No one’s saying you’re not entitled to your own beliefs. If you want to believe that Mormons are not Christians, fine. That’s your business, not mine.
What I was trying to point out in my last 1000 posts to you is, if you haven’t read the Book of Mormon, you really don’t have an informed opinion of Mormonism. If you don’t want to read the Book of Mormon, that’s fine too. Just don’t expect me to give you quite the credence I would give you if you had actually read the thing and understood LDS doctrine. You can “debunk” Mormonism all you want, but TO ME, your opinions of it are uninformed and thus not credible.
Adam: as Snarkberry has so eloquently shown in his last posting above, your opinions are not based in fact and therefore are based on ignorance. Your espousal of said ill-informed (actually uninformed) opinions constitutes bigotry.
That is not “truth as Monty sees it,” bigot; that is Reality with a capital R.
Your ignorance astounds me Adam. Instead of talking to people who know what Catholocism is about, you resorted to former Catholics who converted to a FUNDAMENTALIST mindset, no less. Well, i give up, this is like talking to a wall. Go on your merry ignorant way Adam.
Phrase of the day: “Fundamentalist churches: Check your brains in at the door because you wont be needing them here!”
Except, that I HAVE spoken to people who know what Catholocism is all about. I’ve even discussed it with Tomndebb, and Pickman’s Model.
I have to say something, because it’s been bothering me for months now. Many of you say that I’m ignorant about other religions. You know what? You’re right. I haven’t read the BOM, or the Catechism. I do not know every single little thing about Mormonism, or Catholocism. BUT, I DO know some things. Paul says: “Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?” 1 Corinthians 5:6
One bad teaching affects an entire religion. A little distortion of Scripture goes a LONG way. There may be beliefs that are very close to Protestant beliefs in many ways. BUT, a few differences, and it changes everything. What I’m trying to say, is that one does not need to read, or study another religion for a lifetime to see distortions, perversions, or differences in teaching. And a little bad yeast will ruin the dough.
And I always thought “A little leaven leaventh the whole loaf” was one of the descriptions of a positive aspect of Christianity. Thanks for showing a perverse view of that, Adam.
Adam: you say that maybe you don’t know every little thing about the Roman Catholic and the Latter Day Saint churches; and I maintain that you know exactly nothing about them.
Here’s a cool little test for you and it’ll even help you develop debating skills:
Roman Catholic Church: What’s the official doctrine of that church about Mary, Jesus’s mother? Please give sources.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Tell us about the Salamander Letter. Again, please give sources.
Everyone else: please, please, withhold your comments until Adam has responded. That’s only fair, isn’t it?
I’m sorry Monty, but you’re wrong again. Yeast in Scripture is never a good thing. Why do you think that the Jews are not to eat leavened bread during Passover? Or other celebrations? It’s because in Scripture, yeast represents corruption, and sin.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. There is not one verse in the Bible that speaks of yeast in any positive manner.
I do not wish to play games with you Monty. Yea, you stumped me with your questions on the Catholic teachings of Mary, and the Mormon teaching on the Salamander Letter. By asking me these questions, you obviously didn’t understand my post above though. I don’t have to know about any Salamander Letters to know there are false teachings in LDS.
Once again, Adam – you are confusing what you think with what you know. Just because YOU perceive something as a “distortion” or “perversion” does not make it so. It is your opinion only. Furthermore, by your own admission, it is an uninformed opinion – the very worst kind. And! You chose to word your uninformed opinion in an offensive and derogatory way. Not that I am surprised – coming from an individual who doesn’t hesitate to call another person’s religion “wrong and evil.” Really, Adam, you are a waste of skin, bones and brain cells.
Adam pontificated:
“Why do you think that the Jews are not to eat leavened bread during Passover? Or other celebrations? It’s because in Scripture, yeast represents corruption, and sin.”
So Jews who eat leavened bread are sinning? Or does yeast only become sinful during holidays?
ARG, once again you have shown your ignorance of your own Bible. You really should read it sometime; it’ll help you avoid looking foolish.
When the Jews as a people were preparing to leave Egypt, they baked a lot of bread to take with them. The yeast was left out simply so that the dough would not rise; the resulting bread is far more compact, and thus is easier to carry. (One pound of matzoh(sp) takes up far less space than one pound of, for instance, white bread.)
IIRC, Passover is the holiday on which modern Jews remember the flight from Egypt. Unleavened bread is a symbol of their ancestors’ suffering. Yeast is not considered corrupt or evil; it’s simply a luxury that the fleeing Jews were not able to make use of.
Of course I don’t fit in; I’m part of a better puzzle.
Auraseer: Please. I think I know what I’m talking about. Leviticus 1-7 contains the instructions of how offerings are to be made unto God for the attonment of sin, and as acts of worship. Any time an offering is presented at the altar, it is to be made of unleavened bread. NO yeast.
Yeast ferments things. Fermentation represents corruption, and decay, throughout the entire Bible. This is why honey was not to be used in the grain offering either, since honey also aids fermentation.
Perhaps one of our Jewish friends could chime in and offer up their thoughts on the matter.
Note: Yeast WAS allowed in the Fellowship offering (Leviticus 7:11-14) because the bread offered was not placed ON the altar.
That’s interesting, Adam. I really do need to read the Old Testament all the way through. It’s been a long time since my senior year of high school, when I studied it in Seminary. You learn something new every day on this board.
Tom: I knew somebody would quote that passage in Matthew. But alas, you’ve taken it out of context.
You took that verse from the parable of the Mustard Seed, and the Yeast, also found in Luke 13: 18-20
I’ll quote the whole parable, since it isn’t that long.
13:18) Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to?
19) It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree and the birds of the air perched in it’s branches.”
20) Again He asked, “What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.”
The yeast in the parable represents corruption in the kingdom of God. Note in the KJ translation that Jesus says the woman “hid” the yeast in the dough. You don’t hide good things. The analogy of yeast holds true, in that it’s evil. It is deceptive, and infiltrates the entire kingdom. We must be on our guard against this yeast though, by putting on the armor of God.
It does not say that some sinful action is like the leaven in the kingdom of heaven. It says that the kingdom of heaven is like leaven. No matter what spin you put on this, you are left with “kingdom of heaven” = “yeast/leaven.”
You are so sure of your (generally uninformed) opinions of what Scripture truly means, that you will bend yourself inside out to arrive at you preconceived conclusions. This is why, when you spout off about the truth being found in Scripture, most of us (Christians, Jews, unbelievers of all varieties, and everyone else) generally dismiss your rantings.
You made a claim. I poked a hole in it. Instead of pretending that you are a Moebius strip to show how you were still right, you should have simply backed off and said that yeast usually indicated evil and that you had simply misspoken.
In point of fact, I would love to see any evidence from a serious scholar that yeast did indicate evil as a general rule. I suspect that it is much more likely that having unleavened bread as a central symbolic element in one of the defining moments of Judaism (replayed in Christian mythology, as well) meant that unleavened bread was called upon to represent the purity of devotion to God and that yeast and leavening had no particular meaning associated with it except as an analogy for certain actions.
Oh, and Adam? You are guilty of further twisting. The verse regarding the woman and the leaven is in no way “a part” of the parable of the mustard seed. It is its own parable in the midst of a series of parables. It stands alone.