News of the day

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: Isn't that plain old common or garden sectarianism? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Then it probably isn't important.   Please carry on. Carry on with what?

Whatever it is you are doing. It's not that important. If you don't think that what you are doing has anything to do with sectartianism then it probably doesn't, but for a moment I thought that denoucing other denominations of a christianity as heretics looked an awful lot like it was. I must have been in error.

Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: Isn't that plain old common or garden sectarianism? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Then it probably isn't important.   Please carry on. Carry on with what? Whatever it is you are doing. It's not that important. If you don't think that what you are doing has anything to do with sectartianism then it probably doesn't, but for a moment I thought that denoucing other denominations of a christianity as heretics looked an awful lot like it was. I must have been in error.

I understand now.  We're good, then.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: thellama73 wrote: Mormons and Christian Scientists are Christians. So are Copts and many forms of Gnostics. If you say they aren't, than you might as well say that Lutherans and Baptists aren't either.  Prove it.

Webster''s Dictionary:

Definition of CHRISTIAN

Wikipedia (footnoted for those who doubt wikipedia as a primary source):

According to Bruce McConkie, a general authority of the LDS Church, "Mormonism is indistinguishable from Christianity."[44

Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as the literal firstborn Son of God and Messiah, his crucifixion as a conclusion of a sin offering, and subsequent resurrection.^[50]

I reject any doctrine that is not explicitly taught in the Bible or contravenes Ancient Near Eastern cultural understandings.

Okay fine, than any denomination derived from Martin Luther is not really Christian because they don't believe the teachings of Christ about papal infallibility (on this rock shall I build my church, what you hold true on earth I will hold true in heaven.)

Note: I realize the above argument is nonsense, as is the argument put forth by Ambient Hurricanes

I just think it's ridiculous to say "I know you think you're a Christian and you follow the teachings of Christ as you interpret them, and the New Testament is a central document in your religion. but you're not really a Christian because my church says so."

It's like trying to tell someone they are not really a prog fan because they don't follow the teachings of Peter Gabriel.

I get your point that action rather than words define what a person is, but if a member of a sect reads the Bible and tries to live by its teachings (as I believe Mormons and the others mentioned do) does the fact that you disagree with their interpretation make them non-Christians?

After all, they are not saying "Jesus was wrong." as atheists, Jews and other non-Christians do.


Edited by thellama73 - September 21 2012 at 20:39

thellama73 wrote: I get your point that action rather than words define what a person is, but if a member of a sect reads the Bible and tries to live by its teachings (as I believe Mormons and the others mentioned do) does the fact that you disagree with their interpretation make them non-Christians?

For me:

In most cases, no.  I hold a lot of views that have rendered me "non-Christian" to most Christians.

Like Neal Morse, I am not a Trinitarian, and that means most churches would reject me, doctrinally speaking (they'd probably let me come to service, but they'd let any hobo off the street do that).

Let's say a person lives in the jungle with his tribe.  (And he doesn't work cos he wants to bang on de drum all day).  Awesome life.  Anyway, he believes in many many gods.  A god of this and that.  A god of drums (that's Peart, by the way).

But a missionary comes to him.  Due to linguistic differences, the missionary can only convey the idea of a son of a god, the god who created the world, died in their place so that they have everlasting life.

And the people come to believe in this man who died in their stead and wish to worship him.

That's it.  No Satan mythology, no Trinity, no Hebrew law, no Sabbath day, and no Bible.

Are they Christians?

The Mormons base many of their teachings on the book of Mormon, a 19th century (I think) document, not upon Scripture.

As for the other sects, it must be stressed that Scripture is not "open to interpretation," in the sense that there is not correct interpretation.  Christians believe that Scripture is inspired by God, and that there are correct and incorrect ways to interpret it.  Some errors do not undermine the central teachings of Scripture.  Upon differences regarding these, the lines are drawn between Christian denominations.  Some errors, however, undermine Scripture's main doctrines, and are called heresy.  Most of the heresies in these modern sects that we're debating about are not new; in the first couple hundred years of the church there were people who rejected the eternity of Christ, his incarnation, and his resurrection, and the church overwhelmingly condemned these people as heretics. 

There was no struggle for power in the church in it's first few hundred years, either, to suggest that it's leaders were surpressing certain beliefs to gain power over people.  In fact, it was a great personal disadvantage to anyone to be a Christian (especially a leader in the church), as it could get you imprisoned or killed by the Roman government.

To Rob: I don't think that we can say Christianity is as simple as all that.  The "illiterate fishermen" who were the apostles didn't understand much until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  In his epistle, Peter even admits that some of Paul's writings are "difficult to understand."

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The Mormons base many of their teachings on the book of Mormon, a 19th century (I think) document, not upon Scripture. As for the other sects, it must be stressed that Scripture is not "open to interpretation," in the sense that there is not correct interpretation.  Christians believe that Scripture is inspired by God, and that there are correct and incorrect ways to interpret it.  Some errors do not undermine the central teachings of Scripture.  Upon differences regarding these, the lines are drawn between Christian denominations.  Some errors, however, undermine Scripture's main doctrines, and are called heresy.  Most of the heresies in these modern sects that we're debating about are not new; in the first couple hundred years of the church there were people who rejected the eternity of Christ, his incarnation, and his resurrection, and the church overwhelmingly condemned these people as heretics.  There was no struggle for power in the church in it's first few hundred years, either, to suggest that it's leaders were surpressing certain beliefs to gain power over people.  In fact, it was a great personal disadvantage to anyone to be a Christian (especially a leader in the church), as it could get you imprisoned or killed by the Roman government. To Rob: I don't think that we can say Christianity is as simple as all that.  The "illiterate fishermen" who were the apostles didn't understand much until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  In his epistle, Peter even admits that some of Paul's writings are "difficult to understand."

I have met many Mormons.  They are all kindhearted people and I will not presume to judge them.  But yes, Joseph Smith's teachings are not only silly, they are linguistically a farce.

I do agree that there is a correct interpretation of Scripture.  However, since you were not born in 2 BC Palestine, you do not have the inherent ability to interpret a translated work from there.  Does that make sense?  It's presumption to do so.  Yet theologians and pastors just take a translation and apply modern American culture to the text, and they arrive at a "correct, Holy Spirit-guided exegesis."

I reject this.

The Holy Spirit was never a substitute for scholarship (I know what Acts said about the Holy Spirit telling Peter what he would say, but that's the problem- a promise to Peter does not mean a promise to me).

The church has done numerous horrendous things.  I do not measure Christianity and true Christian doctrine by what a corrupt church has done or rejected.  I abide by what the Bible says:

1. According to its own language in a native understanding
2. In context
3. And with as few assumptions as possible.