DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Scheavo on January 20, 2012, 04:51:13 PM
-
jsem, I saw you say you were a LDS member in the other thread, so I had a question: Why is Mormonism Christian? Knowing what I know about Mormonism and Christianity, I just don't get how Mormonsim should be thought of as any more Christian than Islam. It doesn't really make any difference to me, it's just an academic curiosity for me.
-
I'm not Jsem but when you follow Christ you are a Christian. Muslims do not therefore are not Christians. Mormons, while may not adhere to your form of Christianity still follow Christ. That's all you need to call yourself Christian.
-
I think there's a difference between defining a category ("Christian") and defining the parameters by which a person is saved/goes to heaven/etc. When it comes to terminology, you can argue pretty much anything, because words are a man-made construct. As a human, you can call something whatever you want to call it.
But what you can't say is that Mormons and Protestants are compatible because they are both "Christian". They are very different and probably believe that the other group is not a part of the "saved" community. To lump them together is a mistake.
-
I never understood the popular opinion that Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ and that he died to save us. It seems to me that this is the only requirement to be considered Christian.
I think a lot of religious groups simply dislike LDS beliefs or find them uncomfortable, and prefer to separate themselves from Mormonism by claiming that Mormons are not Christian. I suppose if they define Christianity differently, then that makes complete sense. They can say that since some of the doctrines surrounding Christ's identity or role differ, Mormons are not Christian. But I think it just comes down to semantics.
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind. To me, that makes them Christian.
-
It seems to me that this is the only requirement to be considered Christian.
Not really, no. Not any more than merely believing that meat tastes good in and of itself makes one a carnivore.
-
It seems to me that this is the only requirement to be considered Christian.
Not really, no. Not any more than merely believing that meat tastes good in and of itself makes one a carnivore.
As clever as that analogy may be, it's kind of useless without a little more explanation.
-
I'm just saying there's more to it is all.
-
This is not meant as an offense to anyone of Mormonism, but I always thought of Mormonism as a later extension of Christianity that made its own name and religion for itself. So much so (with such different beliefs) that I would not consider it a part of Christianity.
-
I'm just saying there's more to it is all.
Right. I know that's what you're saying. But what is the more?
-
I'm just saying there's more to it is all.
Right. I know that's what you're saying. But what is the more?
Seems to me the more should be following Jesus, not just saying you accept him as "your Lord and Savior."
-
I'm just saying there's more to it is all.
Right. I know that's what you're saying. But what is the more?
Seems to me the more should be following Jesus, not just saying you accept him as "your Lord and Savior."
Okay, that makes sense. But that still makes Mormonism a form of Christianity.
-
Their theology is radically different. By itself, that's not a flaw, but their beliefs about who God is, the inerrancy of scripture and salvation (to name a few examples) differ greatly from Christian teachings.
-
Their theology is radically different. By itself, that's not a flaw, but their beliefs about who God is, the inerrancy of scripture and salvation (to name a few examples) differ greatly from Christian teachings.
Such as? If you have an opinion on it that is.
-
Then one might call it another demonination, as it properly is, not unlike Celtic Christianity was.
-
Their theology is radically different. By itself, that's not a flaw, but their beliefs about who God is, the inerrancy of scripture and salvation (to name a few examples) differ greatly from Christian teachings.
Such as? If you have an opinion on it that is.
The Book of Mormon as a second testament of Jesus, for example, would have been punted by the early church. They scrapped orthodox books if they found out that the books (say, 3 Corinthians) were forged. So the LDS view of scripture, then, doesn't square with the Christian belief that their are authoritative books that speak about Jesus and his ministry.
-
Then one might call it another demonination, as it properly is, not unlike Celtic Christianity was.
And how much are Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism all denomination of the same religion?
-
Their theology is radically different. By itself, that's not a flaw, but their beliefs about who God is, the inerrancy of scripture and salvation (to name a few examples) differ greatly from Christian teachings.
Such as? If you have an opinion on it that is.
The Book of Mormon as a second testament of Jesus, for example, would have been punted by the early church. They scrapped orthodox books if they found out that the books (say, 3 Corinthians) were forged. So the LDS view of scripture, then, doesn't square with the Christian belief that their are authoritative books that speak about Jesus and his ministry.
Cool, thanks.
-
Then one might call it another demonination, as it properly is, not unlike Celtic Christianity was.
And how much are Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism all denomination of the same religion?
They aren't. If you want to go that route, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are different religions, and Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity. I would then (using that terminology) think of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Presbyterianism as further denominations of Christianity. Also I would see Reform and Orthodox as denominations of Judaism, and Sunni and Shi'a as denominations of Islam (although I doubt they use that particular terminology themselves).
-
Then one might call it another demonination, as it properly is, not unlike Celtic Christianity was.
And how much are Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism all denomination of the same religion?
They aren't. If you want to go that route, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are different religions, and Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity. I would then (using that terminology) think of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Presbyterianism as further denominations of Christianity. Also I would see Reform and Orthodox as denominations of Judaism, and Sunni and Shi'a as denominations of Islam (although I doubt they use that particular terminology themselves).
I think he's refering to the fact that they are all based off the same book/God. Jews have the Torah = Old Testament. Christians have the OT with the addition of the NT or Bible. Mormons have the Bible with the addition of the Book of Mormon and whatever other books. Islam has the Qu'ran which is the rewritten version of the Bible with additions.
The all are Abrahamic religions; just different takes. I don't think it is a completely in accurate statement to say that they are denominations of Judaism.
-
Yes it is. Although Islam does refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as all 3 being "people of the book."
BTW, the Koran is not "a rewritten version of the Bible with additions."
-
Yes it is. Although Islam does refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as all 3 being "people of the book."
BTW, the Koran is not "a rewritten version of the Bible with additions."
Sorry, it is a book that lifts a bunch of stories from the Bible and tweaks them.
-
It does more than tweak them.
But I think we each understand.
-
Mormonism is an alternative interpretation of Christianity in the way, as I said, the Celtic Church was until it was utterly destroyed by persecution by ancient European rulers and the Catholic Church (I think they too were non-Trinitarian or something), in the same way Greek Orthodox is Christian even though it developed entirely apart from Western Christianity, in the same way that Coptic and Nestorians are separately but equally so despite irreconcilable disagreements.
-
I don't think that Mormonism is the same as those things (no offense to the Mormons here).
-
I mean, this all can be traced back to a more general question of what is Christianity. What criteria need to be met for one belief system to be considered Christianity?
I do believe we are Christians. We believe in God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ as the Son of God, even though our view of the trinity is radically different to the largest Christian groups (Christ being the God of the Old Testament and the Creator for example). We believe in the resurrection of Christ, and that his atoning sacrifice was absolutely necessary and accepting it is the only way to salvation.
Islam considers Isa (Jesus) a mere prophet, while Christians consider him God. I don't think it's be fair to say that LDS and Islam are just as Christian.
-
Yes it is. Although Islam does refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as all 3 being "people of the book."
Islam considers Isa (Jesus) a mere prophet, while Christians consider him God. I don't think it's be fair to say that LDS and Islam are just as Christian.
Without Judaism, there would be no Christianity, Islam or Mormonism. They're all offshoots from the same theological tradition, though they take very different approaches and interpret the "true way," or whatnot, completely differently. Mormonism is more similar to Christianity than Islam, and of course Judaism, but it's basic tenants are basically that everything known or thought of about the teaching of Christ is wrong. It's not that much farther, from this, to say that Christ was simply a prophet and not the son of god, as Muslims do.
I mean, what differentiates a Christian from a Jew? Jesus, and taking him as the son of god, and following the New Testament. Both have the same "God." What differentiates a Mormon from a Christian? Joseph Smith, thinking he is a prophet, and following his Book of Mormon. Both have the same "God" (this time Jesus).
-
So, to summarize the entire thread: semantics. It seems like everyone as a different definition of Christianity, some of which include Mormonism and some of which do not.
But what exactly is the point of this? Let's say Mormons aren't Christians. What does that mean? It doesn't change anything. It seems to be about as useful as debating whether Symphony X plays progressive metal or symphonic metal.
-
So, to summarize the entire thread: semantics. It seems like everyone as a different definition of Christianity, some of which include Mormonism and some of which do not.
But what exactly is the point of this? Let's say Mormons aren't Christians. What does that mean? It doesn't change anything. It seems to be about as useful as debating whether Symphony X plays progressive metal or symphonic metal.
Not at all. There are substantial theological differences.
-
Fascinating discussion....and I'm agnostic :lol
-
So, to summarize the entire thread: semantics. It seems like everyone as a different definition of Christianity, some of which include Mormonism and some of which do not.
But what exactly is the point of this? Let's say Mormons aren't Christians. What does that mean? It doesn't change anything. It seems to be about as useful as debating whether Symphony X plays progressive metal or symphonic metal.
Not at all. There substantial theological differences.
Understatement of the century.
-
So, to summarize the entire thread: semantics. It seems like everyone as a different definition of Christianity, some of which include Mormonism and some of which do not.
But what exactly is the point of this? Let's say Mormons aren't Christians. What does that mean? It doesn't change anything. It seems to be about as useful as debating whether Symphony X plays progressive metal or symphonic metal.
Not at all. There are substantial theological differences.
Understatement of the century.
Yeah, I guess lost tribes of Israel making their way to America is more than semantics.
-
Yeah, I guess lost tribes of Israel making their way to America is more than semantics.
:lol
But Israelites winding up in America has nothing to do with Mormon beliefs concerning Jesus Christ.
And I still don't see what classifying Mormonism as Christian or non-Christian changes.
-
Yeah, I guess lost tribes of Israel making their way to America is more than semantics.
:lol
But Israelites winding up in America has nothing to do with Mormon beliefs concerning Jesus Christ.
And I still don't see what classifying Mormonism as Christian or non-Christian changes.
It's like saying that calling apples and oranges the same thing doesn't change anything. I suppose it's true, but they are still different fruits.
-
True.
-
Fascinating discussion....and I'm agnostic :lol
Ditto, so happy my religion allows for a God of my own understanding. I need a flowchart to follow this.
-
Fascinating discussion....and I'm agnostic :lol
And what's funny is, so am I.
-
You guys lost me when you said that Mormonism isn't an offshoot of Christianity, I always considered it a christian religion. Imagine confusion like this coming from a man with ten years of parochial school under his belt. :lol
-
You guys lost me when you said that Mormonism isn't an offshoot of Christianity, I always considered it a christian religion. Imagine confusion like this coming from a man with ten years of parochial school under his belt. :lol
Oh, I think it's an offshoot. But I think it's as much of an offshoot as Christianity is from Judaism.
-
Yes it is. Although Islam does refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as all 3 being "people of the book."
Islam considers Isa (Jesus) a mere prophet, while Christians consider him God. I don't think it's be fair to say that LDS and Islam are just as Christian.
Without Judaism, there would be no Christianity, Islam or Mormonism. They're all offshoots from the same theological tradition, though they take very different approaches and interpret the "true way," or whatnot, completely differently. Mormonism is more similar to Christianity than Islam, and of course Judaism, but it's basic tenants are basically that everything known or thought of about the teaching of Christ is wrong. It's not that much farther, from this, to say that Christ was simply a prophet and not the son of god, as Muslims do.
I mean, what differentiates a Christian from a Jew? Jesus, and taking him as the son of god, and following the New Testament. Both have the same "God." What differentiates a Mormon from a Christian? Joseph Smith, thinking he is a prophet, and following his Book of Mormon. Both have the same "God" (this time Jesus).
Whoa no no young buck-eh. Because one of the main differentiating factors, one that actually places Judaism closer to Islam (in a very limited sense), is that there is no Christian "nation." To be a Jew is to belong to an ethnoreligious group, an identity that stretches beyond the mere religious.
Not to mention the ritual nature of Judaism is so detached from anything resembling Christianity. In a way, it would make more sense to say that their common history is the only tie that binds.
-
Christianity is not "just" about believing in Christ as the Son of God and the messiah, although holy Scripture is the essential source of Christian theology. There is a LOT more to it than that. You have the traditions that were passed down from the Apostles, the Church itself as created by Christ, the early church fathers who carried the same traditions and passed them down, plus the councils and creeds that define the articles of faith as holy Scripture has them. You also have philosophy, natural reason, theologians and history. Each form of Christianity, protestantism, Mormons, JW, each have their methodology to theology. However it begs the question how much needs to change in order for something to become non christian. In my opinion, that would be the basics, Holy Scripture and Tradition. The protestants for the most part stick with most of the traditions except when it comes to the sacraments. Given that Mormonism is gnostic with a tradition to itself, it does ride the fine line of following in the traditions of the apostles. In this sense it could be classified as something parallel to Christianity, but lacking the tradition that would make it so.
-
Yes it is. Although Islam does refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as all 3 being "people of the book."
Islam considers Isa (Jesus) a mere prophet, while Christians consider him God. I don't think it's be fair to say that LDS and Islam are just as Christian.
Without Judaism, there would be no Christianity, Islam or Mormonism. They're all offshoots from the same theological tradition, though they take very different approaches and interpret the "true way," or whatnot, completely differently. Mormonism is more similar to Christianity than Islam, and of course Judaism, but it's basic tenants are basically that everything known or thought of about the teaching of Christ is wrong. It's not that much farther, from this, to say that Christ was simply a prophet and not the son of god, as Muslims do.
I mean, what differentiates a Christian from a Jew? Jesus, and taking him as the son of god, and following the New Testament. Both have the same "God." What differentiates a Mormon from a Christian? Joseph Smith, thinking he is a prophet, and following his Book of Mormon. Both have the same "God" (this time Jesus).
Whoa no no young buck-eh. Because one of the main differentiating factors, one that actually places Judaism closer to Islam (in a very limited sense), is that there is no Christian "nation." To be a Jew is to belong to an ethnoreligious group, an identity that stretches beyond the mere religious.
Not to mention the ritual nature of Judaism is so detached from anything resembling Christianity. In a way, it would make more sense to say that their common history is the only tie that binds.
Oh, I simplified it horribly, to a historical standpoint, and historical events and historical items which caused the split we can notice. Which is why I think the same holds true for Mormonism. It has it's own prophet, it's own holy books and scripture, and a unique social and religious structure.
-
Christianity is not "just" about believing in Christ as the Son of God and the messiah, although holy Scripture is the essential source of Christian theology. There is a LOT more to it than that. You have the traditions that were passed down from the Apostles, the Church itself as created by Christ, the early church fathers who carried the same traditions and passed them down, plus the councils and creeds that define the articles of faith as holy Scripture has them. You also have philosophy, natural reason, theologians and history. Each form of Christianity, protestantism, Mormons, JW, each have their methodology to theology. However it begs the question how much needs to change in order for something to become non christian. In my opinion, that would be the basics, Holy Scripture and Tradition. The protestants for the most part stick with most of the traditions except when it comes to the sacraments. Given that Mormonism is gnostic with a tradition to itself, it does ride the fine line of following in the traditions of the apostles. In this sense it could be classified as something parallel to Christianity, but lacking the tradition that would make it so.
The problem with this logic is that it would make most Christians not Christian. Not every Christian attends church regularly or takes part in the traditions (not sure what they would be) but do pray to the Christian god and claim to be saved by Jesus.
-
Christianity is not "just" about believing in Christ as the Son of God and the messiah, although holy Scripture is the essential source of Christian theology. There is a LOT more to it than that. You have the traditions that were passed down from the Apostles, the Church itself as created by Christ, the early church fathers who carried the same traditions and passed them down, plus the councils and creeds that define the articles of faith as holy Scripture has them. You also have philosophy, natural reason, theologians and history. Each form of Christianity, protestantism, Mormons, JW, each have their methodology to theology. However it begs the question how much needs to change in order for something to become non christian. In my opinion, that would be the basics, Holy Scripture and Tradition. The protestants for the most part stick with most of the traditions except when it comes to the sacraments. Given that Mormonism is gnostic with a tradition to itself, it does ride the fine line of following in the traditions of the apostles. In this sense it could be classified as something parallel to Christianity, but lacking the tradition that would make it so.
The problem with this logic is that it would make most Christians not Christian. Not every Christian attends church regularly or takes part in the traditions (not sure what they would be) but do pray to the Christian god and claim to be saved by Jesus.
That's incorrect. Not attending and taking part in the traditions is different than actually throwing them to the side in favor of something else. I don't attend town meetings, rarely watch the State of the Union addresses, only vote in the "main" elections and most people would still consider me American. If they attend church and partake in the traditions once a week, or even twice a year, they are still taking part in the traditions of the Church albeit, not exactly in an enthusiastic way. My point is by forsaking tradition you are moving away from the main facets and tenets of the faith into different territory. This is not partaking causally, this is not partaking at all. Just believing that Christ is the Son of God and praying to this God would be the same as if I understood Obama is the president and Washington DC is the capital, but the constitution, various practices that are particular to Americans are not followed in their fullest sense, if at all. Ask yourself what makes an American? Is that just being born in the United States or does it entail a bit more than that? The same question can be asked of Christians? What makes a Christian? Does it mean worshiping Christ and believing he is the Son of God? A Pagan might do this at the same time believing in other Gods. This was quite common in the Roman Era during the early Church and was common with the Jews during the Exodus (to believe in Yahweh but still practice traditions from Baal).
-
When I was eight years old my family and I joined the Mormon church. I was baptized a Mormon, and we were active in the church until I was about 17, when one day my dad suddenly declared that we all only needed the Holy Bible for the answers to our heavenly salvation, and that was that. To say that the Mormons are not Christian is very offensive to all Mormons. Mormons are indeed very much a part of the Christian faith. In fact, the official name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Mormons believe in the Jesus of the Bible, the same that was born at Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, preached His gospel in Galilee and Judea, healed the sick, raised the dead, and finally offered Himself as a sinless ransom for the sins of the world. They believe that Jesus Christ was literally resurrected, that He lives today, and that He is the only name under heaven by which mankind can be saved. This is the Jesus whose name is depicted on the front of every Mormon place of worship. This is the Jesus in whose name every Mormon prays and every sermon is preached. This is the Jesus whose body and blood are commemorated in weekly worship services by Latter-day Saints from Australia to Arkansas, from Carthage to California. For Latter-day Saints who try to live their lives as they believe Jesus taught, assertions that they aren’t Christian are as bewildering as they are hurtful.
Mormons are well aware of the many deep doctrinal differences with other Christians. For instance, Mormons reject the Trinity as non-biblical, and believe the concept to be the product of the creeds that emerged from the 4th and 5th centuries. Further, while embracing the Bible (the King James version is preferred), they don’t interpret it the same way as some Protestants – for instance, that the earth was literally created in six days of 24 hours. Neither do they believe that the scriptural canon was closed with a period and an exclamation mark after the death of the apostles, but that God is perfectly able to talk to prophets today as He did in ancient times. When someone says Mormons aren’t Christian, I'm assumimng that he or she usually means that Mormons don’t embrace the traditional interpretation of the Bible that includes the Trinity. “Our Jesus” is somehow different from “their Jesus.” Further, they mean that some Mormon teachings are so far outside Christian orthodoxy of past centuries that they constitute almost a new religion. Mormons have no argument with assertions that they are not “creedal Christians,” or not “orthodox” Christians or “Trinitarian Christians.” Frankly, the whole point of Mormonism is that it is different.
The folllowing are the Mormon Articles of faith:
Thirteen brief statements written by Joseph Smith that summarize some of the basic doctrines of the Church.
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
My family "tried out" about a dozen or so different faiths and churches through the years. At one time or another I have attended or been a part of the following churches: Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Church of God, Lutheran, Presbyterian, LDS (Mormon), Episcopal, and in law school I briefly dated a very hot black girl and went with her for a while to her AME Church. The thing I took from all of those experiences is that while there are some fundamental differences in those Christian based faiths, they are all still very much Christian based faiths.
Saying Mormons aren't Christian would be the same as saying Catholics aren't either. I mean ask a Catholic to describe the Book of Revelation to you, or better yet, ask a Catholic priest why Revelation isn't preached in the Catholic church on Sunday (er...Saturday :biggrin: ). Or because most all protestant based faiths (including the LDS Church) use the New Testament usage for the term "saints", as referring simply and generally to all Christians, and the Catholic church does not, does that make either of them any less Christian? No, it does not.
In a speech in Salt Lake City at the Mormon tabernacle there, John Kennedy said about the Mormon faith, “And what has been true of the Mormons has been true of countless other religious faiths - Jews, Quakers, Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many, many others. All encountered resistance and oppression. All stuck by both their rights and their country. And in time the fruits of liberty were theirs to share as well; and the very diversity of their beliefs enriched our Nation's spiritual strength… Many a great nation has been torn by religious feuds and holy wars - but never the United States of America. For here diversity has led to unity - liberty has led to strength. And today that strength - that spiritual, moral strength - is needed as never before.”
The whole argument about Mormons being Christian reminds me of the "joke" my grandfather told me when I was little. In it a man dies and goes to heaven. He stands before the Pearly gates and says to St. Peter, "I cannot wait to get in here with all those other Lutherans." St. Peter calmly tells the man, "We don't have any Lutherans in Heaven." The man is beside himself. "What? No Lutherans? Then what do you have here? A bunch of Methodists?"
"No Methodists either", says St. Peter.
The man growing more exasperated asks "Baptists?"
"No." says Peter.
"Don't tell me just Catholics!" says the man.
"No Catholics either." says Peter.
Fully enraged the man demands, "Well what do you have here then ??!!!"
St. Peter says, "Christians."
:biggrin:
Growing up more or less a Mormon, there was one BIG thing that stood out to me more than any other faith I have ever been exposed too; their devotion to family. The concept and belief in a strong and loving "family" is REALLY big to the Mormons. Mormons are basically taught to even have "family nights' each week, or to dedicate an entire weekend day to a family endeavor. I always thought that was very cool, and overall is lacking in this country in a biiiig way today.
-
I understand your need to defend the Mormons, but I couldn't help but notice you left out the really weird stuff that is the reason that many Christians see them as non-Christian.
-
I knew a mormon girl all throughout school as a child....meaning K-12, I had classes with her from the age of 5 up to the age of 18. She's one of the nicest, sweetest girls I've ever met. A true gentle soul.
....Almost to the point of being very creepy and unnerving.
-
I understand your need to defend the Mormons, but I couldn't help but notice you left out the really weird stuff that is the reason that many Christians see them as non-Christian.
I think Pentacosts, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and those who take up serpents do "really weird stuff". Maybe they're not really Christian either then. :\
-
I understand your need to defend the Mormons, but I couldn't help but notice you left out the really weird stuff that is the reason that many Christians see them as non-Christian.
I think Pentacosts, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and those who take up serpents do "really weird stuff". Maybe they're not really Christian either then. :\
You can't lump all those churches together. Some are worse offenders than others. Rejecting the trinity and "speaking in tongues" are not on the same level. By the way, your defense amounts to "we're really similar to Christians, except where differ on fundamental theological issues."
-
I understand your need to defend the Mormons, but I couldn't help but notice you left out the really weird stuff that is the reason that many Christians see them as non-Christian.
I think Pentacosts, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and those who take up serpents do "really weird stuff". Maybe they're not really Christian either then. :\
You can't lump all those churches together. Some are worse offenders than others. Rejecting the trinity and "speaking in tongues" are not on the same level. By the way, your defense amounts to "we're really similar to Christians, except where differ on fundamental theological issues."
First of all, who said anything about lumping anything together? And some are worse offenders?? Really? Jesus Christ! No wonder we have so damn many religious wars on this planet. I was using those I listed as an example of how ridiculous Hefs theory was. Personally, I don't really give a rats ass about any one churches divine claim to anything. I more subscribe to the Church of God theme of Christianity. Best church I ever attended was a Church of God, because there was no role or registry to sign or join. They didn't care if you were raised Catholic, Mormon, Baptist or whatever. There was no worry about "back slidin'", women could wear their hair any way they saw fit, and wear just about any style of clothes they chose as well. AND they never claimed to be THE Divine and right church. In fact, if you asked the Pastor he would have told you that so long as you followed the teachings of Jesus, and worshipped God according to scripture, AND were saved, you'd be back home in Heaven someday. Not every Christian church believes that. If you don't see their ideology, you're doomed to hellfire. I say whatever?
I think people are being pretty fucking judgemental though to claim Mormons aren't Christians. In every Mormom church in every pew and I'd bet in every Mormon household there sits a King James version of the Holy Bible. Both Old and New Testaments. There is also a book of Mormon as well (and who am I to say Joseph Smith wasn't visited by angels? I wasn't there) , but my wife who was raised Catholic has a "Catholic Bible" and the entire chapter of Revelation is missing from it. Seems the "Church" thinks John was crazy when he wrote down all he saw. Fine. That's their interpretation. Does that make them "un-Christian"? No. Mormons and damn near EVERY OTHER so called "Christian" denomination have their own interpretations as well. So, I never said Mormons were SIMILAR to Christians, I said they WERE Christians. Get it right.
Let me say this..I believe as do others that ones own salvation is a very personal thing. Who the hell gives anyone the right to makes claims on my salvation, or to call someone who follows the teachings of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they are not Christian? Especially when they follow Him as Lord, and worship at His feet.
-
I also believe that salvation is a personal thing. But the Pentecostals and Baptists don't add anything to the texts. Snake handlers are misguided and a little crazy, but they aren't non-Christian. And none of them believe in celestial marriages (including celestal bigomy) or in becoming a god yourself or in secret names or any of that stuff. But hey, I didn't say that I thought they weren't Christian. I mentioned that many Christians don't see the Mormons as Christian. Life is short, believe whatever it takes to get you there.
BTW, Revelation IS included in the Catholic Bible, as is the rest of the OT and NT. They just also include the Apocryphal writings, although they don't carry the same weight as the OT or NT.
-
I understand your need to defend the Mormons, but I couldn't help but notice you left out the really weird stuff that is the reason that many Christians see them as non-Christian.
In Tempus' defense, Joseph Smith was smart enough to not include the really weird stuff when he wrote the Articles of Faith and sent them to a newspaper editor.
The idea was that he was just sharing the basics of the religion, and that's exactly why Tempus repeated them here...to show that when you boil off the weirdness, the core doctrines of the church remain--and they are very much tied to the same Jesus that other Christians worship.
-
@ Hef. I haven't stepped foot in an LDS Church in 31 years. I don't necessarily subscribe to that particular ideology myself (although there are many components...family strength especially...that I still find very appealling), but there are many faiths that either remove or add to the texts through their own interpretations; and one only need look at the attitude towards the acceptance of the scrolls of Qumran as evidence of just how charged the attidues toward doctrine differ. I think there are many people who dislike or share the sentiment that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't really understand the faith or hear only what their own fundamentalist leaders spew forth about the church and it's members. What makes that "hate speech" basically, so easy to accept is that it’s easier to hate and demonize a “they” that lives primarily in Utah, goes to Mormon-dominant universities, and stays within its own religious enclave of friends and family. It also doesn't help the church when they claim (as nearly all other Christian faiths do) so forcefully, that they are the ONLY divine and right church before God.
I can just share my own experiences with the church, and I can tell you with confidence that it is a Christian based faith. I just think that those who have never actually researched the faith for themselves, or have talked to a Mormon about what they actually believe (theres nearly as much false information floating around about what Mormons actually believe as the Masons. Okay, that's statement is total bullshit, it's not even close to all the crap flying around about the Masons.. :lol ), or actually attended a service, or they probably get their information from some TV preacher are being pretty damn judgemental of the faith. As Paul said (thats' Sir Paul, not St. Paul.. :) ), "The love you take...is equal to the love you make." So, it's all good my Christian brother...it's all good. :)
And I never said I felt Pentecosts, Baptists, or even those who handle snakes weren't Christian, but because I don't subscribe to their particular ideology doesn't give me the right to claim they aren't either. For me, if you claim to be Christian, believe in and subscribe to the teachings of the Holy Bible, follow and accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, and are saved by receiving the Gift of Salvation...you my friend are a Christian. I don't care if you think the scripture literally means for you to take up dangerous snakes to prove your faith, or you think women shouldn't wear long pants or you leave Revelations out of your version of the Bible (and it is missing entirely...I don't recall what VERSION of the Catholic Bible it is, but it's not there, and it wasn't just a printing error), or manifestation, demonic possession, or even intercession so much that you'd let your child die, rather than have a life saving surgery or medicine...even though I might think you were crazy...I'd never say you weren't a Christian.
-
This seems to be the appropriate thread...
https://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews
WTF
-
I don't get it. The Mormons believe in Adam and Eve. What's the point if this backtracking then, if everybody descends from those two? Obviously every human can trace their lineage to those two, and thus everybody is Mormon. Case closed. Stupid, but closed.
rumborak
-
One thing that most Western Christians and all Mormons that I have interacted with have in common is that they have a very limited understanding of what the intellectual and historical aspects of their religion are.
Lots of Christians try to draw a defining line between themselves and Mormons but fail to do so because they frankly do not understand what they believe fundamentally. This is based upon my personal interactions, not all Christian people /twocents.
I wish I knew more about the Mormon religion. I don't understand a lot of it, and that has a lot to do with the fact that when I discuss what I've read about it in their texts/books with actual Mormons, they say that they don't believe any of those things.
Either I am confused, or they are confused.
-
The only Mormons I've known are people who were born into it, or people who converted in order to marry a Mormon. The latter happens quite a bit as Mormon girls are very cute for some reason.
But yeah, I've never known someone to convert to Mormonism for an intellectual reason. That should speak for itself...
-
The only Mormons I've known are people who were born into it, or people who converted in order to marry a Mormon. The latter happens quite a bit as Mormon girls are very cute for some reason.
But yeah, I've never known someone to convert to Mormonism for an intellectual reason. That should speak for itself...
I've never know anyone to convert to Christianity for an intellectual reason. The only thing that says is that I don't know most of the several billion christians out there.
-
I've been meaning to ask, Adami: what are you?
Jewish?
Agnostic?
Atheist?
?
-
I've been meaning to ask, Adami: what are you?
Jewish?
Agnostic?
Atheist?
?
Jewish Agnostic.
-
In Islam Jesus is not a "mere" prophet, he's one of the three main ones that complete the message. The funny part is that this is why Muslims couldn't respond to the offensive drawings controversies with nasty drawings of Jesus, they can't offend him either. Religious taboos are of insane sensitivities for them. A couple of days ago I met a preacher from a near by church and he had a very interesting point to make about the drawings story, but that's off-topic.
On topic: Did you guys here about Elie Wiesel's problem with Mormons? Apparently Mormons baptize dead Jews posthumously and he directs his anger about at Romney (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elie-wiesel-calls-on-mitt-romney-to-make-mormon-church-stop-proxy-baptisms-of-jews/2012/02/14/gIQAZK6bER_story.html).
And interview on CNN. (https://youtu.be/_nlIh9D6rBU)
-
In Islam Jesus is not a "mere" prophet, he's one of the three main ones that complete the message. The funny part is that this is why Muslims couldn't respond to the offensive drawings controversies with nasty drawings of Jesus, they can't offend him either. Religious taboos are of insane sensitivities for them. A couple of days ago I met a preacher from a near by church and he had a very interesting point to make about the drawings story, but that's off-topic.
On topic: Did you guys here about Elie Wiesel's problem with Mormons? Apparently Mormons baptize dead Jews posthumously and he directs his anger about at Romney (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elie-wiesel-calls-on-mitt-romney-to-make-mormon-church-stop-proxy-baptisms-of-jews/2012/02/14/gIQAZK6bER_story.html).
And interview on CNN. (https://youtu.be/_nlIh9D6rBU)
Not sure how that's Romey's fault, but still that's a horrible thing to do.
-
Jewish Agnostic.
What do you mean? You retain cultural Jewish norms, values, traditions, etc, yet are agnostic?
-
Jewish Agnostic.
What do you mean? You retain cultural Jewish norms, values, traditions, etc, yet are agnostic?
I mean that my beliefs are agnostic, while I am culturally, historically and socially a jew. Judaism isn't just a set of beliefs or a religion.
-
Jewish Agnostic.
What do you mean? You retain cultural Jewish norms, values, traditions, etc, yet are agnostic?
I mean that my beliefs are agnostic, while I am culturally, historically and socially a jew. Judaism isn't just a set of beliefs or a religion.
Gotcha
-
I realize that I'm completely late to this discussion, but as someone who is outside of the whole thing now but once was on the inside, I don't see how Mormons aren't Christian. If Christian branch believed the same thing, there wouldn't be so many branches. Some people just don't want the groups that they see with very different beliefs associated with their own. Most Christians don't want to be associated with the Westboro Baptist Church, but they are a Christian religion despite their largely "unchristian" behavior.
-
I realize that I'm completely late to this discussion, but as someone who is outside of the whole thing now but once was on the inside, I don't see how Mormons aren't Christian. If Christian branch believed the same thing, there wouldn't be so many branches. Some people just don't want the groups that they see with very different beliefs associated with their own. Most Christians don't want to be associated with the Westboro Baptist Church, but they are a Christian religion despite their largely "unchristian" behavior.
Sorry...I would never define them that way. To me, anyone who claims to be Christian must be following the teachings of Jesus Christ. "If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)
This isn't hard. You can't be a vegetarian if you eat meat. You can't be pregnant if you don't have a baby inside you.
It's like belonging to "The Betty White Society of Animal Torture"...or the "The Ted Nugent Chapter of the Vegan Club"...
I can read. This isn't even something I could even possibly have an opinion on, even if I wanted to. It's not an objective opinion. There are guidelines. I'm an electrician...that means I have to know the National Electrical Code...and if I don't follow it, I lose my licence. If I continually ignore what the codebook says...I'm no longer an electrician. Yes...there are electricians out there that shouldn't be...but their course of action will catch up with them. You have to follow certain guidelines in order to maintain your station. I can't just walk out onto the street and start pulling wire and call myself an electrician. I've seen work that was done by "a friend of mine"...and just because they pulled wire (and did something really stupid and dangerous in the process) did not mean they were electricians.
-
Most Christians don't want to be associated with the Westboro Baptist Church, but they are a Christian religion despite their largely "unchristian" behavior.
That is fundamentally not true.
-
Try telling them that. Just because they preach a radically different version than the one you accept doesn't make their beliefs stem from someone other than Jesus. You're just doing the same thing others try to do with Mormons, disavowing the connection just because you don't like it.
Jammindude, I offer this refutation of your example using your own example. The National Electrical Code is an agreed upon set of definitions and standards. Other people can make their own standards higher or lower, but there is a standard definition of what an electrician is. The only standard definition of a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the son of God, and he is worshipped. You're definition of a Christian is a higher standard, but not the accepted standard - just as you may have a personal standard that exceeds the National Electrical Code standards.
-
I would say that a Christian worships Jesus and believes in monotheism - that the God of Christianity is the only God. That is a key component. That is, to me, the big thing that separates Mormons from other Christians.
But whatever.
-
I have great respect for many of the Mormons I've met.
We share many similar values regarding morals.
Their commitment to family is impressive.
I think their courage in promoting their beliefs is commendable.
Their regard for Jesus Christ clearly sets them a part from other world religions and has similarities to mainstream Christianity.
But the things I know about Mormonism (an entire additional volume of revelation, Christology regarding his divinity, etc) are central themes in new testament and cannot just be overlooked in order to have blind unity.
-
But the things I know about Mormonism (an entire additional volume of revelation, Christology regarding his divinity, etc) are central themes in new testament and cannot just be overlooked in order to have blind unity.
This is the best starting point for an arguement for not calling them "Christian", but I don't know if in and of itself that's enough given the large amount of similarities.
-
tbh, I don't really see any value in throwing around proclamations of who is Christian and who isn't. If being called a Christian is living exactly like Jesus and believing exactly according to Scripture, then only Jesus is a Christian :)
my goal is to persuade those who say they are Christians (I Cor 5:11) to a further pursuit of the truth of Scripture (including myself)
-
I was just sticking up for the little guy. I have no real dog in this fight.
I will agree with your point of labels being largely useless. I define people by what they do, not what they say they want to do or will do.
-
I was just sticking up for the little guy. I have no real dog in this fight.
I love that!
I wonder if you know how valid it is about their financial interests. I have always heard that they had huge ownership of pepsico (frito lay, taco bell, pizza hut, pepsi, KFC, etc) though I also heard that some of it was sold. I also heard they own Marriott.
-
Jammindude, I offer this refutation of your example using your own example. The National Electrical Code is an agreed upon set of definitions and standards. Other people can make their own standards higher or lower, but there is a standard definition of what an electrician is. The only standard definition of a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the son of God, and he is worshipped. You're definition of a Christian is a higher standard, but not the accepted standard - just as you may have a personal standard that exceeds the National Electrical Code standards.
According to the Bible...the demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he is worshiped...So I could not disagree more.
It's not a matter of following Jesus *perfectly*...but it is a matter of following Jesus *pattern*... When you were a kid, did you ever try to trace your father's footsteps through the snow? You couldn't do it perfectly...but you tried. There's a big difference between that, and just stomping around at random.
My father once told me something that I think fits here:
If you were on trial...and the charge against you was "being a Christian"...would they have enough evidence to convict you? NO PERSONAL OPINION is the yardstick by which a Christian is measured. The example that Jesus set is the yardstick. If someone follows the pattern Christ set (following in his footsteps) then that is a "footstep follower of Christ"... Those who hate, go to war, and kill...do not follow the pattern Christ set. The Crusades and the Inquisition were both perfect examples of "The Betty White Society for Animal Torture" illustration I pointed out earlier. Anyone can read the pattern Christ set, and see that those two periods in history did not follow the pattern.
Even Jesus himself claimed that people would be doing really wonderful things *IN HIS NAME*...and yet he would deny them because they weren't following his pattern. If Jesus Christ denies anything to do with someone...are they still Christian? I would say absolutely not. *I* don't set the pattern...the pattern is written. Jesus sets the pattern.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matt 7:21-23 ESV)
-
I wonder if you know how valid it is about their financial interests. I have always heard that they had huge ownership of pepsico (frito lay, taco bell, pizza hut, pepsi, KFC, etc) though I also heard that some of it was sold. I also heard they own Marriott.
No clue, but since they aren't promoted as a Morman or Christian company I don't really care. If someone separates their personal beliefs from their business, I can could generally care less what they believe (assuming its a reasonable position). Even when they don't keep them separate, I can overlook it if it is a product I want - Chick Fil'A and Cook Out come to mind, particularly Cook Out since its a place I want to eat at occasionally.
Jammindude, unfortunately I left out two tiny words in the statement that you bolded. I meant to say "he is to be worshipped". So my bad, happens quite often when I try to post at work - but those were important words. I'm not going to argue with you though. You're not going to change you mind, and I don't particularly want to change it, and likewise nothing you said has me inching off my position.
-
That's cool...we're off topic anyway.
It might make an interesting thread though. What is a Christian? I don't believe such a thing comes down to anyone's personal opinion...but I know others feel differently.
-
I wonder if you know how valid it is about their financial interests. I have always heard that they had huge ownership of pepsico (frito lay, taco bell, pizza hut, pepsi, KFC, etc) though I also heard that some of it was sold. I also heard they own Marriott.
Not sure about the truth about Pepsico, although I've heard similar rumors. They don't own Marriott, but the founder of the company was Mormon. Which is why you'll find a Book of Mormon in the nightstand in a lot of their hotels.
However, the LDS church's holdings and spending are kind of shrouded in mystery, since the leadership chooses not to disclose anything about the church's finances. But the church's assets are estimated in the tens of billions and it is building a 5-billion-dollar mall in downtown Salt Lake.
-
oh, that makes sense
thanks phantasmatron :tup
-
It might make an interesting thread though. What is a Christian? I don't believe such a thing comes down to anyone's personal opinion...but I know others feel differently.
Have at it, if you are so inclined. My take is the same as what Yesh posted above. While I agree 100% with the principles you posted, I just do not think it is profitable to start drawing our own lines about who is and who is not a Christian. In addition to the passages you cited above, I would also point out the fact that "Christian" was a term (and a somewhat derogatory one at that) giving by nonbelievers to those who were described as Jesus' disciples. (Acts 11:26: "...and when he had found [Paul], he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians...") So, really, the issue is: who are truly disciples. Jesus answers the question this way: "As he was saying these things, many believed in him. So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:30-32) Parallel passages seem, at least to me, to clarify that by "abide in [Jesus'] word," he means obeying the things he and the apostles after him commanded. So, really, that, and not merely professed belief, is the mark of being a Christian.
-
It might make an interesting thread though. What is a Christian? I don't believe such a thing comes down to anyone's personal opinion...but I know others feel differently.
Have at it, if you are so inclined. My take is the same as what Yesh posted above. While I agree 100% with the principles you posted, I just do not think it is profitable to start drawing our own lines about who is and who is not a Christian. In addition to the passages you cited above, I would also point out the fact that "Christian" was a term (and a somewhat derogatory one at that) giving by nonbelievers to those who were described as Jesus' disciples. (Acts 11:26: "...and when he had found [Paul], he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians...") So, really, the issue is: who are truly disciples. Jesus answers the question this way: "As he was saying these things, many believed in him. So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:30-32) Parallel passages seem, at least to me, to clarify that by "abide in [Jesus'] word," he means obeying the things he and the apostles after him commanded. So, really, that, and not merely professed belief, is the mark of being a Christian.
Actually this pretty much sums up what I was *trying* to say...so thank you...and +1!! :tup
-
Excellent bosk, that's exactly what I was looking for, too. So would you say "Christian" is just a term that can be defined any which way, just like any other word?
-
So would you say "Christian" is just a term that can be defined any which way, just like any other word?
I don't understand what you mean.
-
So would you say "Christian" is just a term that can be defined any which way, just like any other word?
I don't understand what you mean.
Since Christians were basically called Christians by nonbelievers, does it really matter whether Mormons are referred to as Christian or not?
-
I'm not sure. Like I said, in most contexts, I don't think it's our job to make that call. But if asked, I have no problem giving my answer and why I believe what I do.
-
Parallel passages seem, at least to me, to clarify that by "abide in [Jesus'] word," he means obeying the things he and the apostles after him commanded. So, really, that, and not merely professed belief, is the mark of being a Christian.
This is the part of bosk's quote that I really feel gets to the heart of the matter. I don't know if going any further than that would do any good. Other than to say that everyone probably has to make their own judgment call.
BUT EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE....I don't see how anyone can call the Westboro Baptist Church "Christians" by any stretch of the imagination. It's the same principle as that famous quote, "I can't *define* pornography...but I know it when I see it." The reason why that quote really resonates is because people recognize that there are some things that can be very hard to define in absolute terms....but we can see extreme examples that *don't* fit the criteria.
We could debate all day (and often have) about who is "prog" and who is not...or "what is prog?" Even though opinions will vary drastically...no one in their right mind would say that Britney Spears is prog....even if she had a bubble gum remake of TSCO to try to make herself "prog"... (but then again, there's always *that guy*...the unreasonable dissenter...)
-
Having said all of that...I don't believe that "Christianity" should be defined by anything outside of Scripture. Of course, your mileage may vary.
The very term "Christian" comes from Scripture...so it seems to me ludicrous for any man to change the rules nearly 2000 years after the fact. The pattern has been set. Every person should become knowledgeable in what the pattern is...and then make an educated decision based on that knowledge.
-
Well, I might make the argument that J.W.'s are not "Christians," but I'm not sure that would get us anywhere other than to make you not like me very much. :biggrin:
It is interesting though that the term "Christian" is only used 3 times in the entire Bible. And, again, it is used all three times to denote a derogatory label applied to the disciples by nonbelievers (I can see an argument that the 1 Peter 4 reference is not derogatory, but I think it is there as well).
-
I think you'd be surprised bosk... I really don't "don't like" anyone. I feel we all grow from discussion. And if we reach an impasse, there's this beautiful thing called "agreeing to disagree"...and I honestly feel it's a lost art. I kinda thought that was what politics was originally supposed to be based on... and that being educated included listening to the opinions of those you disagree with.
Anyway. I'd be fascinated in any objections you might have. Shoot me a PM. And if, in the end, we agree to disagree...I'm sure we'll walk away with a mutual respect. (I honestly can't imagine ever "not liking" anyone....except this one ex-girlfriend... ::) )
-
It is interesting though that the term "Christian" is only used 3 times in the entire Bible. And, again, it is used all three times to denote a derogatory label applied to the disciples by nonbelievers (I can see an argument that the 1 Peter 4 reference is not derogatory, but I think it is there as well).
This is true. By all accounts, the earliest Christians didn't call themselves "Christians."
They called themselves "Jews."
-
(I honestly can't imagine ever "not liking" anyone....except this one ex-girlfriend... ::) )
YOU LEAVE MY SISTER OUT OF THIS, BASTARD!!! >:(
But, seriously, I'm cool with talking about it offline. I'm sure that would be pretty educational, actually. And I agree about "agreeing to disagree" being a lost art. Perhaps a corollary to that is, arguing civilly about things is a lost art. Actually, maybe it's not "lost" at all--it's just that we humans have to try hard to put those things into practice, and it's just easier not to bother, so we often just act self-righteously instead. :(
-
It is interesting though that the term "Christian" is only used 3 times in the entire Bible. And, again, it is used all three times to denote a derogatory label applied to the disciples by nonbelievers (I can see an argument that the 1 Peter 4 reference is not derogatory, but I think it is there as well).
This is true. By all accounts, the earliest Christians didn't call themselves "Christians."
They called themselves "Jews."
Once Cornelious converted, I would dispute this. Even Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek". It seems to me they referred to themselves as "belonging to The Way." Which I believe is used as a proper title beginning at Acts 9:2...
-
Yes, "The Way" is a phrase that they used.
But when Paul said that, he clearly said "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek", as well as neither male nor female, and neither slave nor free. His point was that there was no hierarchy, all who are "In Christ" are equal with each other. He wasn't saying that Jews and Greeks no longer exist. Clearly they did.
-
Of course, you are correct. I was aware of the context...I just felt the principle of the statement was farther reaching. But lest I get too far out on a limb, I'll retract it and start over.
Once Cornelius converted, and circumcision was no longer necessary, how could they all just refer to themselves as Jews? You see, the implication of that Scripture is (as you said) there was no hierarchy. Jews weren't better than Gentiles and vice versa. The Gentiles weren't becoming Jews...they were becoming Christians. So I don't see how anyone can make the statement that early Christians "called themselves Jews"... If anything, they were risking the *wrath* of the Jews, because they dared to join themselves in *BROTHERHOOD* with uncircumcised Gentiles.
I'm sure those who were Jews still called themselves Jews in the historical sense....the same as Jews call themselves Jews by birth today...but they had ceased to be part of the Jewish religious system. Individuals might have referred to themselves as Jews by birth, but *as a group* they would not have identified their new sect by referring to themselves collectively as "Jews"....
-
Because they were Jews. Even Paul still refers to himself as a Jew.
They were Jews because they were Jews.
Note that I said the "earliest" Christians. They were Jews. Not a Gentile among them. That came later.
-
Because they were Jews. Even Paul still refers to himself as a Jew.
They were Jews because they were Jews.
Note that I said the "earliest" Christians. They were Jews. Not a Gentile among them. That came later.
Not by much....three years. Jesus died in 33...Cornelius converted in 36.
-
Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not. AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.
-
Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not. AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.
Well...that's why in my post I differentiated between a "born" Jew and a religious affiliation. Your post seemed to make the claim that those who followed Christ called themselves Jews in the collective religious sense. I disagree. Those who were born Jews called themselves Jews....but this new group did not collectively refer to themselves as Jews.
We might be saying the same thing actually...but I'm just clarifying.
-
Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not. AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.
Following another religion and officially joining it is "opting out" of being a jew. Not sure how it worked back then.
And the only reasons the original christians weren't all considered jews, is because jews as a whole did not believe Jesus was the messiah. Had we all beleived it, you'd all still be jews.
-
Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not. AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.
Following another religion and officially joining it is "opting out" of being a jew. Not sure how it worked back then.
And the only reasons the original christians weren't all considered jews, is because jews as a whole did not believe Jesus was the messiah. Had we all beleived it, you'd all still be jews.
They followed Jesus, but there is nothing to indicate they stopped being Jewish. In fact, we know that James was a well-respected person in Jerusalem even close to the outbreak of the Jewish War. He was still a Jew.
-
Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not. AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.
Following another religion and officially joining it is "opting out" of being a jew. Not sure how it worked back then.
And the only reasons the original christians weren't all considered jews, is because jews as a whole did not believe Jesus was the messiah. Had we all beleived it, you'd all still be jews.
They followed Jesus, but there is nothing to indicate they stopped being Jewish. In fact, we know that James was a well-respected person in Jerusalem even close to the outbreak of the Jewish War. He was still a Jew.
Yes, but once you follow a false messiah, you tend to be out of the club.
-
Aren't we just splitting hairs? Part of the confusion is that "being a Jew" means different things in different contexts. One could be a Jew back then in several ways: (1) religiously, (2) culturally, (3) nationally, and/or (4) racially (more or less). For example, after his conversion, Paul was no longer a Jew as far as #1 was concerned (which he was very clear about), but still was in terms of 2-4. Peter, on the other hand, seems to have still considered himself a Jew religiously, and it apparently took him awhile to figure out that that wasn't the case.
-
Plus, other evidence points to Christian Jews being kicked out of synagogues until the times of the Jewish War and following.
-
Aren't we just splitting hairs? Part of the confusion is that "being a Jew" means different things in different contexts. One could be a Jew back then in several ways: (1) religiously, (2) culturally, (3) nationally, and/or (4) racially (more or less). For example, after his conversion, Paul was no longer a Jew as far as #1 was concerned (which he was very clear about), but still was in terms of 2-4. Peter, on the other hand, seems to have still considered himself a Jew religiously, and it apparently took him awhile to figure out that that wasn't the case.
I agree. My point was that you guys split off because the jewish religion as a whole didn't agree with the view that Jesus was the messiah. Had they all agreed, no split would have happened and judaism would include belief in jesus.
-
Aren't we just splitting hairs? Part of the confusion is that "being a Jew" means different things in different contexts. One could be a Jew back then in several ways: (1) religiously, (2) culturally, (3) nationally, and/or (4) racially (more or less). For example, after his conversion, Paul was no longer a Jew as far as #1 was concerned (which he was very clear about), but still was in terms of 2-4. Peter, on the other hand, seems to have still considered himself a Jew religiously, and it apparently took him awhile to figure out that that wasn't the case.
I agree. My point was that you guys split off because the jewish religion as a whole didn't agree with the view that Jesus was the messiah. Had they all agreed, no split would have happened and judaism would include belief in jesus.
Actually, I believe the big split happened because after the Jewish War, most of the remaining Christians were Gentile converts who had no ties to Judaism proper. The original Jewish Christians just died out before the end of the first century. Yes, they were being ostracized by other Jews by that point, but it eventually became a moot point.
-
You're a moot point.
-
I will not object to that.
-
, there's this beautiful thing called "agreeing to disagree"...and I honestly feel it's a lost art. I kinda thought that was what politics was originally supposed to be based on... and that being educated included listening to the opinions of those you disagree with.
If the poiliticians today, or people, did this we wouldn't be wasting so much time on debates like medical care, and the like.
Off-topic: See thats the problem I have with people saying Obama hasn't changed a thing. Well duh, he's not tinkerbell, it takes time to bring things back even generations. He tried to do things to help, but congress kept arguing and arguing when they could've agreed to disagree and moved on to another issue.
-
, there's this beautiful thing called "agreeing to disagree"...and I honestly feel it's a lost art. I kinda thought that was what politics was originally supposed to be based on... and that being educated included listening to the opinions of those you disagree with.
If the poiliticians today, or people, did this we wouldn't be wasting so much time on debates like medical care, and the like.
Off-topic: See thats the problem I have with people saying Obama hasn't changed a thing. Well duh, he's not tinkerbell, it takes time to bring things back even generations. He tried to do things to help, but congress kept arguing and arguing when they could've agreed to disagree and moved on to another issue.
I completely disagree. There's civility in agreeing to disagree (and civility, we have lost), but I think the true lost art is listening to someone else's argument, and being persuaded by it, or at least compromising to it. That's especially the thing that Washington needs (Republicans more than Democrats), as "agreeing to disagree" in politics means nothing happens, and that's bad.
I mean, look at the constitution. The Convention nearly broke apart over the debates of slavery and small state representation. Agreeing to disagree would mean the debate wouldn't have continued, and the compromises wouldn't have been agreed upon.
-
Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not. AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.
Following another religion and officially joining it is "opting out" of being a jew.
Not according to the Orthodox Jews.
They follow the rule that someone who's mother is Jewish to be a Jew and irrevocably so.
-
Yes, but the Jews were still Jews, whether they followed Jesus or not. AFAIK, there is no "opt-out" clause in being a Jew.
Following another religion and officially joining it is "opting out" of being a jew.
Not according to the Orthodox Jews.
They follow the rule that someone who's mother is Jewish to be a Jew and irrevocably so.
Not as far as I know. If a jewish guy actually baptises himself catholic or christian or whatever, they are no longer considered Jewish. Or else a whole crap load of you guys whos ancestors converted by force during the dark ages would all be jewish.
-
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html
-
People are arguing with a Jew over who is a Jew...
This just keeps getting better and better....GOD I love this forum...
Where's the freakin popcorn???
-
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html
lol I know what it is to be a Jew. I'm a Jew.
And your article actually agreed with me. It said the supreme court ruled that even though that person was born a Jew, he converted and thus would not be recognized as a Jew.
-
The article doesn't agree with you quite as much as you think. It quite clearly states that, depending on what Jewish movement we're talking about, there is no requirement of practicing any part of the religion.
In any case...
a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox.
So even if you don't believe in anything about Judaism at all, at least according to the guy who wrote that article :lol, you could be considered Jewish.
But I imagine most people would take your view on it.
-
Huh? That's not even what I'm arguing. I know exactly what constitutes a Jew. I was arguing that if a jew actively converts to a different religion, they are no longer jewish. That was my entire point. I am an agnostic jew. I feel like you're reading something else in my posts. I know you don't have to practice to be a jew. That wasn't a part of what we were discussing.
-
Huh? That's not even what I'm arguing. I know exactly what constitutes a Jew. I was arguing that if a jew actively converts to a different religion, they are no longer jewish. That was my entire point. I am an agnostic jew. I feel like you're reading something else in my posts. I know you don't have to practice to be a jew. That wasn't a part of what we were discussing.
And I feel like you're leaving out parts of mine when you respond.
Like in that comment, I pointed out that even *atheists* can be considered Jewish. Now, although atheism isn't a religion per se, I don't see any reason to consider one "complete denunciation of Judaism" to be any more or less important than another.
But I will say that when I first looked into this, most of the stuff I saw that said that according to Jewish law (halach if memory is serving me right) that Jewishness couldn't be revoked came from a handful of wikipedia articles.
-
Atheists can be considered Jewish, indeed. But being atheist isn't the same as becoming christian or something.
Being atheist doesn't stop you from being Jewish. Being Christian, or Catholic, or Muslim or a JW or whatever, does stop you from being Jewish.
I know you might not agree, but that's how the religion works.
-
I thought my reference to the fact that these ideas originally were planted into me by wikipedia articles should've indicated that I was implying they could be wrong. Though obviously I was being too obtuse about that. :lol
edit: Though I did go out on a date with a Jewish classmate once who took the view that because my mom's biological parents were Jewish (but she was adopted into a Christian family) that I was Jewish (despite knowing me to be Lutheran).
-
Atheists can be considered Jewish, indeed. But being atheist isn't the same as becoming christian or something.
Being atheist doesn't stop you from being Jewish. Being Christian, or Catholic, or Muslim or a JW or whatever, does stop you from being Jewish.
I know you might not agree, but that's how the religion works.
Forgive me for my ignorance - so if you are born Jewish, yet later reject it in favor of atheism or agnosticism, then do you still inherit the eternal perks that a religious Jew inherits, assuming that Judaism is true?
-
I'm not sure that there are any "eternal perks."
-
In Judaism, you don't have to be jewish to get any "eternal perks", you just have to be a good person, of any religion.
-
Is there a better way of saying "eternal perks" than just saying it? You are both implying that there is.
-
Is there a better way of saying "eternal perks" than just saying it? You are both implying that there is.
I keep reading eternal peeks...then my mind quickly begins to ask, peeks into what?!...then I re-read it again and realize it says perks. it all happens in about 1/2 second but has happened multiple times