Zakuska Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 So what it boils dow to is that you really don't consider Mark disrespectful because he is stamping out the Mormon heresy and Zak's mention of the Canaanite woman has given you the escape route needed to save face.The bigger alarm is... he actually thinks its OK for Jesus to be racially biased. What ever happened to... "God is not a respector of persons"?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Since it is the LDS belief that Jesus was being disrespectful when he did that, then you will have to drop all charges made against Mark. Mark wasn't being disrespectful, but if you believe he was, then he was only following in Jesus' footsteps. That makes Mark innocent. That would make it: Case closed.Have you ever been disrespectful towards others?My fellow friends and brothern, lets drop this non sense. Can we get back on track? Mark, in the eyes of Echo is not guilty and nothing is going to change that, lets move on.
volgadon Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 So, I can call your god the "Lutheran god" and you wouldn't find that disrespectful at all? What about the Lutheran Jesus, or the Lutheran other gospel.What if we were to say things such as unlike the Jesus of the Bible, the Lutheran Jesus......
Doctor Steuss Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 What about the Lutheran Jesus, or the Lutheran other gospel.What if we were to say things such as unlike the Jesus of the Bible, the Lutheran Jesus......In order to be properly respectful, you cannot capitalize the proper name when it is preceded by the adjective "Lutheran."
volgadon Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 In order to be properly respectful, you cannot capitalize the proper name when it is preceded by the adjective "Lutheran."
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 In order to be properly respectful, you cannot capitalize the proper name when it is preceded by the adjective "Lutheran."
Zakuska Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 marty luther? Oh I see that is like saying old joe smith or old joe smith's god. or the mormon god/lutheran god.You just got to love "ole' Wes", "Calvy" and "Pope JP 3".
volgadon Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 marty luther? Oh I see that is like saying old joe smith or old joe smith's god. or the mormon god/lutheran god.Yeah, i take credit for that piece of respectful dialogue. I just want to spread the love around. In the words of an old Russian proverb "if they beat you it means they love you".
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 You can call my God the "Lutheran God" and I won't find that disrespectful at all. Again, it's about teaching and not people. This is about who God is.But what about you saying it is a "blatent misrepresentation"? What are you insinuating about Mark? Wouldn't that be a personal attack(disrespect) against people rather than the teaching? I wouldn't do that as it shows a lack of respect.So if I call your God the lutheran god, you don't see that as disrepectful? Half pint is simply descriptive of Half God/Half Man. It is refering to a teaching.This is what half pint meansrunt: disparaging terms for small people Either that or it is a Jamaican dance. Which is it?So when you call Jesus Christ a "half pint god" that is showing respect? You are in essing saying taht what I beleive in is a "runt god".
Tanyan Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Where did former lds go ?, after scanning this thread [ Late to another Salvation discussion party and watching the dance between Sheep and Goats] I see former lds taking Isaiah 64 completly out of context and try to impose it to all mankind. Not understanding that we do not work to be saved but to show that we want to be and stay saved through Jesus Christs Blood atoneing sacrifice for us and this is done by accessing Jesus Christ's True Grace [charis] through True Faith [pistis]. Formerlds ignors the anchient middle Eastern understanding of meanings of True Grace [charis] and True Faith [ pistis]. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Zakuska Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Where did former lds go ?, after scanning this thread [ Late to another Salvation discussion party and watching the dance between Sheep and Goats] I see former lds taking Isaiah 64 completly out of context and try to impose it to all mankind. Not understanding that we do not work to be saved but to show that we want to be and stay saved through Jesus Christs Blood atoneing sacrifice for us and this is done by accessing Jesus Christ's True Grace [charis] through True Faith [pistis]. Formerlds ignors the anchient middle Eastern understanding of meanings of True Grace [charis] and True Faith [ pistis]. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.What does Isaiah 64 which is addressed to pre-crucifixtion Jews have to do with 21st century American Christians anyway?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 What does Isaiah 64 which is addressed to pre-crucifixtion Jews have to do with 21st century American Christians anyway?They can't have it both ways, were is Hoops??
Vance Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 They can't have it both ways, were is Hoops??There are times that I miss Hoops. He is at least intellectually honest enough to admit that the gospel he believes in isn't the same as that gospel Jesus taught.
merganzerman Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 Good morning --I appreciate everybody's contribution to the thread. In going back to the theme behind original post that started this thread, I would like to refer back to Lightbearer's post (#112) in which he refers to two Bible passages as a means to support (I believe) the need for works to contribute to our salvation. First of all, let's make sure that we are on the same page in regards to the definition of salvation. The biblical understanding of salvation as 100% agreed upon by mainline Christian churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Evangelical, etc..) is as follows:Being saved from the punishment of hell and being restored to a healthy relationship with God that will last for all eternity in heaven. All this is given us freely because of Jesus
Zakuska Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Good morning --I appreciate everybody's contribution to the thread. In going back to the theme behind original post that started this thread, I would like to refer back to Lightbearer's post (#112) in which he refers to two Bible passages as a means to support (I believe) the need for works to contribute to our salvation. First of all, let's make sure that we are on the same page in regards to the definition of salvation. The biblical understanding of salvation as 100% agreed upon by mainline Christian churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Evangelical, etc..) is as follows:Being saved from the punishment of hell and being restored to a healthy relationship with God that will last for all eternity in heaven. All this is given us freely because of Jesus
Vance Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 It is my understanding that the Mormon definition of salvation is as follows: Usually equated with being resurrected. LDS do not see salvation as a free gift. Resurrection isn't a free gift? Really?
Vance Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I believe Lightbearer referred to 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 and passages in Philippians where it talks about running a race in order to receive a prize. That we need to go into strict training to receive a crown that will last forever. We don't want to run aimlessly, but utilize self-discipline so that we will not disqualify ourselves from the prize. (I'm paraphrasing the passages here). Nothing in those verses about "training" so why are you introducing this concept? Those verses are talking about actually running the race.1 Cor 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.Sorry, but I don't see "training" anywhere in those verses nor even the concept of training.Philippians 2:6 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.Sorry, but I don't see "training" anywhere in that verse nor even the concept of training.
Echo Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 This is a very bad translation. In the Greek, Jesus doesn't express or imply that He is the one to be asked. Sorry but this doesn't fulfill the CFR.This isn't Jesus speaking. Sorry but this doesn't fulfill the CFR. Although, this is the closest to doing so.This isn't Jesus speaking. Sorry but this doesn't fulfill the CFR. Also, this isn't a statement of instruction but rather a description of what Paul did.This isn't Jesus speaking. Sorry but this doesn't fulfill the CFR. Also, this isn't a statement of instruction but rather a description of what Stephen said.This isn't Jesus speaking. Sorry but this doesn't fulfill the CFR. Also, this isn't a statement of instruction but rather a description of what Simon said, who incidentally was called to repent and pray to "God" in the two previous verses.Sorry but the instructions Jesus gives on prayer are preeminent over the doings and sayings of all others. That is just the way it is.So you would be ok with this statement?So, I can call your god the "Lutheran god" and you wouldn't find that disrespectful at all?I havn't recieved a response to my CFR to you in post 209.
Vance Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I havn't recieved a response to my CFR to you in post 209.So you want me to provide you a reference for something that you brought up? Is that right?
Vance Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 . . . Paul is encouraging Christians to live our their lives as if you were chosen to compete in the Olympics. No, not really. Paul is encouraging Saints to live our lives as if we are running (not competing) in a race. There is no advantage in getting to the finish line before someone else. What is important is actually getting to the finish line. If you don't run (or walk or crawl) you won't get to the finish line.
Echo Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 So you want me to provide you a reference for something that you brought up? Is that right?Incorrect, it was something you brought up when you said: "You will have to treat us Mormons with respect (something that doesn't happen there)I don't believe you have spoken the truth. Therefore I am requesting that you CFR all the responses to noclafs disrespectful posts.I have a question for you also, You have stated that we will have to treat you with respect here in this forum, and I agree with you. The LDS should always be treated with respect. But can I ask you how many LDS posts in total in this topic have been disrespectful?Thank you for your time.
volgadon Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 But can I ask you how many LDS posts in total in this topic have been disrespectful?Too many. I say we all post about how lutherans have a different, Lutheran jesus.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.