prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
Taoist Saint says: I commend you for your efforts. There are a number of items that come to my attention:
1. Are you doing this as an exercise in your personal understanding? Or do you have something else in mind?
Frankly, I was thinking outloud. I've learned much from this site--not just the dogma, but some of the flow-of-thinking amongst LDS. Additionally, it's become clear to me that much of LDS teachings can be defended, IF we assume that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet. I was throwing these thoughts out for feedback.
2. Are you searching with the idea that you might change your thinking and philosophy? (find a truth you might be missing)
At this point I'd say I hope to "enhance" my thinking. However, how thin is the line between major enhancement and change?
3. Do you intend to find a weakness and therefore alter LDS thinking and philosophy? Or use that weakness to seek converts?
Not specifically. However, all conversations change seriously engaged participants. Perhaps others will gain some "enhancement" from what I have to offer, as well. I shouldn't be the only blessed by these cyber-interactions.
4. Are you looking for allies to help in support of causes you feel are most important in this day, age and time.
I do not have anything in mind at this time, other than the hope that, if nothing else, my posts leave people feeling better, rather than worse, about evangelicals and evangelicalism.
Now, may I make an attempt at your question? Sure, go ahead.
LDS are taught that this is a time that light is being restored. What may surprise you is that LDS also believe we are yet in a beginning stage of the restoration of light – more to come. The more advanced stages will occur as the time draws near when Jesus will return in power and glory (light) and completion will not happen until the Christ (in all his majesty of light) is among us.
I'd be interested to see how some other LDS posters view this. If I'm reading you right, latter day prophecies are meant to help the LDS prepare the world for Jesus' return. Does this mean that society will become increasingly ready for the Savior's coming? In other words, is the world supposed to become increasingly more godly? Or, does this simply mean that the gospel will become more fully understood as the time approaches?
FYI: Evangelicals generally believe that the world will gradually degenerate until Christ's return. There seem to be parallels here between the late-19th century theological divide between modernists (post-millenialists) and fundamentalists (pre-millenialists). However, I may be reading way too much into what Tao is saying.
Now your question seems to me to be a question of identifying what is light and what is darkness. Again I would refer you to Genesis and G-d’s witness that light is good. G-d seems to be about separating good from evil.
I think it wise to associate with all good and light one can find and disassociate with all evil and dark that may be thrust upon us. The question for LDS and evangelicals (and all mankind for that matter) is a question of what is good and light and what is evil and dark. -- In particular how can we shine a light that glorifies G-d? One thing I am sure of is that it cannot be done if one is associated with or doing dark and evil things.
Separating the goat from the sheep, perhaps?
-
Snow says: A historian's job is to present an accurate or as unbiased portrait of the past as is possible. They have an obligation to include the right things and possibly exclude the wrong things so as to present as true a version as can be. You argue that Wood's role of as a historian precludes him from speculating but despite arguing that he is a historian, you attribute to him no responsibility to present a full or complete or accurate or balanced account of the past.
Two comments. First, your expectations of historians in general is accurate. If I were preparing a Masters or Doctoral thesis, I would certainly need to offer some material that is positive, negative and nuetral, preferably from primary sources. I would then synthesize the findings, and offer my take on the most valid conclusions. However, all this assumes I am writing an academic work for an academic audience, from an aggressively objective stance. So, my second comment is that Woods is doing no such thing. He is playing a second role historians sometimes take on--that of popularizer. He digests the historical materials, and offers them already prepared for us. Furthermore, as the title suggests, he makes no pretensions about being objective. He believes historians up to now have not been, and he is offering a corrective: a polemic work that intentionally puts the best Catholic foot forward.
He may be a historian by training but this is not the best kind of history. This is pure apologetics.
Yes it is. However, Woods is upfront about it. A 200-ish page book is not a comprehensive history. This is an over polemic. Again, he's presenting what amounts to a rebuttal of the anti-religious, anti-Catholic fare that has generally been available on the subject to date.
Let me rephase my criticism: Woods covers all the best that he can attribute to the Catholic Church but completely ignores the ways in which the Church repressed or hindered progress that might otherwise have been made if not for the Church's ubiquitous influence. It seems natural that so much that flowed out of the middle ages would be stamped with the Church's influence since there is little that the Church did not control or sway or influence. And, some of the best and brightest were absorded into the clergy and monastic life. In a way that might have been helpful because where else could they get a paid gig studing the stars but on the other hand, it was quite a drain on the gene pool.
Still - none of my criticism is to down play the contributions I have now learned about.
I guess this all goes back to whether Christianity, and specifically the Catholic Church, have been an overall positive, nuetral, or negative. And theologically, this may come down to whether you believe Christianity has been apostate sense the early post-apostolic age or not.
-
Originally posted by Snow@Dec 22 2005, 09:53 PM
I just finished How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr. PhD.
The premise of the book is that the what we learned in schools - that the middle ages were the dark ages, full of ignorance and suppression, not in the least part maintained by the Catholic Church - is false, and not just false but wholly and completely false. The author tells us that contrary to what we think, in fact it is the Catholic Church that is responsible for all that is good and right in the modern world. He writes that the Church formed or originated: ... Fourth, there is no balance to the book or discussion how things might have progressed had they not been fostered or, as we have been taught, held back by the Church.
While I have not plowed through these pages yet, a quick perusal of Amazon.com's reviews, as well as a look at Woods' previous works, gave me enough of a picture to comment on Snow's painfully objective review.
1. Woods is not trying to be balanced himself. He is providing a balance to generally anti-religious, certainly anti-Catholic historical myth that the Church was all about ignorance, and oppression of intellectuals, Jews, Muslims, and Bible translators. The author did not need to rehash the negative history. His goal was to correct the skewed picture that most previous histories of this era have offered.
2. A discussion about how things might have gone had the Catholic church not been there would have resulted in something we call historic fiction. Woods is a historian. He's writing about what happened, and should not be expected to engage is speculation, for the sake of appearing objective or balanced.
3. While Mormons, evangelicals, and even religious Jews and Muslims, may have serious theological disagreements, we would all benefit from cooperation to counter the anti-religious bias in academia. This is why I supported an LDS schoolboard candidate in my community, why I support Towards Tradition (a Jewish-Christian group advocating conservative mores to the social marketplace), and why I even reluctant to join those who want to label all things Catholic as apostate, idolatrous, or useless.
In fairness, my response here is not a review, but a review of reviews. At 200+ pages, this book sounds like an approachable, I may look into reading.
As we say in corrections, "Thanks for the intel., Snow!"
-
I'm still slowlly plodding my way through How Wide the Divide? A Mormon Evangelical Conversation. I'm about a third of the way through, and thus far, can highly recommend it as an intelligent, yet approachable discourse between LDS and evangelical theology.
Thus far, what I have found is that Mormon teaching challenges some beliefs that evangelicals take for granted. In other words, we evangelicals ASSUME things, before we even start talking with others.
Some examples:
1. Before God made the world, it was just him and the angels.
2. Humans begin their existance at conception.
3. On the day of judgment those whom God is pleased with will go to eternal reward. The rest will be damned to hell.
4. Many will be damned to hell.
These are just a few of the beliefs that we've been raised up to assume "go without saying." There are others, of course.
LDS believers likely have their set of assumptions too--especially those raised in the church. You see the four listed above and think, "What? Why would they believe that?"
So, here's my question: What one LDS truth, if any, holds the rest together, and justifies belief that the COJCLDS is the restoration of the Christian church and gospel?
IMHO (as a non-LDS) it seems to be the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims. If he really received the visions, and really translated the writings, then the rest of the distinctive teachings can be defended. If Smith was a deceiver, or he was deluded, then all the distinctives become obscure (not impossible) interpretations.
BTW, the same could be said about Jesus. If he really is the Son of God, sent from the Father, then his teachings and gospel hold true. If not, we'd all better find us some rabbis!
-
Originally posted by thedreadedbat@Dec 20 2005, 09:04 PM
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/internationa...0in032000c.html
This was a mistake on someone's part, that's for sure. China is still a communist government, with an official anti-religious stance. The government sees religion as a danger to public order, and as a "counter-revolutionary" force. It tolerates an official church, called the Three-Self Peoples Movement. The TSPM represents all Protestant Christians, and is not allowed to preach about Jesus' rising from the dead, about such things as the "blood of Jesus," about the second coming, etc. Furthermore, the congregations have a team of four ministers, one of whom must be a member of the communist party (i.e., not a believer). Sermons are censored. And, the bottom-line reality is that 90% of Christians do not attend the TSPM, but risk themselves and family members by attending underground house churches.
Additionally, there is a strong anti-missionary mentality in China--which is not totally undeserved. Missionaries came to China with western war ships, and with the opium traders. Thus, they were seen as representing foreign interests, rather than God.
So...this was not an "oops" mistake. This is the type of colossal error that many in China's government salivate for. I am quite certain that this episode was reported in the Chinese media with some glee.
No Christian (LDS or not), indeed no American, can take joy or snicker at this story. Few Chinese will distinguish between LDS and Christians in general, and most will believe our government probably had its fingers in this episode.
-
Originally posted by Jason@Dec 19 2005, 03:45 PM
We're looking at a global crisis. We can either kill off the population through war and disease, or starvation.
OR
We can impliment a birth control program and save everyone the hassle.
Except...except that westernized countries are now facing a depopulation crisis. We're not going to have enough young workers to support retirees, nor to keep our industries running. Europe and Japan are even worse off than the U.S.--only because of our healthy immigration rates.
The cure to overpopulation is wealth. Countries that experience increasing standards of living also experience decreasing birthrates. As getting "daily bread" becomes certain, parents no longer have many children as a form of insurance for old age. As infant mortality rates lower, people feel less need to just keep having babies so a few will survive.
-
Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 20 2005, 01:49 PM
From Wikipedia.....
Jones is Lutheran, Republican, married and has two children. He has a share of a business, Distinct Golf, which runs five golf courses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is operated by others in his family.
Lutherans are part of mainstream "historic" Christianity, which tends to be more 'liberal' on social and religious hotbutton issues. The Republican party has factions, and the old-school group (think Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush) tend to tolerate the "religious right," at best. Many religious conservatives refer to these as "country club Republicans." I believe it was this type of judge who tried to sentence Jim Bakker to 45 years in prison for what was essentially a white collar crime.
All this to say that Republicans and Christians are no more monolithic in opinion than Mormons or agnostics are.
-
Originally posted by Snow@Dec 20 2005, 08:15 PM
Saying you won't blame God does nothing to solve the logical dilema posed by your theology.
God didn't just create Satan and mankind with the capacity to sin. He created them in such a way that they would inevitably sin. They could not have done otherwise. He created their innate nature and all the circumstances, cause, influences and motivations and physical realities and mental faculties that inexorably lead to evil.
That might be someone's theology. It's probably the teachings of Calvinism, with its predestination. However, it is not mine, nor those who espouse "free will." Satan, Adam and Eve did not have to sin. They did not have to rebel. They chose to do so, and God the Father was ready for a course of events to follow. If sin is truly inevitable, then free will is a false teaching.
If I go into a dark theater and light a torch and yell fire - well, I didn't make people panic by mistake, stampede the exits and trample the old women and children - they all decided to panic on their own but I am still responsible.
Yes you are. And, I look forward to seeing you in chapel when that happens.
Seriously, though. That scenario is the standard given for the limitations of free speech. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater because the threat your speech poses to public safety far outweighs the potential benefit of granting you liberty in this area.
God did not create such an inevitable set of circumstances. Adam and Eve are in the Garden. They have all that they need. They have meaningful work. They have regular communion with God. Satan tempts them with independence and rebellion, and they bite--literally. They didn't have to.
-
Originally posted by sugarbay@Dec 20 2005, 04:43 PM
Call me a Pollyanna but I think it is really disheartening that peoples of different countries, all of Father's children, can't think of anything else to do but insult each other. Certainly not the way Enoch's city of Zion was established, an aspiration to which we should be striving.
We should expect the people of God to behave better, but if you expect political commentators or politicians to demonstrate such gospel love, well, ya...kind Pollyanna.
-
Snow says: Your statement that God created everything good is, of course, logically false. If God didn't create it, it doesn't exist - that or God is not the creator of everything. Beside, don't you believe in some idea of original sin - that man is born with sin on his head - an enemy to God
Sorry to jump in--especially since I have not read the entire string. But, here I go with both feet (hopefully they do not end up inserted in mouth)
The simple answer is that God created Satan with the capability of rebelling. He created Adam & Eve with the same ability. They chose to do so. Does that make God the creator of their decisions? Does the heavenly Father's foreknowledge of their decisions make him culpable? I don't know about you, but I'm not about to blame God for nuthin'
-
Originally posted by Winnie G@Dec 19 2005, 11:29 PM
I am a LDS member because I chose to belong to the true church of God not the pale water downed pagan, idol worshiping,
Okay. Tell us how you really feel.
You decry the yahoos who go to SLC with anti-Mormon sloganeering, accusing them of hate speech, and then come out with this? Fortunately, your church doesn't broadcast this tone. I'm plowing through a book called Mormonism and Evangelicalism: How Wide the Divide? I highly recommend it, if for nothing else, than a lesson in how intelligent people can express heartfelt convictions and disagreements with each other, and leave the conversation as friends.
As to the accusations: 1. Christians are pale watered down (compared with the LDS, I suppose). Well, since the LDS came afterwards, I don't see how Christians are watered down. I would argue, instead, that our theologies are different. How different is the topic of many of these strings.
2. Christians are pagan. Well, if you buy into the Jehovah's Witnesses arguments about flag-saluting, so-called, observance of Christmas/Easter (which LDS do), etc. then join that obscure tact. If you have serious theological issues, they might be appropriate for a doctrinal string.
3. Christians are idol-worshiping.
Do you refer to Catholic statues, Orthodox icons, or the cross? The first two are not really my area of expertise, though Catholics will be quick to tell you they do not worship the saints or their statues. For them, the statues are akin to pictures of Jesus you may have in your home. As for crosses, no Christians worships the cross symbol. The cross reminds us of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. It is not the image of a person or a creature. It is the somber image of the instrument of Jesus' death--and a reminder that we, as sinners, were responsible--that we were the true instruments of his death....Christians who clime they speck for God in Prada shoes wile poverty and political unrest and death fallows them in there wake.
So Republicans, and western Christians (come on, if you are middle class, you easily make the top-10% in terms of world income levels) cannot truly speak for God? Or do you have a limit? If you make less than $50K per year are you okay? $60K? Does it matter whether you live in Mississippi or NYC (cost of living differences)?
Besides, this last argument applies equally to Mormons, Christians, and people of many faiths. This is more of an anti-Western argument, than anything else. But, while we're wallowing in our middle class guilt about the poor of the world, they are working like crazy to become like us.
-
The original question was not if Christians were the worst on the list...only if their history was generally good or bad.
All three answers could be defended, depending on how one interpreted the question, and how one understood an overall Good, Nuetral, and Bad rating. I've seen good commentary here, and thank all the posters for their thoughtful expressions.
Communism, with its religion of atheism (or radical humanism) has killed more people than those who used the name of Jesus for their own power games.
Or communist people. Christianity never killed anyone either, but Christians have.You mean communist nations, right?
The ideology of communism is not really in conflict with religion...and one could say that Jesus preferred a form of communist living. Even the LDS practiced something close to communism in the early years. It could be argued that the LDS were the only successful communist experiment in history. Maybe communism works well in small populations, but no one has found a successful way to make it work in larger populations? Maybe communism NEEDS religion (or a strong moral code) to make it work well?
I think that Totalitarianism is more to blame for the deaths than Communism, when referring to Stalin, Mao, etc. ... which would explain why they have so much in common with Hitler, who was not Communist.
I dare say your version of communism seems to be little more than sharing. Communist ideology on a governmental level, as espoused by Marx-Lenin, included the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Of course the dictatorships never vanished as the need for them dissolved, because Lord Action was right: Absolute power does corrupt absolutely.
-
Originally posted by Winnie G@Dec 20 2005, 08:35 AM
I would like to see your thoughts on this.
My two thoughts were typical for the ego of the United States.
Moreover, I not surprised today is a slow day in US news.
Canada is Nirvana for many American "Blue Staters." Indeed, there was some commentary during America's last presidential election, that some of our liberal Democrats were considering moving to Canada if Bush won. In fact, I believe there was a short-lived spike in inquiries about immigration, following the election.
For conservative "Red Staters," then, Canada is something akin to France-nice. The French are proud of the fervent secularism, bedrock anti-Americanism, and their relatively socialistic economic system. Canada leans the same direction, but is tamer and more polite about it.
Personally, I've only seen Vancouver BC and Niagra Falls, but was always impressed with the natural beauty, and the general politeness that seems to pervade the society. On the other hand, my politics lean a different direction.
-
Originally posted by Winnie G@Dec 18 2005, 07:53 PM
10 million Jews were murdered by the hands of Christians. The Vatican turned in enough of them.
I assume you are referring to the holocaust. If so, I strongly object to this accusation! First, the # of Jews killed was six million, I believe--horrific, for sure. Secondly, the Nazi system was based on a combination of nationalism, racism, and ancient German pagan rites. Hitler was anti-Christian. Yes, a good number of those who did the actual killing were Christians. But, to say that Christianity produced or encouraged the holocaust is outrageous.
Think about it, if you go back in to history Christian minded leaders were forever killing and persecuting in the name of God. Even those that murder Joseph Smith and other saints thought they were right minded Christian’s.
I would argue that religion in most of these cases was a tool of wicked men, not the source of the wickedness.
Communism and other Mongols are not a religion so do not fall in to that posted question.
The official religion of Communism is atheism. Atheism is a faith system, because one cannot scientifically prove the absence of God. Furthermore, it carried out a systematic and violent campaign against people of "other faiths." So, it should count as a religious aggressor, and would win first prize, easily.
-
Originally posted by dontagreeljefe@Dec 17 2005, 11:00 PM
I know some people that treat Christmas like the sabbath.
Since I do not believe Mormons nor Pentecostals are strict sabbatarians, I would not see an issue with enjoying some family entertainment on Christmas Day. However, if a service is offered in your house of worship, I would think that "the reason for the season" would take precedence over, say a movie--even the Chronicles of Narnia, or Passion of the Christ.
-
Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 18 2005, 03:39 PM
But, the so-called "arrogance" you find irritating
Where did I say I find it irratating? I was just making an observation.
Okay...fair enough. Maybe you don't find arrogant people irritating.
So, one man's arrogance is another man's faith, I suppose.
Indeed. I find sometimes people get annoyed at me for my lack of faith as well.
I would argue that you do have faith. Whether you call yourself an atheist, agnostic, or Deist--none of these theological belief systems can be verified. They are positions of faith.
Perhaps what annoys people is that you do not believe as they do. If so, just tell them that they should, "Let go and let God."
-
Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 18 2005, 07:26 AM
In context it is fine. But one you first see it as a board topic it sort of answers it's own question. I've been in a few Wards and have noticed this general attitude among some of the members. Especially some of the ones from Utah (we call them snowbirds).
It's common for those who are a persecuted minority to beieve they are attacked because of special truths they hold:
1. Jehovah's Witnesses are told that the doors slamming in their faces are Satan's attack on the true gospel.
2. Pentecostals in the early 20th century believed that the historic churches were spiritually dead. They were tarred, feathered, mocked and villified because they preached, "the FULL gospel."
3. The early Mormons surely believed they were hounded because Satan was opposing the restoration of the gospel and true Christian church.
4. Today, many athiests, agnostics, and secularists believe they are unfairly concemned as "ungodly" or "godless" because of their superior rationality, and their refusal to rely on the crutch of religion.
But, the so-called "arrogance" you find irritating also spurs persecuted believers in China, parts of India, Indonesia, the Middle East etc. to endure incarceration, beatings, rejection from family, and sometimes death. So, one man's arrogance is another man's faith, I suppose.
-
Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 17 2005, 09:16 PM
Being special can be a blessing & curse
The above may explain why some folks get an attitude about you. There is more than just a little bit of arrogance that could be implied here.
Just a thought....
I'm just curious, Mr. Gallan. What do you suppose is meant by that phrase you pasted here, in its original context? After you enlighten me as to how you took it, I can comment on attitudes, tones and arrogance.
-
Originally posted by Winnie G@Dec 17 2005, 11:56 PM
Christianity has killed more in the name of God then any other belief, history has proven that.
thats why I said bad
Two comments: 1. Communism, with its religion of atheism (or radical humanism) has killed more people than those who used the name of Jesus for their own power games. If you add Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung/Kim Jong Il, you probably exceed 100 million. Adolf Hitler's racial nationalism killed another twelve million. Yes, people have done horrific things in the name of Jesus, but if death-count is your standard, then we're not #1.
2. The Tacoma News-Tribune is a secular publication in a city that is perhaps 30% Christian (compared with roughly 85% nationwide). I hardly think this was a fluff piece, meant to appease an audience.
-
Originally posted by pushka@Dec 17 2005, 06:15 PM
Hmmm..I didn't find 'I'm feeling lucky' when I googled FAILURE on the link you provided...
Try again. I just clicked the link from your post, and it worked. There are two tabs. One says: GOOGLE SEARCH. The other says I'M FEELING LUCKY.
If you type the word Failure in the search engine, and click the second tab (I'm feeling lucky) you will be brought to a certain webpage...one that may or may not leave you "feeling lucky."
-
The LDS early embrace of polygamy, racial teachings, etc. were so controversial, that the Church continues to bear the burden of past mistrust from nonbelievers.
Snow comments: The way you phrased that I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. We in the Church do not hold folks responsible for the actions of their ancestors though doing so is a typical "Christian" doctrine so maybe that explains for of their thinking about polygamy. LDS history on race is not much different from mainstream Christianity. The way you phrase it, it was and I dispute that. If you are interested in learning the truth of the matter, we could talk about it in more depth.
The gist of this response, if it were chosen, would be to indicate that the modern-day LDS movement continues to suffer from a lack of trust on the part of nonmembers. This suspicion stems from the controversies of the 19th century, because those issues, while perhaps addressed by church to its members, have never been laid to rest amongst the general population. An example of this is that, fair or not, there is a perception amongst non-LDS that the Church taught that God favored whites, and that blacks suffered a curse. It's true that many Christians of the 19th century taught similar theories. However, it's an example of the mistrust that lingers from old controversies.
Non-LDS Christians believe Joseph Smith is a false prophet, and that our teachings are wrong. They think LDS souls are in danger, and they sometimes use extreme, immature, and "unChristian" methods to communicate their beliefs.
I don't like this answer but I don't know what you mean by extreme, immature and "unChristian." The is nothing like that in our missionary program. Maybe you should explain yourself.
Actually, when I suggest that "THEY use extreme...etc," I'm referring to Mormon critics, not Mormon missionaries.
Obviously these "critics" don't think that Joseph Smith was a prophet but that doesn't explain their ugly behavior. That makes it seem like it is us that causes them to be ugly or dishonest, or violent or worse.
I'm not sure why you say this. The so-called Christian assassins who went after abortion doctors thought these doctors were murdering unborn babies. We still blame the assassins, and prosecuted them for murder. Likewise, if a so-called Christian "missionary to Mormons" uses extreme, immature or 'unChristian' methods, we still blame the individual, not his/her target.
Christianity has a long and storied tradition of violence and hate mongering. Catholics used to murder and oppress those that disagreed with them. Then Protestants warred with Catholics with much violence and bloodshed, Puritans came to America to escape religious persecution. Mormonism is just a recent example of the immaturity, violence and immorality found within Christianity. Mormonism is growing quickly enough and powerfully enough that much of the antagonism will have to stop, though growing power might engender other motivations for attacks.
I see anti-Mormonism as a more general type of unChristian behavior regularly practiced by so-called Christians People are immature in their faith. They need an "other" to build themselves up at the "other" expense. In the old days they used to burn em at the stake. Now they just publish books and picket worship services. Bigot and ugly ones at that.
Well, then, IMHO, you might check the final answer, and posit the suggestion that these critic's souls are in danger, because they are not loving their brothers. 1 John 4:7-8. The final answer was not meant to imply any blame on the part of the targets of unseemly religious acts.
-
Tao Saint asks: And are those the true Windding characters that correspond to those letters, or is it a practical joke by a guy at Microsoft?
So all those beautiful random coincidences go up in vapors. Except...except, they probably do prove that the AntiChrist will probably be either a computer geek, or a new computer system.
For another example of how these sneaky people work, try the following:
1. Go to http://www.google.com
2. Type in the word: FAILURE
3. Click "I'm feeling lucky."
-
Traveler says: There are some Christian movement that refuse to adopt the pagan traditions of Christmas but we think of them as crack-pots, extremist, cults and outside the mainstream of Christianity.
You mean like when I wondered aloud if it was wrong to "lie" about Santa Claus to my children?
My point is not to put everybody straight or to indicate that Christmas must be changed or any such thing. My point is to demonstrate that in 2000 years that the Orthodox and Traditional Christians have strayed, both in spirit and in historical and scriptural facts concerning the sacred events and traditions of the birth of Jesus the Christ. The traditions of the Christmas season demonstrates the paganization of Orthodox and Traditional Christianity even to the point that just about every Christian alive to day - wonders if it has not all gone too far. With the example of Christmas how could anyone trust the Orthodox and Traditional Christians to keep and preserve any sacred tradition, doctrine, ordinance or interpretation of scripture?
I would reverse your claim: Current Christmas practice does not represent a paganization of the truths of the first advent, but rather a Christianization of a former pagan holiday--Winter Soltice I believe. Almost overnight, Christianity went from being a persecuted sect, to the official church of the Empire. Leaders were charged with teaching an influx of mostly illiterate and pagan "believers" the truths of the church. So, they took what the people knew and "baptized" the practices with Christian meanings.
Most of the "changes and additions" Traveler speaks of are innocuous. Who cares whether Mary rode a donkey, whether there really were animals in the manger area or not (yeah...we think it was a cave, not a barn). Perhaps these complaints are similar to non-LDS throwing a fit over the word "Adieu" in the BOM?
-
Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 17 2005, 09:25 AM
My understanding is that traditional Jewish thought on the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth meant just that -- one son and one daughter is not even replacement in real terms, much less multiplication.
I'm sure you are right about Jewish "thought and practice"--at least for the Orthodox. The source I was referring was an Orthodox rabbi, and the "one boy one girl" definition, only fulfilled the REQUIREMENT of the law. The result would be more than replacement, because while the average birthrate may be 50/50, many families do not have both a boy and girl by their second child. In my family, if we were under the Mosaic Law, we would have had to try for a fourth child, with no guarantees. There was a rabbi in this area who had a big party, because his eighth child was his first son!
Strange, Protestant Christian thought was pretty much in concensus on the desirability to raise large families and avoid birth control until the general secularization of Protestantism in the mid 20th. Century.
There has been a revival of support for stay-at-home moms and larger families within conservative Christianity. Birth control remains a personal decision, but whenever we see a large family in our churches we tend to smile and compliment them. We joke that whenever a family has a new child they are "promoting church growth the old-fashioned way." We say it with admiration, though.
Do you refer to Catholic statues, Orthodox icons, or the cross? The first two are not really my area of expertise, though Catholics will be quick to tell you they do not worship the saints or their statues. For them, the statues are akin to pictures of Jesus you may have in your home. As for crosses, no Christians worships the cross symbol. The cross reminds us of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. It is not the image of a person or a creature. It is the somber image of the instrument of Jesus' death--and a reminder that we, as sinners, were responsible--that we were the true instruments of his death.
What One Lds Distinctive Truth Is Most Essential?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Snow says: I agree with Ray. You can't stress enough the contributions that Joseph Smith made to the restoration but continuing revelation (and authority) is what drives the Church forward.
It only makes sense. Yes, Snow is certainly right that in order for anyone to consider Joseph Smith a prophet, s/he must first accept that possiblity that God continues to offer revelation on a level that informs Scripture (rather than Scripture providing the check for it, as evangelicals teach). BTW, the evangelical professor in How Wide the Divide does seem to make room for the possiblity (though not the reality) of latter day revelation on a par with current Scripture.