Is it "Christian" to Attack other Faiths?

[Serapha]

Why?

[font=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif]Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love...
[font=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif]— Saint Francis Of Assisi[/font][/font]

 

[Serapha]

Bluntly put,


If you can't love people and turn your back on pure hatred.... don't profess to be a Christian and be a mockery of the word.


~serapha~

 

[skylark1]

Why?

I recently walked past a gate to temple square in SLC. Standing on the sidewalk was a "street preacher" with a bullhorn shouting into the square. His words were too awful to repeat here. Almost all that came from his mouth was ridicule, condemnation, and mocking. Although he did manage to quote John 3:16. If there was love behind the message, it was very hard to find. There is a line that is crossed when one is no longer discussing or witnessing, but simply mocking.

 

[Serapha]

To the member of JoJCoLDS's.


I've been watching to see if anyone would take the initiative to edit their postings which I find to be an embarrasment to Christian conduct.

Since there is no remorse on the part of the participants, please accept my apology in their place. I am truly sorry that the thread deteriorated to this point. Perhaps it is "zeal". Perhaps not. But in any case, I am sorry that you were subject to the last 30 postings of abuse.



~serapha~

 

[drstevej]

Bluntly put,


.... don't profess to be a Christian and be a mockery of the word.


~serapha~

The Book of Mormon AIN'T the Word. It's an another gospel (Gal 1:8-9)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

[OldShepherd]

Christian forums exists to provide a froum for all faiths to discuss their practices and beliefs. It is not a place for satire and parody. If the discussion continues to deteriorate this thread will be closed and warnings given.

Members may state that practices, beliefs, and doctrines of other denominations are wrong, false or unscriptural, if scriptural or other evidence is provided.

Members may not state or imply that any person or religious organization, which calls themselves Christian and are allowed to post in the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines forum, is pagan, heathen, satanic, demonic, etc.

It should go without saying but members may not call other members, liar, stupid, crazy, ignorant, etc.

[noflame]

[notroll]

 

[Serapha]

The Book of Mormon AIN'T the Word. It's an another gospel (Gal 1:8-9)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Hi there!



So, you have determined that the individuals themselves should be "accursed".




I have a Dictionary to the King James Bible, "Concise King James Bible Dictionary", and it tells me that "accursed" is to be cursed of God... but it doesn't explain to me that the people are to be accursed by fellow men.


and from a Greek Lexicon.... it doesn't tell "Christians" to "accurse" the man either....

"Anathema"

1. a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept
   1. specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place

1. a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction
2. a curse
3. a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

That is an interesting passage, as Paul makes that statement not once, but twice... and then he follows with this



10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And note this particular passage.....


13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:


Do you think Paul was "accursed" before his conversion? We do not have to guess whether Paul was "accursed" by many Christians, they considered him to be their enemy.


But for the grace of God, Paul was saved because God never stops loving His creation. Jesus sought Paul out of the multitudes to ask him why it was that Paul would persecute Christ. I've been on the old Damascus road going from Israel into Syria. You can still see the where the old Roman Road lays underneath the soil, and in the distance you can see modern Damascus 10-12 miles away. That's a place where Jesus came to earth to redeem a man through a personal relationship... it really was an emotional moment to know that in that wide open field where you could look for miles and and to know that Jesus Christ claimed that space long enough to seek out a lost sinner.

"accursed"... yes, Paul was "accursed" by the Christians for being their enemy, but in spite of man's actions towards Paul, Paul was redeemed by the love, grace, and mercy of God.

Do you know that scholars believe that one of the actions of Paul was to use that same word against Christ, demanding that Christians "accurse" Christ or die? Yet, God still reached down for him.


It isn't your responsibility to "accurse" anyone... the passage says ...


(You) let him be accursed (by God). It doesn't say that you should accurse him yourself.

You do believe what the Bible says, don't you?



~serapha~

 

[rnmomof7]

Hi there!



So, you have determined that the individuals themselves should be "accursed".




I have a Dictionary to the King James Bible, "Concise King James Bible Dictionary", and it tells me that "accursed" is to be cursed of God... but it doesn't explain to me that the people are to be accursed by fellow men.


and from a Greek Lexicon.... it doesn't tell "Christians" to "accurse" the man either....

"Anathema"

1. a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept
   1. specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place

1. a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction
2. a curse
3. a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

That is an interesting passage, as Paul makes that statement not once, but twice... and then he follows with this



10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And note this particular passage.....


13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:


Do you think Paul was "accursed" before his conversion? We do not have to guess whether Paul was "accursed" by many Christians, they considered him to be their enemy.




But for the grace of God, Paul was saved because God never stops loving His creation. Jesus sought Paul out of the multitudes to ask him why it was that Paul would persecute Christ. I've been on the old Damascus road going from Israel into Syria. You can still see the where the old Roman Road lays underneath the soil, and in the distance you can see modern Damascus 10-12 miles away. That's a place where Jesus came to earth to redeem a man through a personal relationship... it really was an emotional moment to know that in that wide open field where you could look for miles and and to know that Jesus Christ claimed that space long enough to seek out a lost sinner.

"accursed"... yes, Paul was "accursed" by the Christians for being their enemy, but in spite of man's actions towards Paul, Paul was redeemed by the love, grace, and mercy of God.

Do you know that scholars believe that one of the actions of Paul was to use that same word against Christ, demanding that Christians "accurse" Christ or die? Yet, God still reached down for him.


It isn't your responsibility to "accurse" anyone... the passage says ...


(You) let him be accursed (by God). It doesn't say that you should accurse him yourself.

You do believe what the Bible says, don't you?



~serapha~

We are all accursed because of the fall, and we all live under that curse until we are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb .
Paul warned not to be drawn away by another gospel. There is salvation under no other name in heaven .

That is the name of Jesus of the Bible, that is the Jesus that is GOD INCARNATE , the second person of the trinity .

It is not by the name of a spirit child of heavenly mother and father or the brother of lucifer.

 

[Serapha]

We are all accursed because of the fall, and we all live under that curse until we are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb .
Paul warned not to be drawn away by another gospel. There is salvation under no other name in heaven .

That is the name of Jesus of the Bible, that is the Jesus that is GOD INCARNATE , the second person of the trinity .

It is not by the name of a spirit child of heavenly mother and father or the brother of lucifer.

Hi there!




So, therefore, we are to treat others in a hateful manner in the name of Jesus???? and to use that scripture to support those actions?

That was the previous context of the verse to which I replied. Perhaps you would want to address the original poster and the original text?????

It is not by the name of a spirit child of heavenly mother and father or the brother of lucifer

And, I never once indicated that it was, did I????


In fact... that statement has nothing to do with my response, now does it?

I maintain that that according to Scripture, it isn't our responsibility to "accurse" anyone else, and that is what I posted. What do you maintain from that passage? I understand your position to be that if someone believes that Jesus is the spirit brother of lucifer that they are worthy of such abuses?


Am I right or wrong in my understanding of the "totality" of the last 30 postings and your interpretation of them?


~serapha~

 

[ByGrace]

There is a point where this gets off course. I know I have been guilty of going there. There is a reason for our coming here and debating with the lds people but maybe it should be toned down some. I know one guy has just pushed my buttons to no end and I have reacted. For that I am sorry and hope to get back on course.

 

[educk]

I am new here, but I've quickly noticed that it seems to be open season on so called non-Christian faiths (e.g., Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Is such a practice "Christian?"

It's neither Christ like to jump on others who confess Christ as Savior, and nor is it Christ like to divide and denominate the Body of Christ based on revelation and doctrine. Paul had some pretty harsh things to say about this. So, let's all stick to Jesus and be found there.

I think often we need to know our 'faith' or 'denomination' is right, and thus debates about it. It merely shows that we don't know the Son, nor the Father. Christ did not come to take sides, He came to take over.

Just my 2c worth.

 

[rnmomof7]

Hi there!




So, therefore, we are to treat others in a hateful manner in the name of Jesus???? and to use that scripture to support those actions?

I do not approve of "hateful" but perhaps we need a clarification on the meaning as I suspect that there are difference in meanings .

I only know one way to address things and that is with the word of God .

If quoting scripture is bashing or cruel, perhaps we need to throw out the new Testament as Jesus and Paul used it extensively to exhort and to correct

I maintain that that according to Scripture, it isn't our responsibility to "accurse" anyone else, and that is what I posted. What do you maintain from that passage? I understand your position to be that if someone believes that Jesus is the spirit brother of lucifer that they are worthy of such abuses?

I think it is our responsibility to meet error with scripture in hopes of opening eyes and protecting the unsuspecting from apostasy .
I believe that if someone believes in another Christ we have the command to present the truth.

Jesus said the way was narrow. There are no side roads .
I do not believe in abuse on any side. But I think sometimes truth can sound like abuse, so we have to consider the writers intent .(ask me I am a Calvinist..I can not count the times that we have been insulted and mocked here and elsewhere) . If it is simply to insult and mock, it has no value. But much of the tone is in the listener's ear

Am I right or wrong in my understanding of the "totality" of the last 30 postings and your interpretation of them?


~serapha~

It sounds like a school yard gottcha game , and did nothing to further the discussion .
Both sides getting in their licks .

I suspect we both agree on the need to share the truth of the gospel to all the world and that would include non christian churches.

But we have to be careful not to shut ears or to silence the real dialog in the presenting of the gospel and exposing error .


I happen to like the prayer of St Francis too

 

[rnmomof7]

It's neither Christ like to jump on others who confess Christ as Savior, and nor is it Christ like to divide and denominate the Body of Christ based on revelation and doctrine. Paul had some pretty harsh things to say about this. So, let's all stick to Jesus and be found there.

I think often we need to know our 'faith' or 'denomination' is right, and thus debates about it. It merely shows that we don't know the Son, nor the Father. Christ did not come to take sides, He came to take over.

Just my 2c worth.

Did the apostles go into the temple to teach Christianity and divide the Jews?

Do we have a Christian responsibility to give the gospel and correct error or apostasy

 

[educk]

Did the apostles go into the temple to teach Christianity and divide the Jews?

Do we have a Christian responsibility to give the gospel and correct error or apostasy

I think you have misread some portions of Scripture. They did not go to divide the Jews - that is, sided with factions based on revelation or doctrine. Besides the fact, they hardly ever preached in temples. They started off there, but moved out of reaching people in temples.

Paul also made it abundantly clear that the aim is to plant Christ in people, not doctrine or theology. I think God is BIG enough to sort out our theological differences. The spirit that divides Christ is the spirit of the anti-Christ. I don't have to believe any man's doctrine in order to fellowship with them or love them; even if I believe what they believe is not my revelation. Our schisms keep us from being the testimony to the world that Christ said we would be.

So, no need for us to correct other who don’t believe the same doctrines on issues we believe. Study Romans 14.

In Him

 

[Svt4Him]

We are all accursed because of the fall, and we all live under that curse until we are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb .
Paul warned not to be drawn away by another gospel. There is salvation under no other name in heaven .

That is the name of Jesus of the Bible, that is the Jesus that is GOD INCARNATE , the second person of the trinity .

It is not by the name of a spirit child of heavenly mother and father or the brother of lucifer.

So God was just being redundant when saying this about another gospel being preached? Is the translation:

Let everyone who preaches another gospel be the same as everyone else?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say we are all cursed, does this make Paul's warning void?

 

[educk]

So God was just being redundant when saying this about another gospel being preached? Is the translation:

Let everyone who preaches another gospel be the same as everyone else?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say we are all cursed, does this make Paul's warning void?

The Gospel Paul was referring to was this:
If anyone brings a works based Gospel then tell them to get lost. The authentic Gospel is the Gospel of Grace - nothing added, nothing taken away. Galatians is my favorite book on this matter.

 

[rnmomof7]

So God was just being redundant when saying this about another gospel being preached? Is the translation:

Let everyone who preaches another gospel be the same as everyone else?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say we are all cursed, does this make Paul's warning void?

I correct my post..you are right.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.


Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.





anathema {an-ath'-em-ah}





1) a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept

a) specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place

2) a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction

a) a curse

b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woe

 

[rnmomof7]

I think you have misread some portions of Scripture. They did not go to divide the Jews - that is, sided with factions based on revelation or doctrine. Besides the fact, they hardly ever preached in temples. They started off there, but moved out of reaching people in temples.

The scripture reports Jesus and the apostles teaching in the synagogs
.They were preaching there with the hope of conversions to their "sect ". That was divisive which is why they had Paul arrested. The purpose of all evangelization is to bring people into your church so it is in effect divisive .

Paul also made it abundantly clear that the aim is to plant Christ in people, not doctrine or theology. I think God is BIG enough to sort out our theological differences.

Which "christ is that ?" The christ that is the angel Michael ?the christ that is a prophet"? the christ that is a product of the heavenly mother and father and a spirit brother of lucifer ?

The spirit that divides Christ is the spirit of the anti-Christ. I don't have to believe any man's doctrine in order to fellowship with them or love them; even if I believe what they believe is not my revelation. Our schisms keep us from being the testimony to the world that Christ said we would be.

We are to have no fellowship with darkness.We are a light to bring light to the darkness, not to sit in it with them

So, no need for us to correct other who don’t believe the same doctrines on issues we believe. Study Romans 14.


Mat 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.



Mat 10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

In Him

So you have no missionary zeal for those that are perishing?

Are you a member of the LDS ?

 

[ByGrace]

I think you have misread some portions of Scripture. They did not go to divide the Jews - that is, sided with factions based on revelation or doctrine. Besides the fact, they hardly ever preached in temples. They started off there, but moved out of reaching people in temples.

Paul also made it abundantly clear that the aim is to plant Christ in people, not doctrine or theology. I think God is BIG enough to sort out our theological differences. The spirit that divides Christ is the spirit of the anti-Christ. I don't have to believe any man's doctrine in order to fellowship with them or love them; even if I believe what they believe is not my revelation. Our schisms keep us from being the testimony to the world that Christ said we would be.

So, no need for us to correct other who don’t believe the same doctrines on issues we believe. Study Romans 14.

In Him

So we dont have a clear mandate to spread the true Gospel as Jesus gave it? I am sorry but to let people who clearly are seeking Jesus be misled by the wiles of devilish "prophecies" and doctrines is not Christ like. It is the opposite. Yes, there is a way to do it that is right but it does need to be done. Souls are perishing. I do not consider informing an lds person that their doctrine is incorrect dividing the body as they have not been grafted in. Salvation is of Jesus and Jesus alone and as long as they are working to receive it, they have not accepted Jesus. I cannot imagine just standing by and watching people perish if I could do anything about it.

 

[rnmomof7]

No, such a practice is not Christian.
I think people need an enemy (especially weak people)...On many Christian sites the enemy is the Catholic Church and the members are permitted and encouraged to attack anything to do with it.

Here on CF, what is permitted and encouraged is the bashing and attacking of the Mormon Christians.

That is sad and says volumes about the basic human decency of the attacking Christians.

Anna if you notice Catholics post on the Christian forums . That is because they are Christian in creed. People may disagree with some of the doctrinal positions (as they do with mine) , but MOST Protestants see Catholics as Christian family.

On the other hand Mormons post in the non Christian forum because they have an unorthodox theology that has little in common with Christians except the language .

I do agree that this fact is often seen as license to mock or ridicule them, but most of us end up defending our beliefs on CF and sometimes that is hard hitting .