Originally Posted by mormonheretic
Irish Catholics and Protestants have fought wars for years. They believe in Christ. Does Christ accept them, or do they work iniquity?
When I watch the news or read a history of ireland, I do not know who is Christian and who isn't. Were there no christians fighting in World War II? If there were, which country were they fighting for?
Phoebe, it appears to me we are not communicating very well. "Does Christ accept them?" is looking for an answer like "yes, Christ accepts both Protestants and Catholics as they war with each other", or "no, Christ rejects anyone who fights war in his name, and believes they work iniquity." Then you could expand on why you feel the way you do. You responded with a question; that leaves me unsure of your answer of "yes" or "no". Lest I be accused of not answering your questions, let me answer your questions.
Yes, there were Christians fighting in WW2. Christians fought in many countries. I do not know why you are asking me which country they are fighting for. The Ireland Protestant/Catholic clashes are over religion. WW2 was not fought over religion--it was fought to defeat Nazi fascism, and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was not a religious war like the Irish conflict is, so it appears to me WW2 and the Irish conflict are apples and oranges. Perhaps you could explain why you think they are connected, because I'm not seeing a correlation that you seem to be pointing out.
Originally Posted by mormonheretic
During the Crusades, Catholic Christians attacked Eastern Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Does Christ accept Catholic and Orthodox warriors, or do they work iniquity?
Have there been any LDS fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? Did LDS fight in Vietnam? Did LDS fight in Missouri?
One again, you answered my question with a question, and left your position unclear. To answer your questions, Yes there are LDS fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, I'm not seeing a parallel here. The Afghanistan War is not a religious war. Al Qaida bombed the World Trade Center. We wanted to capture Osama Bin Ladin. It is not a religious war. I do not understand why you bring this up.
Yes, LDS fought in Vietnam. The purpose of the Vietnam war was to prevent the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. It was not a religious war. I do not understand why you bring this up.
Yes, LDS fought in Missouri. Perhaps this could be considered a religious war. However, most Missourians in the 1830's did not care about what the Mormons believed; They were concerned the Mormons were tipping the balance of political power. Missouri was a slave state. When WW Phelps published an article welcoming people of all races to come to Independence, slaveholders took offense and destroyed the Mormon press. Additionally, Missourians were concerned that Mormons voted in blocs, and felt this was not a true democratic form of government (and I agree that bloc voting is not truly democratic.)
So, it appears to me that the fighting in Missouri had more to do with politics than religion, though certainly the Mormon bloc voting and political control of Jackson County played a part. Mormon responses to hostile Missouri mobbings were generally defensive in nature, though some offenses did occur as well. However, I'm not seeing the same parallels with the Crusades or Irish religious wars. Please explain why you are asking me this, because I do not understand. If you are making the point that Mormons worked iniquity when they destroyed Missouri businesses, then yes, I agree, Mormons did work iniquity. However, I think that 80% of Mormon actions during this 1830-1840 time period were reponses were to harrassment, mobbings and beatings instigated by Missourians. Those responsible for the Haun's Mill Massacre no doubt have great blood on their hands and worked great iniquity. Mormons committed no such atrocities such as Haun's Mill in Missouri, and I hope that nobody here has the audacity to claim that Mormons were justly persecuted. Sure, the Mormons weren't perfect, but Haun's Mill makes every other Mormon action in Missouri pale in comparison. Mormon fighting in Missouri was primarily defensive in nature, and I hope nobody here believes that Mormons didn't have a right to defend themselves.
Originally Posted by mormonheretic
In my opinion, it takes a bit more than simply faith in Christ. What do you think?
What takes more than faith in Christ? You did not make that clear.
Sorry that wasn't more clear, but (1)I thought you were following my conversation with New Dawn, who claimed that "faith alone in Christ" was all that was required for salvation and (2) I didn't expect you to chop this question separate from my previous questions about the Crusades. I brought up the Crusades and the Irish conflict because people on both sides seemed to believe deeply in Christ. They took up arms to defend their faith. If "faith alone in Christ" was all that is needed, then both sides should be welcomed into the arms of Christ for defending their faith, right? Or are Crusaders working iniquity? That's what I am asking you. "Yes" and "No" are very useful here as it generally makes your answers more clear.
I'll answer my own question: "are Crusaders working iniquity?" Yes, I believe they are working iniquity, and I believe Christ is unhappy with them for attacking Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning?
Originally Posted by mormonheretic
I bring these situations up because most people clearly see that Hindus are unbelievers.
Are you trying to tell us that Hindus are Christians?
You chopped up my comment a little strange; this really tied in with the previous comment. To answer your question, Hindus are not Christians, and I believe I made that pretty clear when I said "most people clearly see that Hindus are unbelievers." I'm not sure where you're getting confused here, because I think that was pretty clear. Hindus do not believe in Christ and are not Christians.
Is faith in Christ not so important after all?
Faith in Christ is very important, but it is not the "end-all" that New Dawn made it sound at first. New Dawn made a clarification, and I understand the position better now. I am glad that New Dawn doesn't think that someone can profess in Christ and then commit murder in a Crusade and be saved. I agree with that position. I am still trying to understand New Dawn and your position on Hindus, and I still haven't received an answer saying "Hindus are all damned", or "some Hindus will get into heaven." I am sure you understand that Mormons don't simply believe in only heaven and hell; we believe that honorable men (Hindu or not) will receive some sort of glory, perhaps more than a "faithful" Crusader who engaged in war crimes. I'd like to get a clearer understanding of New Dawn and Phoebe's position, but it seems like neither of you answer the question directly and make your position clear. I hope I have made my position clear.
Why do LDS send missionaries to Hindu homes?
I'm surprised by the question, because I think you know the answer: to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life.
Originally Posted by mormonheretic
I think Catholic Christians were clearly in the wrong when they attacked Orthodox Christians.
Which Catholics were Christians and which Orthodox were Christians?
Here is another example of not addressing the issue directly. I'm not sure what you mean by Christian, so let me offer a few scenarios; hopefully one of them answers your question. If a Christian is defined as "someone who believes in Christ", then Catholics and Orthodox are both Christians. If a Christian is defined as a "true believer in Christ, who does not work iniquity", then I would say the aggressor Catholics are not Christians because they worked iniquity. The Orthodox Christians were merely defending themselves; I see them as defending themselves by a foreign invader. Is this what you are getting at? I believe so, because you said next,
If a Catholic is an unbeliever, he is not a Christian.
It appears we are in agreement here. I am glad to see you do not believe "faith in Jesus" saves at all costs.
Originally Posted by mormonheretic
(Of course, other Crusades attacked Muslims and Jews as well.) Perhaps Irish Catholics and Protestants are also unbelievers. What do you think--should these groups be considered unbelievers?
Who can say that there are no believers among those who profess faith in Christ?
This seems to contradict your statement that "If a Catholic is an unbeliever, he is not a Christian." I am confused again on your position.
If someone does not have faith in Christ, he is an unbeliever for sure.
So, can you please clarify you position on Hindus that do not have faith in Christ? I am not asking you to judge them, but I am asking what is your understanding of their state: salvation or damnation?
Originally Posted by mormonheretic
I also think that God will be happier with a good Hindu than a bad Christian. LDS theology seems to indicate that the good Hindu can inherit a higher degree of glory than say a Crusading Christian. Does your belief system offer that, or is the good Hindu assigned to Hell because he does not have faith in Christ?
Is it about being good apart from Christ?
As you know, Mormons believe that there are 3 degrees of Glory. Those who accept Christ fully will inherit the highest glory, but a good Hindu who does not fully accept Christ will not obtain the highest glory. However, the good Hindu does have an opportunity to receive a higher glory than a Christian that murders in God's name.
If I understand your position correctly, you don't have this "gradient" scale. Either man goes to Heaven or Hell. Hindus have no shot at Heaven, because they do not believe in Christ. Plundering Christian Crusaders probably will go to Hell because they are not "true believers." If my understanding of your position is correct, then all Hindus are damned. Is this correct?
I'm getting confused about why you think Christ died on the cross. What did He actually accomplish by that? Does His blood save individuals who come to Him or does it save all people regardless of what god they serve?
As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. Christ's resurrection is freely given to all men--Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day.
The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ's blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god.
A bad Christian is most easily discerned by his fruits. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Those who use religious to swindle, and murder are some of the "baddest" Christians.
Don't you mean non-Christian?
It depends how one defines Christian/non-Christian. A bad Christian could be considered a non-Christian, but not necessarily. Some people use the term Christian to exclude Mormons, so I need to know your definition before I can clearly answer the question.
I know this is long, but I think it takes more that a "sound bite" to answer questions with clarity. Now that I have answered yours, will you please answer mine? (Yes and No are very helpful words when you choose to answer.)