No, Ryan; I am not “displaying arrogance,” regardless of what you think.
Actually, I’ve provided plenty of proof throughout the boards here of what I’ve asserted. I personally don’t care if you believe anything one way or the other. What I would hope is that you quit spouting falsehoods as though they’re facts, or at least quit it here.
And that’s not arrogance, it’s just my hope.
What the hell does it matter? The item I was responding to said exactly this:
This is not saying anything about the religion having a scriptural reason for it’s racism, only that it was in their past.
Furthermore, if racism IS scriptural, how could they have suddenly changed it?
Finally, a lot of KKK members can find scriptural backing for their racist ideas, and will gladly share if you ask. Ever heard of Bob Jones University? :rolleyes:
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, two days, 21 hours, 4 minutes and 13 seconds.
395 cigarettes not smoked, saving $49.39.
Life saved: 1 day, 8 hours, 55 minutes.
John Corrado wrote, re Chick Tracts:
Oh, that is choice! All D&D Dungeon Masters are secretly members of witches’ covens in league with Satan, looking for unwitting recruits and driving the unworthy to suicide. It’s hard to believe Mr. Chick was being serious when he wrote that!
Monty:
Saying that “ONce again, Ryan shows he’s unaware of what he speaks” isn’t arrogant? Whatever :rolleyes:
You’ve presented proof in other threads that I don’t know what I’m talking about? I’m not sure why you’re going around badmouthing me “throughout the board”, but I hardly find it impressive.
I’ve been “spouting falsehoods”? Where? When?
If I make a false statement, I have nothing against you politely correcting me. Your first response to me in this thread was phrased in an inappropiately rude manner, and hardly established that I was incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the term “heretic” is a rather ambiguous term. The fact that you do not have exactly the same interpretation of it as I do does not mean that you are right and I am wrong.
Satan:
Because the level of officialness is important. I don’t know how official the racist doctrines of LDS were, but my impression is that they were more official than those of the Baptists. I was trying to bring up the matter of which were more official, which I admit I did not do very well.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the children of Israel anciently forbid the priesthood to all except those of the tribe of Levi? Were the Israelites therefore facially prejudiced against non-Levites?
Here is a link that explains the LDS position, past and present, on blacks of African descent. Please note especially the Book of Mormon quote where it says Jesus invites all, black and white, bond and free to come unto Him and denies no one.
Er…that should be “racially prejudiced,” not “facially prejudiced,” LOL!
Back to the original question: Mormons are quasi-Christians, so why should other Christians be more critical of them than non-Christians?
Well, in some ways, this is not surprising. In religion, politics, and many other walks of life, it’s the SMALL differences that cause major schisms and hostility, not the big ones. It’s as if we expect so little of outsiders, as if we hold them in such disdain that they’re not even worthy of our hatred.
Think about it- is there any Democrat (except, maybe Ted Kennedy) that conservative Republicans hate as much as they hate John McCain?
WHo gets angriest at Reform Jews? Not Christians! No, it’s the Orthodox Jews who hate them most!
SO, it’s not surprising that Jews and atheists show no special animosity to Moromons. To atheists, ALL religions are equally stupid, which makes Mormons no worse than any of the other idiots! And to Jews, ALL Christians are deluded dolts worshipping a dead carpenter- so they bear no special animosity against the Mormons.
It stands to reason that only people who take Christianity very seriously are going to object to the teachings of other Christian Churches! Hence, fundamentalists are going to hate the Catholic CHurch (which they see as corrupting the teachings of Christ) in a way that no Hindu ever could (indeed, the Hindu might well think the differences among Christian sects are negligible). Similarly, since Christians tend to ignore Moslems, they can be more “tolerant” of the differences between Shiites and Sunnis… whereas the Moslems, who take the differences seriously, are much more likely to fight over them (even though, to an outsider, it would SEEM the two sides have much in common).
If a Catholic (or Baptist, or any other Christian) takes his faith and his church seriously, he’s BOUND to be uncomfortable with the Mormons’ claim that Christianity is incomplete, and needs fulfillment by Joseph SMith’s Book of Mormon. In the same way, Jews probably resent the idea that their religion (which they think is pretty wonderful as it is) needed “fulfillment” by Jesus.
The Ryan said, a couple days ago:
Um, they do? I don’t know too many Christians who keep kosher, avoid driving (etc.) on Saturday, etc.
(I know you’ve already discussed some of this heretic stuff, but I didn’t see any specific mention of the questions I’m asking here.)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by David B:
The Ryan said, a couple days ago: Um, they do? I don’t know too many Christians who keep kosher, avoid driving (etc.) on Saturday, etc.
[QUOTE]
What I meant by “claiming to be following the Old Testament” was that they claim to believe that the Old Testament is the Word of God; they consider it to be as much of their religion as the New Testament. Also, note the use of the word “claim”.
What I can’t understand is that if Jack Chick looked into witchcraft (Wicca) enough to see that one of the “laws” of the religion was to do what you will but harm none (quoted in the tract), why in the name of Satan (the poster :)) did he choose to ignore the other facts?
Oh wait…he’s Jack Chick…never mind…
Those who are dancing look insane to those who cannot hear the music.
One-of-a-kind, custom-designed Wally sig available on request.
The Ryan said:
They may believe it’s part of the Word of God, but that does not equate to “following” it, nor even considering it to be as much a part of their religion as the NT. When I’ve asked religious Christians why they don’t keep kosher, etc., they say that Christ overrode many of the requirements of the OT. In other words, they don’t claim to follow it or make it part of their religions (with some exceptions, of course, such as the 10 Commandments and, for literalists, the Genesis story).
To Flinx:
[quoted]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the children of Israel anciently forbid the priesthood to all except those of the tribe of Levi? Were the Israelites therefore facially prejudiced against non-Levites?
No, they were not.The tribe of Levi was the only one of the twelve tribes who were not given “tribal land” in Israel by God. Because they were to be priests, they owned no land and relied on the sacrificial donations from the people of the other tribes of Israel. They served the people by intervening on the people’s behalf before God in the temple. Israelites did not tend to be “prejudiced” amongst the 12 tribes. They were however warned by God to hold themselves apart from the other nations. This led to what we now would refer to as discrimination or prejudice. But, they were obeying their God. Interestingly, when Jesus came to “complete the law” he tore down all those prejudices and said that the only two “laws” were to the love the Lord your God and to love one another. We are supposed to be’ dead to the laws’ and ‘alive in Christ’.
I note pepper has not come back with the Bible verse explaining her statement. I assume you have something to back it up?
I happen to believe that Jesus can indeed save you from All your sins, you don’t have to “do” anything to gain acceptance.
Thank you. I know return you to other subjects
Discgolfer, my point is, God has withheld His priesthood from people before for His own reasons, so why criticize the Mormons for following God’s commandment to withhold the priesthood from blacks of African descent until He rescinded the commandment?
I was giving an example of God withholding the priesthood from other people in the past as well. I know the Israelites weren’t prejudiced. And neither were the Mormons (as a whole) when they withheld the priesthood from black Africans until 1978, when revelation came to the prophet that all worthy males could now hold it. Read my link above (“Are Mormons Prejudiced?”) for more information.
Here’s one other link that explains in depth about the LDS church’s stance on blacks and the LDS priesthood. Please read it before you criticize me for what I’ve said in this thread. Basically, this article presents biblical evidence that God has withheld priesthood blessings from some based on lineage since antiquity, and since God is the same yesterday, today and forever, believers in the Bible can’t really find legitimate fault with the LDS for the practice of withholding the priesthood from certain peoples, unless they want to attack their own Bible.
A Christian is not considered a righteous Jew by Christians or Jews. Righteousness has everything to do with faith. Abraham, the root of Judaism, was not a “Jew” when he started his fellowship with God. Nor was Abraham ‘righteous’. His name was Abram when God called to him. Abram was faithful to God’s call including a willingness to sacrifice his only son on an alter at God’s request. God spared his son, (and then offered His own Son, Jesus generations later) and counted Abram’s FAITH as righteousness. He changed Abram’s name to Abraham as part of His covenant (inserting part of his own name within Abram’s - YAHWEH - took the ‘ah’ and inserted it).
That being said, Christians do not follow Jewish law. Jesus put an end to that. The law was only established so that you would realise that you couldn’t keep the laws and consequently needed a savior. Jesus (who was a spotless, perfect sacrifice) took the consequence of sin upon himself (DEATH) so that you could be free from the law. Why would anyone resubmit to that when they didn’t have to? If you decide to follow jewish law again, you are deciding to be a Jew, not a Christian.
By the way, the idea of a subsitutionary sacrifice to atone for sin is one of the key parts of Judaism. Animal sacrifice was part and parcel of their life. Christians don’t need that because Christ became their permanent substitutionary sacrifice - and set up a new priestly order, not of the lineage of Aaron but of Melchezidech (sp?). All this takes a great deal of study and research to get your arms around adequately. But, the bottom line is that Christians don’t relate as “righteous gentiles” to Judaism. It is more appropriate to state that they see themselves as God’s people, saved by Grace, who see that their Savior is the completion of all that was hoped for in the Jewish prophesies concerning their savior. Whew! Think I’ll take a break here. Hope that it isn’t too long-winded for a response.
A few random points:
Im sorry, pepper, that some Christians were rude to you. I do think it stems from the fact that we(they) sometimes tend to be self-rightious, and just want to prove you wrong. I love debates, (hint hint anyone 
) but I think it is very important that both parties come away with lots of knowledge, and few hurt feelings.
I feel the most effective way to discuss differences in religion with someone is to read/listen to their material, and then discuss what you think may be ‘wrong’ with their beleif. LOVINGLY. (Isn’t there a Bible verse about this? I can’t remember)
Re grace vs. works: this topic caused much confusion for me, until very recently, i heard the following analogy:
Suppose you need tomatoes to live. If you continue to eat one tomato every day, you will live indefinately. However, you have to grow the tomatoes yourself. If you do not water the tomatoes, care for them, etc., they will die, and therefore, you will die. So, even though the water and Miriclegrow doesn’t save you, they are necessary. The tomatoes (grace/faith) save you, but you must nurture them (works) to keep them alive.
Hope that helps anyone.
Tracyj
If I needed tomatoes to live, I’d be dead by morning. Bleah. I can’t stand vegetables.
evilbeth wrote:
At the end of that “Dark Dungeons” Chick Tract, the priest tells the girl to burn all of her “evil” D&D products. But he also tells her to throw her rock & roll music onto the fire, putting it in the same “Satanic” category as D&D.
I wonder how he feels about Amy Grant or dc Talk. 
peaches8 Grim_Beaker gave you chapter and verse ( literaly ) about works and faith.
Pepperlandgirl, here is the problem with these kinda questions. The vast majority of Christians believe what they are told by their church without taking the time to look into it for themselves. They frequently also fail to look at the historical context that shaped their beliefs. Here’s a perfect example: There has been a bit of discussion in this thread about how the old testament relates to the new. It is true that Jesus said he was establishing a new covenant, replacing many of the old laws reguarding sacrifice, forgiveness of sin, etc. BUT the gospels say nothing about things like dietary laws, etc. It is clear that Jesus himself followed Jewish law, he was Jewish, after all. Christianity started among the Jews of the holy land and spread from there. The original disciples continued to follow Jewish laws and traditions, and taught Christianity as an extension of it, the fulfillment of prophesy(sp?). This led to conflict early on, as gentiles who wanted to convert were told they had to follow Jewish law. There was resistance-" You want me to cut off the tip of my what?" and “But I LIKE pork chops”( fecisious(sp), but to make a point). It was THE hot topic in the first century church. Finally, the church leaders decided that the “new covenant” covered all of the old testament rabinical laws, and Christianity began to spread. The point is, the decision was made my MEN, not GOD. The early church also did a lot of persecuting of what they considered " heritical" versions of Christianity. the phrase " Kill them all, let God sort them out " dosen’t sound very Christian, does it? It was first uttered by a Christian general when asked how to tell heritics from “real” Christians. The first few centuries of Christiandom were also spent sorting out which books of the bible would be considered “cannon” and which wouldn’t. Frequently the deciding factors were which agreed with the position taken by the church. Read the Apocrapha sometime. It was considered cannon until the middle ages. A group of books called the ’ Apocraphyl Acts ’ were excluded very early on, but they make interesting reading. Here’s a link.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Relax, I’m not as Dave as I look!- A Wallified sig!