Are Mormons Christians?

[Truth_Faith13]

Let's start here and work backwards, BT. [/font]

For some reason, you seem to think you need to ask me to something I would not do otherwise. Can you give me one good reason why I would not be honest with you? What on earth would I stand to gain my misrepresenting my own beliefs? What possible reason would I have for telling you that my Church teaches one thing when, in fact, it teaches something entirely different? And when have I ever been less than honest with you? I clearly have many shortcomings, but let me be perfectly clear about one thing: Dishonesty, hypocrisy and attempting to deceive are not among them.

I honestly believe that the northern group would have a very good understanding of who Jesus was and a fairly good understanding of His gospel. I believe the southern group would have a better understanding of who Jesus was and a far more comprehensive and thorough understanding of His gospel. I believe that both groups would believe in the same Jesus and the same gospel; I just believe that the southern group would have additional knowledge the northern group would not have.

Very good reasoning!
Maybe those who do not believe that mormons are christians and teach a different Jesus should think of it like this....

Your christianity is an older faith
LDS is a more recent faith

right when you are at school and let say you are 16 you learn that respiration is as follows:- (representing the young faith)

"
Respiration takes place in all living things, all the time. It is the release of energy from glucose or other organic substances inside living cells. Every cell needs to respire in order to produce the energy it needs." and you know the formula is glucose + oxygen = carbon dioxide + energy (I hope! )

Fast forward a couple of years to Alevel (18) or degree level. (representing the old faith)

You now learn that respiration is far more complicated than this simple equation and there is far more too it. Im not going to add it here as a) cant find it b) its too big but if any of you have seen the true diagram of Respiration you will know how complicated it is.

Does this mean that the youngsters are wrong? no it doesnt, it is just using and then adding to their theory. Respiration has not changed (God/Jesus has not changed) the knowledge of it/them has!

You can prob do the same with any different subject you like - but Im studying science so picked this one!

 

[s2a]

Hello (again) Aqualung,
[ may be tardy in lending prompt reply, but I'm never late for happy hour...;-)]

In previous dialogue...

I offered a "revised and extended" perspective:
"I accept a self-identification/declaration from any person claiming to be a Christian, to therefore be a Christian from/within their own understanding of Christian teachings/beliefs."

You said:

I don't understand that.

Whereupon, I inquired:
OK. Which part don't you understand? Please be specific, as you deem yourself a master of parsimony. Please evince the expertise of your deconstructing capacities, instead of just playing dumb.

You subsequently offered:

You make me out to be more wiley than I am. I just don't understand it; I'm not playing dumb. I think I managed to answer it anyway as the debate wore on.

Oh, c'mon. I hardly think that I overestimate your capacities. Try re-reading that phrase I lent a coupla' more times. Maybe you're just not putting much effort into understanding what was initially conveyed.

If you prefer, I'll reiterate the quoted offered perspective in more common vernacular...
...Put this way instead: "If you claim that you are a Christian, and appear (even vaguely) earnest in that claim, I am willing to accept that you believe yourself to be a Christian."

Comprendre?

The above stated concept is a simple one, and does not entail any burdened tests of validity in politely accepting a (faith-based) claim on face value alone (it's almost like...faith itself ;-) I willing to believe that you believe.).

Some self-described Christians may choose to challenge the piety/adherence/verity of any such similar claimant (ie, "You're not a real/true Christian!"), but I am neither clerically empowered nor emotionally compelled to qualify any particular personalized claims of self-identification (whether they be as liberal/conservative; smart/stupid; enlightened/ignorant; democrat/republican; fat/thin; christian/non-christian). I know of no reliable test (within this virtual realm) that would advance aspects of absolute certitude of any personalized claim of self. Within my focused interests of participation in RF...how any one member particularly perceives/identifies/affiliates themselves has no direct bearing upon the estimable merit of their lent perspectives or proffered conclusions in contributed commentary. To that end, I would (tend to) lend greater deference to a supported exegesis of biblical Scripture from a non-believer, than I might to some random/spurious testament of personal faith from a self-identified "Christian".

I said:
I would suggest that your understanding/implication of "wrong" is purely subjective,

You replied:

So be it. I think everything is subjective. Heck, I might not even exist, after all. It's not really a practicle standpoint from which to act, though, in my opinion.

I would deem such a position even beyond the rational realm of most critical skeptics, much less for those of professed faith-based beliefs. Even ardent skeptics operate from assumptive conclusions predicated upon inductive (and sometimes deductive) reasoning.

I commented beforehand that...
Your personalized estimations (ie, opinions) are boring and immaterial, lacking any compelling support.

You're awesome. But, again, this is a thread asking for people's opinions on the meaning of Christian. It's ALL opinion, and it's ALL subjective. If you don't like it, leave.

On the contrary. I invited you to personally opine (or "define") your own understanding of what veritably constitutes/represents/outlines a "true Christian" (revisited below).
[FWIW, "opinion" may be indeed subjective (in and of itself)...but claims of certitude/fact within such personally biased claims may very well indeed be demonstrably/circumstantially/empirically evidenced as flawed, uninformed, or just plain wrong.
"Subjectivity" of personal opinion is not a free ticket to some "happy-land" of uncritical thinking and empty evaluations. You're welcome to espouse the "subjective [and personalized] opinion" that [perhaps] "the world is planar/flat (as example)", but any similar claim of expectant equality/equanimity in expression of such an opinion as being "just as valid as any other", lasts only as long as any/all critical review of stated claim remains completely absent. The favored, but utterly flawed notion/position that "my opinion is just as good/valid as yours", serves to discredit any resident faculties of humanistic free-thinking, and our species' evolved powers of reason.
Each individual retains the "right" to espouse and embrace their very own subjective/personal "opinion", but that should not suggest that any/all opinions tender any default measure of equality in value/merit on their own. "Subjectivity" is not a free license to espouse uniquely/inherently inviolate "understandings" [ie, "opinions"] that somehow remain removed above/beyond any challenges to cited bias. prejudice, ignorance, or spurious claims.]

I simply put:
OK. Please then refine (or obviate) the semantics of the given claim, "I am a Pagan". Wherein shall we search/identify the failed terminology of such a claim?

You said:

What?

C'mon. If someone claims (of themselves), "I am a Christian"; you purport yourself as challenger/arbiter of that specified claim by some (as yet undefined) measure/means. You present yourself as innately qualified to either validate or dismiss such a "subjective" claim (which it would seem, may or may not sustain itself under your imposed "subjective" critical review). Again, I only inquired as to your own established benchmark(s) in applied measure/means to deliver definitive determinations of "authenticity" of such a claim. You offered none (beyond your own classified "subjectivity"). If "we" (as both a community and socially structured culture) can not determinedly (and unequivocally) evaluate the "genuine" status of of any claimed "Christian" by some categorical definition, then what challenge of authenticity/validation would you require of a similarly self-identified (and faith-based) Pagan? Or Buddhist? Or Rastafarian? If you feel yourself constrained to estimations/validations specifically limited to claims of personalized self-identification as a "Christian". then it should present no challenge to you in revealing/accounting of your especial accreditations in tendering such reliable determinations upon any claimed (or self-identified) Christian. Surely, a "true Christian [like yourself]", both knows and may easily identify/quantify a "false Christian" when they see (or encounter) one.

You argue against some rote universal social acceptance of any personalized individual's self-identity as a "Christian", yet you proffer no definitive methodology or "definitive" means by which to either validate or falsify the claim as being "true". Absent any applicable (albeit, objective) "test"...any claim of personal (religious) belief, or claim of self-identified sectarian affiliation, remains both unassailable and irrefutable on your part (if burdened by evidential proofs). You can no more artfully or incisively challenge the self-identified claims of a Pagan than you might of a self-professed "Christian".

When I observed:
Well, that's just stupid.

Thanks. But if you can't carry on a debate without criticising so superficially, I don't think I'll really have anything to debate with you at all.

Waaah. What you said...was stupid. That's not a "superficial" critique. It's direct, earnest, and pointed in both intent and meaning.

To recall...
After I offered:
How would you know that I'm really an atheist?

You said:

I don't. But if make the following claims:

1: I am an atheist.
2: I believe in God.

Then I would debate you on that point, because atheists cannot believe in God."

Again, I assert that your lent "argument" was stupid (or to be more kind...both silly and excruciatingly obvious). I stand fast behind my previous characterization.

 

[s2a]

Quoting me in previous answer...
Well, that's just stupid. Obviously, I have never presented such a dichotomous claim of/for myself (within RF), so your strawman contritely collapses before it can even be felled by your feathers of fallacious failings.

You then proffered:

I know that you have never presented such a dichotomous claim. Yet, people have presented equally dichotomous claims, to which I have taken objection (and then you objected to my objection, so I presented that awesome compariston (not straw man) for clearification).

No. It was a strawman. Re-read what you said above. 'Fess up. I am not accountable for what other "people" may have presented for your consideration in the past.

People have said things to the effect of:
I am a Christian.
I believe Christ was a good man, but not the son of God.

This is as dichotomous, in my views, as my earlier example of atheism, and makes the word just as meaningless.

Would you care to cite any linked reference/source to any self-identified atheist within RF that specifically espoused your initial allusion?

Which was:

"1: I am an atheist.
2: I believe in God."

Please juxtapose these [now] requested, referenced links (as support of your claim) as being corollary to your personal objection to statements of "'people' that say":
"I am a Christian.
I believe Christ was a good man, but not the son of God."

I would consider three provided/referenced examples of atheists making such antithetical statements as being noteworthy of further consideration. Got a thick enough stick upon which to hoist that insubstantial scarecrow?

I said:
Which word have I "redefined"? Have I even sought to define the word "Christian"?

Not you, just people in general in this thread, redefining Christian and such.

Again I inquire: "redefined" from what original (ie, "authentic") "definition"?

If you are of the "opinion" that some "people" are "redefining" the meaning of "Christian", then surely you can provide the source from which such a "true" definition can be obtained and reviewed (even if the source is just you).

I hate the resort to the dictionary as some sort of authority on theology. It's not. I therefore won't consider your following argument that references the dictionary.

A dictionary is not an "authority" on theology. It only seeks to define the "meaning" of words (which seems to concern/trouble you foremost in their ripe and proper application). I even offered you a definition from Easton's Bible Dictionary for you to peruse...which you have (apparently) chosen to dismiss as well...without further enhancement or rebuttal.

When I said:
There is no valid presented dilemma in an argument borne of false choice (an "either-or"), especially when the premise is an invented one bearing a uncanny resemblance to a scarecrow. Atheism does not predeterminably preclude any/all access or understanding as to myth, legend, superstition, or any religious claims of estimable fact. This is where faith-based adherents fail in their protestations and argumentations. Acceptance of a claim (on face value) is not requisite to an understanding of a claim (on it's provisional merits alone).

You replied:

Your'e right...

Ooooo. That had to hurt just a little...;-)

...but atheism DOES preclude a BELIEF in God. It's inherent in its word, which is my point.

Yes it does. It's pretty unequivocal in it's definitively implied meaning and import. How does that agreeable fact suit or benefit your "point" at all?

atheist--
noun.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Source: American Heritage Dictionary

noun.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -

Funny (an ironic "ha ha") how the dictionary "definition" of atheist suits me well enough, yet you categorically reject any similarly sourced definitions of "Christian" (as provided previously) as being unworthy/invalid. Why do you suppose this to be so?

By taking a word that, at its very most fundamental level, means no God, and applying that to people who DO believe in God, it makes the word meaningless.

If you really want to argue your case with any hope of earnest consideration on my part, you're going to have to substantiate (by reference) your assertion that "some" atheists say:
"1: I am an atheist.
2: I believe in God."

Unless or until you do, I can only deem your counter-argument as utterly unfounded.

Similarly, applying "Christian" to sets of beliefs that are in opposition makes that word meaningless.

If only we had some "evidence" from which to draw some valid comparisons....

When I offered:
And so, you are again invited to present your own (unique?) definition in challenge/augmentation, or even [as] replacement, of the referenced sources quoted above.

You said:

It's not my definition that matters, so much as the other definitions are wrong.

Oh, c'mon. Why be shy? It's just innocent "opinions" here anyway, right? Maybe, if it were really interesting and precedent setting, your provided definition (of the word "Christian") might "matter" for generations of faithful adherents and unbelievers alike to either embrace or reference.

Dare to testify your faith, and define just what it "means" to be a "Christian"! Or, if you like, be safe, and cite specific chapter and verse within Scripture that "defines" what it really means to be a "Christian". Surely the BIble definitively outlines/qualifies what it really and specifically means to be a "Christian"?

I suggested:
Or perhaps you might consider concerning yourself more in your own redemption/salvation, and less in the machinations/identities of others...it's just a thought...


You replied:

Perhaps. But this debate is entirely about that. I can concern my own salvation on my own time, but while I'm here at this place specifically created to debate such a problem with other willing souls, I will.

OK, and good on you (I mean that. ;-)).

If you'll consider some counsel from an "old soul" that's been engaging discussion/debate in similar forums since 1989, may I suggest that you prepare yourself well enough to lend something more than your "opinion". There's a not-so-wiity aphorism that wafts within this virtual realm; "Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one". Rise above the waistline, and into the lofty goals of those that think from the neckline up. The "message" of eternal redemption/salavation, as delivered by the Almighty God is NOT a tough sell. It's NOT. It's the details of that "message" that allow atheists and unbelievers to persist, and grow in numbers.

I observed:
As a self-identified "LDS Christian" yourself, I should think you would be especially cautious in disqualifying alternate understandings/revelations within any self-identified Christian sect as being illegitimate, or unworthy.

You replied:

As an LDS Christian, I would be particularly QUICK to disqualify alternate understandings, since I KNOW that the only prophet on the earth is the head of MY church, and therefore any other revelations are not from God at all.

And yet...most predominately prevalent "Christian" sects seek to discredit/reject LDS precepts/practices/dogma as [allegedly] authentically "Christian".
Atheists have no dog in this fight, and don't care who "wins". Isn't your beef with other self-professed Christians that would seek to deny you (and similar LDS adherents) similar respect and accord as being faithful and pious "Christians"?

In the end, as an self-identified atheist myself, I am willing to accept your claimed self-identity as a "Christian"...simply because you deem and perceive yourself as such. What is your argument against that position...really? What test or measure should I, as an atheist, apply or rely upon as determinedly satisfactory and acceptable as deference to your self-described claim of sectarian affiliation.

 

[bible truth]

Hi Katzpur,

It was not my intention to debate Jonny ‘one on one’, due to the amount of time that I have to participate. I believe all the Mormons should be able to participate in the debate between the official LDS gospel and the biblical gospel. I believe Paul and I can represent the biblical gospel together. Maybe there are other like-minded Christians who would co-labor with us. Do you want to start a New Thread and close the other related ones. Can we limit it to LDS members and evangelical bible only Christians? Let's simply debate the LDS gospel and the biblical gospel revealed in Scripture alone. If any evangelical Christians can agree with the statement link below, let's proclaim the biblical gospel to our Mormon Christian friends together. Likewise, the Mormons will have the opportunity to proclaim the LDS gospel to us as well. Who knows, we may witness people switching sides during the debate. Katzpur, would you like to do something like this?

The biblical gospel – please join us if you can agree with the link below.

http://www.t4g.org/T4TG-statement.pdfhttp://www.t4g.org/T4TG-statement.pdfhttp://www.t4g.org/T4TG-statement.pdf

It appears we should continue on this Thread as our group discussion. Jonny and I have continued our one on one debate. He is welcome to change it to a group debate at any time. Therefore, let's continue with our discussion on this Thread. I want to thank everyone for their participation. Since most of us profess and claim to be Christians, we can embrace Romans 8:28. - BT

 

[bible truth]

Because they are closed-minded bigots who could care less about their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? Honestly. To call us a cult is a bit far out there, but is worse -- to say we follow a 'false Jesus'. That's ridiculous; people don't even take the time to learn what we actually believe and have stuck their heads to far in the sand to care anyways.



That's why I don't believe in the Evangelical heaven -- it's too elitist. God is not an elistist.

Good morning Beckysoup,

I admire your passion that you have posted on this Thread. Our Faith is precious to all of us. I participate on this Thread because I believe it is the will of God that I do. I believe it would be easier for all of us if we look at this more objectively by systematically comparing official doctrines of Mormonism and evangelical Christianity.

Let's try to remove personal attacks from both groups. Evangelical Christians are basically sharing their love for their Mormon friends, because we believe the Bible proclaims that you are outside of the saving faith of Christ. We speak the truth in love, because we love you. I believe this can be said about Mormon missionaries who proclaim the Mormon message to evangelical homes across the United States.

Being called a cult is not always a bad thing. As you know, Christianity is rooted in Judaism. The first Christians were considered to be in a cult that broke from Orthodox Judaism. I have not personally called Mormonism a cult. I have not read a posting on this site calling Mormonism a cult either. I will not call Mormonism a cult because the word of offensive.

I celebrated my 20th anniversary yesterday with my wife. God has blessed us with a wonderful marriage, due to His grace alone. The Lord has blessed us with 3 teenage boys. I understand that God created women to be more emotional than men. I have always exhorted my wife that her women's Bible Study needs to be grounded in sound biblical doctrine, in addition to passionate emotions. However, passionate emotions apart from sound doctrine, ends up being a faith based on personal opinions, as compared to God's truth. Please continue to contribute. Maybe you can focus on Romans 8:28;The God in the Bible works out everything according to His pleasure and will. Please take comfort in that fact. - BT

 

[Bishka]

. I understand that God created women to be more emotional than men. I have always exhorted my wife that her women's Bible Study needs to be grounded in sound biblical doctrine, in addition to passionate emotions. However, passionate emotions apart from sound doctrine end up being a faith based on personal opinions, as compared to God's truth. Please continue to contribute. Maybe you can focus on Romans 8:28. The God in the Bible works out everything according to His pleasure and will. Please take comfort in that fact. - BT

:areyoucra What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Gentoo]

Evangelical Christians are basically sharing their love for their Mormon friends, because we believe the Bible proclaims that you are outside of the saving faith of Christ. We speak the truth in love, because we love you. I believe this can be said about Mormon missionaries who proclaim the Mormon message to evangelical homes across the United States.

Let me try to get this straight in my mind...

Evangelicals deny the LDS their faith by saying they're not true Christians because they love them?

Forgive this simple pagan but, that makes no sense. If you (general you, not anyone specific) love them, then you'd let them be, not insult them.

 

[bible truth]

How can God be completely just, righteous and holy if he sent everyone to a place of eternal torment...? That's the complete opposite of just and righteous at the very least.

The Bible teaches that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. God is also Holy and without sin. Due to His moral perfection and purity, it would be unjust if God did not punish sin. Sin is basically rebellion against our Creator. We are all in rebellion against God and deserving of His wrath. We are all sinners; the Bible declares all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. The wrath of God being poured out on sinners is God's justice being displayed. This is divine judgement. Unredeemed sinners receive justice in a place of eternal torment, according to the Scriptures. Hell is one place where justice is served. Do you understand where justice is also served for other sinners?

Hey Gentoo,
How do you determine what is just and holy? How do you contrast justice and divine judgement with mercy and grace? - BT

 

[Aqualung]

Hey Aqualung,
Did you represent the official LDS interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21? We definitely believe in a different gospel and different Christ, if this is the official LDS interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21.

What is your interpretation, how does mine differ, and how does this mean that we believe in different gospels and different Christs?

What divides the LDS church from evangelical Christians is really "the person and work of Christ". We honestly have two different good news of God. Do you want to discuss the differences of the two gospels? -

First, I want you to clearify this statement. Then, yes, I would want to discuss the differences.

 

[Gentoo]

Hey Gentoo,
How do you determine what is just and holy? How do you contrast justice and divine judgement with mercy and grace? - BT

Simple, I don't believe in divine judgement nor do I believe in Hell. I believe that people deal with the consequences of their wrong-doings and rewards for their right-doings through karma and other forces that remain unseen, I don't believe them to be divine.

 

[bible truth]

BT,

This is the fourth time I have asked you the same question. Would you be so kind as to answer me this time: Where does the Bible say that God has revealed himself in the Bible alone?

Your third cousin twice removed, in Christ,
Katzpur

Hey Katzpur,

I didn't mean to ignore this question. I'm sorry. Your question is the same debate that I can have with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. I can have this same debate with Muslums and Athesist too. The question we are discussing has to do with our view of Scripture (Bible). What is your view of Scripture? Do you have a high view of Scripture or a lower view? I believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture. I believe everything is tested in the light of Scripture. God tells us to examine and test all things. Since Roman Catholics, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants believe the Bible to be the Word of God, we have a common source to discern and judge spiritual truths.

Katzpur, in addition to our common belief in the Bible, you also believe in "prophet succession". I personally believe this LDS doctrine was copied from the Roman Catholic doctrine of "apostolic succession". I bet the Eastern Orthodox faith has a similar authority too. The Quaran and Islam are also similar to Mormonism in regards to authority and extra-biblical revelation. The LDS faith and Islam both have a prophet and angel from God to give significant revelation that changes the faith found in the Bible alone.

If we discuss things in addition to Biblical revelation, whose extra-biblical revelation should I embrace? Additional extra-biblical revelation:

1. LDS - Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, Price of Great Pearl, prophet succession, Prophet Joseph Smith, Angel Moroni.

2. Roman Catholicism: Sacred written and oral tradition, apostolic succession.

3. Islam: Quran and revelation of prophet Mohamed, angel revelation

4. Eastern Orthodox: (help James!)

5 Atheism: rejects the bible from being revelation from God.

Please let me know if you understand what I am saying. Sola Scriptura gives the Bible as the final authority as truth. However, there is no such thing as private interpretation. The Bible has one correct interpretation which is God’s interpretation. We all know in part. However, God has elected specific sinners to be adopted as His redeemed children. He gives his adopted Children the Spirit of God for spiritual discernment. God the Holy Spirit dwells in the believer and not in the religious institution. A particular religious institution does not exclusively have the Holy Spirit. Please read 1 Corinthians chapters 1 and 2. - BT

 

[bible truth]

Simple, I don't believe in divine judgement nor do I believe in Hell. I believe that people deal with the consequences of their wrong-doings and rewards for their right-doings through karma and other forces that remain unseen, I don't believe them to be divine.

Thanks for sharing Gentoo.

Maybe your postings are not appropriate for this Thead?

 

[Gentoo]

Thanks for sharing Gentoo.

Maybe your postings are not appropriate for this Thead?

Why? Because I'm not Christian?

 

[Aqualung]

Hello, s2a. Good to see you here again. I have deleted certain sections if I thought they were answered above (or, if an answer to a previous point you had made was also an answer to a similar point later on). If you don't think I good enough job answering, feel free to repost any point.

If you prefer, I'll reiterate the quoted offered perspective in more common vernacular...
...Put this way instead: "If you claim that you are a Christian, and appear (even vaguely) earnest in that claim, I am willing to accept that you believe yourself to be a Christian."

Yes, comprendo. I would accept that, yes, that person believed they were a Christian, but I would not accept that they RIGHTLY believed themself to be a christian.

Some self-described Christians may choose to challenge the piety/adherence/verity of any such similar claimant (ie, "You're not a real/true Christian!"), but I am neither clerically empowered nor emotionally compelled to qualify any particular personalized claims of self-identification (whether they be as liberal/conservative; smart/stupid; enlightened/ignorant; democrat/republican; fat/thin; christian/non-christian). I know of no reliable test (within this virtual realm) that would advance aspects of absolute certitude of any personalized claim of self. Within my focused interests of participation in RF...how any one member particularly perceives/identifies/affiliates themselves has no direct bearing upon the estimable merit of their lent perspectives or proffered conclusions in contributed commentary. To that end, I would (tend to) lend greater deference to a supported exegesis of biblical Scripture from a non-believer, than I might to some random/spurious testament of personal faith from a self-identified "Christian".

Good point. And I agree, in fact. I really don't care what people choose to call themselves, except in a thread dedicated to debating the definition of a word. But, still, I don't care what individual people call themselves.

I said:
I would suggest that your understanding/implication of "wrong" is purely subjective,

You replied:
I would deem such a position even beyond the rational realm of most critical skeptics, much less for those of professed faith-based beliefs. Even ardent skeptics operate from assumptive conclusions predicated upon inductive (and sometimes deductive) reasoning.

True. I operate under the assumption that I am right, but I can't know that. Furthermore, we're entering the territory of unfalsifiable, even if we accept certain conditions beforehand.

I commented beforehand that...
Your personalized estimations (ie, opinions) are boring and immaterial, lacking any compelling support.

On the contrary. I invited you to personally opine (or "define") your own understanding of what veritably constitutes/represents/outlines a "true Christian" (revisited below).
[FWIW, "opinion" may be indeed subjective (in and of itself)...but claims of certitude/fact within such personally biased claims may very well indeed be demonstrably/circumstantially/empirically evidenced as flawed, uninformed, or just plain wrong.
"Subjectivity" of personal opinion is not a free ticket to some "happy-land" of uncritical thinking and empty evaluations. You're welcome to espouse the "subjective [and personalized] opinion" that [perhaps] "the world is planar/flat (as example)", but any similar claim of expectant equality/equanimity in expression of such an opinion as being "just as valid as any other", lasts only as long as any/all critical review of stated claim remains completely absent. The favored, but utterly flawed notion/position that "my opinion is just as good/valid as yours", serves to discredit any resident faculties of humanistic free-thinking, and our species' evolved powers of reason.
Each individual retains the "right" to espouse and embrace their very own subjective/personal "opinion", but that should not suggest that any/all opinions tender any default measure of equality in value/merit on their own. "Subjectivity" is not a free license to espouse uniquely/inherently inviolate "understandings" [ie, "opinions"] that somehow remain removed above/beyond any challenges to cited bias. prejudice, ignorance, or spurious claims.]

Ok, I will recant that previous statement.

I simply put:
OK. Please then refine (or obviate) the semantics of the given claim, "I am a Pagan". Wherein shall we search/identify the failed terminology of such a claim?

You said:
C'mon. If someone claims (of themselves), "I am a Christian"; you purport yourself as challenger/arbiter of that specified claim by some (as yet undefined) measure/means.

That's because I know something of Christianity. I know nothing of Paganism, so trying to define Pagan would be entirely impossible for me, not to mention completely outside the scope of this discussion. After all, asking me to define such a complex word with no prior knowledge only serves the purpose of erecting straw men; ie, the only reason I can think that you would want me to define Pagan is so, upon failing, you can therefore conclude that I am equally as bad or uninformed about Christian.

If "we" (as both a community and socially structured culture) can not determinedly (and unequivocally) evaluate the "genuine" status of of any claimed "Christian" by some categorical definition, then what challenge of authenticity/validation would you require of a similarly self-identified (and faith-based) Pagan? Or Buddhist? Or Rastafarian? If you feel yourself constrained to estimations/validations specifically limited to claims of personalized self-identification as a "Christian". then it should present no challenge to you in revealing/accounting of your especial accreditations in tendering such reliable determinations upon any claimed (or self-identified) Christian.

The qualification for Christian as opposed to Pagan is that I have never been a pagan (or a buddhist or a rastafarian) and I would struggle to name even one widely-held belief of either of those groups. On the other hand, with Christian I have a fairly good grasp of the whole Bible, what different Christian denominations think and why, etc.

You argue against some rote universal social acceptance of any personalized individual's self-identity as a "Christian", yet you proffer no definitive methodology or "definitive" means by which to either validate or falsify the claim as being "true".

Ah, I see what you're getting at. And, since I know see what you're getting at, I will define Christian for myself. A Christian is one who:

(1) is a member of Christ's established church.
(a) it therefore has Christ as it's head
(b) it also therefore follows the same structure established by Christ and recorded in the Bible (which includes prophets, apostles, deacons, elders, etc.)
(i) furthermore, it is founded on revelation, the foundation that Christ layed out for his church.

When I observed:
Well, that's just stupid.

Waaah. What you said...was stupid. That's not a "superficial" critique. It's direct, earnest, and pointed in both intent and meaning.

It might be wrong (which, as you stated earlier, is fairly objectively proven), but stupid is completely subjective and also completely un-united to truth.

 

[bible truth]

Sure. For us your ecclesiology is heresy. In our view the Body of Christ cannot be divided and so the Church must be one. That means that anyone who creates schism or follows heresy does not divide the Church but put themselves outside of Her. As, in our view the Patriarch of Rome unilaterally accepted heretical teachings and walked away from the rest of the Church (the four other Patriarchs remaining with us to this day), that puts the See of Rome, and any of herdescendants outside the Church Militant (the visible Church here on earth).

The invisible Church is not, for us, that Protestant idea of all believers being invisibly united but is the Church Triumphant. This is all those people who have attained salvation (which can only happen after death - OSAS and similar ideas are heresy for us), the cloud of witnesses, the saints. Being outside the Church Militant does not condemn one to damnation but does deprive one of the fullness of the Truth. Being inside the Church is similarly no guarantee of salvation, though we believe it offers the best medicine for your soul. As God is not limited by time and there are, then, people who will be saved outside the Church, there is a tenuous way in which people outside are part of the Church by dint of the fact that they will be in the future. Not sure that made much sense. What I mean is, while from man's perspective, bound by time, they are not in the Church, from God's perspective, which we can never share but which is unbound by anything in creation, they are. Did that make more sense?

Of course, God saves whomsoever He wills and pours His grace out on all equally. Taking all this into account, this is why you'll often hear Orthodox say that we know where the Church is but we do not know where it is not. I think part of the reason Protestants sometimes have a problem with this view is that because they have an idea of an earthly invisible Church, they see salvation and the Church as oinextricably linked, as in 'There is no salvation outside the Church'. For us if by that you mean Church Militant, we are unable to agree and if you mean Church Triumphant it's tautological.

Hope that helps and please feel free to ask any more questions as you have them. I'll generally reply quickly but if you post at the weekend there will be a short delay as I don't visit RF then.

James

James has been kind to answer my question about Catholic Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox). As you can see, Eastern Orthodox has an authority similar to "apostolic succession" and "prophet succession".

In addition, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Mormonism teach a doctrine of "Fullness of the Gospel", or "Fullness of Truth". Are you able to see the pattern of claimed authority outside the Bible? Do you understand why I believe in Sola Scriptura? - BT

 

[Aqualung]

Quoting me in previous answer...
Well, that's just stupid. Obviously, I have never presented such a dichotomous claim of/for myself (within RF), so your strawman contritely collapses before it can even be felled by your feathers of fallacious failings.

You then proffered:
No. It was a strawman. Re-read what you said above. 'Fess up. I am not accountable for what other "people" may have presented for your consideration in the past.

I'm trying to establish a base from which to work, which is that twisting words to mean the opposite of what the word in itself means is not right. For example, twisting atheist to mean somebody who believes in God (and accepting that they ARE an atheist, even after such an assertion, simply because they say so). If we cannot even accept that THIS is wrong, how then can we build from that to say that such an assertion of Christianity is wrong? We can't. So if you can't agree with that statement, we enter into the territory (yet again ) of unfalsifiability, and subjectivity, wherein we will have to (and please excuse my use of such an overused and trite phrase) agree to disagree. My entire argument is based upon the framework I just outlined, so if we can't agree on the frame we can't debate at all.

Got a thick enough stick upon which to hoist that insubstantial scarecrow?

I hope so, but I'm still building it now.

When I said:
There is no valid presented dilemma in an argument borne of false choice (an "either-or"), especially when the premise is an invented one bearing a uncanny resemblance to a scarecrow. Atheism does not predeterminably preclude any/all access or understanding as to myth, legend, superstition, or any religious claims of estimable fact. This is where faith-based adherents fail in their protestations and argumentations. Acceptance of a claim (on face value) is not requisite to an understanding of a claim (on it's provisional merits alone).

You replied:
Ooooo. That had to hurt just a little...;-)

It did. :'(

If you really want to argue your case with any hope of earnest consideration on my part, you're going to have to substantiate (by reference) your assertion that "some" atheists say:

Whoa, that wasn't what I said. I said that IF an atheist said that, not atheists have said that.

If you'll consider some counsel from an "old soul" that's been engaging discussion/debate in similar forums since 1989, may I suggest that you prepare yourself well enough to lend something more than your "opinion". There's a not-so-wiity aphorism that wafts within this virtual realm; "Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one". Rise above the waistline, and into the lofty goals of those that think from the neckline up. The "message" of eternal redemption/salavation, as delivered by the Almighty God is NOT a tough sell. It's NOT. It's the details of that "message" that allow atheists and unbelievers to persist, and grow in numbers.

Thank you. I will.

I observed:
As a self-identified "LDS Christian" yourself, I should think you would be especially cautious in disqualifying alternate understandings/revelations within any self-identified Christian sect as being illegitimate, or unworthy.

You replied:
And yet...most predominately prevalent "Christian" sects seek to discredit/reject LDS precepts/practices/dogma as [allegedly] authentically "Christian".
Atheists have no dog in this fight, and don't care who "wins". Isn't your beef with other self-professed Christians that would seek to deny you (and similar LDS adherents) similar respect and accord as being faithful and pious "Christians"?

I mentioned earlier, I don't care what other people think of me. They can deny me all the all the respect they want, because I'm denying them the respect. I don't WANT the respect, which is why it matters particularly little to me.

 

[Aqualung]

Hey Aqualung,
Please share again about where you lived in Eugene and Springfield? Were do you live now? I live up the McKenzie. I really need to reduce my time on this site. Maybe Jonny will let you participate in our one on one debate to cover your question. Or, you can read along in our debate, and your question will be answered. - BT

I don't remember where I lived. It was a long time ago. I will tell you, though, that when we lived in springfield, we went to that park that has the big dinosaur in it and that little river or something down a bit away from it. And when I lived in Eugene I remember the building with the brown slats that is close to the fifth street market. So I must have lived somewhere near those two locations. I'll ask my parents were I lived for real, though. Now I don't even live in Oregon anymore, though my family still lives in southern oregon.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Matthew 18:20

Mormons gather in Jesus Christ's name, so he is there with them.

 

[bible truth]

View comments
from a Church leader Atonement

It is impossible to put into words the full meaning of the Atonement, which is the most important event in the history of the world. Through His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, the Savior atoned for our sins. This is the good news for all people!

We can’t fully understand how Jesus suffered for our sins. But we know that in the Garden of Gethsemane, the weight of our sins caused Him to feel such agony that He bled from every pore (Luke 22:39–44).
Later, as He hung upon the cross, Jesus willingly suffered painful death by one of the most cruel methods ever known.

The Savior tells us:

For behold, I . . . have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer . . . even as I. [Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–17]​

Jesus Christ did what only He could do in atoning for our sins. To make His Atonement fully effective in our individual lives, we must have faith in Christ, repent of our sins, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, obey God's commandments, and strive to become like Him. As we do these things through His Atonement, we can return to live with Him and our Heavenly Father forever.

______________________________________________________________________

This is the offical LDS doctrine on the atonement found on lds.org. In the light of Scripture alone, this is not true. The evangelical understanding of the atonement defined by the Scipture alone, rejects the LDS proclamation of the atonement. Does this make the offical LDS gospel a different gospel embraced by evangelical Christians? The answer is YES!. Which gospel is true? - BT

 

[Truth_Faith13]

View comments
from a Church leader Atonement

It is impossible to put into words the full meaning of the Atonement, which is the most important event in the history of the world. Through His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, the Savior atoned for our sins. This is the good news for all people!

We can’t fully understand how Jesus suffered for our sins. But we know that in the Garden of Gethsemane, the weight of our sins caused Him to feel such agony that He bled from every pore (Luke 22:39–44).
Later, as He hung upon the cross, Jesus willingly suffered painful death by one of the most cruel methods ever known.


The Savior tells us:

For behold, I . . . have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer . . . even as I. [Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–17]​

Jesus Christ did what only He could do in atoning for our sins. To make His Atonement fully effective in our individual lives, we must have faith in Christ, repent of our sins, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, obey God's commandments, and strive to become like Him. As we do these things through His Atonement, we can return to live with Him and our Heavenly Father forever.

______________________________________________________________________

This is the offical LDS doctrine on the atonement found on lds.org. In the light of Scripture alone, this is not true. The evangelical understanding of the atonement defined by the Scipture alone, rejects the LDS proclamation of the atonement. Does this make the offical LDS gospel a different gospel embraced by evangelical Christians? The answer is YES!. Which gospel is true? - BT

Hi, for the sake of me (who is still seeking what I believe), what is your belief of the atonement then and how does i differ from the LDS version as you state it does? From what I read of it, it doesnt sound different to what I understand most christians to believe in!