Mormon Fundamentalists...

i think this a funny post, Nick, but it doesn't deal with the other issue.

every once in a while, i hear someone talk about how they think it's terrible that God would send the Nputumi tribe to hell when they've never heard about Jesus. so the completely reasonable response to that statement is: if you're so concerned about the Nputumi tribe, then you better go tell them about Jesus.

see, the people who say how terrible God is aren't concerned with the Nputumi tribe at all. they just don't like the idea that God has an absolute standard. i can't blame those people. it's not warm and fuzzy to think that God will judge us.

if there is a God, and the idea that there might be Mormon or any other kind of fundamentalist presupposes that there is a God, then he gets to call the shots. like it or not, his crappy way of getting his message out is what we have, and you can criticize it all you want, but if that's really the issue, not a smokescreen, then, Nicky -- can i call you Nicky? -- you better get busy, cuz there's work to do.

 

Uhh...isn't the fact that every group has their own take on what God's standard is (or if one even exists at all) mean that, no, he may not know God's standard the same way you do?

Why the condescension? What does this attitude add to the discussion?

 

In his defense I think he's referring to where I jokingly called him "Stilt" earlier.

But just so you know, if any of you homos call me Nicky.... I'll kill ya'.

 

Try Attacking Minded's post in this very thread.

Also, where is Jesus recorded in the NT saying anything about evolution? Or gays? Or slavery? Or the second-class status of women?

 

evolution? i hope you're not serious about this. he didn't say anything about the earth being round or gravity, either.

slavery? debentured servitude was a common enough occurrence in Jesus' day. he would have been aware of that. one of his parables has to do with a king who had a servant whose debt was forgiven, but that servant refused to forgive the debt of another servant who owed him money, a lesser amount than the debt the king forgave. Jesus said that this man was thrown into prison until he paid all he owed. but his debt had been forgiven, so, he didn't actually owe anything, unless the king reactivated the prior debt.

the second-class status of women? it seems to me that this is nearly a universal situation. almost all societies treat woman as second class. the Christian church has no corner on that market.

homosexuality? what did he need to say?

 

And yet, the so-called "Christians" try to ban evolution from schools because they're unable to read the OT in an intelligent manner. Go figure.

So was outright slavery. Both antebellum pro-slavery Americans and white supremacists today have (mis)used the OT to support their racism. "Sons of Ham" and all that.

See "Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus". Anyway, it doesn't matter what "almost all societies" do. I'm talking about what the so-called "Christians" do.

I'm not Yeshua so it's not up to me to put words in his mouth but the fact that Yeshua himself is not quoted anywhere on the topic in the NT doesn't stop the so-called "Christians" from (mis)quoting Saul or delving into the OT to justify their hatred.

 

Jesus didn't come to destroy the law. He said so himself: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law." And he goes on to say "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

I know you want to get around that by saying that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled", and that Jesus did the fulfilling when he died, but that interpretation cannot be squared with the full sentence, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". Clearly the fulfilling in the statement is not Jesus doing what he was meant to do, but everything doing what it was meant to do and then finishing.

And even if you still think that Jesus did the fulfilling, then what was the point of telling people not to break commandments? He knew that that bit of instruction would only be good for a few years and then would be worthless. And the people writing the stuff down years and years after Jesus died would have known that it would be a worthless morality for anyone that read the document from then on and they never would have included it.

 

so then it comes down to what is meant by commandments. if he meant all 600+ points of law, that's one thing. if he meant the 10 commandments, that's another thing, entirely.

it seems to me that most of Jesus' teaching on Law centers around his rejection of ritual, ceremonial law as the foundation for entry into the Kingdom. this is echoed in Paul's teaching, as well. Peter and members of the Jerusalem church for a time were insisting that gentile Christians keep the Jewish ceremonial law, but Paul argued that this was a yoke that Jews had not been able to bear, so why saddle gentiles with it.

 

that's ignoring the question though. Why would he send them to hell for something that can hardly be their "fault"?

what about all those poor babies that are stillborn. Do they go to hell too, as they haven't exactly had time to accept the teachings of Jesus.

As for "warm & fuzzy", my take has always been that the very idea of heaven and hell has always been a "warm & fuzzy" comfort blanket for those who can't accept the unfairness of life.

 

it's been a broadly accepted concept within Christianity that God is "patiently" waiting until the whole world has had an opportunity to understand his plan for salvation before he judges Mankind. this principle is one of the driving forces behind world evangelism.

as to babies, God is just and loving.

 

There is quite a bit of evidence of God's presence, compassion, and love every single day and the truth for His message... that is why do many faithful of every religion remain so. If you look in the sewer chances are you'll see crap; that is not where one looks for God. Mormon Fundamentalists show their true belief in God in many ways and I admire their virtue; problem is most in the secular media tend to focus their video camera lens on certain parts of the Mormon religion and ignore the goodness and God's presence that is tangible throughout the rest of the religion and in the hearts of the faithful. Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints boasts a message of peace and hosts faithful that represent the very best of Americana; the Book of Mormon a nest for God.

 

Just: As I've stated earlier in the thread, it's very clear and even supported in scripture that not everyone starts or ends life on an equal plane. But what I've always understood the justice of God to concern is the idea that everyone will be rewarded/punished according to their actions relative to how much of the light they've been exposed to. A child in backwoods Laos who is born, lives, and dies in one village doesn't have equal access to God's truth as someone in America or industrialized Europe where there are dozens of different kinds of churches within range. But that kid in Laos won't be condemned because he's never heard of Christ or perhaps any real concept of God at all.

Loving: To me this all comes down to a discussion on the nature of free will. Would you rather be free and leave yourself exposed to the horrors of mankind, or would you rather be leashed but safe from the freaks next door? Personally I think this concept intersects somewhat with the idea of God's justice...if you put restrictions on the choices of men, how can you say that they've truly had proper choices and thus be subject to justice? We all have the chance to screw up, repent, and still be okay in the end. We all have the chance to enter into God's rest when all is said and done; even people who have never heard of God can be happy in the end. And if necessary, all the wrongs other people have perpetrated upon us can be wiped clear and we can be whole again.

At least that's how I see it.

 

What, you feeling as if your pluck needs restoring?