so you have to say its a sin because you think its a sin
The only place the Bible lists Porneia I can think of is Leviticus which never bans it
I believe premarital sex is wrong. I believe the correct way is to have sex after marriage. I’m not innocent of that fact though. However, I believe it’s wrong. Same way I believe taking what doesn’t belong to me is wrong.
I believe it foolish but scripture never actually calls it a sin
Oh, so you mean it's like wearing plaids with stripes to school or something?
But what about abstaining from fornication?
I have a question: Does the wmscog call "sex outside of marraige" a sin or not?
Define marriage?
Paper or relationship?
MountainMom was this:
“Oh, so you mean it’s like wearing plaids with stripes to school or something?”
Directed at what i said about foolishness not sin??
Simon wrote:
Define marriage?
Paper or relationship?
Paper AND relationship
In the 9th post of this thread, I had written, "From his words addressed to Umm Sooin in his infamous book, it is also entirely likely he had a relationship with her"
I will post below, an extract from the 7th chapter of his book.
Nevertheless, Um Sooin claims that she is the Heavenly Jerusalem and that she has come down to earth. According to the prophecy of Galatians 4:22-24, Sarah is the Heavenly Jerusalem. However, if the New Jerusalem is Um Sooin, she has then married her son. The reason for this is that Isaac is the son of Sarah, and it is said that Isaac is also Christ. (Gal. 3:16)
Um Sooin has then become the mother of Christ as well as the bride (wife) of Christ.
Um Sooin states that I am Isaac with weakness of sight while claiming that she is Sarah, who is the Heavenly Jerusalem. She is then saying that she will live with Isaac who is her son. How extremely scandalous is this? With this type of misguided delusion, she has become a false prophet and has attempted to gain power. Please think of what will become of her sin and the sin of those who follow after her. (Isa. 9:16)
What do you make of that? Although he uses future tense in the last paragraph, in the first paragraph he uses the past continuous tense (Genny please correct me if I'm wrong) as if it is a matter of prevailing fact at the time of writing.
I see what that guy saying. Well, the WMSCOG says sex outside of marriage whether it be legal US marriage or married in the name of Ash, is a sin
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.