Yes, indeed, Christ did warn that. Which is why the whole thing seems a bit ironic. I think that prehaps the issue is not that screaming hordes are attacking Christianity and attempting to plaster us with bubblegum, but that we are being undermined by something... a bit quieter. Maybe it's indifference. Maybe it's just going with the flow, just relaxing for a bit, letting stuff go that we shouldn't. Prehaps it's *ourselves* that is the issue. We've gotten so used to this predominance and respect, or at least tolerance, from everyone else, that... it seems easier not to worry about it. I hear from others of my faith, from other countries, just how disgusting we are. 'It is strange indeed if something so valuable as Liberty is not highly valued...'
But, this isn't just Christians, certainly. Other religions, elsewhere, are being stomped on too.
So, in short, I do not believe we are being persecuted in the traditional sense. This is both a great blessing... and prehaps a great danger.
Aw geez, I was content to just sit back and watch the flames shoot back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean, but noooooo, you guys had to go and create an interesting thread with intelligent comments. Now you've ruined everything....
I was thinking about religious intolerance and Christianity recently, but in a slightly different direction. Sometimes when a non-Christian asks an evangelical Christian for tolerance or at least respect, the Christian will say, "Well, my religion requires that I evangelize, because I believe you will go to hell if you don't convert to my religion. Since that is my religious belief, if you don't tolerate or respect it, you are a hypocrite."
That seems like a circular argument to me. I don't have a problem with people believing that Christ is their personal savior, or with the ritual of the church, or anything like that. The only part of Christianity I have a problem with is the part that says I'm going to hell or am in league with the devil because I'm not Christian. Even though I don't believe in hell or the devil, frankly, I think it is a nasty, hateful belief, and I see no reason we non-Christians should have to tolerate it.
Does this make me a hypocrite?
There's a letter to the editors of the Dallas Morning News which I just dug up. It's part of what prompted this topic. It was written by Kody Shed of the "No Pray, No Play" movement (an organization behind the "spontaneous prayers" at high school sporting events). The letter read:
"It seems that in our enlightened age where we celebrate diversity that everyone would be celebrating the preservation of a Christian tradition of prayer prior to a community gathering. Why do we seem to embrace everyone's culture except Christians?
"We celebrate anytime a group rallies on behalf of the preservation of their cultural heritage. They are hailed as role models for our society. When a Christian even mentions our belief in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ, the world screams, 'Intolerance'!
"Maybe it is not the Christians who are intolerant, but those who oppose the religious beliefs, culture and tradition of American Christians. Liberals have been preaching for years, 'If you want to be a multicultural nation of freedom, then you must be tolerant and accepting of others, their beliefs and traditions.' Why doesn't this include Christianity? Our beliefs? Our tradition?"
Let's say we have a Federal judge who's a Christian. He decides to display in his court, say on his bench, a cross, the Ten Commandments or some other Christian icon. You can be sure someone will protest that this violates the separation of Church and State, even though it is the judge's own belief, not intended as an official state view, or a state sanctioning of a particular religion. In other words, this justice's individual right to freedoms of expression and religion may be trample upon.
And you're right, Nyla the persecution is certainly not in the traditional sense that would lead to your death if you proclaim Jesus as your personal savior and what have you. But in this day and age indulgent luxury even if the littlest discomfort seem huge to people.
I would be offended if a I walked into a courtroom and the courtroom had a mezzuzah on the door. Even though it is a Jewish symbol.
The separation of Church and State should be absolute.
At the risk of sounding like an AOL user, I agree totally with Scott. And don't they display the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court?
As regards persecution, I agree that in this country the one thing we should be the least worried about is any real sort of persecution. However, I direct your attention to China, People's Republic Of. Stuff goes on there that'd make your hair curl.
Much as I love my religion, I'd be offended to find a pentacle inside a courtroom.
I don't think the Commandments are in the Supreme Court - I thought they were in Congress.
What do I know? I know I'm sick as heck, and I love my job.
However, I direct your attention to China, People's Republic Of. Stuff goes on there that'd make your hair curl.
Gosh, I hope not. My hair curls already if I let it get too long. lol
I wouldn't exactly be offended by any religious symbols in a courtroom, but I might be a little upset by it, depending on my mood at the time, perhaps. Big diff, but that's just me. I'd also kindly refuse to place my hand on a bible and swear "So help me God," if called to testify in some trial, which I hope never happens. Jury duty was enough for me and thankfully it was very brief.
Persecution: Christ said Christians will be persecuted until his return. It's a price of salvation. Let's just say we don't want to get stuck in "Dryfus Mentality".
Hell and Satan. We don't make up what we believe. It has been passed on by our Church Fathers and preserved by the Holy Spirit. Besides, if your going to Hell, it can be presummed that you are seperated from God in this life, and total seperation from God is what you wanted. Why would God force anyone into dwelling with him who didn't want it?
It has been passed on by our Church Fathers and preserved by the Holy Spirit.
Problem with this is, there's no way of knowing for certain whether they passed it down correctly. 2000 years is a LONG time.
And what does this have to with persecution, anyway?
Matthew, I think Matt was referring to my comment about Christians telling non-Christians they are going to hell.
Matt, if hell was only separation from God, it wouldn't bother me if someone told me I was going there. Unfortunately, a lot of people portray it as some kind of fire and brimstone affair, in which case it does bother me. And there's still the thing about non-Christians being in league with Satan. I still think it is an awful thing to say about people simply because they believe differently from you.
Hell and Satan. We don't make up what we believe. It has been passed on by our Church Fathers and preserved by the Holy Spirit.
Maybe you don't make up what you believe, but you certainly have a choice as to what to believe.
Actually, people do make up what they believe, and definitely where religion's concerned (but of course not exclusively so). Ok, the sky is blue. We all believe that cuz it's true so that's something that's not made up. But to say God exists or is this way or that and thinks and wants this or that without any proof of his existence first is something that's made up. Likewise Satan, heaven, hell and any other man-made myths. I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs here, just stating a fact, which I know some here will disagree with and that's totally fine by me.
Likewise Satan, heaven, hell and any other man made myths. I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs here, just stating a fact, which I know some here will disagree with and that's totally fine by me.
Calling religious beliefs "man made myths" is, in effect, an attack on those who hold the beliefs, regardless of what you may think.
It's all in your stance, Matthew. I'm of the myth opinion, but I don't dispute anyone's right to believe whatever they believe. I happily co-exist with Christians of various stripes, agnostics, Jews, and at least one very cute Wiccan.
Who knows, they might be right and I might be wrong. Saying I think it's best explained as myth is not an attack, just my opinion.
But, hey, you want to view it as an attack, I can't stop you. And that seems to be more the rule than the exception here.
I have to agree with the myth thing too. Whose to say that, in fifteen hundred years, the people of the future won't call the Judeo-Christian deity(ies) myth? We don't know that. There's no harm in calling them myth.
IMO, of course.
Well, here we have an "agree to disagree" point. I do think that there are some elements of Christianity that ought to be considered myth by everyone. (Revelation, at the very least. Unless you're Jerry Falwell or Captain CAP, but then I can't help you, and what are you doing here anyway?)
On the other hand, calling someone's most basic beliefs nothing more than a man-made myth would seem insulting to most people. Not so much the myth part, but the bit about being "man-made." It's insulting, or at the very least a bit inflammatory, to say that the sacred traditions of any religious group were made up by a drunk guy in his spare time. (Of course, I can be as bad about it as anyone else. You should've seen my history class this morning, when we talked about Mormons. But I digress...)
I usually don't feel terribly insulted by it, as I have faith in these things, and believe that they're true regardless of what MarkN might happen to say about them on any given day. On the other hand, it does bother me sometimes, seeing what amounts to a badly thought-out attack on any religion.
Matthew, if you call the book of Revelation, "myth", then you're getting a myth mixed up with non literal wording.
Myths eh,
All religions do contain a fair share of mythlogy. The First 10 books of Genesis are the most often cited in that catagory. In fact their writting does reflect some disdain for the myth element by the Yahwehist. Job is based on a piece of Ancient folklore. However, the best way is too consider how the book of the bible was written. was it organized oral history, was it poetry, was it a sermon on history, was it a prophetcy, was it an letter, was it a gospel?
Revelation: It's mythlogy only if John of Patmos did not have a vision. From what I understand, it's grammer is different from the other books atributted to John. Since the central truth I get from revelations is that no matter what evil machinations the Devil can come up with, in the end Christ will be victorious and so will we, it's place as a real vision is not important.
Juli K.- Why that is quite a metaphysical argument I'm not going to get into(Belief, free will), The focus of my argument is that Christian Doctine must be drawn from Scripture. An argument denying the existance of Hell would crash agaist with the central doctine of Justification by Faith alone. I don't need to explain why central doctines can't be supplanted.
Hell being a firely place is a leftover from a Zoroastrian belief where Hell was a corrective punishment. You were released at the end of time.
You know if you take out the second m in Mormons......
Matthew, if you call the book of Revelation, "myth", then you're getting a myth mixed up with non literal wording.
Do give me a bit of credit, Jwb. This happens to be not only my opinion, but also that of our official school chaplain, who has no less than four degrees in some form of religious studies, from Indiana University, Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame. See this sermon for details. (It credits a different person as having written it, but I swear up and down that the guy I mentioned before did.)
Interesting, Matthew, that sermon makes a point I was going to hunt down a link for. You wrote:
It's insulting, or at the very least a bit inflammatory, to say that the sacred traditions of any religious group were made up by a drunk guy in his spare time. This is a badly uninformed view of myths. Myths grow out of a society's need to understand their universe, and as a way of connecting the society into a whole. Myths aren't made by somebody hoisting one in the pub. They're a vital aspect of human culture.
Calling your core religious beliefs a myth is an insult? How is that more an insult than dismissing them outright. I don't agree with your religious beliefs. So do an immense number of atheists and buddhists and hindi and jews. Is this entire mass of humanity, one and all, insulting you every day because they deny your beliefs?
I at least am saying that I grant the power of your beliefs, even if I disagree with the literal truth of them (like the Resurrection).
Good grief, Matthew, is everyone not a Christian a walking insult? Is that what you're trying to say?
Heh. I'm a walking insult to the whole of Christianity.
And Morgan wonders why I won't preside at the wedding of Crisa and Kevin.
Mark Morgan: Oooh! A very well thoguht out and coherent post! Take notes Peter!
Problem with this is, there's no way of knowing for certain whether they passed it down correctly. 2000 years is a LONG time.
Actually, there are many manuscripts of the New Testament dating back to the the second century or so. Here is a website that discusses the validity of the Bible. It mentions the early manuscripts.
Maybe you don't make up what you believe, but you certainly have a choice as to what to believe.
Perhaps. I don't believe in picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe. Also, disliking a belief is not a valid argument against it. Truth is not determined by popular vote, by how well it's liked, or what people think about it. Calling a belief evil or nasty does not make it any more or less true. Would you consider "I don't like the idea that my ancestors were apes" a valid argument against evolution?
Calling religious beliefs "man made myths" is, in effect, an attack on those who hold the beliefs, regardless of what you may think.
That's your interpretation of my words, not my intent, Matthew. There's a difference. I was just stating my own opinion and not attacking anyone in the least, is all.
On the other hand, calling someone's most basic beliefs nothing more than a man-made myth would seem insulting to most people. Not so much the myth part, but the bit about being "man-made."
Myths are man-made! Anyone who feels insulted by what others may say about those myths does so cuz they chose to feel insulted. I meant no insult whatsoever (I thought my little disclaimer would've clarified that, but I guess it was lost on some people), but it was by your choice to feel insulted. Hell, sir, I can't make anyone feel anything. That's up to them. And no, it most definitely wasn't "a badly thought-out attack on any religion." But again, that's just your interpretation.
And just curious, but who's "Captain CAP"?
I'm sorry, the "it's just your interpretation" thing just doesn't hold water with me. Surely, by now, you've come to realize that anythingcan be offensive to anyone? Therefore, shouldn't you try to avoid provoking something like this? Shouldn't I stop posting in questions? Shouldn't we get back on topic, whatever it was?
A while back (a century it seems) I posted "Let's say we have a Federal judge who's a Christian. He decides to display in his court, say on his bench, a cross, the Ten Commandments or some other Christian icon. You can be sure someone will protest that this violates the separation of Church and State, even though it is the judge's own belief, not intended as an official state view, or a state sanctioning of a particular religion. In other words, this justice's individual right to freedoms of expression and religion may be trample upon."
Both ScottN and Machiko stated that regardless of the religious icon, they'd be offended by its presence. Scott brought up that it would be a violation of Church and State. I'll go along with that. But let me play, to one degree or another, the Devil's advocate on this.
Separation of Church and State is a fine and wonderful thing. But I'm talking about a justice who is a Christian, who decides to display a token of his religion. I'm not talking about something that is sanctioned by the government. I'm not saying this fictitious judge makes the guilty learn Bible verses or whatever. I'm talking an individual displaying a symbol of his faith. Scott says this violates Church and State separation. Fine. But saying this individual cannot display a religious icon seems to violate the judge's freedom of speech and religion.
It seems that a segment of the Christian community sees it this way. Because they cannot lead prayers in schools, post the Ten Commandments in court, display a nativity scene outside City Hall, they feel that their right to free speech, their right of freedom of religion is being abrogated. They feel they are being persecuted.
I think it's fair to say that Christians in many ways are being demonized, perhaps. I mean, in how many movies are Christians the bad guys? "Footloose", "The Apostle", "Rapture", "Leap of Faith", etc.
As mentioned in the letter I quoted awhile back, Christians often cannot express their religious viewpoint without being accused of being intolerant. Not to point fingers, or anger anyone here on these boards, but it has happened here a time or two.
By the way, Scott, please excuse the ignorance of this poor, old, Southern Gentile, but just what the flamin' is a "mezzuzah?
But saying this individual cannot display a religious icon seems to violate the judge's freedom of speech and religion
No. The problem is that the judge actually is two people. One of them is the individual fully protected by the First Amendment. He is also an embodiment of the State when he is in court.
He is perfectly free to display whatever religious icons he chooses in his private office. The courtroom, however, is a public place, and when he sits there, he represents the State, and therefore is held to a higher standard.
Especially since judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
I agree with you on that Scott. But my point is there are a number of Christians who do not, or maybe even cannot see it that way. To them, there was a time when a judge could be a scripture-quotin', God-fearin' man of justice and not worry about any improprieties or separation of C & S. A judge could hold the Bible in his hands and sentence a man and not have to worry about being "politically correct". And again, because things are not that way any more, even if they wish it otherwise, they feel they are being persecuted, singled-out.
I feel that if the judge wore a crucifix on a chain around his neck, it would be okay, but he shouldn't have it displayed on a wall or on his bench in the courtroom. The former would display his personal beliefs; the latter would indicate an official recognition.
If all religious paraphernalia, including that which is worn, were prohibited in a courtroom, then an orthodox Jew (wearing a yarmulke) or an observant Muslim (wearing a turban-not sure what they're called) wouldn't be allowed to work in a courtroom, which would be discrimination. So, wearable religious symbols should be okay.
And Scott, perhaps you could explain why separating church from state is such a good idea.
Why certainly, Peter. May I suggest that you look towards Northern Ireland as a prime example?
Please clean up your own backyard before you start on ours. Thank you.
Oh, geez, I was hoping HE was gone. It was a good discussion until HE came back.
Actually, Anonymous, given his prejudices, and his lack of familiarity with the American First Amendment, Peter is being very civil here this time. You on the other hand just post an unsubstantiated flame and are afraid to sign your name. Whose post is more of an unwarrented intrusion?
Peter, even as I was writing the last post, you had to turn nasty! Oy!
ScottN, Peter has such a different view of the issues and causes of "The Strife" than you do that using it to illustrate your point just confused him.
It is going to be necessary to take him through a history of religion in America to explain the first amendment to him.
Separation of Church and State was not intended to protect the Church form the Government, but to protect the Government from the Church.
Peter:
I disagree with the First Commandment, since it tells me to believe in God. Maybe only post the other 9? More interesting than reading another "Chicken Soup" book, that's for sure. And so much shorter.
A discussion of the value of the First Admendment's guarantee of freedom of religion would take a website all by itself. As "proof" it works, you might note that America is the world's only remaining superpower.
That's a ridiculous proof, as the two almost certainly have nothing in common, but then again the Church of England's existence or non-existence almost certainly has nothing to do with Britain's place in the world. The world's too complex for simple "proofs" like that, unless Peter has extensive empirical data lying about somewhere?
Peter
Perhaps confused was the wrong word.
The fact is that Scott (and most of us Americans) have an understanding of "The Strife" which is, in its own way, as simplistic and naive as yours. We usually understand it to be about the suppression of Catholicism by the Protestant elite backed up by the British army. With such a different point of view, it is understandable that you could not see Scott's point in using it as an example.
The reason that the American "Founding Fathers" wrote the religion clauses of the first amendment, and why we still revere them is because in the colonial days, the Anglicans in Virginia and the Carolinas persecured the Puritans, the Puritans in New England persecuted the Anglicans, and both persecuted the Quakers and the Catholics*. In order to gain any unified sense of purpose, the Federal government needed to be free of even the hint of favoring one religion over the others
*In addition to the more famous "witch" trials and executions, there were also executions of Quakers for "heresey." And mob actions against Catholics
TomM, (2:22 pm) you are correct, sir. And my apologies to the others. I'll stay out of it from now on.
::Juli K.- Why that is quite a metaphysical argument I'm not going to get into(Belief, free will), The focus of my argument is that Christian Doctrine must be drawn from Scripture. An argument denying the existence of Hell would crash against with the central doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. I don't need to explain why central doctrines can't be supplanted.:: Matt Pesti
How many protestant religions actually believe in "Faith alone"?
Amy and Matt Pesti, when I said "Maybe you don't make up what you believe, but you certainly have a choice as to what to believe," I wasn't talking about picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe (although I think most religious people do that to a certain extent), I meant that you have a choice whether or not to believe in Christianity.
TomN, you are another example of the liberal, politically correct fools who rule this board and hope to destroy your country.
That was unnecessary, and childish to boot. As is your continuing flaming. Cut it out. Mike, please do something about this. Might as well take this opportunity to speak up about Brian Webber: though you and I are both atheists, your flaming is not necessary, either.
Disagreement is one thing, but outright insults are completely unwarranted and unwelcome. Rest assured that the noted Christian Phil Farrand, if he should see this, would throw twelve kinds of fits. Hey, maybe Religious Musings will be the next topic deleted for space! [sarcasm]That would be cool![/sarcasm]
Peter-
It is our understanding here in America that I called naive - at least as naive as your view is the way I expressed it because most of the posters here are convinced that you don't know what you are talking about. (Personally, I feel that you have more facts on your side, but that your interpretation of those facts may be a little one-sided.)
I then went on to explain what the naive American view is. My purpose in doing so was so that you would understand why Scott thought it was a good example to illustrate his point.
I freely admit that the issues are broader than that, and that I don't know all the facts, much less how to interpret them.
Likewise, I never said that the first amendment was absolutely necessary to ensure religious tolerance (although there have been those on this board who have so stated). I was just giving the history behind it because you seemed totally confused by the faith placed in it by other posters here. (I do revere it as an historical document; I agree the liberties it expounds are a part of human rights; I recognize that even if I disagree with the way the courts have ruled on some cases appealed on its basis, it is still an important principle; and I realize that the amendment process deliberately makes it difficult to change or repeal it.) But I believe that countries with less formal declarations of the principle can be just as tolerant.
Please read my posts more carefully. I was trying to provide a bridge of understanding between you and the liberal posters If you attack blindly, you deserve the flames you get.
Ack. I should keep my mouth shut, but I just had an hour's worth of amusing quarrelling to watch.
Peter, the reason that so many of us "liberals" wholeheartedly endorse the separation of Church and State is because there is the chance that the State will use the Church to abuse its power. How would you like to be on trial and find out you were convicted because of your beliefs, rather than the facts?
Just because a majority of Americans claim some tenet of Christianity does not mean we need to amend the Constitution. There are quite a few immigrants and Americans who do not claim Christianity as a religion. We should not be forced to, either.
And since Morgan did, I might as well too: Peter, knock off the flames. It's not too much to ask. Same goes for Webber. Especially in defense of Wicca. I cringe every time I see a Wicca-bashing post from Peter, 'cause I just know that you, in your overzealousness, is simply going to hurt the cause more than help it.
I, as a Priestess, can ignore it. You can too.
MPatterson and Matt Pesci: There's no difference between Christians and Mormons. Mormons are Christians. Do not separate the two.
In case anyone is interested, I am a Mormon. If you want to talk about religious persecution, let's take a look at the Mormons (And I'll keep the second "m" in there Matt Pesci)
Mormons get more flak than any other religion. I don't get it. We believe in God. We believe in Jesus Christ. We believe in the Holy Ghost. We believe in the bible. We don't worship the devil. And we do NOT practice polygamy (despite popular belief).
I don't want to go into a big long rant about Mormon beliefs because I have a research paper due tomorrow that I have to finish up; therefore, if you people have any problems with or questions about Mormons, you just tell me and I'll set the record straight.
That is all from your Christ-loving Undesirable Element
See ya later my Mormon-hating friends.
TUE
machiko: I'm sorry. I just don't like it when someone insults people I care about. I mean, insults directed at me, I can ignore fairly easily, but when peter brings people I love into the equation, I become, for lack of a better word, rabid.
Brian, it's really not your place to defend them. If they don't know they're being insulted, then it's really not any different from them not being insulted at all, is it?
TUE: Well, let me check this US News article... (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/001113/mormons.htm).
First thing I can think of offhand is this proxy baptism thing. Why should nonbelieving relatives be retroactively admitted to the church when they made the choice not to be when they were alive? Wouldn't this be dishonoring their wishes?
Brian, I think you'll notice one thing that Peter has not done (yet): Said that your mother is a devil worshipping Satanist who should be shot on sight.
Said that about me, yes. Not your mother. She was never dragged into these equations. Not once.
And that, darling Brian, is why I cringe.
Did anyone say trouble?
Juli K.- Justification by Faith alone holds that salvation is won by faith by the grace of God, without any merit or good works by the elect. Many corruptions of this belief exist in stating that God elects the damned as well as the saved. But the basic belief is even being accepted by Catholics in one form or another.
Any argument on the second point would be trifleing.
UD: First of all, outside of the Darkling, the Abomonable clone, and that Hobbit that stole my ring, we hate no one. I may find your beliefs to be innacurate, incorrect, wrong or laughable. And I certianly find your TV commercials outright ridilcous. Besides any group that voted predominatly for Bush is an ally.
The Non Christian argument is based on the Church of latter day saints rejection of the doctine of Christ's dual nature as human and divine in favor of Arianistic Heresy. The Same goes for the Jehovah's Witness.
And yes I do know polygamy was banned before Utah became a state, and that I would never accuse anyone of breaking the law without proof.
Everyone: Keep in mind that the British view power as flowing from the King, Parlement, and Common Law respectively, and not as inherently with the people and flowing upward as we do.
Ten Commandments: Gee, we wouldn't want a legal document in a courtroom.
Note: Muslims do not wear turbans Sikhs do. They also carry daggers.
The word heresy used in connection with the LDS or with the Jehovah's Witnesses makes me cringe a little. While technically correct, the word reminds me of the execution of Quakers in Massachusetts or the Spanish Inquisition.
I prefer to say that most mainstream Protestant denominations don't accept these sects into the "club" because they reject or change tenets that they deem essential to be members of the "club." Similarly, Roman Catholicism and Seventh Day Adventism are denied membership, even though they accept all the "essential" tenets, because they "add" additional tenets that the Protestants disagree with.
GOOD EVENING FELLOW NITPICKERS! IT IS I! THE EVIL UNDESIRABLE MORMON ELEMENT! I'M HERE TO EAT YOUR CHILDREN, STEAL YOUR MONEY, AND FORCE YOU TO WATCH VOYAGER RERUNS FOR ALL ETERNITY! BWA HA HA!
MPatterson: The "proxy baptism thing" is actually called "baptism for the dead" (I have to admit that this is something I'm not completely clear on but here's what I do know) As you may or may not be aware, the Mormon religion is fairly recent when compared to other religions. As a result, many people, when they were alive, did not know about our church. The "proxy baptism thing" is not forcing them to become Mormon, it only gives them that opportunity if they accept our doctrine after death.
Our religion believes that people make mistakes in life and that if they chose the wrong religion, they should not be made to suffer for all eternity. We believe that you can redeem yourself after death.
That was the extremely abridged verson of this belief, I hope I clarified some things.
Matt Pesci: We are DEFINITELY Christians. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by Arianistic Heresy, but I'm guessing that you're referring to the fact that we believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate people. This belief is supported in the New Testament several times. The Book of Acts refers to Jesus standing on the right hand of God. The Book of Matthew makes a pretty clear statement that Jesus Christ is the son of God. There are others but I'm running out of time and this is getting long. (I also don't have my bible handy which is why I can't name specific verses)
Trust me on this. This has been researched and debated by Mormons and nonMormons alike. Mormons ARE Christians.
FYI: The whole polygamy thing was started because 150 years ago, as the Mormons moved to Utah, the "righteous" Catholics and Protestants took it upon themselves to kill most of the Mormon men. Since women could not get jobs or survive on their own back then, it was necessary for men to have more than one wife. This was done away with once the Mormon killing stopped.
Again, the Undesirable Element is glad to be of assistance.
See ya later.
TUE
Ten Commandments: Gee, we wouldn't want a legal document in a courtroom. How unfortunate that the candidates cannot cite the Commandments in their attempts to become President.
Oh, that's right. The Commandments aren't US legal documents, they are the tenets of a religious faith. Duh.
Our religion believes that people make mistakes in life and that if they chose the wrong religion, they should not be made to suffer for all eternity. We believe that you can redeem yourself after death.
In this case, why is a baptism of a living person even necessary? If they were to "redeem" themselves after death, then shouldn't a loving God, glad to see one of His children return to the fold, forgive the fact that said child has no physical body to baptize?
And I have issues with the redemption thing as well. Unless you want to say that everyone who lived before the Church of Latter-Day Saints was established is going to suffer for all eternity, I'm not sure that this whole concept really holds up. Why should a person that never had a chance to hear what you say is the truth (say, because they lived a thousand years before someone started preaching it) be condemned to eternal damnation? (Or at least, condemned to suffer unless they repent after death?) I reject any and all notions of a God who would do that to a person simply because it was a physical impossibility for them to have been "saved."
I'm guessing that you're referring to the fact that we believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate people.
Well, it seems to me that the point was also made that they were not only three, but one as well. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1). They are both at once. But hey, God gets to do that.
Nice to see a Rational discussion of religion*S* Rational & Religion DO not mix. Matthew's posts are well presented and unoffensive. Freedom Of Religion MUST allow for disbelief as well. I doubt that the people who lived Pre-Christianity, pre-Judaism, and/or believed in their own pantheon of Gods thought they were myths either. Too Bad it took a few Thousand years for Mormons to Discover holy underwear.(HOLY UNDERWEAR BATMAN, SO THAT"S WHY we wear em on the Outside, HUH?) *S* yes TUE, I find modern Religions beliefs even harder to swallow, when it is so much easier to find the truths behind the myths. Best line in " SLEEPER" was when they read from the Holy BOOK, TV GUIDE>>>>> LOL Just because it is old , does not make it gospel, unless of course YOU choose to believe it is.
Peter, you are still not reading what actually write in my posts. I agreed that a country does not need a formal declaration of rights in order for her people to enjoy those rights*. I also said that I do not agree with all of the court decisions that have been made in the name of the first amendment.
Also several months ago, on a different thread, I tried to explain that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) is not the government telling us what freedoms it will allow the people, but the people telling the government some of the freedoms it will not be allowed to abridge. The ninth and tenth amendments specifically reserve the right to add more to the list without the tedious amendment process.
I have tried to keep an open mind about your intentions, but if you continue to "mis-read" my posts, I'll have to conclude that those who believe that you are merely "trolling" rather than attempting to carry on an intellegent discussion are correct.
*By the way, your country does have a "paper trail" of a formal system of deliniating the rights of her subjects, starting with the Magna Carta.
Oh Almost forgot, peter might feel left out if I did not respond to his rantings, GOD bless internet BillBoards!!!!! *S* I do not feel picked on because I am young, but because I express politically incorrect views that conflict with liberal ideas. I don't mind this particularly, and I feel someone has to represent conservatism here, so it may as well be me, as any NORMAL conservative would have been scared away by now.
Peter.
I find it interesting (though hardly surprising) that when I simply throw back a criticism lightheartedly at the critic by saying it is more her sort of thing, I am the one who is attacked.
PETER, Defender of the cowardly conservatives!!!!!!!! Martyr of the misunderstood name calling children. I must laugh when I see you say 'lighthearted', after your previous posts calling me a freak of some sort, & the many other definately UNlighthearted comments. I also do not believe your use of "WE" when attempting to invite me for Intelligent discource, was endorsed by anyone else. I found it humorous that you think you can speak for the board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomN, you are another example of the liberal, politically correct fools who rule this board and hope to destroy your country.
That was really, really insulting. Not just to Tom, but to the rest of us who were not even involved in your discussion.
One day, I led a walkout of "Positive Aspects of Religion" because it had descended into a flamewar.
Speaking only for myself, this is my last post in this thread. Watching Peter and SLUGBUG swap insults, and watching Peter insult everyone I respect and care about, particularly MJ, is no longer on my agenda.
I retract my previous statement. Peter is a troll, by definition. 'nuff said.
Tom's claim that I am an ignorant person simply because Scott and I have different views on terrorism. I do not mind disgreement with my views, but to tell people they only believe something because they are too ?????? to understand the truth is not at all acceptable,
When did I ever say, or even imply this? Nothing I said comes even close! You are deliberately ignoring what I did say and making up your own version of my thoughts -- exactly what you are accusing Machiko of doing.
"...I will not tolerate this from someone who has probably never been to my country..."
The irony is, that you've repeatedly denigrated the United States; probably without having lived here yourself. I have no problem with your love of England and your belief that it is the greatest country in the world. Even if you haven't lived in any other country. I've always lived in the U.S. myself. Usually in the South. I'm satisfied with where I'm at. Living in America suits me fine. However, I do not go around putting down Great Britain, or any other nation for that matter. I haven't the arrogance you've demonstrated time and again to mock and criticize the homeland of others.
"I find it interesting that your opposition to serious debate has led you not only to stop sending messages here..."
You mean like telling TomM he's "...another example of the liberal, politically correct fools who rule this board and hope to destroy your country."? Insulting someone is serious debate? Dragging us off topic (again) is serious debate? Are you serious?
It is increasingly obvious to me, Peter, that you post whatever you can to "get people's goat", to anger them into writing insulting posts to you, so you can play martyr. The attacks, you claim, are against your political leanings. No. Sir. They are against the way you go about expressing your opinions. You've repeatedly chosen words and phrases designed to insult the readers here. I find that unacceptable.
I would happily debate and discuss with you practically anything. You're conservative? So? I have friends at work who are also. My parents are conservative. You're a Christian? I also have friends who are. My parents are, too. Hell, my Dad's a preacher. I could not care less what your religious, political biases are. I doubt anyone else here (Slugbug being the probable exception), care either. We are here to discuss, to debate, to fellowship (to use a Christian phrase) with one another. It is not necessary to insult us.
If you feel a need to respond to me in a smartass manner, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd not do it here. Just e-mail me, and we'll talk. This is not the place for insults. It is not what the Chief Nitpicker, Phil Farrand, wants, and I suspect the rest of us feel the same way.
That freedom has always existed and for the government to grant it is to say that any freedom not included in the Bill of Rights is not as important or does not exist (ie. everything is automatically illegal unless the government says otherwise).
See the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution:
Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Oh, Peter?
I have never read "an Irish-American terrorist pamphlet". My opinions on the conflict come from the news. I believe that a lot of the strife there IS based on the Catholic.vs.Protestant thing. Consider the march of the Orangemen.
I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that either Peter really is the Troll that others have claimed he is, or he is delusional. In either case it is a waste of the limited space available before the board locks up again to continue to respond to him, and a waste of my time as well.
Matthew Patterson: Hoo Boy! You really have something against Mormons don't you? I would like to point out that the things that you are posting here about Mormons are inaccurate.
First of all, I was trying to make the point that we do NOT condemn people for not hearing of the Mormon church during life. This is going to sound corny, but here's how it works after death. Let's say you (MPatterson) die. We believe you go to either heaven or outer darkness. Outer darkness is not hell. Outer darkness is being separated from God for all eternity (a bad concept to be sure).
Now, let's say that you go to outer darkness. (Here's where the corny sounding part comes in). According to our beliefs, missionairies/angels from heaven will come to outer darkness to teach you the concepts of the true church (the LDS faith). If, after being taught the ways of the church, you still refuse to accept it, you will remain in outer darkness. If, however, you choose to accept it, you will go to heaven. Now here's where the Baptism for the dead comes in. To go to heaven, you have to baptized first and the only way to do that is to have someone on earth get baptized for you. Now, if someone on earth baptizes you by proxy, and you don't accept the gospel, then you still remain in outer darkness. End of story.
I know what you going to say. "What if I accept your gospel, but no one gets baptized for me?" That is a very good question and one that I don't know the answer to. I know there IS an answer, I just don't know it. I'm not exactly an expert on every aspect of this.
As for your "Why should I get baptized on Earth if someone can baptize me after I die?" The answer is that if you truly believe in our faith, then you have no reason to wait. You could, but why should you? To avoid some hardships in life? I'm a Mormon and it has not interfered with my life one bit.
I would also like to point out that we are not privy to everything that's going to happen after we die. Some things will remain a mystery.
If this answer does not satisfy your curiosity, you can always go to your nearest LDS church and ask the Bishop. They have a very big policy on not forcing our religion onto others. Just go there and ask. They can definitely give you are more detailed answer than I can.
Now I'm not saying that our religion is definitely correct. There is the possibility that I'm wrong, but there's also the possibility that you're all wrong as well. Hey, they don't call it "faith" for nothing.
That is all from your friendly Undesirable Element.
See ya later
TUE
I've figured it out. The Undesirable Element is Donny Osmond. (Can't get more undesirable than that.) ;-)
Y'miss a week 'cuz you think the board is still down, and what do you get?
Insults, flames, and a Mark Morgan walkout.
Ahh, you guys make me proud.
::MPatterson and Matt Pesci: There's no difference between Christians and Mormons. Mormons are Christians. Do not separate the two.:: TUE
That depends on what you call a Christian. I don't believe in such a simplistic definition of it as most seem to these days.
::Mormons get more flak than any other religion. I don't get it. We believe in God. We believe in Jesus Christ. We believe in the Holy Ghost. We believe in the bible. We don't worship the devil. And we do NOT practice polygamy (despite popular belief).:: TUE
There are some sects of what they themselves call Mormons, that don't believe Christ as Deity. BTW, some do practice polygamy even though it is against the law and it wasn't that many decades ago that it was common, before it was illegal.
::Brian, it's really not your place to defend them. If they don't know they're being insulted, then it's really not any different from them not being insulted at all, is it?:: Matthew Patterson
I rather think of it as a very nice polite gesture in favor of the person being insulted.
::Juli K.- Justification by Faith alone holds that salvation is won by faith by the grace of God, without any merit or good works by the elect. Many corruptions of this belief exist in stating that God elects the damned as well as the saved. But the basic belief is even being accepted by Catholics in one form or another.:: Matt Pesti
Are you aware that that which you call a corruption is actually a very old belief in very early original Calvinism?
::We believe that you can redeem yourself after death. That was the extremely abridged version of this belief, I hope I clarified some things.:: TUE
How do you figure that can be true when the Bible says it is appointed for man to die once and then there is judgement? That doesn't leave any space for anything else. BTW, when the Bible says things like "at the right hand of God" and that Jesus was the son of God, that's not separate individuals exactly really, it's 3 personalities in one mind.
::Minorities have rights, and they are very important, but so do majorities, and it is time we looked at helping them again.:: Peter
If majorities needed help they would soon no longer be a majority.
::Slugbug, as usual your "deliberate" writing style based on capital letters everywhere and no indication of the end of a sentence has made understanding your message very difficult. You have rarely made a serious point, but just in case you have this time, please rephrase it.:: Peter
Why do you have such trouble understanding statements when no one else here seems to do so as well?
::and I will not tolerate this from someone who has probably never been to my country and who probably could not name the last Prime Minister.:: Peter
Peter, since you hold this idea, I will thank you never to say a bad thing about America until you can understand the idea of the American type of democracy and name at least half the presidents of our country.
::And as for this idea that rights may exist even if the government does not write them down for you, let me ask you why only some are written down then. The fact is that once we give the government power to tell us what we can do, they can soon begin to ban anything that is not written down. You admit yourself that the rights granted by the BOR are harder for the government to take than other rights, so already your country has not simple freedom, but government approved freedom, and non-approved freedom. Again I say that something should be allowed unless it is illegal, and as the Bill of Rights declares nothing new (it did not legalise anything) it serves no purpose other than to allow vicious governments to ration freedom.:: Peter
See, you don't understand the way American democracy works.
TUE, so, what you're saying is that Mormons don't believe in Hell? BTW, I like Donny Osmond.
Juli, my comments were based on Tom's claim that I am an ignorant person simply because Scott and I have different views on terrorism.
That doesn't explain why it was necessary to call the rest of us "the liberal, politically correct fools who rule this board and hope to destroy your country."
I claimed you were ignorant about your country!?! I claimed that? When!? Time and date, please. Because I absolutely do not remember making that statement. I know I never made such a statement.
I've noticed Peter, that you have a very bad habit of completely and totally misunderstanding and mis-reading many of the posts here. Apparently if it isn't written in "the Queen's English", it goes completely over your head. You're also in the habit of misrepresenting and misquoting the words of others on these boards. I personally find that to be very annoying.
No wonder Morgan walked. I'm starting to get tempted to do so meself.
I still do not see how having an established church makes any difference at all to terrorism
Where did terrorism come into this? I simply said that as far as I could tell, the violence in Northern Ireland was sectarian, and I thought it was because of an official state religion. I didn't say ANYTHING about terrorism.
For other instances where an official state religion might be considered bad, (WARNING - POSSIBLE OFFENSE TO MUSLIMS) I direct your attention to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Another way to provide separate church and state, and this one comes from the New Testament...
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"
N.B. I may have the quote incorrect.
This can easily be interpreted as meaning there is a temporal realm, which belongs to Caesar, and a spiritual realm, which belongs to G-d. Therefore, the state should not meddle in the spiritual realm.
Whoops! Lost the last line to that.
Therefore the state..., and vice versa.
I've always interpreted that verse, in part, as a biblical endorsement of the separation of church and state.
It's easy for Peter to condone a state religion when his is the predominant faith. I imagine he'd feel very different were that not the situation. And I'm sure he'll deny that, but I'm much too cynical to believe him.
"You said that my views were as naive as yours and then went through a lot of propaganda about the British army suppressing Catholicism. This apparently is equally naive as my beliefs about my country."
I did not say that. That was TomM who is alleged by you to have said that. I have yet to use the naive as a description of you. At this point I think I'd use a few words that Mr. Farrand will not allow on this board to describe you. But not naive.
Please do not falsely attribute to me statements I have not and do not make. I have a strong aversion to such dishonesty.
This is getting ridiculous. I did not call you an ignorant liar., sir. I said I was too cynical to believe you. In other words, in that particular instance, I would doubt the sincerity of your words. That doesn't make you a liar. It means you've made a false statement. Whether you are in the habit of telling lies is another matter.
As I've said, that is, in part, how I interpret that verse. The fact that we view it in differing ways indicates how vaguely and imprecisely the Bible was written.
"...just because Americans tend to persecute people as soon as a state religion is introduced doesn't mean we all do."
Seeing as we've never had a state religion, I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that "Americans tend to persecute people" under such circumstances. Do you know something I don't?
"In America, separating the Church and State may be the only way to prevent all the horrors you have talked about. Britain has proved that this is not the case everywhere."
I'm willing to bet that the British with their classism, tend be more subtle in their persecution. Looking down upon those who are not of "the right religion".
Ach, Peter is the one who, in the past, has suggested I be the one killed by drowning or stoning or pressing or whatever other method was used in Salem, and he thinks that I'm making him out to be a witch-murderer?
Oh, woe is Peter, the poor little martyr. How I feel your pain and your agony. How cruel the world is to not tolerate your bigotry and hatred! How ruthless the Americans, to insist on polite and civil behaviour!
Alas, but such disrespect for the board patrons in general make me want to follow Morgan right out the door. At least Mike gave this board an appropriate title.
Laters...
Actually, the title was my suggestion. Little did I know...
Benn-
Not only has Peter turned my words on their head in order to feel insulted and thus write a flaming response, but now that I'm no longer going to respond to his taunts, he now attributes those twisted words to you. Again I say, he is either a Troll who does not care for an intellegent conversation or he is delusional and is responding to "voices" of his own. Either way, to continue to respond is pointless.
See? Proof I never said you were ignorant about your country, Peter.
I agree with you, Tom. Unlike Mark Morgan, I'm not going to walk out. If I skip comic strips I don't like in the paper, I can skip Peter's postings. Anyone can. We know his pattern, so why waste time reading and responding to him any longer? I won't.
Mark, I hope you'll reconsider and come back. And MJ I hope you'll stay also. There are people here who enjoy your presences here.
I'm sure Peter will attribute my boycott of him to his "conservative viewpoint" and expects others to cry for the poor martyr. I've said this before, others have said it, it is not what you say, but how you say it. But I'm sure you'll ignore it once again.
Mark, I have not insulted Machiko at all. I just don't see why I should pretend her lies are true.
Calling someone's beliefs "lies" is an insult. So is wishing death on women who've had abortions. (Yes, you did say that.) Maybe one day you'll realize this.
Meanwhile, to TUE, whose post is too far up there for me to really want to scroll up and quote: Okay, I think I see what you're saying. Really, it doesn't sound any odder to me than anything else. (See Catholic transubstantiation. I think I got that word right.) I do have another question, though: What's the deal with dorr-to-door evangelism? There was a sidebar in that US News article about Mormon evangelism in Japan, of all places. Can you explain to me why it's believed that this is necessary?
I don't suppose there's any chance we could get back on topic? Any at all? Pretty please?
::I believe the quote is simply saying that loyalty to the ruler is important, and conflicts between God and Caesar were not always necessary.:: Peter
OMG, that is so foreign to what that means in context. BTW, everyone, didn't I say Peter would be this way we have witnessed? I have always said, you can't always trust the young'uns to be not full of dung.
Just to clarify I haven't (and I never have) stopped posting to Religious Musings altogether.
But if there's discussion in this thread, I've missed it. Except for the Mormonism thing, about which I have nothing to say.
Peter, you don't understand what intolerance is if you think "Your views are fine, but the fact that you express them uncaringly is bad" is a bad thing. On the other hand, maybe you typify it.
Oh yeah, and your spelling of "intelligent" was wrong. I think that speaks for itself.
This from the boy who won't use the spell-checker. People aren't perfect he says.
I have never wished death on any innocent person, and you really disgust me at times by how low you will sink.
Citing evidence is now sinking low? My, my, what an odd world you live in. Let me refresh your memory. Over on Political Musings. The late-term abortion board. Wes Collins mentioned that his mother had had at least one abortion before he was born. You reponded with something to the effect of, "She deserves the same fate she wished for her children." (Note that that is NOT a direct quote, as the message in question has been deleted.) If you cannot see why this is wrong, I feel nothing but pity for you.
I also don't remember saying that good things came out of the Holocaust. What I do remember saying is that not one thing in this world is black and white, no matter how we might wish it to be. If you can find substantiated evidence that says I said something different, feel free to post it here. I, unlike some people, am open to correction.
What way? Come on, what the hell have I done? I have done nothing to deserve this sort of treatment. What do you mean by "this way"?
Peter, do you honestly believe that you're as pure as the driven snow when it comes to Nitcentral? If so, then why haven't you told Phil that you feel your PM ban is unjust?
I suggest you read one of Mr. Benn's earlier statements
in greater detail than you apparently did.
I wish Discus had a built in fire suppression system.
And why should it be wrong to be happy about something positive that happens? Mourn the passing of old life, yes, but seize the joy of the new when it is given you!
Anyway, it's increasingly obvious that trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is useless, as you seem to have some sort of psychological block against admitting that you could possibly wrong. Therefore, I respectfully encourage everyone else to get back on the topic (whatever it was), and continue with whatever discussion we may find there, without recourse to flaming or wild accusations. (And while we're at it, let's continue the Mormon thing. I've actually learned something from it. Education should be protected.)
Anyone who still thinks it is possible to carry on a fruitful discussion with Peter:
Below is a verbatim transcript of the relevant portions of the "conversation" above in which I started out trying to build a bridge between Peter and the rest of the board, only to realize that Peter is only interested in flaming anyone who answers one of his posts
The fact is that Scott (and most of us Americans) have an understanding of "The Strife" which is, in its own way, as simplistic and naive as yours. We usually understand it to be about the suppression of Catholicism by the Protestant elite backed up by the British army. With such a different point of view, it is understandable that you could not see Scott's point in using it as an example.
How dare you suggest that Irish-American terrorist propaganda is comparable to my "naive" view formed by reading and finding out about my country's politics? I will never tolerate appeasement of evil and of crime, and if you believe anyone who thinks the same way is naive then I really do pity you because anyone so spineless will not deserve or receive justice or happiness.
It is our understanding here in America that I called naive - at least as naive as your view is the way I expressed it because most of the posters here are convinced that you don't know what you are talking about. (Personally, I feel that you have more facts on your side, but that your interpretation of those facts may be a little one-sided.)
I freely admit that the issues are broader than that, and that I don't know all the facts, much less how to interpret them.
---------
Peter, you are still not reading what actually write in my posts.
I have tried to keep an open mind about your intentions, but if you continue to "mis-read" my posts, I'll have to conclude that those who believe that you are merely "trolling" rather than attempting to carry on an intelligent discussion are correct.
Tom's claim that I am an ignorant person simply because Scott and I have different views on terrorism. I do not mind disagreement with my views, but to tell people they only believe something because they are too ?????? to understand the truth is not at all acceptable,
When did I ever say, or even imply this? Nothing I said comes even close! You are deliberately ignoring what I did say and making up your own version of my thoughts -- exactly what you are accusing Machiko of doing.
You said my view was as naive as the view formed by reading terrorist propaganda
I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that either Peter really is the Troll that others have claimed he is, or he is delusional.
Again, what you say is completely over the top. Your words were exactly how I described them, I just got the person who said them wrong. The idea that those who disagree with your views must somehow be sick in the head is exactly the sort of thing I am always talking about, Tom.
What am I supposed to think when someone's responses show that he did not or would not understand what I stated clearly*. I could only think of two possible explanations for such a disconnect, and I gave out both, without giving greater weight to either. Actually there is a third possibility, which I considered but discounted, perhaps too hastily: that Peter simply does not understand the English language.
*Also in all the posts where he addressed me, not once did he even bother to get my name right.
You noticed. Peter consistently referred to him as TomN, not TomM. Then hypocritically attacks Tom for mis-spelling "intelligent". Yet Peter stated that he does not use the spell-checker and that mis-spelling words is not an indication of intelligence.
I foolishly got into this when I took exceptions to Peter becoming angry with what he felt was Tom's attack on Great Britain. Yet Peter has taken many opportunities to make disparaging remarks about America. While he will not "tolerate" negative comments about England, we must sit back and take whatever insults he chooses to make about the U.S. Again, hypocritical.
"...the liberal, politically correct fools who rule this board and hope to destroy your country."
The phrase that truly started it all. You do not know any of us well enough to make such accusations, sir. This is exactly what is meant by "it's not what you say, but how you say it". This has nothing to do with "political correctness". That was a rude and mean-spirited statement. Period. What's worse is the statement was directed at someone who was trying to defend you, to make peace with you. And you attacked him. But that wasn't enough. You also had to blindly attack all of us. This, as far as I'm concerned was the first stone thrown, sir. Please, if I've attacked you prior to that, I'd like to know.
"You point out a time when I have been wrong and I will admit to it."
Well, Nomad, you mistook me for TomM and attacked me for his words. You did not discover your mistake. That's two errors. You repeated your misidentification. That's three errors. Once the error was pointed out and proven to you, you still had to insult me by saying I called you an "ignorant liar". I said no such thing. I said, "It's easy for Peter to condone a state religion when his is the predominant faith. I imagine he'd feel very different were that not the situation. And I'm sure he'll deny that, but I'm much too cynical to believe him." That is one instance where, even if you say otherwise now, if confronted with the real thing, you'd change your tune very quickly. You'd find it much to your dislike. To you the statement is tantamount to calling you an "ignorant liar".
You can hide behind the "politically incorrect" defense all you want. I have read many conservative writings in my days (George F. Will, Mona Charen). I may disagree with them, but seldom have I felt personally attacked by them. And kiddo, your attacks have been personal, not philosophical. You can pretend otherwise all you want.
Again you are putting words into my mouth. You were discussing terrorism with ScottN and TomM. Not me.
If you want to believe I'm calling you a liar. Fine. So be it. However, please note that was not my intent and if you took it to be so, I apologize. Please note also, that I don't think that because somebody tells one lie, they are a liar. A liar is someone who engages in a pattern of falsifying information. I'm not sure you do that. You do seem to consistently misread posts and falsely attribute statements to the wrong person. I don't know that you do these things on purpose. My intent was that if you thought you'd be comfortable living as a religious minority, you'd be deceiving yourself. Obviously, I blew it.
Trust me, kid, if I wanna call you a liar, I've got the cajones to do so, bluntly and blatantly. To your face. Any time, anywhere. But I do not think that of you. (I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here.)
Okay, instead of saying you've "attacked" America, let's say you've been highly negative in your appraisal of it, and seemingly unable to accept a similar appraisal of England. I may be wrong, but this is the perception you project; to me at any rate.
And once again, I put the phrase Greatest Country In the World in quotation marks. This should have indicated to you that I was using someone else's words. I live here. I like it here. I'm well aware of how screwed up this nation is. But still, I'm satisfied living here. By the best evidence we have here (media-filtered though it is), we are one of, if not the last, great super-power among nations. We are repeatedly told that other nations look to us for leadership. How true that is, I don't know. Regrettably I've not traveled outside the U.S. (I'm just a poor boy.) But when you are shown celebrities, dignitaries and even common peoples of various foreign nation praise your homeland, you can't help but think perhaps, if we are not the greatest nation in the world (currently), then certainly, one of the greatest.
Seeing as you detest the original (one, true) STAR TREK, I kinda figured that this reference would slip by you. I'm refering to the episode "The Changeling" (one of my favorites). Nomad was an Earth probe that got "lost in space", collided with another probe and emerged somehow as a super-machine bent on destroying imperfect life-forms. Nomad mistakes Captain Kirk for its Earth creator, one Jackson Roy-Kirk. Captain Kirk starts a litany of the errors it made in an attept to fry its computer chips and get it to self-destruct.
I am perfectly willing to drop the matter, forgive and forget, but I respectfully ask that you more carefully consider your words and phrases here. You do not realize how offensive you can be. I have in the past brought forth opinions that are not in agreement with the majority here and I have never, to the best of recollection, received the harsh treatment you have.
Another fun little board that is gradually going the way of the Macarena, Yahoo Serious, Ted McGinley, and post-Crisis DC Comics.
Let's see here...
This board is about Religious Intolerance, a true and very difficult and interesting topic. It is NOT about:
(1). The horrors of political correctness
(2). Peter
(3). How crazy people are for not agreeing with Peter
(4). How crazy Peter is
(5). Flame wars in any shape and form
Let me weigh in. I believe in a separation of church and state. Aside from the kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament, there is no sign of any (earthly) theocracy in the Bible. My belief is that a person should conduct his life according to the precepts and commands of Jesus, not because the government tells him to do so. The "give to Caesar" thing can be interpreted many different ways--separation of church and state, respect rulers, but I also interpret it to "Don't get caught up in silly details." Thank you.
Jwb52z: Mormons do not believe in hell in the way that other religions do. We don't believe you go to some punishment place where they torture you and do bad things to you. How can one feel pain if one does not have a body to experience such pain in??
Perhaps I should clarify our beliefs of what happens after death. There are actually two places to go: Heaven and Outer Darkness. Heaven is subdivided into three other levels: The Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestial Kingdoms. If you believe in God and live a righteous life and all that stuff, you go to the Celestial kingdom (the highest one) to be with God. If you're not a Mormon and still live a good life, you go to the Telestial kingdom (the "not so bad" kingdom) If you don't believe in God, you weren't really a good person and you have done some evil things, you go to the terrestial kingdom (the lowest one, but you're still in heaven). Now, if you do really bad bad bad things, (cold-blooded murder, mass murder, etc.) you go to outer darkness. You can still be redeemed, but it's going to take a lot of work.
I know this is different from what others believe. I'm not trying to convert anyone. What I'm trying to do is to keep people from saying that Mormons are evil and are not Christians (I can not emphasize enough that we are DEFINITELY Christians).
FYI: There ARE people who have broken away from the church to practice polygamy on their own. Our church does NOT support them and considers their practices to be a sinful.
Again, I KNOW you think my religion is wrong. I think yours is too, but I respect your beliefs and would hope that you can respect mine as well.
This is all from the Undesirable Element
See ya later
TUE
::If I do not use that language, I will be attacked, but if I do talk about "a right to choose" I will automatically have conceded that the mother has a right to choose to kill her children.:: Peter
You wouldn't if you simply said, "I do not believe it is a choice a person should have." and the let it drop.
::If you tell someone you will not believe them if they give a certain answer then you are calling them a liar.:: Peter
No, sorry, wrong again. Just because I may doubt your sincerity or truthfulness, does NOT mean that I automatically think you are lying. Doubt does not equal what you think.
MikeC, I think that those examples you list illustrate what religious and philosophical intolerance is all about, really.
::Jwb52z: Mormons do not believe in hell in the way that other religions do. We don't believe you go to some punishment place where they torture you and do bad things to you. How can one feel pain if one does not have a body to experience such pain in??:: TUE
I thought that the Bible made it pretty clear in the descriptions of Hell that God would make it where your spiritual form would do work in that situation, or the punishment would be meaningless. BTW, can you see why you're sect is not seen as "Christian?"
I don't see why Mormons aren't Christians. I thought the technical definition of "Christian" is one who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Nothing that TUE said has stated otherwise. They just have different beliefs in some aspects of Christianity. I can live with that.
Margie, I guess I really do live on an "island" of belief. I come from a background where you had to believe exact specific things to be a real Christian. That's all I was meaning by the quotation marks.
Jwb52z: No, I do NOT see why I'm not a Christian.
What exactly is your way of classifying Christians? Who came up with this classification system?
I know my descriptions of Mormon beliefs have have been somewhat incomplete. I'm really making things simple here. Our beliefs in what happens after we die are EXTREMELY complicated. It would take hours of typing to give you an adequate discription.
I am far from an expert on every Mormon belief. I'm still learning. That's why I go to Bible study. Knowledge is power. There is a reason for everything we believe in. I'm still learning because the Bible is rather large. While I'm glad that you want to know the truth about my religion, your questions are getting very specific and would take a lot of explaining.
But as I said previously, whether my religion is right or not is not an issue here. It's why are people constantly being intolerant of our beliefs? Why can't people just accept that we believe what we believe and move on.
And again I state: MORMONS *ARE* CHRISTIANS!!
That is all from the Undesirable Element who is in no way related to Donny Osmond.
See ya later
TUE
TUE-
I believe that my post on this point got lost in the midst of that other hub-bub, but as I said, there is a segment of "mainstream" Protestantism (mainly, but not exclusively the fundamentalists, and the evangelicals) that define "Christianity" very narrowly, and many denominations are excluded as "heretical" or "cults."
My beliefs happen to fall safely within their definition of Christianity, but I grew up in a denomination (Roman Catholicism) that is often excluded and I know many still in that faith who are as devout and sincere in their Christianity as any evangelical.
If you are making the distinction in order to discuss the differences, that is one thing, and even then I would prefer that a qualifying descriptor be added ("traditional Christianity," "Protestant Christianity," "orthodox Christianity," etc.). But if you are making the distinction just to insult those that fall outside the definition, then it is pointless and mean-spirited
Established Church- Sweden has an established church, The Lutheran Church of Sweden. The Swedish paralement controls its doctine, beliefs, hymnals, appointment of bishops and and even prayer books. In other words if the Parlement says the Church must say "Homosexual marrige is fine" the church says it. Also everyone is born into the church and cannot get out. The moral? Swedes are the least religous group of people in the world.
Lessons: An established church does not mean Iran.
It does not guarratee an even religous population. And that it seperation of church and state is to keep the church from the machinations of people like the Clintons, and other members of the Swede like cultural elite, who hate the fact we are as religous as India.
10 commandamants: They are still a legal code. In the ancient world culture and religion were one. This is why Hinduism isn't found much outside India or why Judaism never really looked for converts. We have Roman law and Common law. I do belive both of those have quite a lot of religous refernces.
Undesirable Element: My grounds for Christian are acceptance of the Doctine of the Trinity, and acceptance of Christ's dual nature as True God And True Man. Not as a human without sin, not as an absorbed being, not as an archangel in human form, not as God's greatest creation, not as a emmisary of the forces of Good.
But I go by acceptance of the three creeds.
The three creeds
(shrugs)
I'm no theological expert or even a Bible expert, but this is what I believe. First of all, there are obvious differences between the various denominations and sects of the Christian church today. You can't deny that, and you haven't. In my opinion, some of the Mormon church's beliefs do not appear to be biblical (the three Heaven kingdoms, for instance). Some of the Catholic church's beliefs do not appear to be biblical (the sanctity of the priesthood).
But what Christianity itself basically boils down to is this:
A person believes that they are a sinner. They believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God, lived and died on the cross for his/her sins, and has risen again. They accept Christ as Savior, and say so in their heart and in their life.
As I said, I don't really know much about the Mormon church or the Catholic church or whatever. I have a few issues with some of their doctrines. I believe, however, if a person (no matter what particular church they attend) believes the above things, that person is a Christian.
Concerning Peter's new leaf...
For he is an Englishman!
For he himself has said it...
And it's... um... actuallyt, I'm from Scotland... (gulp)...
Peter:Orangemen have every right to celebrate this, and I find it amusing that someone who no doubt supports not only
Independence day marches, but also warped gay rights parades and the riots in Los Angeles when that filthy criminal was
beaten up does not support a simple march in celebration of a nation's freedom.
From someone in the same country as you Peter the difference between the Orangemen walks and the others is that the Orangemen seem to want to deliberately provoke people by marching where they are not wanted...case in point is the mainly Catholic Galvackey (sp?) Road where each year the Orangemen insist on going down it despite it being told not to. Yes, they have the freedom to march, but why provoke skirmishes when there are other routes available? Surely it would be in their interest to march elsewhere and keep the peace. I for one bet that they wouldn't like a Catholic march going down a mainly Prodestant area.
I do not see myself as either Catholic or Prodestant which is maybe why I'm able to see the above claim while the Orangemen can't....but it does seem rather obvious to me. I personally see it as the Orangemen do not have any respect for the Catholic religion and are basically saying "Your Wrong we're Right! Nyanyananyanya" and only aggrivating this message by going where they are asked not to go.
Matt-
Although I trust that you already know that I did not intend to imply that you are being pointless and mean-spirited, that you further know I realize that you are expressing the distinctions of your Christianity in order to compare it to other philosophies that we all might learn from one another, and although I realize that you are not someone who sees personal attacks in statements that aren't worded exactly as he expects to see them, I feel I should point out that I enjoy your point of view.
I've known and often recited the first two creeds, but must admit that the third one is new to me. I'll have to read it again in depth.
Man. Way too many posts for me to bother ctaching up. I just don't have the time. Could someone explain to me, in a nutshell, what happened on the days of December 1st and 2nd? One thing I did catch on to however, Peter is still a stubborn jack-ass, who thinks that anyone who isn't;
1: British
2: Christian
3: Anti-choice
4: Pro-death penalty
5: Homophobic
is evil. Of course, so are people who watch TV and chew gum.
Peter is a zealot. Nothing ANY of us says will EVER get to him. I saw we give up on him, and just pop in the DVD of And Now For Something Completely Different, make some popcorn, season it with hungarian paprika, and enjoy ourselves.
Brian--
Peter has gotten to the point where any post directed at him, even one that does not disagree, is considered a personal attack. We've basically given up (at least I have)
The rest of the thread has been an attempt to begin a discussion of whether Mormonism and other non-mainstream Protestant denominations are Christian. "The Undesirable Element" who is Mormon says yes; the conservatives like Matt Pesti and Jwb52z say no, and someone raised the word heresy. I tend to be conservative but the "H" word raises (at least in my mind) visions of the Spanish Inquisition, so I prefer to focus on the differences only in a friendly and informative setting, such as this.
Now you're just about all caught up, except for the experience of enjoying the original discussion.
Heaven is subdivided into three other levels: The Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestial Kingdoms. If you believe in God and live a righteous life and all that stuff, you go to the Celestial kingdom (the highest one) to be with God. If you're not a Mormon and still live a good life, you go to the Telestial kingdom (the "not so bad" kingdom) If you don't believe in God, you weren't really a good person and you have done some evil things, you go to the terrestial kingdom (the lowest one, but you're still in heaven).
I think I get it now. Although, if you don't mind me saying so, it reminds me of Dante's circles of Hell, if somewhat inverted. And it doesn't really sound too Biblical to me. Could you possibly provide some references for me?
I believe that my post on this point got lost in the midst of that other hub-bub, but as I said, there is a segment of "mainstream" Protestantism (mainly, but not exclusively the fundamentalists, and the evangelicals) that define "Christianity" very narrowly, and many denominations are excluded as "heretical" or "cults."
This is unfortunately correct. See http://www.exposingsatanism.org for details on one such group. (Sample belief of theirs: Harry Potter's scar is actually the symbol of the SS, the Nazi secret police, therefore Harry Potter books are Satanic.)
"Dear Diary: Day 4 of campaign to get boards back on topic. Seem to be succeeding, but rather slowly. Still bothered by random personal attacks on people by certain other people. Mormon thing is interesting. Exposingsatanism.org is a scary monument to one group's massive free time. Talk tomorrow!"
BTW, MikeC, that Authentication Error is messing up the Last Day listing. Might want to delete it.
Huh. I always thought that Celestial Heaven was the lowest level. Someone told me wrong...
Onwards. I ignore Peter's pitiful posts, because he enjoys playing the martyr, and I'm just contrary enough to not indulge his immature self.
Therefore, I ask why it is that anyone who believes in essentially the same diety cannot rightfully call themselves Christian.
To me, that's like saying that anyone who does not believe in the Mother Goddess but does believe in the Divine Universe and the sacred bond we have with the Earth cannot call themselves Pagan.
That didn't make sense. Oh, I don't care!
Blah. That's me.
Here is a short view on how I understand the Differences in the Major religion's of Christianity. First off is Judaism, they believe in the Old Testament, and other ancient books. They are called the Chosen. They Do not believe in Christ's divinity, but most other Major Religions accept the Old Testament as Gospel. The new Testament is God's "new Rules', for some reason , 'The Chosen Ones" need not follow the new rules as laid down by Jesus Christ, himself a Jew. Muslims seem to accept the Old and new Testaments Mostly, while also calling Jesus a Prophet, and not the Son of God. The Muslims have the Koran, which is the books of Mohammed, another Prophet in their view. He has many more Rules to Follow, not only for spiritual beliefs, but also for Government, relationships between the sexes, personal hygiene and more. Catholics, or the holy Roman Church, kind of deifies their priesthood and names The Pope as God's personal Spokesperson here on Earth. King henry VIII disliked some of the Catholic Churches Doctrines so he invented the Church Of England, or Protestants. Christians who protest Catholocism.Lotsa other interpretations of the BIBLE, old & new testaments, have created even more schisms among Christians, giving birth to Lutherans, Baptists, various other denominations and Cults. In the 19th Century, John Smith wrote a new Book of Jesus Christ on Earth, the Book of Mormon. Based partly on Visions and on some Gold Plates he had Received, or found. In his writings he Explains how Jesus Christ appeared in North America to the Native Americans. He also has a Whole new set of rules to follow. Lotsa similarities to the Masons, which he was a member, in the secret rituals, holy garments, handshakes, etc. BUT, all these religions WORSHIP the same GOD. Mostly they Disagree on HOW to HONOR the Creator. The 7th day Adventists and The Jehovah Witnesses also believe in this GOD, but they seem to focus on DOOMSDAY. I know this is a gross simplification, & probably has a few errors, I guess my Point is, Fighting over whose God is Right is kind of Ridiculous when it is all the Same One.
Yeah, I'll delete that.
You could argue that all the various Christian sects worship the same God, and you could probably be right. BUT I feel that is too much of an over-simplification. You could technically put up a case that Jews and Muslims worship the Christian God. They would take offense to this.
For the record, I believe that a Christian is what I said above: a person that accepts Jesus Christ as Savior from their sins, and he believes that He died and rose again. However, I believe that a Christian should follow the precepts of Christ from the Bible, and not the traditions of man. This is why I question some of the Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic practices. I can't really question their salvation--if you believe what I said above, I think you are a Christian. However, I can and do question some of these practices, which I find to be somewhat unbiblical in thinking.
Mike, it sounds like there should be a Mormonism thread. There's certainly enough interest in it.
why Judaism never really looked for converts
Judaism doesn't "really look for converts" because evangelism is not part of our faith and tradition. My understanding of the issue is several decades old, and I don't remember the specifics... If anyone out there (Shira/Kira, please come out of the woodwork for five minutes!) can help me, I'd appreciate this.
MPatterson: I cannot provide references for you because these references appear in the Book of Mormon. For us, the book of Mormon is as valid as the Bible. Contrary to popular belief, the Book of Mormon does not replace the bible, it adds on to it. We believe that anything that is found in the Book of Mormon is just as important as anything found in the Bible.
MikeC: What "traditions of man" do we follow? I can't think of any offhand.
SLUGBUG: His name was Joseph Smith not John Smith. (John Smith was the guy from Pocahontas) God told Joseph Smith where to find these plates and he did. With God helping him to translate, he rewrote the plates in English. This became the Book of Mormon.
MYTH: Mormons worship Joseph Smith.
FACT: Mormons see Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. We view him the way a Catholic would view Moses or maybe the Pope. (I'm not sure how the Catholics view the Pope so maybe that's a poor comparison.)
If it interests anyone, you can read about the discovery of the Gold Plates in Joseph Smith's own words in the back of the Book of Mormon. Someone also put it on the internet,here is the address:
http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1
That is all from the Undesirable Element
See ya later
TUE
The traditions of man thing was more of a reference to the Catholic church than the Mormon church, which I know (sadly) little about. The Catholic church has a lot of stuff that I don't really get, like purgatory, limbo, baptism required for salvation, the priesthood thing, confession, etc.
The basic query I have about the Mormon church is the whole Book of Mormon itself. I can see little reference to it in the Bible, and some of the stuff it appears to be describing does not appear to be in the Bible. That is why I think a lot of Christians feel that Mormonism is different than the other Christian denominations/sects. (Not intended as an insult, just an explanation)
I cannot provide references for you because these references appear in the Book of Mormon.
Try me. I think there's a copy somewhere around the house.
::Jwb52z: No, I do NOT see why I'm not a Christian. What exactly is your way of classifying Christians? Who came up with this classification system?:: TUE
I don't mean to intentionally offend people, like Peter seems to, but anyway, I think that certain things are essential to being a Christian, one of which is believing in things that the Bible mentions as existing when it is not being figurative. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned any place called "Outer Darkness" and the Bible does say that adding anything to its contents is wrong. I believe God/Christ came up with the classification through His teachings on earth and through the Bible.
::If I moved to the US for a year I would not enjoy the celebrations of Independence day, but I would not expect everyone to stop just because I don't like them.:: Peter
You wouldn't enjoy an excuse to have a party and fireworks?
::MPatterson: I cannot provide references for you because these references appear in the Book of Mormon. For us, the book of Mormon is as valid as the Bible. Contrary to popular belief, the Book of Mormon does not replace the bible, it adds on to it. We believe that anything that is found in the Book of Mormon is just as important as anything found in the Bible.:: TUE
The Bible itself says that adding to what is in it is wrong. How does your sect rationalize this away?
::baptism required for salvation:: MikeC
Wait a cotton picking minute.....you don't get THIS? Now I'm totally confuzzled.
I understand the sentiment behind it, but there's nowhere in the Bible that says baptism is essential for salvation. It is something that believers should do, it says, but doing it does not "earn" salvation.
"I would have thought the Jewish tradition is based mainly on the belief of a select group that they are God's people, and that means others cannot join them because they are not born Jewish. If you believe you are spiritually better than others you don't go looking for inferiors. If only the Christian church were as protective of its beliefs."
Actually, there have been Jewish converts. The late Sammy Davis, Jr. certainly was one.
The Bible I believe also says something to the effect of going into all the world to preach the gospel. By all evidence, Jesus tended to be quite inclusive regarding who could be saved. Your desire for "the Church (to be more) protective of its beliefs", strikes me as both non-Biblical and unChrist-like.
The verse you refer to here and on the next page Jwb, is in Revelations, I believe. I think it warns against adding and subtracting from "these prophecies", which has often made me think it referred to the book of Revelations only. Besides, given that the Bible has been edited and rewritten over the years, and books added and subtracted from it, I'd think any admonishments against changing would be kinda wasted.
The apostle Paul and disciple Peter had a debate over whether it was necessary for Gentiles to go through the Judaic rites in order to become Christians. The logic, on Peter's (the saint, not our resident Brit) part, was that Christianity was a cult derived from Judaism. It's founder (Jesus), went through all the rituals (but then, Jesus was Jewish), therefore all converts to "The Way" (as it was originally known) should, too. Paul obviously thought differently, thus opening the doors to anyone who wished to enter.
(Kinda scary that an atheist like me knows that much about the Bible, eh?)
::I understand the sentiment behind it, but there's nowhere in the Bible that says baptism is essential for salvation. It is something that believers should do, it says, but doing it does not "earn" salvation.:: MikeC
The Bible says that Baptism is for the remission of sins, so that logically means that if you haven't then you haven't had them remitted. I don't understand this "should" business. God doesn't "usually" make the habit in the Bible of making "options" for his commandments and orders of people. Notice, I don't know how to make something italics, so that was supposed to have been sarcasm with "usually."
::The Bible I believe also says something to the effect of going into all the world to preach the gospel.:: Benn
People who think that "The Great Commission" in the Bible was not completed and that's why they take this to be still applicable to humans in the form of those missionary groups. God's commandment of that was accomplished at the time because the Apostles went everywhere he wanted them to go to preach and do works. I'm not saying that people shouldn't evangelize, but I am saying that that is not a direct command for humanity today. It is merely an inference of an example to teach others.
::Besides, given that the Bible has been edited and rewritten over the years, and books added and subtracted from it, I'd think any admonishments against changing would be kinda wasted.:: Benn
That's only true if you believe God would let it become a form in which it would not be true anymore. BTW, there's a difference between deliberate change for deceit and mistranslation and translation into different languages in the first place.
::The apostle Paul and disciple Peter had a debate over whether it was necessary for Gentiles to go through the Judaic rites in order to become Christians. The logic, on Peter's (the saint, not our resident Brit) part, was that Christianity was a cult derived from Judaism. It's founder (Jesus), went through all the rituals (but then, Jesus was Jewish), therefore all converts to "The Way" (as it was originally known) should, too. Paul obviously thought differently, thus opening the doors to anyone who wished to enter.:: Benn
Can you give a Biblical reference to show that Peter thought Christianity was a cult?
The apostle Paul and disciple Peter had a debate over whether it was necessary for Gentiles to go through the Judaic rites in order to become Christians. The logic, on Peter's (the saint, not our resident Brit) part, was that Christianity was a cult derived from Judaism. It's founder (Jesus), went through all the rituals (but then, Jesus was Jewish), therefore all converts to "The Way" (as it was originally known) should, too. Paul obviously thought differently, thus opening the doors to anyone who wished to enter.
Actually, although Paul did emerge as the major defender of the view that Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaic ritual laws, Peter, while he was in Antioch, was its first advocate. The leader of the opposition view was James, who headed the Jerusalem church.
Paul does mention an argument where he "rebuked" Peter, but that was because Peter knuckled under to a delegation that came to Antioch from Jerusalem, not because Peter had changed his actual position.
Thanks for the correction, Tom. I think I got my information on it being Paul and Peter from some show on A&E.
Jwb, I wrote that badly. Peter obviously didn't consider Christianity. It was considered "The Way". Scholastically, Christianity, now a full blown religion, is said to have a cult in its early days. Sorry for the confusion.
I mentioned the "...go ye into all the world..." verse to point out to Peter (our resident Brit) that his exclusionary desire for Christianity to run counter to biblical precepts. I realize that the term "world" in biblical times may have covered a more restrictive area.
As far creating italics, simply type in a \ followed by the letter "i" (lower case). The words you wish to be italicized should be enclosed by the {} brackets. If this isn't clear, just click on "Formatting" to your left. It'll show you how.
Jwb, I understand your points, but I still believe that baptism (in itself) does not earn or bring on salvation. The Bible says we are saved by faith alone...not by baptism. Yes, I believe it is an important ritual, something along the lines of a profession of faith. I would be very doubtful if a person has true faith if he refuses to perform a baptism. But saying baptism is absoutely essential for salvation makes it seem that a human act (or work) saves a person, which I do not believe in. I really see no reason why a Christian should not be baptized, however. (Am I making sense here?) I guess it's like the things God tells us to do. We can do nothing to earn salvation, but due to our faith and belief, we should be doing those things.
I believe the Great Commission still applies today, also.
MikeC, doesn't the Bible say that faith without works is meaningless and that works without faith are dead or something to that affect? You can't separate the two according to that so I would think that that would make both essential. The "Great Commission" does apply, but only as an inference to teach in general.
That should say "effect."
MikeC, doesn't the Bible say that faith without works is meaningless and that works without faith are dead or something to that affect?
Jesus said that if you believe in Him, you shall live, not if you do good things. Works are kind of like a test of faith. If you really have faith, then you should want to do good things to show it.
Exactly.
Jwb is right about the works without faith line though. Seems like it's in Hebrews or something. (Wait a minute. I'm an atheist. Why am I quoting this like I believe it?)
Matthew Patterson, that would mean that God is a bastard who still purposely tempts his creations. I refuse to see God that way.
Jwb, you're going to have to give me the exploded view on that. The way you say it, you have to do good works to be saved, even if you're absolutely physically incapable of doing so. (And when you get six billion people on one planet at one time, surely someone can meet those requirements.) The way Jesus says it, anyone who truly believes can be saved. How, exactly, does this turn God into a bastard that purposely tempts his creation?
Benn, it's from James. That was one of the reasons why Luther called James an "epistle of straw". I don't consider it that bad, but I think you have to take the other books of the Bible into account when dealing with James.
God says we are saved by faith alone (Ephesians). We did not earn our salvation in any way, shape, or form. No one can earn the glory of God (Romans).
Of course we are supposed to do good works. But these good works are expressions of our faith and love of God, not a duty-bound ritual to earn God's grace. For we cannot earn God's grace!
::Jwb, you're going to have to give me the exploded view on that. The way you say it, you have to do good works to be saved, even if you're absolutely physically incapable of doing so. (And when you get six billion people on one planet at one time, surely someone can meet those requirements.) The way Jesus says it, anyone who truly believes can be saved. How, exactly, does this turn God into a bastard that purposely tempts his creation?:: Matthew Patterson
I never meant to say that God would hold you responsible for things you could in no possible way do yourself. I don't think that's how it is. Saying that something that God says you should do or would like you to do and then you don't do it, that's saying to me that it is something you must do since God would like it. That is what I meant. I don't believe God just gives suggestions. Having a test of faith still performed by God would have God be the same toward people as He was during the time of the Bible, and this would create what I've always seen as a Catholic view that God still tempts people to sin. That would make God a bastard.
::While disagreeing with the term used (what is wrong with the censor today?) I see nothing wrong with a God who tests the faith of his followers. We have tests on all our other skills, from mathematical and writing ability to historical knowledge and German language skills. Why not this most important test also?:: Peter
Because it would make God a bastard and not worthy of worship anymore. Grace wouldn't work through Faith if God were testing us. Tests of proof of Faith and belief would invalidate the need for faith in the first place, using the Biblical definition of Faith. If we knew it was God doing it, that would be a proof of God's existence, which also invalidates Faith.
::God says we are saved by faith alone (Ephesians). We did not earn our salvation in any way, shape, or form. No one can earn the glory of God (Romans).:: MikeC
That's not exactly literal. It's hard to explain to someone with your POV. To have Faith there are essential elements. I'm sure you understand that. While it's true that we can't earn our salvation, there are certainly ways of making ourselves lose it. Not doing everything we can physically or mentally do that God would want is the example of that way that we could lose our souls.
:: Of course we are supposed to do good works. But these good works are expressions of our faith and love of God, not a duty-bound ritual to earn God's grace. For we cannot earn God's grace!:: MikeC
Do you REALLY think we would have God's grace shown to us if we DIDN'T do things that God said we should do. I don't believe that the words I'm using for "should" are exactly appropriate but I don't know another way to say it. There is no should with God the way I see it. If God says that He likes you to do something, you better do it, as I understand it. Of course, if you're physically incapable, that's not your fault and God can't hold you responsible for those things that you can't physically do.
This will sound confusing, but bear with me...
Salvation is earned by faith alone. Check.
True faith brings works. Check.
Now the works don't bring salvation, but a person with true faith (salvation) would be doing works.
I agree with you that Christians with true faith and love for God and His Word would (should, whatever) be doing good works--spreading his Word, studying it, getting baptized.
But none of that brought salvation.
I guess it's like when you're getting married. All you really need is the marriage certificate. Most people like a ceremony to show off to the world how much they love their spouse, and they have a ring to show it, and a reception, etc. If you just slap-dashed off and got the certificate signed in secret and never wore a ring and never told anyone you got married, you sound ashamed of your spouse, and I doubt you seriously love that person.
It's the same way with God. All you really need is faith (I'm not trying to make it sound easy or snap-yer-magic-fingers stuff, but that's what it boils down to). But if we really have faith and love for God, we would be doing the "ceremony", getting the "engagement ring", or telling people about Him.
On the flip side, you can have an engagement ring, a way-cool ceremony, and you can invite the entire world, but without that certificate, you can't get married. You can get baptized, do all kinds of good works, and even lead others to Christ, but without true faith, that's not going to get you anywhere.
As I see it, this discussion is an attempt to reconcile the "Faith Alone and the "Faith and Works" viewpoints. Mike's last post goes a long way in that attempt. Some of the pitfalls of the argument are shown in Jwb52z's I don't believe God just gives suggestions. and Matthew's The way you say it, you have to do good works to be saved
Most people see this as a contest between Paul's POV (Faith Alone) and that of James ("Faith without works is dead"), but it is much sublter than that.
Salvation is more than just a ticket into Heaven; it is a re-making of your whole being: Your heart, your mind, your soul, your needs, your deires, and yes, your temptations. That change can be seen in how you relate to the world, and some people try to explain James in this light. Personally, I feel that they are forcing James into a box in which he does not quite fit, although they are closer to his intent than those who simply see him as propsing a works-based plan of Salvation.
Paul, too, refuses to be boxed in. [Phil 2:12-13] Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;or God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure The "champion of Faith Alone" urges his listeners to work out their own salvation, but then assures them that it is the power of God working within them to allow them to succeed.
OOPS! somehow I lost a letter and totally changed the intent of Pauls' words. That should be ...fear and trmbling; for God is at work in you....
I just realized that this is the second time in this thread that I discussed opposing viewpoints between Paul and James. I now find myself wondering if their personal views on Jewish ritual influenced the way they approached those subjects in which their views are taken to have been infused with Divine Truth. I'll have to think on this some more and see where it leads me.
::Salvation is more than just a ticket into Heaven; it is a re-making of your whole being: Your heart, your mind, your soul, your needs, your desires, and yes, your temptations. That change can be seen in how you relate to the world, and some people try to explain James in this light. Personally, I feel that they are forcing James into a box in which he does not quite fit, although they are closer to his intent than those who simply see him as proposing a works-based plan of Salvation.:: TomM
I agree with this, but I don't think "Faith alone" is exactly literal. I've always thought that God didn't let his Apostles and other main followers say or do anything involving His Word, unless God meant it to be that way as things we are supposed to do or be.
Jwb52z-
I suspect that our views are closer than they seem, but the language is inadequate. I am not exactly sure what your last sentence means, but it sounds like you are trying to express a POV that you can't quite describe.