Christians: I intend to watch Passion of the Christ tonight for the first time

[Katzpur]

I tried to watch it. It was so boring I had to switch the channel though. I thought I might like it, because of the violence, but the violence was too few and far between. I couldn't stand to sit through the non-violent parts. I don't even think I watched any violent parts... it was just some guys talking about boring stuff (which I had to read...) and then I switched the channel.

I'm trying to decide whether this post is serious or not. If it is, could you explain what there is in the suffering of another human being that you enjoy so much that you can't get enough of it?

 

[whereismynotecard]

I'm trying to decide whether this post is serious or not. If it is, could you explain what there is in the suffering of another human being that you enjoy so much that you can't get enough of it?

It's a movie. I wouldn't want to watch a real person really be stapled to a cross.

 

[Katzpur]

It's a movie. I wouldn't want to watch a real person really be stapled to a cross.

I'm glad to hear that, but I really am curious about your remarks that you thought you might like it because of the violence. Could you explain why the depiction of violence appeals to you. I'm seriously just wondering and would like to understand.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I'm glad to hear that, but I really am curious about your remarks that you thought you might like it because of the violence. Could you explain why the depiction of violence appeals to you. I'm seriously just wondering and would like to understand.

I don't know... because it is exciting? I guess I'm just ****** in the head.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Not at all. I agree with the message of all scripture. Scripture includes but is not limited to the message of the Bible.

You already disagreed with the Bible which says that Christ paid for our sins on the cross.

It wasn't merely this one statement. It's more or less every time you direct a remark to the LDS posters or about the LDS faith.

So you are criticizing my posts in general without any specifics. IOW, you just might be predjudiced without anything to base it on other than the fact that we disagree on what is God-breathed.

Mormon leaders repeatedly criticize doctrine that doesn't line up with their own.

What should they do instead?

Do you believe that they have the sole right to criticize doctrine or do you believe in freedom of religion and speech?

I don't see this hatred exhibited in the leaders of my Church.

Do Mormons in good standing ever find fault with their leaders? Should they?

I disagree with certain non-LDS teachings, but I don't extend that criticism beyond the specific doctrines I disagree with. Of course I believe in Joseph Smith's "First Vision."

So you believe that the creeds non-LDS embrace are an abomination to God, and you hate some non-LDS doctrines.

I agree with 1 Nephi 13:26-29's description of what happened to the Bible between the time the manuscripts were first written and the time the canon was finalized.

Do you agree with all that 1 Nephi 13:26-29 says?

who are not LDS, but who have mercifully been spared from your constant nit-picking.

Are you unhappy when you can't refute the facts that I post and must therefore resort to finding fault with me as a person? Why are you so unhappy with those who do not believe all the doctrines of your church and statements by your leaders?

I'll tell you what I don't do... I don't pick another Christian denomination and turn every thread on RF into an opportunity to criticize everything about that denomination, its founder, its doctrines, its leadership -- particularly when doing so accomplishes nothing more than derailing the thread.

I didn't derail this thread. I responded to statements on this thread that had already been posted. I happen to know quite a bit about Mormonism. I suspect that I post to less Mormonism topic threads than you do.

I do defend evangelical Christianity against the doctrines of Mormonism that oppose it. I no more oppose Mormonism than LDS missionaries who (try to draw people away from non-LDS churches) oppose non-LDS teachings.

What about it? We don't teach (and never have) that everything taught by traditional Christianity is in error. Why are you a member of your chosen denomination if you don't believe its interpretation of the scriptures is better than someone else's? I can't imagine a better reason to be a member of a particular Church than to believe it's true.

I believe that Christ is the head of the Church and that the Church is not a particular denomination. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches us and, since men are fallible, we should only follow them as they follow Christ.

1 Corinthians 1
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 11
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

 

[Katzpur]

You already disagreed with the Bible which says that Christ paid for our sins on the cross.



So you are criticizing my posts in general without any specifics. IOW, you just might be predjudiced without anything to base it on other than the fact that we disagree on what is God-breathed.



Do you believe that they have the sole right to criticize doctrine or do you believe in freedom of religion and speech?



Do Mormons in good standing ever find fault with their leaders? Should they?



So you believe that the creeds non-LDS embrace are an abomination to God, and you hate some non-LDS doctrines.



Do you agree with all that 1 Nephi 13:26-29 says?



Are you unhappy when you can't refute the facts that I post and must therefore resort to finding fault with me as a person? Why are you so unhappy with those who do not believe all the doctrines of your church and statements by your leaders?



I didn't derail this thread. I responded to statements on this thread that had already been posted. I happen to know quite a bit about Mormonism. I suspect that I post to less Mormonism topic threads that you do.

I do defend evangelical Christianity against the doctrines of Mormonism that oppose it. I no more oppose Mormonism than LDS missionaries who (try to draw people away from non-LDS churches) oppose non-LDS teachings.



I believe that Christ is the head of the Church and that the Church is not a particular denomination. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches us and, since men are fallible, we should only follow them as they follow Christ.

1 Corinthians 1
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 11
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Seriously, I've had about all of your attitude I can stomach for awhile. It's just one jab after another and it's getting so damned old, I could just puke. There is absolutely nothing I could say that you wouldn't take issue with. It wouldn't matter what subject or what position I were to take. You'd be right there to wipe my face in it. That's not debate. It's arguing for the sake of arguing, and that's something I'm just not interested in doing.

 

[ayani]

questions about another's faith can be and should be raised, and i feel that sincere questions (even if they sound angry) deserve answers. whether general answers, answers based on personal experience, or on a church's doctrine.

people ask me potentially offensive and abrupt questions about my faith pretty frequently. and with the Holy Spirit's help, i answer them as i'm able. dialog helps. so does a loving reply. and if one doesn't have a reply, it's ok to say so.

 

[Watchmen]

questions about another's faith can be and should be raised, and i feel that sincere questions (even if they sound angry) deserve answers. whether general answers, answers based on personal experience, or on a church's doctrine.

people ask me potentially offensive and abrupt questions about my faith pretty frequently. and with the Holy Spirit's help, i answer them as i'm able. dialog helps. so does a loving reply. and if one doesn't have a reply, it's ok to say so.

Nothing in your post applies to ἀλήθεια. She twists everything LDS say just to argue with them. She acts as if we downplay the cross - which is not what was said.

 

[ayani]

well, she also has some pointed and specific questions about the CoJCoLDS, and issues which she raises.

and while she and a given LDS who responds to her may be talking past one another to a certain extent, both her and the LDS base their stances at least in part on the Bible, and Christian faith.

so why not answer as best as one's able? and if the question's been answered or someone doesn't want to or isn't able to answer, one can say that.

Nothing in your post applies to ἀλήθεια. She twists everything LDS say just to argue with them. She acts as if we downplay the cross - which is not what was said.

 

[Watchmen]

well, she also has some pointed and specific questions about the CoJCoLDS, and issues which she raises.

and while she and a given LDS who responds to her may be talking past one another to a certain extent, both her and the LDS base their stances at least in part on the Bible, and Christian faith.

so why not answer as best as one's able? and if the question's been answered or someone doesn't want to or isn't able to answer, one can say that.

It's a catch-22. If we don't answer then we allow her twisted statements to stand for all to read. If we do answer then she further twists our statements. What are we to do?

 

[Katzpur]

well, she also has some pointed and specific questions about the CoJCoLDS, and issues which she raises.

and while she and a given LDS who responds to her may be talking past one another to a certain extent, both her and the LDS base their stances at least in part on the Bible, and Christian faith.

so why not answer as best as one's able? and if the question's been answered or someone doesn't want to or isn't able to answer, one can say that.

Ayani, you and I have had some very in-depth conversations about my beliefs. Have I ever refused to answer one of your questions? Have I been respectful in my replies? Have I criticized your beliefs? Stop and think about it. Why would I consistently respond to your questions about Mormonism in a courteous way and yet respond differently toἀλήθεια? There has got to be a reason. I don't just arbitrarily get testy with some people and not to others.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Some LDS people like to say I twist statements by LDS, but they aren't willing to show any of us how I have twisted anything. Because I happen to be knowledgable, while I admit that I don't everything about Mormonism, people make wild accusations without bothering to explain what I specifically said that was wrong.

Katzpur said that the transfer of guilt took place in Gethsemane:

We LDS are definitely not trying to minimize His actual death by crucifixion, but just to stress that it was not on the cross where the transfer of guilt took place.

The KJV Bible says that Christ made the propitiation for our sins on the cross. The cross is not the Garden of Gethsemane.

 

[ayani]

no Katz, you've always been respectful, and gone to great lengths to explain and define your beliefs, and i remember that very well.

but why get that angry? why not accept that she isn't understanding what you're saying, and leave it? or, answer her questions, and give resources she can check out.

if she believes you, ok. if not, then you've done the best you can to answer her.

Ayani, you and I have had some very in-depth conversations about my beliefs. Have I ever refused to answer one of your questions? Have I been respectful in my replies? Have I criticized your beliefs? Stop and think about it. Why would I consistently respond to your questions about Mormonism in a courteous way and yet respond differently toἀλήθεια? There has got to be a reason. I don't just arbitrarily get testy with some people and not to others.

 

[Katzpur]

but why get that angry? why not accept that she isn't understanding what you're saying, and leave it? or, answer her questions, and give resources she can check out.

Because my patience has its limits, ayani. I truly do not believe that she wants to understand. If I did, I would repeat myself a hundred times if necessary, and would patiently explain my beliefs in a million different words if that's what it took.

if she believes you, ok. if not, then you've done the best you can to answer her.

I've already done that. So many times I am worn out from it.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I truly do not believe that she wants to understand.

If I ask for an explanation or clarification, it means that I want to understand. You don't have to believe that I want to understand, but it would be kind of people to not speak about others in a negative way without at least clarifying what it was that made the LDS angry.

 

[Katzpur]

If I ask for an explanation or clarification, it means that I want to understand. You don't have to believe that I want to understand, but it would be kind of people to not speak about others in a negative way without at least clarifying what it was that made the LDS angry.

Well then, I guess since I can't say something nice, it would be best if I just not say anything at all. Have a pleasant evening. That's the best I can do for you tonight.

 

[Watchmen]

Some LDS people like to say I twist statements by LDS, but they aren't willing to show any of us how I have twisted anything. Because I happen to be knowledgable, while I admit that I don't everything about Mormonism, people make wild accusations without bothering to explain what I specifically said that was wrong.

BS. I expressly stated that you accuse us of downplaying the cross, which isn't true.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

BS. I expressly stated that you accuse us of downplaying the cross, which isn't true.

Watchmen, do you agree with what Katzpur said, "We LDS are definitely not trying to minimize His actual death by crucifixion, but just to stress that it was not on the cross where the transfer of guilt took place," or do you believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was the propitiation for the sins of believers? Answering that would help clarify this apparent misunderstanding.

 

[edward]

BS. I expressly stated that you accuse us of downplaying the cross, which isn't true.

Nice language. Is this the vocabulary that you would use while trying to explain the LDS version of the gospel to non-LDS or the vernacular for a talk in sacrament meeting?

 

[edward]

I find it amazing, although very consistent, that whenever there is a prolonged discussion about LDS beliefs, some of the LDS invariably resort to not addressing the issues. Instead they apply a tactic called character assassination. It matters not whether the messenger is right or wrong. What matters is that he/she is denigrated to being some type of low-life. In other words, "let's discuss not the issues, but let's talk about the person."

If this was the first time I had witnessed this, I would be stunned. However, it is not. I have found this abhorrent behavior on many forums over the years, so "Religious Forums" does not have a corner on the market. Sadly, it appears to be a standard operating procedure amongst those who cannot discuss their beliefs in a civil manner.

When I can't answer a question, I tend to say that I don't know the answer. When I believe that I can and have responded to an issue, I would expect a respectful dialogue in turn. Not some diatribe about how I don't know or understand anything, or rantings about bull excrement or how someone is not worth being responded to.

Maybe I would expect that type of behavior from non-believers or new Christians who do not yet understand what it means to be an ambassador for the King.

We are, after all, discussing Jesus Christ, aren't we? :bow:

Edward