posted
Jon, the dividing line, for me, is when my name is brought into it. I’m not offended by you believing whatever you want. But if you presume to do something on my behalf or in my name that is contrary to what I believe, then I am offended.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's tough to offend me. What comes closest, but is really more just annoying is to have somebody tell me I'm going to hell, for whatever reason. Like it's their job to decide.
Misconceptions about what Catholics believe is much less so, but is also minorly annoying. And I'm more annoyed at Catholics that perpetuate the misconceptions than non-Catholics who happen across them.
I don't even mind being told I'm wrong. It happens often enough. But I mostly just chalk it up to differences in interpretation and assert my free will to choose what I believe. No biggie.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find any relgious beliefs offensive. In fact, I take offense at only two categories of things: That which is actually vile (e.g. abuse of innocents), and that which is obviously intended to offend. The first category is relatively small. The second is easy to spot, because it has no apparent purpose other than offense.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fishtail I wasn't trying to speak for catholics above. I was just commenting that Catholicism seems to have more in-between options possible than most other brands of Christianity excluding LDS.
You are his brother, and we are all in this together. We are all traveling on a road and must each help eachother out. Some of us have better directions than others. Some of us know more of some things than others, and other people know more of something else. We all have different abilities. We even have different goals and I suspect we had different goals before we were born.
In the end, we will ALL of us be given the fate we will be the most comfortable with, other than ceasing to exist since (within our theology) that is impossible.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah, I didn't think it would help, I just didn't really know what Tom was asking.
By the way, I want to apologize to AJ. I try to be very careful about stating things to show that I know that they are my beliefs, that I understand that they aren't facts to everyone else. I'd like to blame early morning stupidness for the outburst, which was rather disrespectful. AJ, I have the utmost restpect for you, and I think you're a wonderful women. I'm certainly not mad at you, nor think that I'm in any way superior to you. I hope there are no hard feelings.
posted
"Some of us know more of some things than others, and other people know more of something else."
Having had a brother, myself, I know just how little this actually means. Because, let's face it: cutting through all the niceties, you guys believe the purpose of this life is to find your way to God. So if you have a roadmap and nobody else does, nothing else matters.
Realistically, what COULD be more important, in a world where that's our sole purpose for existing?
Don't get me wrong: I know how important it is to lie to your children and say you like and respect them all equally. But I also know that it's often a lie.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, AJ, not at all! It's mostly Catholics that give out bad info on Catholicism after all! (Well, them and Jack Chick) And you invited any Catholics around to comment, which I though was incredibly cool (at least I think that was you, I didn't check). No harm, no foul at all. Not even the slightest bit annoying.
I meant the folks that just *know* that's what Catholics believe, because they heard it from a friend who used to be Catholic, or some such thing. (Or worse, learned it from Chick tracts.)
posted
I concur with Fishtail, AJ - I welcome posts like yours because it offers a chance to correct misconceptions, and because I know people will be receptive to the new information.
posted
How 'bout this, Tom. We believe God expects us to love all those around us. Not in a condescending way, not in an "I'm superior and I am reaching down to help you" way. We believe that we shouldn't hold grudges, prejudices, or compel another human being to do something (except perhaps our children under our care). We believe that we are less than the dust of the earth in the sense that we err and rebell against God despite our best efforts not to and yet God loves us all. We believe that if someone does something to us we are not justified in doing it back and that if we do not forgive someone who has wronged us, the greater sin is ours.
If we profess to do these things and do not, we stand accountable before God. That is all that *really* matters.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made the decision a while ago that I will no longer rely on third-party or nonmembership POVs when exploring the beliefs of other faiths. I want to learn about Islam, so I'll eventually be reading the Qu'ran.
Being interested in exactly what the heck the Catholic Church officially teaches, I picked up a copy of the 2nd Edition Catechism in hardcover for $14 at Books-A-Million.
***
And it takes a LOT to offend me. For the most part, offense gets ridiculous. I get more offended on others' behalf than I do my own, actually. I'll stand myself getting insulted long before letting my friends get their feelings hurt.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the idea of getting the rundown of someone's beliefs from the source. That's why the Rebbetzin thread is so dang cool. I just ordered (and I shouldn't have) this almost directly as a result of this thread. (I need to something to listen to in the car.) My favorite part is that the lectures are written and given by members of the individual religions - as representative as you can get considering the different sects of these religions.
I started with Christianity because I have to admit to rabid curiosity if the prof will mention Mormons.
Tom, if I get time tonight (not likely) I'll try, but the thing is, if I try to interprut what you mean, I may be right, but I may also be putting a whole lot of words in your mouth that never came out of there before.
quote: we have declared we are the only true church.
quote: Therefore baptism into a non-LDS Christian church is entrance into a church that rejects words of Christ. Therefore they are not "Christ's church".
quote:I do think I'm right, which by defenition, makes them wrong)
quote: And it's ridiculous to say that you should never claim to be right because that implies that somebody else is wrong.
Not necessarily.
Let's use a handy-dandy analogy.
Person X says that December 25 is a Saturday (it is this year.)
Person Y says that December 25 is Christmas.
Person Z says that December 25 is a winter day.
Person A says that December 25 is the day Santa Clause comes.
Person B says that December 25 is the day we celebrate the birth of Christ.
Person C says that December 25 is a National Holiday.
Now, all of these statements are true. Believing one of them does not make the others any less valid, but saying that you are the only one with "The Truth" is a bit absurd. You probably do have "The Truth." Just probably not all of it. And a lot of other churches could have just as much of "The Truth" as you do.
The point is, that while I believe that you believe you have the only truth, I think it's possible for many different sects to have just as much truth as you have. To think that you are the only ones with "The Truth" seems to be a bit proud (arrogant) to me. Of course, I suppose if you believe your teachings are more along the lines "December 25 is Saturday during winter and it's a National Holiday on which we celebrate the birth of Christ and there are presents involved and some people think they have something to do with Santa Claus," then what's really left to say? You know it all. Of course, there are still some things about that day that you've left out, but since you are the only ones with "The Truth" any other facts are irrelevant, right?
Jon Boy,
quote: And it's ridiculous to say that you should never claim to be right because that implies that somebody else is wrong.
I'm quoting that again because now I'm confused. Are you saying the same thing I am, or are you saying what I thought you were saying, which is that it's silly not to acknowledge that you are right and they are wrong?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"December 25 is Christmas," and "December 25 is a winter day," can both be true. But, "Joseph Smith was a prophet who at God's command and direction restored the true church of Jesus Christ and recieved the priesthood." and "Joseph Smith did NOT have a vision and do that stuff." cannot both be true.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is absolutely nothing in the doctrine of any church with which I am familiar, excluding the LDS, which mentions Joseph Smith at all, much less states that he didn’t have a vision, etc.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
If the first statement is true, then those that don't say it are missing something.
Added: Something pretty major, too. I mean, God and Jesus Christ made a personal appearance in the past 200 years? Priesthood authority restored directly from John the Baptist? Record of the inhabitants of the Americas and their dealings with God and Christ? That's huge!
Kayla, I'm saying that I really dislike the whole "You can believe whatever you want, but don't say that you're right and others are wrong, because that's offensive" argument. I think it's silly. I don't think "not offending others" should be our primary goal. Christ offended people pretty regularly, but it seemed like it was more important to him to spread the word.
quote:You probably do have "The Truth." Just probably not all of it. And a lot of other churches could have just as much of "The Truth" as you do.
I would disagree, of course, but I have no problem if that's what you believe.
quote:The point is, that while I believe that you believe you have the only truth, I think it's possible for many different sects to have just as much truth as you have.
I just want to make it clear that we don't believe that we are the only church that has any truth—we believe that lots of churches have lots of truth, but not the whole truth. And there are other churches that think the same thing of us.
posted
dkw, But there are many other points of doctrine in which your church says something that does directly contradict the teachings of our church. Come on, if all the churches said the same thing, they'd be the same church.
You say baptism is not a necessary ordinance, just a nice symbol of an internal commitment. I say it's necessary to receive either in person or by proxy in order to enter the highest kingdom of God's glory. If you can explain to me how we can both be right, it'll take more mental gymnastics than my feeble mind is capable of.
posted
Kamisaki, did you read ANYTHING I wrote about baptism? Because I don't think you could have mischarictarized my beliefs any worse if you were doing it intentionally.
posted
I'm inclined to agree with kat, Dana. I'm all for being ecumenical, but I think you've got to draw the line somewhere; at some point, you bump up against a belief that is either right or wrong, and pick sides.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I certainly don’t think all beliefs are equally valid. I do think that in inter-religious discussion, the language used must allow for the possibility that all of the beliefs being presented are valid.
posted
Oops, Strong Bad's right, I mistook what Belle said for you, dkw. Sorry about that. But in 24 pages, it's easy to get lost in the arguments.
But my point stands. If not on that specific doctrine, I'm sure that you can list something in which you disagree with the Mormon position, and both of us cannot be right at the same time. I don't know the specifics of your belief, so I'm not going to try to suggest another one, but I can only assume that if you agreed with us on everything you'd already be a Mormon.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe there's some differences of opinion on what the thread is? Because earlier Banna was positing that missionaries would never say some of the things on this thread (which I agree).
But then, missionaries aren't out for inter-religious discussion. They're looking for those that are ready to accept what they hear when they hear it. I do agree that chest-beating is seldom productive.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for starters, most Christians I know.
While it's certainly the case that many Mormon beliefs are downright heretical/blasphemous to "traditional" Christians, those beliefs aren't common knowledge and, more importantly, most Christians are willing to allow them to self-identify.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only Christian church I specifically know of that has said we aren't Christian are the Southern Baptists (and I'm not even sure if they still say this). And I'm guessing that most non-Christians really don't care about the issue.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks! I've been enlightened. I was under the impression that other Christian religions did not believe Mormons were Christian. I realize that some probably don't care one way or the other, then there is the other extreme (street preachers).
Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's really no such thing as the "Southern Baptist Church." There's a SB Convention and that sets out some statements that are voted on by members of the denomination, but none of it is binding on individual congregations or individual Baptists. The SBs believe in a personal relationship with God, period. Community is important, but it doesn't define the faith.
Unfortunately, this can also lead to some very rious problems both within the denomination and in how it relates to others. Within churches, people are getting revelations from God all the time. Sometimes it is purest nonsense and even destructive of the community, but the recipient is free to believe whole-heartedly in the validity of that message as if it really is from God. There's a lot of time spent by Baptist preachers trying to communicate "how to listen to God's will" or "how to tell the difference between your own fantasy and God's voice."
Really, the only way the Baptist faith works at all is because it has become what they call "Bible-based." They have hit upon the idea that literal interpretation will save the world from falling into self-delusional error. And it sort of stands to reason because I suspect Baptists have learned from hard experience that emphasizing each individual's personal relationship with God is fraught with danger when there are no obvious criteria that all the faithful agree on regarding what God is likely to say and what He is not likely to say.
It's intensely interesting stuff.
Also, from an ecumenical point of view, Baptists are rather stand-offish. They believe that they are among a handful of sects that truly understand the Bible and use it properly (i.e., without picking and choosing and without interpretation.) I find that to be utter nonsense, having experienced the obvious fact that they do in fact pick and choose, and simply HAVE TO interpret things.
But, then again, I know a few Baptists who are among the finest and most truly holy people I have ever met. And I respect their knowledge of Scripture as well as their rather simple, straightforward logic.
And sometimes they surprise me and rise above the prejudices of the run-of-the-mill Baptists (the one's that generate the more ludicrous of the statements coming out of the Southern Baptist Conventions every year).
Anyway, this is a long way of getting around to the point that you simply HAVE TO take Baptists individually, and you can never really know what the denomination stands for because there's no central authority to peg your opinion upon.
Having experienced it, I think it's a particularly bad way to run a denomination. But it seems to work for them.
I'm also shocked at how many Baptists fail to understand the Scriptures they claim to take literally. Not all, by any stretch. But many.
Oh, and one other thing. Baptists aren't ecumenical by nature because they truly do believe that everyone else has it wrong. If you aren't a biblical literalist, you are making a grave error, in their view. Keeping an open mind on other denominations is tough for them because it would mean recognizing the validity of a method of Biblical understanding that they simply can't go along with.
Similarly, the LDS has two major strikes against it as far as most Baptists would be concerned:
1) Joseph Smith reworded the Bible based on his own inspiration. The standard (generally accepted) Scripture is not to be messed with. I assume that this was so shocking to the Baptists that those alive at the time would've been more than willing to burn Smith's revision and maybe even Smith along with it.
2) As if that wasn't enough, Joseph Smith brought out a whole new set of writings that he claimed to be Scripture as well. This would be more offensive to the self-proclaimed "Bible-based" churches than it would be to any other Christian denominations because, basically, they would assume that you are not just revising the true scripture, but making up a new one.
To the extent that your new scripture differs from the old, it simply MUST be a lie. To the extent that it agrees with the old, it is simply an inferior paraphrase.
So, there's probably no way for a straight-line Baptist to engage in ecumenical dialog with any representative of the LDS church.
Or rather, it'd be pretty darn hard for them.
They aren't all that good at engaging in ecumenical dialog with the more normative Christian denominations. Catholics are in the same boat as the LDS in the sort of general thinking of the Southern Baptists. Presbyterians are probably okay.
Just about everyone has to be rebaptized, I believe, if you're going to join a Baptist church.
Probably depends a lot on the minister and how much of a Southern Baptist traditionalist he is.
(Oh, and "he" is the correct term there. Not to be confused with generic for "he or she.")
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](http://wahra.babylonia.flatirons.org/Images/SpringBreak/Annie_HobbesIII.JPG)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Taalcorn
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
btw, I always thought this emoticon was lifting weights. Now I realize those are hands! lol.
