INHABITANTS OF THE MOON

Young Women's Journal Vol 3 ^ | February 6, 1892 | D. B Huntington

[svcw]

Good question. The other question is what are you if not lds?

[Colofornian]

Stating the gospel of Christ IS offensive to those who dont' believe. There's no doubt about it. However, it can be stated without ridicule and contempt.

One of my points which hasn't sunk in on you is the word "offense" is tied to "offend" and in these days it's so easy to become "offended." If you trace how the gospel is treated in the NT, it is treated as a "scandal." So, yes the Gospel is a "scandal" and a "stumbling block." But somebody could do what you just said--state the gospel minus any hint of ridicule and contempt--and guess what? Somebody will still feel ridiculed.

It's too easy to become perturbed and annoyed in our culture because so many are thin-skinned and believe that tolerance should prevail in all things as if that was a major biblical theme.

Beyond that, you fail to realize that the entire premise of the most prominent Protestant reformer was for Christians to proclaim both the Law & Gospel together. Minus the Law, people see no need for a Savior. And it's often the proclamation of the Law where people feel they are being dumped on--especially those who cater to religious legalism (the religious folk).

Re: your comment on "modified post 11"...

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not here to defend every post that engages in sarcasm. And frankly, I think this post is about the first one where you're a bit more specific...which (I would say) is quite helpful.

One of my critiques of what you said earlier was that actually they were a bit too general. You said in your response: Well again you've taken a specific point and broadened it to a general statement.

Well, no actually, if you look at what you're responding to, you're responding to my comments based on what you said in posts 129 & 153 to P-Marlowe & Ansel 12. In #129, you said: I'm pointing out that the comments of those who call themselves "Christian" are not exactly what the bible refers to as Christian behavior.

That's a pretty broad statement & not very specific at all. You repeated that "broadness" in #153 by lumping every sarcastic remark under some automatic trigger you had going for those who are giving offense in the name of Christ.

Now you are backtracking & trying to claim specificity when I would surmise that the other posters likewise didn't see sniper fire coming from you, but broader shotgun pellets.

[Colofornian]

However, I don't follow Herbert Armstrong nor do I consider him to be a prophet. So if you want to continue to do the opposite of what the bible teaches, please feel free.

Well, sometimes it's difficult to "follow" someone who is dead. Plus there were also divisions between Herbert W. and Garner Ted Armstrong (Were you ever a follower of either Armstrong?)

[Marysecretary]

I don’t think so. Since it’s a fairy tale, I’m sure he didn’t explore that possibility, LOL.

[Colofornian]

I don't get it? Just because someone else treats a Christian rudely we are to react the same way? My point was that Paul and his followers didn't engage in the type of behavior seen on this thread when he was in Athens.

OK, you need to go back to post #64 of yours which is what I was addressing here. You basically were conducting a "mini-workshop" in that post on "how to witness effectively among pagans." (In other words, at least in that post, you went beyond your other posts where you were just complaining about mocking, sarcasm, etc.). You were now broadening the discussion to the entirety of witnessing and be aware of the type of people you're witnessing to...I say that right up front because if you read my ensuing comments within only a contextual response of "Well, of course, you're going to rile up folks when you preach the pure gospel," you'll miss the point I'm making...and that being, that the NT clearly shows it's much easier to "rile up" religious folks than others for lots of reasons.

Overall, once again, you display open discontempt for context. First you presume to lecture folks like ColorCountry by citing Paul's Mars Hill example--Acts 17:16-34 as "THE" way to go in witnessing (as if there was only "one way").
Then I provide a greater context for Acts 17 that shows that Paul treated & was received differently according to different types of hearers...so I cited Acts 17:6.
You then wrongly conclude that the reason behind why (at least in part) a Christian (Paul) was treated rudely had no bearing on your comment...and so you mitigate your problems. The fact is that Paul was treated rudely because of the proclamation of God's truth. This didn't happen at Mars Hill among the pagans, but it did happen among the religious folks.

First you cited Acts 17:16-34 without noticing Acts 17:6.
Then you comment on Acts 17:6 without bothering to check Acts 17:1-5:

When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. 4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. 5But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason's house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd.

The fact of the matter is that when the gospel is proclaimed among religious folks who don't know Christ, the reactions are not always open-armed hugging just because you used or failed to use the "Mars Hill way."

[Marysecretary]

I didn’t know there was water on the moon! Wow, the stuff you learn on FR. Amazing...LOL.

[P-Marlowe]

You know the more you examine bizzare theories like Quakers on the Moon living to be 1000 years old, the more interesting stuff you can find on the internet.

Apparently the Hare Krishnas believe that Krishna lives on the moon and the the Apollo Astronauts were phonies:

"The moon is considered one of the planets of the heavenly kingdom. One can be promoted to this planet by executing different sacrifices recommended in the Vedic literature, such as pious activities in worshiping the demigods and forefathers with rigidity and vows. But one cannot remain there for a very long time. Life on the moon is said to last ten thousand years according to the calculation of the demigods. The demigods' time is calculated in such a way that one day (twelve hours) is equal to six months on this planet. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REACH THE MOON BY ANY MATERIAL VEHICLE LIKE A SPUTNIK, but persons who are attracted by material enjoyment can go to the moon by pious activities. In spite of being promoted to the moon, however, one has to come back to this earth again when the merits of his works in sacrifice are finished." (Bhag. 3.32.3)

Maybe the Quakers got there by Pious Activities. Maybe that explains it.

So you think it is possible that Joseph Smith got the Quakers and the Krishas confused? Maybe OB Huntington was mistaken. Maybe Joseph Smith said that they dress like Hare Krishas and live to be 10,000 years.

[Marysecretary]

Or maybe they’re all just MOONbats????

[DouglasKC]

Humans make mistakes across the board, including at much going in the church (imperfect sermons; imperfect teaching efforts, etc). It doesn't mean that either we stop those practices altogether or that God can't work (at times) His perfection thru us, does it? I addressed this already, in effect, at the end of post #188...where I moved from God to man as God's people engaged in examples of righteous sarcasm and righteous ridicule/mocking (and I certainly know there's more of the unrighteous kind) 1 Kings 18:

First of all what Elijah was doing was not in any way shape or form similar to what's going on in this thread. Attempting to compare the petty sniping going on here with the miracles performed by Elijah is silly.

I think I've said my piece. You've studiously avoided the general tone and tenor of the thread and instead have focused on finding a couple of examples to justify the bad behavior here. If you want to continue with the notion that sarcasm, ridicule and belittlement are fruits of the spirit of Christ than so be it. I'll leave you with one final scripture:

1Co 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
1Co 13:5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
1Co 13:6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
1Co 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

[P-Marlowe]

I think I've said my piece.

Thank you for your participation in this thread.

[DouglasKC]

Overall, once again, you display open discontempt for context. First you presume to lecture folks like ColorCountry by citing Paul's Mars Hill example--Acts 17:16-34 as "THE" way to go in witnessing (as if there was only "one way"). Then I provide a greater context for Acts 17 that shows that Paul treated & was received differently according to different types of hearers...so I cited Acts 17:6. You then wrongly conclude that the reason behind why (at least in part) a Christian (Paul) was treated rudely had no bearing on your comment...and so you mitigate your problems. The fact is that Paul was treated rudely because of the proclamation of God's truth. This didn't happen at Mars Hill among the pagans, but it did happen among the religious folks.

Let's cut to the chase. Would Paul have posted a negative distortion, or even a positive portrayal, about greek god's in a public forum and then would he and his fellow Christians stand around and make disparaging, mocking, taunting comments about those beliefs in front of greeks, Christians and whoever else happened to be around? Would they do this about Jewish belief? Of course not. Because anyone that saw them doing this would rightly conclude that they were acting like petty, carnal minded hypocrites. Their witness for truth would be ineffective. It would be a joke. If they don't listen to their own God why would anyone else?

[Diego1618]

Diego, are you LDS?/ Colofornian

Good question. The other question is what are you if not lds?/ svcw

First Century Church of The Apostles....sometimes referred to as "The New Testament Church". We preceded the Romans by about 300 years, the Proddies by 1500 and the LDS by about 1800 years.

The New Testament Church kept and observed all the Sabbaths and Festivals of Our Lord as outlined in [Leviticus 23] and still does. This is something the Catholics, the Protestants and the Mormons have shunned throughout their histories. You will find the Apostles.....throughout the pages of the New Testament, observing these Holy Days and instructing others to do so as well.

They also did not preach....or teach the pagan idea of a "Trinity".

[Radix]

Although I myself frequently engage in sarcasm and even insolent postings on FR.com I feel moved to post to you here.

I agree with your post 100% and I thank you for posting it.

[Tennessee Nana]

FWIW, HW Armstrong had prophesied that “”NO American astronaut will return from the Moon ALIVE!””
______________________________________________

I guess he was thinking that the Danites living on the moon would kill the astronauts as apostates...

[P-Marlowe]

I agree with your post 100% and I thank you for posting it.

And thank you for your participation in this thread.

[Radix]

"Of course the word “trinity” is not in the Bible, it is a word to explain simply “three in one”."

Of course the need for a word to simply explain three in one makes perfect sense now that you have posted about it.

I have a few questions.

Is "Father" a name?

Is "Son" a name?

Is "Holy Ghost" a name?

Gosh it is such an awesome innovative notion to have 3 instead of just one in order to encourage new acolytes into a flourishing new cult.

It is, in my opinion, a simple matter to criticize any dogma in a mocking fashion.

[Radix]

"And thank you for your participation in this thread."

Actually, I was laughing at the beginning of it but I felt a bit guilty as the trend of the posts became more and more mean spirited.

DouglasKC, I believe was correct in his initial criticism.

[svcw]

Ok, I don't know if its because I have been showered with attention because its Mothers Day (ok even that makes me LOL) or what...

But I am just not getting what you are posting.

It is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - three in One.

And you got me about the “mocking”, it is one of my greatest weakness mocking/sarcasm. It is something I struggle with and on occasion surrender to.

[P-Marlowe]

Actually, I was laughing at the beginning of it but I felt a bit guilty as the trend of the posts became more and more mean spirited.

I guess some people have a hard time distinguishing between light hearted and mean spirited.

Now maybe there was a nasty post here and there questioning the motives of posters and calling them UnChristian trying to make everyone feel guilty about joking about Quakers on the Moon, and stuff like that, but overall I think the tenor of this thread has been fairly light hearted.

I'm sure that if you felt guilty, then those people who came on here to brag about how holy they are and rag on everyone else for having an UnChristian attitude were made joyous. Nothing makes a "holier than thou" type feel better than to make everyone else feel bad.

Again, thank you for visiting the thread.

[Colofornian]

Yes, it's both love and truth. And for some people at some time, the dimension of "tough love" is important.

To quote part of the passage you just cited: 1Co 13:4, 6 Love...rejoices with the truth

(And we've seen plenty of truth on this thread...I would hope you & others would rejoice in that like 1 Cor. 13:6 says)