Why is OK to harrass mormons?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not sure what you mean by your counter question? Do you agree that no-one was baptized in water after the new covenant and church was established?
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.

No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.

And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?

I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.

It only takes to look into history of the branching and re branching of Christian denominations, from the original church through Catholicism and Greek orthodox to reformation and protestantism and further re branching to about 35 000 different denominations. Look to their origins and what caused them to be. What do they build their identity on?

Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.

I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity.

IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).

I don't follow...

The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14).

Even the existence of God is self-evident and something all people know by nature, although they rebel against it. See the appropriate bit from Romans 1:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

As a side note, in the next bit, our ordained gender roles!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[Sigurd]

No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.

And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?

I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.

I don't know what spin you are trying to put on this. I thought you adhered to Presbyterianism and Calvin's teachings? I don't think Calvin saw baptism as an Jewish tradition. I think he argued that Baptism is to the Christians what circumcision was to the Jews. And on the dispute on infant baptism he argued: "To refuse infant baptism is to rage openly at God's institution". He also seems to argue that converts should be baptized after faith and repentance.
I was born a Lutheran and I know that the Lutheran Church teaches damnation if not baptized.

Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.

Heh... protestants consists of a large portion of the diversity of branches I talked about. Apparently there is no agreement on what the early church was or how it operated.

IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).

That part is no better than the Scandinavian origins. No I am not talking about the BoM story.
I am talking about the Godhead visiting Joseph Smith as a boy of 14. Then the additional heavenly visitations by John the baptist (the Levite priesthood), Peter James and John (the higher priesthood) restoring their authorities back to the earth. Then successively the ancient prophets came and restored their authorities: Moses, "Elias", Elijah came with their keys and powers. In addition to a host of angels including Moroni - the last Christian of ancient America.
Now that is some claim for origin.

The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14).

By that logic - there should be only one way, one church. All Christians would naturally follow the only true way to salvation, not by books, but by their converted heart [guidance by the Holy Ghost?].
Yet 35 000 versions exist and there are by no means any agreement between them on many aspects of the Christian religion. It seems to me that many do use the letter of the law rather that what you suggest. Add to that - crazy interpretations, and you find yourself in the reality of the Christian world of today.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't know what spin you are trying to put on this. I thought you adhered to Presbyterianism and Calvin's teachings? I don't think Calvin saw baptism as an Jewish tradition. I think he argued that Baptism is to the Christians what circumcision was to the Jews. And on the dispute on infant baptism he argued: "To refuse infant baptism is to rage openly at God's institution". He also seems to argue that converts should be baptized after faith and repentance.
I was born a Lutheran and I know that the Lutheran Church teaches damnation if not baptized.

I disagree with Calvin on the issue. He isn't a prophet, I don't follow Calvin I follow Jesus Christ. Unlike many more hardline Protestants that look back to the glory days, I see the Reformation as still continuing and still to be completed. The more Romanist and Judaizing baggage we get rid of the better.

Also, what does the Lutheran Church have to do with this. If Jesus says the prisoner on the cross went to paradise, and Lutherans say he went to hell, who should I believe?

Heh... protestants consists of a large portion of the diversity of branches I talked about. Apparently there is no agreement on what the early church was or how it operated.

Only because many people are Protestant in name only, few keep to the 5 Sola's.

By that logic - there should be only one way, one church. All Christians would naturally follow the only true way to salvation, not by books, but by their converted heart [guidance by the Holy Ghost?].
Yet 35 000 versions exist and there are by no means any agreement between them on many aspects of the Christian religion. It seems to me that many do use the letter of the law rather that what you suggest. Add to that - crazy interpretations, and you find yourself in the reality of the Christian world of today.

Well as Paul said he said all that so that people will know they are without excuse for not following God, not that he expects them to follow him. It is because fallen man rebels against the knowledge that God gave them by nature, see how Paul says this corruption is why people turned knowledge of God into idolatry.

[Sigurd]

I disagree with Calvin on the issue. He isn't a prophet, I don't follow Calvin I follow Jesus Christ. Unlike many more hardline Protestants that look back to the glory days, I see the Reformation as still continuing and still to be completed. The more Romanist and Judaizing baggage we get rid of the better.

Also, what does the Lutheran Church have to do with this. If Jesus says the prisoner on the cross went to paradise, and Lutherans say he went to hell, who should I believe?

This is the classical example of adhering to infallibility of a canon. What if it isn't infallible? What if someone put the word 'paradise' where there was 'world of spirits' along the multitudes of iterations of translation and copying? Does paradise equate heaven? Why then is there contradiction between this and Peter and Pauline teachings on this very subject.
Logical answer: Either the scriptures are translated wrong/tampered with or they are not interpreted right. For those adhering to the infallible canon, it would be the latter. But that raises an issue regarding your next statement:

Only because many people are Protestant in name only, few keep to the 5 Sola's.

The first Sola: Sola Scriptura states:

Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting.

Good intentions from the first reformators. Did they realize that this opened up for and resulted in 35 000 versions of interpretations? (35 000 is an old number. I bet there are more). The self-interpreting is not as self-interpreting anyway, now is it? Which one is the right one?
The final reformation would best hurry up. According to mainstream, we live in the last minute of the 11th hour and Jesus' return is imminent. It would be rather sad, if say the reformation was not finished and for naught and that Mormons were right all along.

It seems that what the Reformation and Protestantism really lack, is divine inspiration or visitations. Heck, even Islam claims divine origins. All that the reformation can show for are a bunch of disgruntled old men re-interpreting a book slaughtered by centuries of copying and translations. All done by a Church the reformators say are corrupt. To trust that a corrupt church didn't change things in the canon to fit with their evil agenda is... blue-eyed?

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is the classical example of adhering to infallibility of a canon. What if it isn't infallible? What if someone put the word 'paradise' where there was 'world of spirits' along the multitudes of iterations of translation and copying? Does paradise equate heaven? Why then is there contradiction between this and Peter and Pauline teachings on this very subject.
Logical answer: Either the scriptures are translated wrong/tampered with or they are not interpreted right. For those adhering to the infallible canon, it would be the latter. But that raises an issue regarding your next statement:

But we have many of the texts in their original languages. People make it sound like translations are a massive source of problems for Chrisitians but in fact the differences in the original texts and the ones we've been using are tbh not very significant and don't change any single notable doctrine.

Also, there was no tension between Jesus/Peter/Paul on baptism. Naturally, Peter performed more baptisms as apostle to the Jews.

The first Sola: Sola Scriptura states:

Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting.

Good intentions from the first reformators. Did they realize that this opened up for and resulted in 35 000 versions of interpretations? (35 000 is an old number. I bet there are more). The self-interpreting is not as self-interpreting anyway, now is it? Which one is the right one?

And so what if there were ten million interpretations, maybe the problem is not with the text itself, but the people interpreting it.

Still, I think the significance of the number of denominations are hyped up. Many of those churches share the same/almost identical beliefs and are only technically seperate denominations because of their geographic location. Most people are not worried about petty differences, I've been to Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren services etc, they are all on the same tracks.

The final reformation would best hurry up. According to mainstream, we live in the last minute of the 11th hour and Jesus' return is imminent. It would be rather sad, if say the reformation was not finished and for naught and that Mormons were right all along.

I'm working on it.

Anyway we're nearly done, my 'Ultra-Protestant' (for want of a better term) take on things is picking up ground. Even go to the religious section at the TWC and you will see several posters like myself that have a fascination with removing all pagan elements from the religion and following the example of the New Testament-era church. There's me, hellas, basics, squiggle and signifer_one are nearly there (well, the last one is a pesky Arminian, but...).

It seems that what the Reformation and Protestantism really lack, is divine inspiration or visitations. Heck, even Islam claims divine origins. All that the reformation can show for are a bunch of disgruntled old men re-interpreting a book slaughtered by centuries of copying and translations. All done by a Church the reformators say are corrupt. To trust that a corrupt church didn't change things in the canon to fit with their evil agenda is... blue-eyed?

But Protestantism isn't all about the great superstitions surrounding other religions, it is very rationalistic and materialistic. The existence of God is just seen as a fact of reality (or something), the perfection of the scriptures is seen as self-evident. And as I said, the canon was formed by consensus amongst the very earliest followers of Christ, and we have the texts in the original languages, so...

[gaelic cowboy]

But Protestantism isn't all about the great superstitions surrounding other religions, it is very rationalistic and materialistic.

rational?

[Samurai Waki]

Mormons, good people for the most part; don't agree with their theology, but then again I don't agree with any theology.

[Rhyfelwyr]

rational?

Of course. How is it not?

[The Stranger]

rational?

wasnt protestantism anti material?

[Sigurd]

But we have many of the texts in their original languages. People make it sound like translations are a massive source of problems for Christians but in fact the differences in the original texts and the ones we've been using are tbh not very significant and don't change any single notable doctrine.

We have discussed this before. At least I have at several points, even at [dare I say it] TWC. There is an excellent thread about the origins of the Bible written by one of TWC's regulars. I am in complete agreement with his article.
You say original languages.. well that is light years away from originals. I have in previous engagements with you mentioned the Trinitarian problems and agenda ridden changes to scripture. I even gave you a concrete example of tampering of scripture (Erasmus).
Having something in an original language - does nothing to strengthen the argument of infallibility. Your The main problem is that no originals exist. The oldest copies (that's what they are - copies) are copies of copies of copies in a long chain back to long lost originals. There is no way to ensure that they haven't been tampered with somewhere along the chain of copying. Sometimes these copies in an original language was translated to this original language from a copy in a non-original language.
I have heard people claim that the originals are hidden in the Vatican... Sorry m8, these are copies. You might wonder why there are no originals if there is an unbroken chain back to the early church. Surely someone would see the value in keeping the originals preserved. For the Old testament, that would prove quite impossible, but for the New Testament era, at least some originals could have been preserved.

Also, there was no tension between Jesus/Peter/Paul on baptism. Naturally, Peter performed more baptisms as apostle to the Jews.

No tension at all... Jesus forgave sins left and right during his ministry, but this was before the organization of his church, which I believe happened in the 40 day intermission after his resurrection. Before that time - the mosaic law was in force. Jesus' mission of bringing and end to the mosaic law did not end until he declared it 'finished' on the cross. The mosaic law was all about the event of slaughtering the lamb for the benefit of the earthlings and the martians. After the 40 days, there is a notable change in the disciples. They went from clueless to leaders and powerful miracle workers. Every conversion following that event involved baptism.

And so what if there were ten million interpretations, maybe the problem is not with the text itself, but the people interpreting it.

You are putting you neck on the chopping block here... remember Sola #1.
Which guaranties do you have for you not misinterpreting the canon? Could it be that your Ultra-Protestant way is completely off the wall? How would you know? Will you just be the 35 001th wrong way?