Over on another thread "menomore" posted:

>> ...a person is redeemed and COMPLETELY SAVED BY GRACE AS A FREE GIFT. <<

Okay, Imagine I was giving out gifts. Let's say free mansions. Terrific, right? But let's say some people passed on the mansions because, oh, they were too far from work, or the utilities would be too much, or they didn't like the architectural style, or whatever reasons.

Okay, fine.

But suppose I said I'd torture you to death if you didn't accept the free mansion?

That's how Jesus' "free gift" of grace works. Accept Jesus as your Savior or be tortured forever. That's not a gift, it's "an offer you can't refuse." It's extortion.

Since you quoted me I'll answer.

First, I'm not Christian. I do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, god made man, come to save us from our sins or any of that. I was simply pointing out the differences in how/what Mormons believe compared to Christian denominations and how ludicrous their claims to a higher standard really are. Mormons think they are saved by grace after all they can do. Lutheran catechism taught that you can't save yourself by works.


And CateS... I'm not sales pitching anything. I'm not Lutheran. I'm not Christian. I do attend the Episcopal church and the Priest is aware that I am agnostic. What can I say? I like the ritual and the cathedral and it is actually what my family was before the 20 years of Mormonism I endured. But to respond to your comment that you would rather have a religion that tells you that you are a good person etc... What you would be told by a Lutheran or episcopal priest is that you are a Saint. This was a HUGE difference between the Mormons and Christians-there is not the terrible guilt like what is associated with the Mormons.

I'm not saying Christianity is right, but there is a reason they call it the good news and the Mormons just don't get it. Instead, they look down on others.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2012 10:24PM by menomore.

"Forgiveness, Grace, and God's Death Sentence"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkgmU9vG_o&list=PLA6C0634A0CA3956C&index=18&feature=plpp_video

I love that extortion analogy, it really is kind of like an organized crime scheme. Some guy (God) sets terms that are impossible to achieve, then either you play by their rules to "repay the debt" or they break your legs/ send you to hell.

And another point which many posters never seem to get. All Christians do not believe that you go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus. Some do, but not all and for those who do, there are many definitions of hell that do not include fire and brimstone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2012 10:20PM by bona dea.

The ones who don't believe it don't believe the Bible.

The New Testament clearly states that you must believe, be baptized, and be born again to qualify.

Most Mormons understand grace just fine in my experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2012 10:02PM by bc.

Plenty of Christians are not and never have been Biblical literalists. Most Jews are not either.This includes Catholics and mainline Protestants.

Right. I feel like you just restated exactly what I said just in more gentle words.

You fall into the category of posters that never seem to get it. It's clear to you and others who think like you do. But not everyone sees it your way. I wonder if its difficult for a person coming from the dogmatic mormon background to realize the ambiguous, amorphous view some people have. Other religious beliefs (including christian) aren't necessarily a mild variation of mormon doctrine. There are plenty of people who call themselves christians but don't have any use for the virgin birth, hell, or even a literal resurrection. That's just for starters.

That's a tough pill to swallow when you want company after you exit the cult.

I probably get it more than you think. I understand that there is a "liberal" and/or "metaphorical" subset of Christians.

I hope to see Christianity move more and more that way - I think it's a good thing when looked at that way.

All I said is that someone who views it that way doesn't believe the Bible.

But what if a statement in the bible was intended to be a metaphor? Then who is the literalist? And who doesn't believe in the bible?

I don't believe in the Bible.

Quit twisting my words - we're saying the same thing. I just don't want to spend 3 paragraphs writing all the disclaimers that they don't believe the bible literally.

But they do believe it literally if a statement in the bible was, literally, a metaphor. The people that took the metaphor literally would not believe in the bible. Why? Because the bible did not "intend" that statement to be taken literally.

Isn't that what you just said in your previous post?

The last person I saw who claimed to have that much insight into the meaning of the bible was...

Harold Camping



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2012 11:06PM by bc.

Many things in the Bible were not meant to be taken literally and in fact were not. Many Jews do not and never have been literalists. Neither were the Latin Fathers such as Augustine and reformers like Zwingli. This is not a new movement. It is as old as the Bible itself.

It's pretty hard to know what was "meant" to be taken literally or not or whether that was the intent or not when it was written. I respect that different people take some things literally while others don't.

I suspect that a whole lot of it was "meant" to be take literally by the original authors and that people have figured out that they can't take it literally and just learn to get what metaphorical meaning they can from it.

Some are literalists, fundamentalist, liberal,etc., but xstians fail to understand it that it is all a variation on a theme of nothing.

You're imputing any and all meaning into your idea of nothing. You've defined the theme and now call everything a variation of the theme. What's the theme you call nothing?

You claim there is a gawd. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claims. You have no proof. Religions are variations on nothing, because there are no gawds.

As a xstian the idea is all yours, and the theme is yours. Atheists don't make shit up.

You've defined god yourself. You said religions are variations on nothing because there are no gods. That's your claim, not mine.

I have no belief. You have defined an imaginary friend you believe in who is one of many. Until you can prove that, I can safely say it is nothing.

If you want me to call it something, then prove you have something other than wishful thinking.

Or un-wishful thinking...

Most of the concepts about the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God suck. He's a nasty, mean, judgmental jerk. He even had to kill his own perfect son to be placated enough to only send most, not all of us to hell.

Gawds are wishful thinking.

You are right bona dea. In my church the word Hell is not ever used.

How can you be Christian, if you don't believe in Jesus? Isn't that an automatic fail?

The point is that not all Christians believe non Christians go to hell and some reject the idea that there is a hell at all.Christianity is very diverse.

How about just plain bullshit in all it's incarnations. Bona... You xtian you. Your findies are showing again.


HH. =)

Again, Dear HH, I am not religious. I just happen to know something about other religions.I have actually taken and taught classes in comparative religions. Whether they are true or not isn't the point. The point, which you don't get, is simple. THEY DON'T ALL BELIEVE IN HELL AND THEY DON'T ALL TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY.Now why don't ypu get lost and stop with the insults and name calling.It is childish and stupid.

The point is who is going to do what to you, because of their interpretation of what their imaginary friend is saying to them.

Did HE mean stone the gays to death?
Did HE mean women are not equal to men?
Did HE mean we should play with snakes at church?
What does HE think about pork?
Did HE really tell Paul all that stuff or was he a poser?

We have to respect all of this divination equally, because it has been there so long. It doesn't matter if it is BS or harmful BS at all, just that it is traditional, really old BS. Old BS is more sacred than truth, and should not be disturbed or questioned, and if you offend the literalists they will go full Taliban on you.

Where did I say you respect it all equally? Answer. No where. Some religion is dangerous and some is not. Soe even does good.

not even the destruction of Constantine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2012 11:33PM by atheist&happy:-).

Being raised a southern baptist (although I now must say I am non denominational) I can say that yes, Mormons do not understand the word "grace" as understood by most Christians. Christians believe that anyone can be with God in the afterlife if they accept Jesus's condition. I have never met a Mormon who believes this. They seem to believe that some sins are grievous enough to disqualify people from heaven (which is of course misunderstanding the power of grace, no sin is too bad. Even the worst and most heinous of people can save themselves.) Mormons also seem to believe in a sort of works based way into heaven which Jesus clearly rejects.

I totally get the extortion analogy, yes, but you know anyone can refuse the offer. This is what free agency is all about.

Hell isn't actually mentioned in the Bible very often, and many argue that Jesus did not preach about hell, as we perceive it today, at all. You might be intersted in this link, http://www.godsplanforall.com/jesusdidnotteachhell and possibly this one. http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html The whole burning in hell forever thing was not the focus of Jesus's message and has been unfortunately used as a fear tactic to convert people. I know, trust me. In baptists churches hell is mentioned freaking constantly, really overshadows the message of love.

I have always liked the idea of a hell. A lot of people deserve it. It makes me feel better when evil seems to prevail that those who are evil will pay later if they get away with it now. I am not referring of us ordinary sinners but to the really vile and evil ones and I never liked the idea that they got terrestial glory anyway/

Oooo, who's a real Christian? Who really follows Jesus? Who really follows the Bible? Can you follow Jesus without following all the Bible? Can you follow the Bible without following Jesus? Which parts of the Bible matter and which don't?

While there are as many variations on what exactly happens in the afterlife, it still breaks down to a fantastic reward for those who accept Jesus and a different, usually unpleasant, fate for those who don't. Whether it's a lake of fire or some kind of place where you're sad you're excluded from the presence of God, its just a matter or whether the accept-Jesus-or-suffer extortion is heavy handed or passive-aggressive. "Why, yes, my child, you have free will, but you don't want to be in the losers' club, do you? *Do you?"*

The point some people seem to think is really really important is that there is a subset of Christians of some size that don't believe accepting Jesus is necessary to receive a pleasant fate in the next life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2012 11:17PM by bc.

And that is the issue that many RFM posters do not seem to get. Agree with them or not, they are out there and you just can't pretend they aren't when discussing what Christians believe. Take off the Mormon blinders and forget the misinformation you were taught in church and accept that not all Christians fall into your preconceived category.

>>"You just can't pretend they aren't when discussing what Christians believe."

Sure you can. They aren't the ones who give Christians a bad name. The need to make the same - but they aren't all that way over and over doesn't exist for me. I think plenty of RFMers don't care.

There are also a lot of NOM Mormons out there. We don't have to bring up NOMs in EVERY thread where we talk about frustrations we have with Mormons.

Orthodox Christian doctrine absolutely includes belief in Jesus as required for salvation. Your ongoing need to over and over and over point out that all Christians don't believe/follow orthodox Christianity seems odd to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2012 11:32PM by bc.

The parable of the Prodigal Son. At his low point, he (the son of a rich man) is employed in a pig sty (this world). The good news is, he can go home--anytime. "Great, I hate this job. But...it's almost time for the 5 o'clock feeding (and I get some of the slop)."

That's pretty much our situation here: amid all the suffering and inevitable death in the mud, there are perks that we become accustomed to, and these are better than Nothing, we rationalize. If we don't accept the good news, do we "go to Hell"? How about just remaining in the hell we're tuned in to? What if we don't believe in Jesus (the messenger)? That "Jesus," which appears in various spiritual traditions, is the 'voice' telling us that our present condition is not our 'home' and we are not really our role in the pigsty.

"Can you follow Jesus without following all the Bible?"

Yes. I personally do that. I don't read OT at all, except Psalms (but not all of it).

I focus on the Gospels. And, yes, I am very aware that they didn't come out until decades after Jesus' death.



"It still breaks down to a fantastic reward for those who accept Jesus and a different"

That's not the case for me. I　don't expect a reward. I expect a return, a return to who I truly AM. It's fantastic, but not a reward.