Posted on 09/15/2009 8:21:31 AM PDT by Colofornian
Also, this is an "open" thread on the Religion Forum which means it is a town square format for debate. Posters may argue pro or con - they may ridicule other beliefs, religious authorities and deities.
Thick skin is required on "open" threads in the RF.
Thin skinned posters should ignore them altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled "ecumenical" "caucus" "devotional" or "prayer."
And if the poster is offended by religious discussion, he should ignore the Religion Forum altogether.
To do this, do NOT use the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Click on my profile page for other guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
Well, you obviously haven't examined all of your worldview assumptions fully.
#1 -- you seem to assume there's only one (primary?) type of "dark oppression" -- perhaps socio-political -- and you seem to dismiss there might be such a thing as religious oppression. (Since Jesus referenced some Pharisaical Jews in John 8 as being sons of the devil, Jesus' comment alone reveals your shortsightedness)
#2 re: a more Christ-like dialogue between each other" -- are you aware that Christ referenced Pharisaical Jews as "brood of vipers" -- as "whitewashed sepulcres" (graveyards) -- as people who would proselyte in order to make their converts "twice the son of hell?" (Does that disturb your "wholesome" image of the Son of God as being only some meely-mouthed pushover?) Jesus was most "intolerant" with the religious legalists of his day -- and therefore, being "Christ like" will at times mean putting our foot down with contemporary religious legalists.
#3 -- you also assume that there aren't occasions where we don't seek even your version of what a "more Christ-like dialogue" would look like. I engage in that frequently -- because I think we also need to approach individual people whereever they are at -- and Christ had some of those kind of discussions as well.
So, these "civil" discussions have taken place in a lot of distinct settings. That includes numerous civil discussions with Lds here. It's included numerous civil discussions with Lds missionaries and Lds relatives.
I guess what I don't get is that you think you somehow know or have reviewed all or most...
...inter-religious transaction among certain FReepers,
...inter-religious relationship among certain FReepers,
...inter-religious FR thread,
...inter-religious online discussions beyond FR...
...and can therefore assume conclusions well beyond any mortal assessment.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Well, aside from my third point in post #14 -- which shows that Lds have refused to unite with us since the 1830s [not very "inspiring" to coalesce on some of the deeper things when they think you're "apostates," creedally abominable -- 100% so, etc.]...yet I still think we can work with Lds on a number of things together...Prop 8, Boy Scouts, food pantries, protecting the pre-born, and the like.
Beyond that, your comment also assumes one other thing I didn't address in my last post among all your other assumptions -- that you assume you can set the cultural agenda for all Christians -- because aren't Christians the foremost "base" among conservatives? (Rather arrogant to project that agenda, isn't it?)
Don't we take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ? Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or Huddles Masses?
Here's Jesus:
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
So does Jesus say, "fear the 'dark (political) oppression'?" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the 'enemies of our freedom loving republic' within our borders?" (No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.
As for "uniting" I could probably guess that the folks who the apostle Paul warned the church @ Ephesus about had the bulk in common with the sheep there. Both groups were "religious." So, did Paul play the "allies"-game-don't-divide-us-you're playing? (No)
As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, Huddled Masses: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
I'll take Paul's and Jesus' already-revealed priorities to your guesswork based upon bashing those willing to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)
Yes, to the JW, Jesus was an archangel-turned-man-turned semi-god. But Satan's brother? (I'm not sure I've heard that). Aren't you confusing that with the Mormon belief that Satan is Jesus' immediate younger brother? That, once uopn a time, the only difference between them was "spiritual birth order" in some pre-existence?
#2, 'tis religious folk with whom we disagree sharply who might even on the surface agree with what you wrote. But as soon as you start defining a few of those terms, you realize they have badly redefined them and we're no longer even talking about the same thing.
I believe I am mixing my demi-faiths. Thanks!
Oh, there are quite a few more than a dozen or so on the Inman ping list...and a whole bunch more FReepers that post on these threads that AREN'T on the ping list....if you're gonna preach, get your facts straight...k?
Pinging the mighty Inmans.
There is nothing quite so intolerant as the religious right. Obviously this segment of society lives off in some dream world because in most of America, people work together. If you came into this small community and showed this sort of hypocracy, you would be shunned, as you would in most communities. Who do you think the community is? It is all the people, regardless of what church they attend. If you go stomping on their rights to worship as they see fit, and your house catches on fire, who do you think is going to be on the volunteer fire department? You should ask yourself,,,will they make a 3 minute response, or will it take the trucks 13 minutes to get to your fire? Same with the ambulance, same with the merchants.
If you have not lived or worked amongst these people you should not be judging them. They bother no one, and they will sure be amongst the first to help out others, unlike most of the main stream religions.
anti [DU]
I think a clarification is in order -- and I don't know if I speak on behalf of all of the "Flying Inmans" -- but it certainly applies to me.
Just because Jesus at times "put his foot down" and practiced tough love with the Pharisees, doesn't mean he was "against" (anti) the individual Pharisee as a person. Jesus could both simultaneously love the Pharisee while taking issue with their religious and social beliefs and traditions.
An atheist or Muslim could be against me as a Christian based upon my beliefs, but I wouldn't assume he is automatically "against" or "anti" every Christian person. (Many may have Christians, for example, within their own extended families).
Likewise, I have Mormons within my own extended family...and just because some FReepers lack "appreciation" for the Mormon belief system, doesn't equate to being against the individual Mormon person.
Obviously God loves every Mormon. Mormons are our neighbors. We are called to love them. God holds every Mormon to be of tremendous value and worth, and I recognize that value & worth.
The apostle Paul could be for the Jewish circumcizer -- going into Jewish synagogues repeatedly in the era of Acts to attempt to win them over with debate and dialogue, often rigorous exchanges taking place -- and still speak forcefully against circumcision being demanded of new Christian converts by those same exact circumcizers.
I think labels like "anti" allow others to just be dismissive of us without having to either deal with the issues we raise or treat us as neighbors with whom we can interact both 1-on-1 and as groups.
well, what youll find here is a large group of spiritually minded folk, from theologians, pastors (I am former), and lay beleivers.....all of whom investigate their Scriptures, noting quite passionately when doctrine diverges from a Scriptural basis. We see this quite often in mormon doctrine....hence the passionate discourse instead of soft platitudes and kumbayahs. The moderation here is actually quite fair and draws complaints from both sides, meaning its balanced
Many of us who post on this particular subject, once belonged, or still belong to these communities as members of this sect.
I was born a sixth generation Mormon into a family who has resided and still resides in an almost 100% LDS town in the heart of Southern Utah since 1864, isolated from the nearest city of any size by at least 200 miles.
I know what I am posting about. Why do you think you somehow have more experience to speak of?
(Except, perhaps, those intolerant of the religious right?)
Obviously this segment of society lives off in some dream world because in most of America, people work together.
So, are you willing to work together with the religious right?
If you go stomping on their rights to worship as they see fit, and your house catches on fire, who do you think is going to be on the volunteer fire department?
I've said on repeated threads that Christian and Mormons work together @ Boy Scout meetings all the time. Christians and Mormons worked together in defeating Prop 8. (Is that a revelation to you that we don't recognize the obvious?)
As for "stomping on their rights to worship as they see fit," what? Does "the religious right" block the doors to Mormon meetinghouses or something? Are Lds stakes and wardhouses' parking lots blockaded by "the religious right" (No? Whew!!! I thought you were reporting on some "breaking news" or something)
If you meant by that "no religious disagreements in the public square are 'allowed' by you -- less it come across as 'stomping on their rights to worship as they see fit'" -- then isn't that a form of clamped-down censorship on your part?
And shouldn't your expression then go two ways?
Shouldn't you have objected long ago to Lds printing "scriptures" that call 100% of all Christian sect beliefs "an abomination" to the Mormon god?
Shouldn't you have objected long ago to Lds printing "scriptures" that call 100% of all Christian sect professing believers "corrupt?"
If you're so anti-intolerance, where have you been all this time in objecting to these Mormon labels upon the rest of us? [These were written out in the early 1830s; and treated as "Scripture" by all Mormons since the 1870s]
If you have not lived or worked amongst these people you should not be judging them. They bother no one, and they will sure be amongst the first to help out others, unlike most of the main stream religions.
First of all, let's apply your standard to yourself. You don't live among the "religious right" do you? (at least you don't live among the FReepers you are commenting about, right?) Yet in this post, you label us as...
...intolerant...
...hypocrites...
...stompers of religious rights...
...and judges...
You who are telling others not to "judge" people you don't know -- you seem to do a pretty good job of judging people you don't know. So which are we to believe? The standard you say you believe that you want to impose upon others? Or the actions that belie your standard & actually convey "it's OK to judge others" -- as long as you put yourself on a higher pedestal in the process?
As far as "judging" goes, can truth and falsity, right and wrong, be "judged?" If I advised a grandson, "don't cohabit with a girl" -- am I judging? Or speaking the truth with tough love?
I HAVE lived and worked amongst mormons, and left the religion years ago....for which I WAS shunned.
..they will sure be amongst the first to help out others, unlike most of the main stream religions.
That is pure mormon propaganda. Just because Christians don't have a special yellow T shirt to wear to, and advertise their response to disasters so that everyone will recognize their efforts, they are out there every time the mormons are.
No one is "stomping on their rights to worship as they see fit" here. The right to discuss is as open to mormon-defenders as is the right to discuss mormon fallacies. That's what freedom of speech is all about.
There is nothing quite so intolerant as the religious right. Obviously this segment of society lives off in some dream world....
I believe this will be seen as a pretty unpopular viewpoint on FR.
Defending mormonism on the grounds of "tolerance" is a futile occupation.
I'm a Baptist, and am more than satisfied with one wife (actually the second as my first has preceeded me to heaven).
That said, I recall an awful lot of people in the Old Testament having multiple wives. I believe that it was encouraged by God - "Be fruitful and multiply". I also recall the passage directing a man whose brother dies to take his wife onto himself. All the children of this union would be considered his brother's.
If the rules were changed, I'd like to know chapter and verse - and not some convoluted reasoning that doesn't reference the Bible.
Mormons have every right to practice their 'religion', but the main problem that any Christian has of mormons is that mormons claim to be Christian, when they are the furthest thing from the truth of Christianity. Mormons are not Christians. It all begins with basic Christine Doctrine; you know, the Doctrine that mormons don't follow.
Well, thank you for your comment.
#1 It's a myth to think that polygamy automatically results in additional children. Brigham Young, for example, lived a long life -- had 27 wives & 57 children -- but had no children with 17 of those wives -- and only 2 or 3 of them because of age reasons. That means that 14 of those wives lost out on 3 or more kids -- and several wives didn't likewise reach the demographic average of the 19th century. Therefore, 50 less kids were probably born because of Brigham's hoarding of women.
#2 The "be fruitful and multiply" comes from Gen. 1:28 -- and we also need to look at Gen. 2:24 to review God's intention from the very beginning re: the institution of marriage: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Now I didn't see plural people mentioned either in Gen. 2 (or Matthew 19 where Jesus talks about this same subject). Do you? And if marriage is becoming "one flesh" -- are you telling us that 2 wives and one man all become "one single flesh" in God's eyes? (Two "sister wives" become part of the same flesh?) Really?
If the rules were changed, I'd like to know chapter and verse - and not some convoluted reasoning that doesn't reference the Bible.
Good request. Even before Solomon took many wives, these verses existed:
He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. (Deut 17:17)
Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. (Lev. 18:18) [BTW, going against this injunction frequently happend with 19th century & early 20th century Mormons -- men often married the sisters of their wives]
So, despite the injunction of Dt. 17:17 & Lev. 18:18, we see what happened with Solomon:
He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. (1 Kings 11:3)
We see EXACTLY what God warned about in Dt. 17:17 happened to Solomon!
Besides, if we're going to start using OT figures as "marriage models" I doubt you'd be OK with 700 wives & 300 concubines
And I think, you'd also NOT be OK with how Jacob came to pick up a second wife, right? Otherwise, when your daughter gets married, just slip in a substitute sister first -- so that the groom doesn't know it til he's into his honeymoon. Then if he stills want your other daughter, make him work for you for years on end if he wants the other one. IOW, deception was the basis for Jacob's polygamy -- and that's not grounds for a Christian marriage, is it?
As for Abram, it wasn't his idea and it wasn't God's idea to "encourage" Abram sleeping with a servant girl that everybody (except his wife) still referenced as nothing other than a servant girl after he slept with her -- including an angel. In fact, what became of this arrangement? (The person who became the clan leader of the entire people group which embraced Islam)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.