quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I actually like the no-nonsense approach of that line, and think it'd work well as a commercial tagline. You know how the LDS church did those "get closer to your family" spots back in the '80s? You could have a whole bunch of ads for Orthodox Jews:
"Jews: we talked to God so you don't have to." "Tired of wondering what God wants? Just ask a Jew." "Think you know your Bible? Think again."
posted
So, if we want to know something about God or the religion of the Bible, we should just ask a Jew? Well, Lisa, I have, and Jesus Christ said that the Ten Commandments--and especialy the fourth--are for everyone. He said: "The Sabbath was made for man"--Not just the Jews. (Mark 2:27)
Lisa, and others, you forget that the promise to the father of all Jews was this: "In YOUR SEED all nations shall be blessed." (Genesis 22:18.) As the Apostle Paul argues, this SEED, singular, refers to the Messiah and Saviour of the world. Paul goes on to argue that ONLY those who accept this Seed of Abraham are the true Jews, the true children of Abraham, because they are the only ones who receive the faith of Abraham. As Paul said: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:28, 29) This is how we Christians see it.
Those who keep the true faith of Jesus are the only true Israel of God today. Though God has not rejected the Jews, the Jews ceased to be the exclusive Israel of God in 34 A.D. That is when the time prophecy of 490 years "determined upon thy people" (Daniel 9:24) ran out.
So, Lisa, you can deny me the right to keep the Sabbath, and claim all the promises made to Israel, if you wish. I still claim them, and the right and privilege to keep the Sabbath, based on a sounder interpretation of Scripture than yours, and we will let God in the Judgment render His verdict.
Claudia Terese, I realize this subject of the Noachian laws has arisen years in the past. But the unsupported assertions of a few did not by any means settle the issue. Since some wish to bring up what they call the "Noachide Law" yet again, I still ask that they justify their claims about it, instead of just making more assertions.
Noemon, my brother who used to post here is not a Seventh-day Adventist.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those who keep the true faith of Jesus are the only true Israel of God today.
Well, if that's the way you feel about it, why did you bother asking Lisa for her opinion in the first place?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Noemon, my brother who used to post here is not a Seventh-day Adventist.
Ah, okay. I was talking more about tone and attitude than I was about the specifics of your belief systems, but that certainly wasn't clear from my post.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Woah, Ron your post is the height of arrogance. Lets put it in the same veins as a joke.
A Jew and a Christian are in a bar having a drink the Christian being an Evangelist sees it as his duty to talk to the Jew to get him to see the Truth of Jesus Christ talks to the Jew and asks if he has ever read the New Testament. The Jew replies "sorry, but I don't much like sequels."
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So, if we want to know something about God or the religion of the Bible, we should just ask a Jew? Well, Lisa, I have, and Jesus Christ said that the Ten Commandments--and especialy the fourth--are for everyone. He said: "The Sabbath was made for man"--Not just the Jews. (Mark 2:27)
Even positing that there was such a person, and that he said such a thing, that wouldn't mean it was for all men. Or do you think that women don't have to keep the Sabbath? See, this is the thing. Something that's only written is subject to the whim of whoever reads it. Someone wants to say "man means mankind" can do so. Someone who wants to say "man means only men" can do so. The only way to know for sure is to go by what God said, which is that the Sabbath is an eternal sign between Him and the children of Israel. And in the episode you refer to, the dichotomy was whether the Sabbath took precedence over the needs of man or not.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, and others, you forget that the promise to the father of all Jews was this: "In YOUR SEED all nations shall be blessed." (Genesis 22:18.) As the Apostle Paul argues, this SEED, singular, refers to the Messiah and Saviour of the world.
That's just silly. The same book says, explicitly, "For through Isaac shall seed be called to you." It's a collective noun, and doesn't refer to an individual alone. It means his descendents (and the thing about Isaac specifies which descendents). Not to mention the obvious fact that the Messiah isn't the "savior of the world". "He's just this guy." Leader of the Jewish people. Mankind doesn't require saving, because we aren't born in sin.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Paul goes on to argue that ONLY those who accept this Seed of Abraham are the true Jews, the true children of Abraham, because they are the only ones who receive the faith of Abraham.
Aw... isn't that cute. Now Jews aren't Jews, but non-Jews are if they worship a man.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Those who keep the true faith of Jesus are the only true Israel of God today. Though God has not rejected the Jews, the Jews ceased to be the exclusive Israel of God in 34 A.D.
Nice idea, but it isn't true. Israel is Israel. A bunch of wannabees (even numbering in the billions) don't change that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So, Lisa, you can deny me the right to keep the Sabbath, and claim all the promises made to Israel, if you wish.
I'm denying you nothing. God denies you the right to keep the Sabbath. Defy Him at your own peril, Ron.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I still claim them, and the right and privilege to keep the Sabbath, based on a sounder interpretation of Scripture than yours, and we will let God in the Judgment render His verdict.
"Sounder"? You're a hoot.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Claudia Terese, I realize this subject of the Noachian laws has arisen years in the past. But the unsupported assertions of a few did not by any means settle the issue. Since some wish to bring up what they call the "Noachide Law" yet again, I still ask that they justify their claims about it, instead of just making more assertions.
Is this still the same discussion about whether the Sabbath is on Saturday or Sunday, or about whether Christians have the right to keep the 7th day holy? Or has it deteriorated to whose religion is right with the atheist frequenters jabbing a few snarky jokes from the sidelines?
What is the central axis that the current debate revolves around? I'm seeing the same mixture of interesting points and arrogance from everyone in the pages I've read, but I still don't see what's driving it all.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattB, in answer to your questions, I do not believe in separate and distinct dispensations of divine grace. God has only ever had one way of saving human beings, and that is by the intervention of His Son as in effect the Surety or Co-Signer for the human race. Those who thought they were saved on the basis of their obedience to various traditions and standards (even including the Ten Commandments) MISUNDERSTOOD the means of salvation, but their time of ignorance was not a separate dispensation of God's grace. He merely takes into account how faithful someone is to what he knows, along with making allowances for that person's background and upbringing.
Before or after the Cross, all humans who will be saved will be saved solely because Christ lived and died in their place, as the New Adam. Before the Cross, the faithful looked forward to this in the types of the sacrificial system, inwhich an animal was slain, representing Christ. After the Cross, the faithful who understand submit to the rite of baptism by immersion, representing their identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in their place.
In Christ all who are of faith are reconstituted as a new human race with a sinless heritage, with the righteousness of God Himself imputed to them, since the only way for humans to be saved was for a righteousness outside of our race to be brought in, since no righteousness remained within the race of Adam. When the Son of God joined humanity to Himself, He forever joined our race to divinity. So for eternity we will share the throne of Christ, and the throne of Deity will be moved to earth. This is how much God had to do for us in order to dispense with our sins and restore us to followship with Himself.
Lucifer, in becoming Satan, charged that God was selfish, by not allowing any of His creatures to "evolve" into Godhood, and by insisting they had to follow His standard of righteousness. By elevating the most unworthy sapient race in the universe to sit on the throne of Deity, by sacrificing Himself on the Cross, by giving to our race His own righteousness that is equal to the Law, without any contribution whatsoever on our part, God in Christ is giving the full and final answer to Lucifer's charges.
The issues in the controversy between Christ and Satan are immensely greater than most people realize. They are truly cosmic in scale and importance.
The concern of some, like Lisa, that their particular ethnic group should have precedence over all others, fades into utter insignificance.
I also believe that the Second Coming of Christ is imminent, that He will take His saints out of this earth to Heaven for the one thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20, where and when the saints will review God's judgment of angels and humans; and following which Jesus, the saints, the New Jerusalem, and the throne of God will be returned/moved to earth, which will be re-created as the New Earth.
[ January 06, 2009, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've asked Papa Janitor to cast a quick eye over us (benediction? blessing?), not for any one post or poster, but just so that we are on the radar. [The general topic is contentious enough and people are passionate enough that I think it's good to have a specific eye trained this way. That's all.]
A reference to the TOS: " You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs."
I note this publicly in case anyone else had the same thought, in order to prevent PJ from having to deal with multiple flags.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was actually about to comment anyway -- I received a couple other whistles about this thread while I was away on vacation, and hadn't yet had time to read through the whole thread.
I believe it's possible that a couple of posts have pushed a little bit on that blurry line distinguishing between explaining one's beliefs and evangelizing (and perhaps the other line that distinguishes between disagreeing with others' beliefs and disparaging them). Please endeavor to remain on the proper side of whichever line you (general) may be nearing.
posted
I'm gonna just go ahead and mention that MY beliefs are obviously the right ones, and everyone here should defer to me.
In fact, why don't we just all take turns saying, "I'm right and you're wrong" so we have that out of the way, and then we can go back to the real world of discussion where we actually support what we say if we expect other people to give it any thought.
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I think I've lost track of this thread.
Is this still the same discussion about whether the Sabbath is on Saturday or Sunday, or about whether Christians have the right to keep the 7th day holy? Or has it deteriorated to whose religion is right with the atheist frequenters jabbing a few snarky jokes from the sidelines?
What is the central axis that the current debate revolves around? I'm seeing the same mixture of interesting points and arrogance from everyone in the pages I've read, but I still don't see what's driving it all.
No, you've got it all wrong. This thread is, first and foremost, about whether it's morally justifiable and/or incumbent to murder missionaries for trying to change your mind about God.
Geez, whatever happened to reading comprehension. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm gonna just go ahead and mention that MY beliefs are obviously the right ones, and everyone here should defer to me.
In fact, why don't we just all take turns saying, "I'm right and you're wrong" so we have that out of the way, and then we can go back to the real world of discussion where we actually support what we say if we expect other people to give it any thought.
Just an idea.
May I ask who you are directing this comment to?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: In fact, why don't we just all take turns saying, "I'm right and you're wrong" so we have that out of the way, and then we can go back to the real world of discussion where we actually support what we say if we expect other people to give it any thought.
posted
To whom you are directing this comment! Someone might just bump their head on that low hanging preposition.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is to everyone who might now or ever disagree with me on any matter, religious, philosophical, psychological, medical, sociological, or otherwise!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Ron, are you a supercessionist? If so, are you also a premillennial dispensationalist?
posted
Hey, everyone knows the Second Coming was a movie with Christopher Eccleston. And not a bad one, either.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Ron, people been claiming the Second COming is night! for...... since the Bible was written, don't cha know it?
I think you mean "nigh" Blayne. Though the Bible does say that the second coming will come "like a thief in the night."
If you look just alittle bit deeper into the Bible I think you will find that many of the apostles including John and Paul recognized that the second coming was not going to happen very soon.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, some of the Apostles at times may have believed that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent. They were aware that it could be, if Christ had been received by His people, so He would have had a community of faithful witnesses. The "70 weeks" (490 years) prophecy of Daniel 9:24 terminated in 34 A.D.
But because God foresaw that Christ would not be accepted by most of those to whom He came, the 2300 days/years prophecy would also transpire.
The Apostle Paul said of Christ's return: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4; compare Daniel 11:36, 37; 7:25; Revelation 13:5-8)
While there may be an end-time re-fulfillment, much of these prophecies have already been fulfilled in past history.
In other words, most of the things that had to happen have already happened. All that remains is the time of final test for all the world, when everyone will be brought to the point of final decision. (See Revelation 3:10.) Some call this the Judgment of the Living. (See Daniel 7:13, 22, 26.) God is waiting to have a community of faithful believers who are ready to serve as witnesses to the truth for the final generation.
[ January 07, 2009, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speed, I agree that murder of missionaries is the first and main point of the thread. I don't care to discuss what Sabbath day you care to observe (don't Muslims worship on Friday?), but putting my life in danger because I want to share my faith is far more disturbing.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't an unreasonable conclusion. You were patting yourself on the back for not doing them an injury.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was missionized yesterday. I went out to check the mail in ten degree weather with no jacket and was approached by two nice young Mormons. I politely told them I am Southern Baptist and cold and do not want to get into a discussion with them about theology at that point.
The one asked me why I thought there were so many religions, I said because different people interpret the Bible differently. He started to go into his prepared response and I interrupted him again and said I was cold and going inside. I didn't want to be rude, but I'm not going to argue why my religion is better than someone else's and I don't want someone to do that to me.
While I was talking with them, I thought of this thread. Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
x I didn't want to be rude, but I'm not going to argue why my religion is better than someone else's and I don't want someone to do that to me.
But you're religion isn't better than someone else's. Thankfully the same can't be said for my religion.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason I would kill one would in that situation would be to cut him open and climb inside for warmth. "Mormons smell as good on the inside as they do on the outside."
*Star Wars reference just incase someone didn't get it.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are no Mormons in Star Wars. The only Star Wars character who is a member of a "real" religion is Jabba the Hutt (real name Ya'akov Horowitz).
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a side note, I was in a college wide faculty meeting yesterday when one of faculty members who I barely know, told me he'd been approached by mormon missionaries recently and then said "They are using your name."
It made my stomach sink a bit. I'm happy to admit I'm LDS and tell people about my church, I just didn't know these missionaries well. I hope they are the really nice polite kind that people like and not the over zealous pushy kind that irritate people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brojack: That was a perfectly acceptable way to deal with missionaries. It isn't surprising for missionaries not to take the first no.
---
Rabbit: I don't quite understand what your colleague meant by, "They are using your name." The missionaries said they were friends of yours? They referred to themselves as Elder or Sister Rabbit? Or your surname?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
BB, Based on the rest of the discussion, I suspect the missionaries were talking to him, they found out he was in Engineering at UWI and said "Oh, do you know Professor Rabbit in Chemical Engineering? She's a member of our church, we see her every Sunday at our meetings". If that's all that happened I don't have any problem.
The way he said "They are using your name" though made me wonder whether they were using my name as a sort of calling card when they met people from the University "Hi, do you know Dr. Rabbit? We are missionaries from her church" and that would tend to imply that I am sending these guys to contact my work colleagues when I'm not and that idea makes me very uncomfortable.
The odd thing is that I use my husband's surname at church and my surname exclusively at the work so I'm not quite sure what name they used or how he identified me from what they said. I guess it wouldn't be that hard since I'm the only white woman professor in Engineering and one of the few people from North America in the college.
[ January 16, 2009, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It isn't surprising for missionaries not to take the first no.
Why not?
I suppose for the same reasons that sales people rarely take the first no. They've found if they can keep you talking a bit longer you might get interested in the conversation and change your mind.
I'm sure there is a balance to be struck there but I've dealt with plenty of sales persons and missionaries who haven't found it and are obnoxiously pushy. That's part of why I worry about missionaries using my name when they contact people. If they are the obnoxiously pushy sort, I don't want people to associate me with them, even if I am happy to be associated with the church.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Name dropping is a common sales tactic when cold calling. The idea is to present a sense of familiarity or legitimacy without the costly overhead of actually establishing a relationship or rapport. I haven't seen missionaries do this before, but I'm not too surprised that some might.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Name dropping is a common sales tactic when cold calling.
I understand that but it doesn't make me more comfortable with them dropping my name.
Like I said, it sort of depends on what actually happened. If it came up in the course of conversation, I don't have any problem with it but if they were using my name to get in the door it would really bother me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It isn't surprising for missionaries not to take the first no.
Why not?
Well for instance it's not common to be approached by a stranger who then asks for a relatively large time commitment. Many people might say no just because it's a reflex. Sometimes people say no because they have misconceptions about Mormon missionaries. Sometimes people say no because they think the missionaries mean that they want to discuss with them "right now" rather than "at a convenient time." People might say no they don't want to talk about the missionary's message, but perhaps there is some other need the missionaries could help with, such as a small chore or helping emotionally for a problem that is pressing at the moment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand that but it doesn't make me more comfortable with them dropping my name.
I understand completely. I hate it when a salesperson does that to me. It's an ugly form of deception.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a part of me that wishes that people talking about their religion were less obnoxious and less deceptive than people selling other things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well for instance it's not common to be approached by a stranger who then asks for a relatively large time commitment. Many people might say no just because it's a reflex. Sometimes people say no because they have misconceptions about Mormon missionaries. Sometimes people say no because they think the missionaries mean that they want to discuss with them "right now" rather than "at a convenient time." People might say no they don't want to talk about the missionary's message, but perhaps there is some other need the missionaries could help with, such as a small chore or helping emotionally for a problem that is pressing at the moment.
As complete strangers, I think courtesy demands that they respect my initial response regardless of what they believe my motives to be.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder that they aren't? The existence of some obnoxious missionaries does not mean that all are as obnoxious as, say, those people who haunt the malls and sell magazine subscriptions so they can go to Rome.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a part of me that wishes that people talking about their religion were less obnoxious and less deceptive than people selling other things.
This reminds me of a joke my district had at the Missionary Training Center:
Q: What's the difference between a Mormon missionary and an Amway salesman? A: Soap.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone's mission is different. I'd never even heard of missionary compared to sales people until my second area when the RS pres referred to us as such, and we were more than a little bit offended. I think the central difference was self-interest - it hurt that people thought we were out there for our own self-interest. We certainly were trying as hard as we could to not be.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I could find some tactful way to find out it the missionaries are misusing my name and ask them not to. Unfortunately, I can't think of a polite way to do this that either end up offending them or persuading them I'm on the high road to hell.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well for instance it's not common to be approached by a stranger who then asks for a relatively large time commitment. Many people might say no just because it's a reflex. Sometimes people say no because they have misconceptions about Mormon missionaries. Sometimes people say no because they think the missionaries mean that they want to discuss with them "right now" rather than "at a convenient time." People might say no they don't want to talk about the missionary's message, but perhaps there is some other need the missionaries could help with, such as a small chore or helping emotionally for a problem that is pressing at the moment.
As complete strangers, I think courtesy demands that they respect my initial response regardless of what they believe my motives to be.
Well for one thing, no missionary should be approaching anybody without first introducing themselves and asking if you have a moment to talk. Courtesy to me seems to demand that you at least introduce yourself unless pressed by something important.
Is there really such a huge exertion between saying, "I'm sorry but I am not interested," letting the missionaries respond, and then emphatically but politely saying no again and bidding them good day?
As somebody who probably understands better than most where a missionary is coming from Matt I am surprised that you have that much patience. But then again, I suffer from the opposite effect. Because I served a mission I feel compelled to give people a chance to explain themselves every time they come to my doorstep. It annoys my wife when I sit there for 5-10 minutes before finally getting a person to leave.
Rabbit: Are you certain you don't know these particular missionaries from church, or through family connections? You could always call up their mission president and have him ask the missionaries at mission conference to not use members as an endorsement in their proselyting unless they know them personally.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
