Rick Perry's latest: sinners shouldn't be in the military

[Sean]

My point is Dales that Catholic means Catholic and does not emcompass Protestantism or any other Christian denomination, No Christian who was not a Catholic would profess to "believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church" and nor should they be expected to.

That is why The Nicene Creed cannot be used as a yardstick to measure Christianity.

[Guinevere]

That isn't true Sean, we Episcopalians recite the Nicene Creed as part of our liturgy and repeat that precise sentence. I'm quite sure the Lutherans do as well. Catholic, being uncapitalized, means universal, and does not specifically refer to the Catholic Church.

[Sean]

I've just done a little research on that Guin & Dales and I stand corrected. I had no idea that so many other denominations used that creed. I am, however, moved to ask where it is stated that adherence to this creed is essential if you wish to call yourself a Christian?

[Crackpot]

I would say no else Baptists would not be considered Christian. But I may be wrong depending on the intended meaning of the baptism bit.

[BoSoxGal]

It's not so stated except by creedists, and most evangelical Christians are not creedists but are quite obviously Christian.

[Timster]

Whew... okay. "Christian" is a VERY broad term these days. You are All correct. Protestantism in America today is nothing more than Catholic 'Lite". A mere lip service to its former self. I have been to the services. Good luck with that.

Martin Luther and the Waldensians are rolling in their graves. *Spit~*

[Joe Guy]

What's so complicated about the term 'Christian'?

It describes people who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Some people can't see the desert for the cacti.

[Sean]

Agreed Joe!

Unfortunately there are those who will not associate themselves under the name 'Christian' with those whose interpretation of the word differ in any way. IMO this is arrogant and, let's face it, not very Christian.

[BoSoxGal]

Then Mormons are Christians, because they follow the teachings of Christ to the people of the New World, which Joseph Smith discovered on plates of gold in upstate NY.

[Crackpot]

see my earlier posts.

[Scooter]

I expect better from you Scooter

And I expected better than to see people who claim to be Christians to be saying that anyone who professes Jesus Christ to be Lord and Saviour* could be outside of the body of Christ, because they are flatly contradicting the very scriptures they claim Mormons to be violating, so I guess both of us were disappointed.



*note that I did not say, people who think Jesus was a great guy, or a good teacher, or someone who espoused a nice philosophy

[Lord Jim]

What's so complicated about the term 'Christian'?

It describes people who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Fine Joe, so long as that includes the teachings fundamental to the meaning of being a Christian:

John 11:25
English Standard Version (ESV)
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life.[a] Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,"

John 14:6
English Standard Version (ESV)
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

(From what I've read about LDS teachings, they would seem to fit that criteria)

I've been reluctant to respond to the quote from Big RR that Sean cited since he isn't around to defend it, (I believe I responded at the time; I found it baffling and wrong headed then and still do) but a couple of points:

Big RR wrote:

Who has the authority to define who is a "christian" and who is not? Certainly no person, and Jesus never said (at least as recorded in the gospels) that one must fill certain criteria in order to be a follower of him. Indeed, most of the talk of belief in the death/resurrection comes from later books in the bible, not the recorded sayings of jesus. True Jesus talks about belief in him(self), but is this a belief in his teachings and philosophy, or in the traditional christian belief of redemption through the death/resurrection? It's hard to say, isn't it?

The two passages I quoted above make it extremely "easy to say". I really don't see it how it could be any clearer:

It is entirely personalized; according to John, Christ says:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life."...

He doesn't say: "My teachings are the way the truth and the life"

He says: "No one comes to the Father except through me. "

Not: "No one comes to the father accept through my philosophy"

He says:

" Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, "

Not: " Whoever believes inmy teachings and philosophy, though he die, yet shall he live, "

And this:

Indeed, most of the talk of belief in the death/resurrection comes from later books in the bible,

Is just simply wrong. The Resurrection features prominently in all four of the Canonical Gospels.

(Now of course, at this point someone could come along and say, "Well, just because it's in the Gospels doesn't mean that Jesus actually said it" but before anyone does that, let me point out that they will be moving the goal posts because the whole discussion up to now has centered on what is said about the subject in the Bible.... )

Just because someone happens to agree with some of the teachings attributed to Jesus does not make one a Christian. Anymore than my happening agree with some of the things attributed to Mohamed in the Koran would make me a Muslim.

(I deliberately chose to say "make" rather "allow one to call one's self" because obviously, anyone can "call" them selves anything they want to. I can "call" myself the starting wide-receive for the San Francisco 49ers, but that won't "make" it true...)

[Lord Jim]

I remember when we first had this discussion here a while back, and I was frankly bewildered by it then, and I am bewildered by it now.

Except on this board, I have never met anyone in my entire life who would attempt to advance the argument that it is not necessary to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in order to legitimately be considered a "Christian".

I have friends who are Atheists who agree with many of the teachings of Jesus, (indeed, given the ecumenical nature of many of His teachings, I would imagine that most civilized , decent people would agree with many of them, regardless of their religious affiliation) but I'm sure they would laugh at the suggestion that this would somehow make them a Christian.

It's a truly bizarre idea. The only possible justification I can see for it is if the goal is to vastly dilute what it means to be a Christian in order to reduce it's significance.

[Scooter]

And this:

Indeed, most of the talk of belief in the death/resurrection comes from later books in the bible,

Is just simply wrong. The Resurrection features prominently in all four of the Canonical Gospels.

Except that, chronologically, the gospels are among the later books of the bible. Read the letters of Paul, written decades earlier, and there is no suggestion that the resurrection of Jesus involved the physical resuscitation of a corpse. All of Paul's language of resurrection implies something very different.

[Crackpot]

I expect better from you Scooter

And I expected better than to see people who claim to be Christians to be saying that anyone who professes Jesus Christ to be Lord and Saviour* could be outside of the body of Christ, because they are flatly contradicting the very scriptures they claim Mormons to be violating, so I guess both of us were disappointed.



*note that I did not say, people who think Jesus was a great guy, or a good teacher, or someone who espoused a nice philosophy

But the point stands that they are teaching something that is completely foreign and antithetical to the tradition that Jesus espoused. And that being the case it stands to reason that they do not follow who they claim to follow. Just how that will shake out with the Big guy is his to decide but it it not wrong to point out a false teaching.

[Scooter]

Just how that will shake out with the Big guy is his to decide

Which is all I have been saying. Expressing what you believe to be a false teaching is one thing, claiming the competence to say that it separates someone from the body of Christ is something else entirely.

[Lord Jim]

I think there is a real distinction to be made between the LDS position, which fully embraces the divinity of Christ, his position as sole Lord and Saviour, and the truth of The Resurrection, and their claim to be Christians....

And the other view we've seen expressed here, which seems to want to say that you can believe in none of these things, drain Jesus of all transcendental, mystical and spiritual content, redefine Him as nothing more than some sort of Aramaic Socrates, and still be a Christian....

I find the latter view Orwellian in its construction....

[rubato]

Agreed Joe!

Unfortunately there are those who will not associate themselves under the name 'Christian' with those whose interpretation of the word differ in any way. IMO this is arrogant and, let's face it, not very Christian.

'

Oh nonsense. Vicious and violent schismatism is to Christianity as hotdogs are to baseball. No sooner did the church start and they began killing people over minor differences in dogma.

Roman Catholics have only recently, and very grudgingly, accepted the idea that Protestants "might" be Christians and only then because they were no longer able to make the secular authorities murder protestants and steal their property as efficiently as they used to.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Dear Jimmy,

Let's try to be logical about this. There is a 2000 year old body of theology and related beliefs that collectively constitute the core of Christianity. Maybe it's all nonsense. Maybe the historical person we refer to as Jesus (the) Christ was an amalgam of several people who lived around that time. Maybe he was just a charismatic guy and not the son of God (in a special way). Maybe Paul took "Christianity" off on a tangent that Jesus never intended. Or maybe the early Church Fathers did the same. Mayby Emperor Constantine fucked up the whole thing by "converting" the Roman Empire and merging the beliefs and traditions of sun worship (Mithranism) with those of Christianity.

But regardless of all that, the people who constitute the mainstream of Christianity ALL have a set of core beliefs in common. These beliefs are basically set forth in the Nicene Creed, which Catholics recite at every Mass. We believe in ONE god, who has manifested herself in three distinct persons. We believe that Christ suffered, died, and was buried, and on the third day he rose, ascended into heaven, and sits "at the right hand of God," (whatever that means).

We believe that the Sacred Scriptures are divinely inspired and implicitly that they are correctly translated into the languages of the globe. Those Scriptures tell a very specific history of Jesus, they relate his teachings in very clear language, and although there are differences about whether the Bible is literally or "conceptually" accurate, all Christians believe in the truth of the Bible.

The Mormons DO NOT! They have beliefs that are directly contradictory to the teachings of the Bible. The founder of LDS, Joseph Smith taught that every Christian Bible was fatally flawed ("an abomination in God's eyes"), and only he (and later Brigham Young) knew what it really meant, or should have said. MOST ESSENTIALLY, LDS teaches a completely different version of God's plan for our immortal souls. Christians believe that our Fate is determined by a combination of faith and good works (details not entirely agreed among Christians), and if we are "saved," we will spend eternity with God in heaven, in a state of being that has not been entirely revealed. Mormons believe that if you lead a good life and obey the teachings of the LDS church, you will be "exalted" after death, which is to day that you will become a GOD! This is no small difference.

There are hundreds of other less significant beliefs that separate Mormons from Christians, some of which I have mentioned above. Furthermore, the fundamental LDS document, the Book of Mormon, has been proven to be total, historical nonsense, and they continue to hold it in higher regard than the Christian Bible.

It was not for nothing that the early Mormons were persecuted and driven out of everyplace they tried to settle (until they found a place that no one else wanted). They did not simply believe that they had come up with a better form of Christianity, they believed and preached that Christians were doomed to hell, because Christianity itself was an abomination. Joe Smith did not preach that polygamy was OK, but rather that it was required, if financially feasible (Not that that is a big issue for me, personally).

But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a HUGE P.R. problem these days. They want to be mainstream. They want to be considered "just another Christian denomination." So they are campaigning - literally buying advertising time on television - trying to make their religion seem "normal." Glenn Beck is doing his absolute best to convince his listening audience that LDS is simply a different form of Christianity. But neither Glenn nor anyone else participating in this P.R. campaign will speak with any specificity of the core LDS beliefs or its history; the stark differences between LDS and Christianity are simply not mentioned.

Jim, you seem to be buying into the P.R. campaign and accepting it at face value. But if you really want to know what religions are "Christian" and which ones are not, isn't it logical to defer to the leaders of the various sects that are uniformly acknowledged to be "Christian" and see what they think? And I submit that there is no argument among Catholics (Roman and Eastern), Protestants, and Fundies: LDS is NOT a Christian religion.

People are free to believe anything they want, and I'm old enough to know that "faith," by definition, is irrational, so arguing and trying to convince a Mormon that his religion is made-up nonsense (and I've done this with missionaries who have come to my door) is pointless. The Mormons, as a general proposition, are doing a fantastic job of not only being good citizens, but of encouraging all of the social and civic atitudes and practices that I hold dear as a Conservative American. God bless the LDS Church, even if it is founded on baloney. I love the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

But LDS is NOT a Christian sect, any more than Islam, Bhuddism, or Rastafarianism is a Christian sect. In fact, LDS has essentially all of the characteristics that one normally associates with a "cult": (1) charismatic founder who is shunned by the society at large, (2) extremely unorthodox beliefs, (3) dozens if not hundreds of secret practices and rituals that are not disclosed to the general public (or to recent converts), (4) "us against them" mentality, and (5) strong social sanctions intended to prevent anyone from leaving the Church. If you don't believe me, talk to people who have left the LDS Church. Ask them if their old friends or their families still talk to them.

Not all discrimination is bad. If one were to hold an inter-faith Christian prayer service, it would not be appropriate to invite Rabbi's, Imams, or a Mormon Bishop (LDS has no full-time, paid clergy). They are simply not part of the Christian community.

[Scooter]

It would be helpful, first of all, to understand the difference between a gathering that is interfaith or interreligious(composed of representatives of various faiths or religions - Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, etc.) and a gathering that is ecumenical, or composed of representatives of the various branches of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.). Thus "interfaith Christian prayer service" has no meaning; if the service is interfaith, it will include people of many faiths, Christians as well as others; if the service is ecumenical, it will include people of a spectrum of Christian sects, but not people from non-Christian faiths.

So the question, properly phrased, would be "is it appropriate to include representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in an ecumenical (i.e. broad-based Christian) prayer service?" The answer comes from none other than His Holiness Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome (and holder of other titles accepted and/or disputed in varying degrees throughout Christendom), who presided over such an ecumenical prayer service on the occasion of his visit to the United States in April 2008, at which two LDS representatives were present. Lest there be any confusion, the Pope in his address at that service referred to those present as "representing Christian communities throughout the United States." And lest there be any attempt to rationalize the Mormon presence at this meeting of Christians as the only way for the Pope to engage with them during his visit, an interfaith gathering already been held on the previous day to which Mormons could have been invited. Instead, a decision was made to include them in the exclusively Christian gathering.

Once Dave manages to yank both feet out of his mouth and scoop his teeth off the floor, he will no doubt manage to come up with some stuttering drivel about why this doesn't mean anything.