Are Mormon's Christian?

[MarsHill]

But, you will not quote the post you find incorrect and correct them, I call shenanigans! If you are going to assert something, please provide the evidence. [/color]



Oddly, this “defending” statement has only been brought up by people of religion. I find that odd, because it’s not about defending Mormonism. I will try to make this clear once more:

This is an example; we are not going to discuss Santa. If you made a claim that Santa was a female, and I refuted with my information, it doesn’t mean I am defending Santa, a myth I don’t believe in, I am correcting you. Do you understand?

Now, I might not believe in Islam, but if you posted incorrect information and I provide correct information, it doesn’t mean I support Islam now. It means that I provided the correct information.

Whether or not you are providing "correct" information remains to be seen. Everyone out here believes that he or she is proclaiming correct information.
It is about "defending " your position. Everytime you or I post a response we are defending our position about the worldview that we hold to or defending a position concerning someone elses worldview as we perceive it. Either way we are defending a position or defending a position about a position.

 

[MarsHill]

Probably because a charge of "defending" Mormonism is the worst thing some folks can think of, sadly.

We can not all be as creative in inventing thought provoking ideas that are based more on preference than historical fact. Revisionists can rewrite and rethink all they want about Jesus and the New Testament. It's easy to argue a point after the founders are gone. We see the reshaping of the United States being done everyday out of fear and preference rather than the lives of those who started it all.

This isn't about jumping on the bandwagon of convenience. It's about defending absolutes. It's difficult to imagine that some folks want to compromise on that which should not be compromised.

 

[MarsHill]

Indeed the brandishing of this supposed insult is suppose to frighten us into submissive silence. I have had people actually challenge me on my christianity for defending pagans and wiccans before. I get slandered for coming to the aid of Muslim. Perhaps I will find myself in good company in the end, as I didn't read where Jesus only hung out with the "righteous", he went to those who were good and sincere of heart no matter their religions orientation.

Jesus did indeed hang out with them all. That's awesome. But He left them saying, "Go and sin no more" which was a call to stop living the lifestyles they were living against God and to "take up their cross and follow Him."
Jesus taught to always love the person. That's not the debate. We tend to forget that He told them to change the way they were living and to quit doing that which was unGodly.
You make it sound like Jesus actually condoned every sinful lifestyle that the people embraced. If He condoned it he would have never called it "sin". He would not have to die for "anything" if He condoned "everything."

 

[Eldy]

Jesus did indeed hang out with them all. That's awesome. But He left them saying, "Go and sin no more" which was a call to stop living the lifestyles they were living against God and to "take up their cross and follow Him."
Jesus taught to always love the person. That's not the debate. We tend to forget that He told them to change the way they were living and to quit doing that which was unGodly.
You make it sound like Jesus actually condoned every sinful lifestyle that the people embraced. If He condoned it he would have never called it "sin". He would not have to die for "anything" if He condoned "everything."

Actually He spent most of His time attacking the prevailing self righteous group that would deny those outside of it the love of God. He spent His time showing how wrong the people were who thought they had it all figured out. Sadly, the modern church is more like the pharisees then the ones that Jesus hung out with.

 

[peepnklown]

Whether or not you are providing "correct" information remains to be seen.

Of course, this wasn’t the point; I was explaining why an atheist would debate on a religious topic even though he doesn’t believe in God.

It is about "defending” your position.

This is humorous since this wasn’t what you said.

Defending a religion that you claim to absolutely not believe in is difficult for me to understand.

This is what you said.

 

[Cassiopeia]

Jesus did indeed hang out with them all. That's awesome. But He left them saying, "Go and sin no more" which was a call to stop living the lifestyles they were living against God and to "take up their cross and follow Him."
Jesus taught to always love the person. That's not the debate. We tend to forget that He told them to change the way they were living and to quit doing that which was unGodly.
You make it sound like Jesus actually condoned every sinful lifestyle that the people embraced. If He condoned it he would have never called it "sin". He would not have to die for "anything" if He condoned "everything."

Sir, please do not twist my words. I have not said Jesus condoned anything. Nor did I imply it. He did however love all and commanded us that we love everyone. We are not Jesus and therefore have no right to judge others.

 

[MarsHill]

Indeed the brandishing of this supposed insult is suppose to frighten us into submissive silence. I have had people actually challenge me on my christianity for defending pagans and wiccans before. I get slandered for coming to the aid of Muslim. Perhaps I will find myself in good company in the end, as I didn't read where Jesus only hung out with the "righteous", he went to those who were good and sincere of heart no matter their religions orientation.

I'm not attempting to twist anything you have said. I have no problem with defending and/or loving people. I do have a problem defending that which is not based on the teachings of Jesus when it comes to sin, salvation, and eternal life vs. eternal separation from God.

 

[MarsHill]

Actually He spent most of His time attacking the prevailing self righteous group that would deny those outside of it the love of God. He spent His time showing how wrong the people were who thought they had it all figured out. Sadly, the modern church is more like the pharisees then the ones that Jesus hung out with.

???"Actually He spent most of His time............"???

How does one make this statement? How do you know what He spent most of His time doing? On the overall scale we know about the birth of Jesus which gives us a very small window of time. After that we only have a 3 1/2 year window of public ministry. Conservatively that gives you a 4 yeartotal time period of what Jesus was doing. The 6 months of infancy do not count for this conversation so that leaves us 3.5 years out of 33.5 total years on earth. 3.5-4 years of doing anything doesn't tell us what He spent "most of His time doing". 4 Years is not a representation of "most of His time." For all we know He may have spent most of His time as a businessman working in his own furniture store.
Secondly, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God........." Jesus is God therefore He is an eternal being. When you look at it this way there is no justification what so ever to say that "Jesus spent most of His time doing-------." If you cannot account for all of eternity past, present, and future then you cannot account for what Jesus has done with "most of His time."
Also, if Jesus is God and God is all about LOVE then why would Jesus spend His time "attacking" anything? That doesn't seem to be in the realm of LOVE. Maybe it is quite o.k. to "defend" or "attack" against what He (God) did ot teach as being true. That is what we are out here doing.

 

[MarsHill]

If you do not want to do your own homework, then please do not maintain that posting a link satisfies my request. Plus, if you want to understand LDS doctrine, it would be best if you actually would read the Book of Mormon and may be refer to the LDS site. [/color]

Does a person need to believe in Zeus in order to be an expert or knowledgeable in Greek mythology? When discussing a subject, isn’t best to be knowledgeable about it?

I assert that if you were an expert on God you would not be an atheist. If you were on expert on Christianity I doubt that you would be compelled to disbelieve. (But I will give you the benefit of the doubt)
If in fact you were an expert on God then you would have to be God in order to be called an expert on Him. It would be difficult to be called an expert on God and to be able to fathom everything there is to know about Him without being Him. The Creator can never fully be understood by that which is created. If that which is created could fully fathom God then the creation would be equal to God. That wouldn't be much of a God. By saying that you are an expert on God or even that you have infinite knowledge to know that there is not a being in existence with infinite knowledge then you have become God. If you have that knowledge and you cannot deny your own existence then you cannot truly deny God exists. But that would only prove that which you are trying to disprove.
If you even believe that Jesus existed in the historical, actual sense then you might not be a redneck.....I mean an atheist. If Jesus existed historically and Jesus was God then even if you do not believe in the existence of God then you actually are guilty of believing by believing in the existence of Jesus (who was God). So, if that which you know exists was actually God then that which you do not think exists does exist.

 

[CaDan]

Until it is proven otherwise with Scripture, I will contend that Jesus spent most of His time playing Halo on His Holy XBox.

I'm mostly pointing out that we don't know how He spent most of His time. What we have are what the authors of the gospels thought were the most important events and teachings.

 

[Cassiopeia]

Until it is proven otherwise with Scripture, I will contend that Jesus spent most of His time playing Halo on His Holy XBox.

I'm mostly pointing out that we don't know how He spent most of His time. What we have are what the authors of the gospels thought were the most important events and teachings.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaDan again.

 

[MarsHill]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaDan again.

CaDan didn't make the comment to begin with. John 21:25 says, "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

As part of my original argument concerning the knowledge of what Jesus spent most of His time doing--- one cannot simply base it upon the Gospels either. It is obvious from the above Scripture that there is much more that Jesus did and said that we do not have in written form.
In all actuality by saying, "Jesus spent most of His time........" is a way for someone to add weight or validity to their argument when trying to make a point. As we have seen it doesn't always work.

 

[MarsHill]

Until it is proven otherwise with Scripture, I will contend that Jesus spent most of His time playing Halo on His Holy XBox.

I'm mostly pointing out that we don't know how He spent most of His time. What we have are what the authors of the gospels thought were the most important events and teachings.

I think it goes much further than that. We do not have what the authors "thought" were the most important things to write. We have what the Holy Spirit considered to be the most important things for us to see and meditate on. There is a big difference. That takes us from the opinions of what men who may or may not have witnessed the events think is important to what God actually took part in and knows is important for all mankind to apply to their lives.
What's the point in following what mere men think when you can get a small glimpse of what God thinks is important? If the Gospels are only comprised of what common men think is important then what makes the Bible any better than any other book?

 

[CaDan]

I think it goes much further than that. We do not have what the authors "thought" were the most important things to write. We have what the Holy Spirit considered to be the most important things for us to see and meditate on. There is a big difference. That takes us from the opinions of what men who may or may not have witnessed the events think is important to what God actually took part in and knows is important for all mankind to apply to their lives.
What's the point in following what mere men think when you can get a small glimpse of what God thinks is important? If the Gospels are only comprised of what common men think is important then what makes the Bible any better than any other book?

/me eyes his copies of Bultmann, Kloppenberg, Dibelius, and Mack.

I'm not sure we want to get into this here in this thread . . . .

 

[Cassiopeia]

CaDan didn't make the comment to begin with. John 21:25 says, "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

As part of my original argument concerning the knowledge of what Jesus spent most of His time doing--- one cannot simply base it upon the Gospels either. It is obvious from the above Scripture that there is much more that Jesus did and said that we do not have in written form.
In all actuality by saying, "Jesus spent most of His time........" is a way for someone to add weight or validity to their argument when trying to make a point. As we have seen it doesn't always work.

Is there a problem with me telling CaDan I appreciate his humour and what he has to say?

 

[Rae]

What's wrong with defending people against unfair and untrue charges? I don't like Mormon theology either, or else I would be a Mormon, but that doesn't mean that makes them non-Christian or subject to unfair characterizations.

I don't have to be Christian to keep Christians from being unfairly attacked.

 

[peepnklown]

I assert that if you were an expert on God you would not be an atheist. If you were on expert on Christianity I doubt that you would be compelled to disbelieve.

I never claimed to be an expert on God. I said that one doesn’t have to believe in a subject to be knowledgeable about the subject. The whole expert on God paragraph is a red herring. The Jesus paragraph is a red herring. I would like to stop this nonsense, let’s get down to the main point. First, define Christianity. Second, create a list of beliefs held by Mormons that are not Christian. Third, support it with scripture. Please, do you own homework!

 

[Bevlina]

*Mod Hat On*


Please keep the thread on topic or it will be closed.
Thankyou.


*Mod Hat Off*

 

[DjDan]

Topic is regarding wether or not Mormons are Christian.
For this to be 'concluded', one must discuss first, 'what is a christian' and wether or not mormonism agrees with this term.

 

[MarsHill]

Is there a problem with me telling CaDan I appreciate his humour and what he has to say?

I appreciate CaDan's humor as well. I was stating that my point was not directed to him eventhough he responded to it as if I had directed it to him.

I've noticed his humor on a few other threads with similar topics.