LDS

[kerikiwi]

If you believe Christ was the savior and that salvation comes through him and if you follow his teachings then you are a de facto Christian. If you think it is your job to judge who is and who isn't a Christian then you are doing it about as wrong as you can. You can still be a Christian of course but not a very good one.

I would say that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian.
There is no 'good' or 'bad' Christian, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to be a christian. Whatever someone believes is what that person believes. Nobody else gets to say what they do or do not believe.
It's not like science.

 

[deaman]

What about Luke 14 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple...any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.'

Isn't that asking a bit more than just 'come follow me'?

Yes, but the guy who actually wrote this, was many years away from even knowing Jesus. It is not a direct quote.

 

[RandFan]

What about Luke 14 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple...any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.'

Isn't that asking a bit more than just 'come follow me'?

I'll grant you that.

I would say that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian.
There is no 'good' or 'bad' Christian, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to be a christian. Whatever someone believes is what that person believes. Nobody else gets to say what they do or do not believe.
It's not like science.

Thanks.

Let's assume that Mathew 25:41-46 and Mark 12:31 are the actual words of Christ. I know it's a stretch but work with me.

⁴¹ Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
⁴² For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
⁴³ I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
⁴⁴ Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
⁴⁵ Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
⁴⁶ And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Correct me if I'm wrong but 41 sounds like a pretty damn bad Christian.

The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

IMHO, these are requisite to be a "good" Christian. I could call myself a swimmer and perhaps that would make me a swimmer but if I've never been in the water in my life can I all myself a good swimmer? Shouldn't a "good Christian" adhere to the teaching of Christ?

 

[deaman]

This is an example of the whole "religious" thing.

You can't seem to nail anything down. Not even the very simplest of things.

You'd think god would be involved ASAP, no doubts, no hassles, no hiding, no trickery, no imagery, no symbolism.

Just plain, simple communication done out of real love.

Nope.

 

[Prometheus]

... wouldn't it be a cult-de-sac?

No, that's what you call a church that worships Rocky Mountain Oysters.

 

[bruto]

What about Luke 14 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple...any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.'

Isn't that asking a bit more than just 'come follow me'?

Of course getting real sense out of all this is a bit of a jelly-to-the-wall experience, but a good Christian apologist could perhaps point out that the requirements for being a disciple of the living Jesus might not be the same as those for being a good Christian later.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Since most if not all Protestant denominations practice some form of Eucharist/Communion (I've taken Communion in Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist services), I assume that the point about which they'd disagree is it's sufficient to establish the practitioner as Christian, particularly in regard to Mormons.

It's not surprising that many Christians regard other varieties of Christian practice as illegitimate. Starting with the RCC, which still regards the priest's role in the Communion ritual as an act of divine magic that only a properly consecrated (and penis-equipped) person can really perform (and that excommunication literally strips that power away). But unless we want to agree with doctrinaires that e.g. Catholics or Protestants aren't really Christians, we need a useful standpoint outside those internecine disputes.

The distinction I make examines to what extent a religion's practices are informed by the life and teachings of Jesus as accounted in the New Testament -- as opposed to anything anyone feels like attaching the name Jesus or Christ to. It's not a test of doctrinal correctness, but a test of source tradition. So, for instance, Christian Science doesn't pass as "Christian," Rastafarianism does (perhaps with an asterisk), and Jehovah's Witnesses are on the fence (because they restrict the practice to certain members who profess to a certain kind of calling -- two asterisks, maybe?)

It's not perfect. What bruto said -- "shut the lid fast." Well put.

Respectfully,
Myriad

No.

The point is that, to most Protestants, the "Lord's Supper" is NOT a "sacrament". The very idea of "sacraments" runs counter to protestant polity.

 

[bruto]

Raised a protestant (UCC), we still observed two things that were still called sacraments, baptism and communion, as do some other protestant sects. On the non-sacramental side are the Quakers and the Baptists, about as far apart as can be.

You'll never get this stuff to make real sense.

 

[tsig]

Of course getting real sense out of all this is a bit of a jelly-to-the-wall experience, but a good Christian apologist could perhaps point out that the requirements for being a disciple of the living Jesus might not be the same as those for being a good Christian later.

If you can toss whole passages away because they only apply to following a living Christ then you'll have a very slim bible. In fact, you'll have one that conforms to your own beliefs. Besides Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead so is still living.

 

[Kopji]

From my own evil apostate perspective of being raised RLDS, I find a lot of similarity between the various LDS sects and what happened with Islam. Mormonism early on had the nickname of 'American Islam', and I think the observation was not totally off base. Some of the non mainline sects especially, would find they have much in common with Islamic groups like the Bahai's or Sufis.

 

[bruto]

If you can toss whole passages away because they only apply to following a living Christ then you'll have a very slim bible. In fact, you'll have one that conforms to your own beliefs. Besides Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead so is still living.

True in a sense, but he's not living in the same sense and walking the earth. Of course I'm not a very good
Christian apologist either. Most of my jelly landed on the floor long ago and the ants got it.

 

[Cleon]

You'll never get this stuff to make real sense.

This entire thread summed up in a single sentence.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

This entire thread summed up in a single sentence.

"Life in prison with no chance of parole?"

 

[RandFan]

You'll never get this stuff to make real sense.

Exactly.

 

[Pup]

True but Mormonism is different in that you don't need to put a lot of effort into figuring out that it's a fraud. Christianity's past is much more remote and the study of it requires more effort. It's takes part of an afternoon to find the frauds in Mormonism.

I think that's only true if one has been raised in a mainstream Christian culture and therefore is already trained to accept mainstream Christianity as "normal."

Talking snakes, somebody coming back from the dead... doesn't take even part of an afternoon to know that snakes don't talk and dead people don't come back to life. Only an idiot would believe things like that, and those are just a start of what's claimed in the Bible.

The problem is that Christian culture teaches people to think miracles just might have happened in ye vague olden days sometime back there in mystical Biblical times, and even if things in the Bible are clearly impossible, you shouldn't flat out tell Christians how silly their beliefs are, because that's disrespectful and if there's a God he might punish you for it.

When people have received a lifetime of training like that, even if they're not mainstream Christians themselves, the Bible starts to seem sort of maybe believable and it takes a while to realize how silly it sounds. By contrast, the added-on Mormon doctrines have two strikes against them: 1) they contradict real life and not only that 2) they contradict some of the other Christian beliefs that are supposed to be true.

But without a solid dose of mainstream Christian brainwashing, I can't see much difference in the silliness of either religion's claims.

I wonder, though, if there's some satisfaction in pointing out how silly Mormon beliefs are, if one is a Christian who has deconverted or who is having doubts. In other words, it's a way of saying, well, maybe I was fooled a little, but those gullible people were really fooled, so at least I'm not as bad as them.

 

[deaman]

As I think I mentioned before......

This is a great example of how ridiculous are the beliefs in religion and God.

Nothing is nailed down. Not even basic simple things.

If there were a god you'd think it would be involved in human life ASAP, no doubts, no hassles, no hiding, no trickery, no imagery, no ceremony, no pagentry, no symbolism.

Just plain, simple communication done out of real love.

It just is not so.

 

[RandFan]

True but Mormonism is different in that you don't need to put a lot of effort into figuring out that it's a fraud. Christianity's past is much more remote and the study of it requires more effort. It's takes part of an afternoon to find the frauds in Mormonism.

I think that's only true if one has been raised in a mainstream Christian culture and therefore is already trained to accept mainstream Christianity as "normal."

Talking snakes, somebody coming back from the dead... doesn't take even part of an afternoon to know that snakes don't talk and dead people don't come back to life. Only an idiot would believe things like that, and those are just a start of what's claimed in the Bible.

Yeah, don't forget those quaint stories of Greek and Roman Mythology... how we like to laugh at them.

While we swallow whole Noah's flood, parting of the waters, water into wine and walking on water myths. They are no more likely to have happened than any Greek or Roman myth.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . There are loopholes large enough to make the Bible, regardless of version, mean whatever people want it to mean.

And that is precisely what Joseph Smith recognized long before 21st century biblical scholars identifed (and continue to identify) countless errors in the KJV.

It's refreshing to see that you agree, albeit a bit late, with Joseph Smiith.

 

[skyrider44]

You cannot be wealthy if you don't have a store of treasure. By definition. No speculation necessary.

Here is what you wrote in Post 6380: "But he [Romney] and and most wealthy Mormons store up treasures on Earth as much as they can" [emphasis added].

Slip and slide all you wish, but that is rank speculation on your part, a practice to which you are no stranger.

 

[RandFan]

Here is what you wrote in Post 6380: "But he [Romney] and and most wealthy Mormons store up treasures on Earth as much as they can" [emphasis added].

Romney has multiple homes, multiple cars....

To be wealthy for any length of time is to store up treasures here on earth BY DEFINITION. What else could that possibly mean? Romney could give almost all of it away and still live a very comfortable life on $75,000 a year (that is where happiness usually starts to drop off, see below).

Imagine the suffering he could ease if he did that? Imagine the happiness of living a Christ like life? I'm sorry but Christ did not preach accumulation of wealth (Romney has in fact accumulated much wealth).

Slip and slide all you wish, but that is rank speculation on your part, a practice to which you are no stranger.

This is not at all charitable. I'm not attacking you personally.

In any event, Wealth = Treasures. Or am I missing something.

At What Price Happiness? $75,000