How Is It That Mormons Call Themselves Christians?

[Optimus Prime]

If you want to take that approach, I believe it would be more appropriate to have several neutral parties craft the definitions of Christianity, rather than the two of us. Let's say we had three or four interested parties define Christianity, then it will be a truly neutral definition, wouldn't you think?

[AAFitz]

add: If we started defining christians by their actions.....there would be a lot less counted christians no doubt...especially if we guaged that to the actual teachings of Christ.

Ah, the timeless debate of grace versus works!

More like..."stupid is as stupid does."

So, then where do you stand? Are people saved by grace or by works? And what is your basis for this conclusion?

Please include in your conclusion how the man on the cross next to Jesus was then granted passage to Paradise, if one is saved by works.

Its a very common trick...

There's no trick here. That video cites the original texts. To call that video outlandish and absurd is to call the religion of the Mormons outlandish and absurd.

But I'm not calling the Mormons outlandish and absurd, I'm just saying I fail to see how they are Christians.

No, i meant the trick about calling Optomis upset.

As far as your failure to see logic...well, we understand how that might happen.

And, where do I stand? I stand on the principle that any true God of good would only be able to by definition be able to reward people based on their actions, thoughts and deeds on an infinite scale that a mere human could not possibly comprehend. I believe that with or without a God, treating people right, and helping them, and making the world better for not only people, but all creatures on it are simultaneously intrinsicly good, and a reward upon themselves. I also believe that this was the main message of Jesus, whether he was actually god son, or just truly a gifted speaker, who understood the virtue of what it means to be human. Instead of creating rules and silly and a convoluted religion, his was quite simple, and inarguably one that would truly be the religion of any true God.

I believe that very simple logic "dictates" that no true God of Good...would be concerned with praise, thanks or worship of any kind...the same way no good parent parents their child for those things. A true parent, simply wants the best for their children, and certainly wants their other children to help each other, and treat them well. Further, while a parent is human, they do suffer the emotions of pride and ego, so could be affected by such praise or thanks, whereas any God of Good could not by definition....ergo...any praise, worship or thanks is just a bribe, when its clear that any true God would only and could only actually reward the actions of the person...not the words they spoke. While religion and religious practices are often helpful to the people...they are just that, helpful to the person doing them, and often, done for this very reason by the person...so again...it comes down to how that person treats others, as the only possible basis, for any possible presumed reward...and since any God of Good, would set up a system of reward that was infinitely fair, than one need not worry about any tiny detail, or any aspect of how they worship...or who gave them their belief system...since most have no control over such things. A true believer would know that a true God of Good would be infinitely fair, and that you will get whats coming to you.... and, if you live a great life, help others and lead the life that Christ spoke of....if there is a God...that will simply be rewarded for what it is...

To think any God of Good would want anything more, or less, is to cheapen the very idea of a God in the first place.

[pimpdave]

If you want to take that approach, I believe it would be more appropriate to have several neutral parties craft the definitions of Christianity, rather than the two of us. Let's say we had three or four interested parties define Christianity, then it will be a truly neutral definition, wouldn't you think?

Sounds interesting, but these entities should be open about what affiliation and background they have (if it's three or four Mormons defining Christianity, the sampling would be slanted).

I have to say, I'm a bit reticent to this idea just because I already know you, Optimus. And you, to an extent, know me. I'd like to think we can both trust each other to be sincere on this topic, but can we be certain of the others? Would these others providing definitions be sincere or be honest about their affiliation (if any)?

I'll state right now for the purposes of this discussion, that I was raised Presbyterian, I have attended services for just about every other denomination and learned a fair amount about their various doctrines. I also had a close friend when I was growing up who was Mormon, and who gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon, but I haven't read it in a long time. I need to dig through my boxes of books to find it.

Then we can argue over specific passages!

No, i meant the trick about calling Optomis upset.

As far as your failure to see logic...well, we understand how that might happen.

Except I never called Optimus upset. You said I did, but I didn't. I said that he was responding in the I'm-being-persecuted mode. I never said he was upset. There's a difference.

As for my failure to see logic, maybe it's your failure to understand what things like words mean that leads you to think I'm failing in logic.

[Optimus Prime]

Whichever you prefer then I suppose, pimpdave. I will say it's funny to see you say that you "know" me, especially given I've had very little direct interaction with you, even as an admin.

As far as my definition of Christianity, I usually just go with what (unless I'm incredibly misinformed) seems to be the prevailing idea of believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ and believing that he suffered and died for the sins of humanity and that through believing in his teachings and the "atonement" (different denominations use different words for it I think) we can all be saved and go to heaven (or whatever your denomination refers to it as).

I'm afraid I'm not going to get much more comprehensive than that.

[pimpdave]

Whichever you prefer then I suppose, pimpdave. I will say it's funny to see you say that you "know" me,
especially given I've had very little direct interaction with you, even as an admin.

What I meant is that I know you'll be representing the Mormon side, based on our limited interaction, and that you're sincere in your beliefs and representation of those beliefs. Not like, I know you super well or even your real name. As for the definition I'll provide, I just want to consult with a spiritual leader I know first, to make sure I'm not misrepresenting anything (he just got back from Haiti, having been there during the earthquake, so I'm not expecting him to get back to me right away).

[Johnny Rockets]

Hey Dave?

You uh.....get the feeling that you’re the only one here spoiling for a debate on the nuances of a particular brand of faith?

Because Christianity by definition is the belief in Christ. Not the how or the why.
The division of opinion and the bastardization of it all are caused my man and his political and personal agendas. The evils and ills caused by man in the name of religion are universal.

So the whole “Are Mormons Christian “debate is pointless and stupid. Regardless of how ridiculous you find their specific practices, because they worship Christ, they have to be.

Not necessarily very good ones, but Jesus will deal with them individually at a later date.







By the way:
Quote: "and how it perpetuates itself, much like Juggalos)"

One of the better groups of people to examine if you wish to start your own religion, cult, or what have you. More than likely by accident then design, this little social experiment grew to some amazing heights.



Johnny Rockets

[AAFitz]

If you want to take that approach, I believe it would be more appropriate to have several neutral parties craft the definitions of Christianity, rather than the two of us. Let's say we had three or four interested parties define Christianity, then it will be a truly neutral definition, wouldn't you think?

Sounds interesting, but these entities should be open about what affiliation and background they have (if it's three or four Mormons defining Christianity, the sampling would be slanted).

I have to say, I'm a bit reticent to this idea just because I already know you, Optimus. And you, to an extent, know me. I'd like to think we can both trust each other to be sincere on this topic, but can we be certain of the others? Would these others providing definitions be sincere or be honest about their affiliation (if any)?

I'll state right now for the purposes of this discussion, that I was raised Presbyterian, I have attended services for just about every other denomination and learned a fair amount about their various doctrines. I also had a close friend when I was growing up who was Mormon, and who gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon, but I haven't read it in a long time. I need to dig through my boxes of books to find it.

Then we can argue over specific passages!

No, i meant the trick about calling Optomis upset.

As far as your failure to see logic...well, we understand how that might happen.

Except I never called Optimus upset. You said I did, but I didn't. I said that he was responding in the I'm-being-persecuted mode. I never said he was upset. There's a difference.

As for my failure to see logic, maybe it's your failure to understand what things like words mean that leads you to think I'm failing in logic.

nope...its my uderstanding of words that leads me to believe you failed to see logic. My understanding the word "christianity" in this case, which simply means belief in christ. You seem to have a different definition. Mormons now believe in christ. they are christians. It could not be more simple, or logical, which makes your post, that they are not christians illogical.....

Your question is answered however.

As far as the difference between being upset and Im being persecuted mode......well...im sure there is a difference...if you really want to see it.

[jonesthecurl]

I think Dave's point is that, just because someone says "I believe in Jesus" doesn't mean that their Jesus is similar enough to another one to necessarily make sense.

[Neoteny]

You guys think you're being clever with this "belief in Christ" nonsense, but you all seem to be taking for granted that what you mean is self-evident. Indeed, what you mean might be self-evident, but if that is the case, then it is very likely overly simplistic and you should stop displaying your simplistic viewpoints in such a pompous manner.

What does belief in Christ mean? Does it mean the belief that Christ was a guy that lived? Does it mean the belief that Christ was a really moral guy? Does it mean belief that Christ was a prophet of god? Does it mean belief that Christ died on a cross and resurrected? Does it mean belief that Christ was the son of god or literally god on earth? Does it mean belief that Christ is the only way to eternal life? Does it mean the belief that the belief in Christ is necessary even if he didn't even exist? These things all include belief in Christ but are not necessarily all-inclusive.

If JR and AAFitz's opinions on Christianity and "belief in Christ" are really as simplistic as they are trying to detail (I use the preceding term loosely), then I wish they would stop being condescending to pimpdave, and maybe be a little more condescending to their own childish views of "belief in Christ." Indeed, if all it takes to be a "Christian" is a "belief in Christ," then every human being on the face of the planet who accepts the existence of a dude named "Jesus" who lived 2000 years ago could be called a Christian; this would include people across hundreds of religions (and non-religion, including myself) and would pretty much negate any reason to make the distinction. Additionally, the fact that so many "Christians" think there is more to being a "Christian" begs that there is more to be said (not to mention disagree) about the distinction.

So, please, don't be a tool. I don't know if you just don't like talking about it (if that's the case, just f*ck off) or if you seriously believe what you guys wrote, but I think you need to seriously reconsider.

EDIT: Fastposted by jones in his particular manner.

[jsholty4690]

In its simplest form a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God and died on the cross for the sins of humanity. If I'm wrong, somebody please correct me.

[Neoteny]

In its simplest form a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God and died on the cross for the sins of humanity. If I'm wrong, somebody please correct me.

Don't be silly. "Belief in Jesus" is perfectly clear.

Also, you will find people who consider themselves Christians who would dispute you on your claim that Jesus was the "son of god." There are those who believe he was god on earth, and those who take "son" to be a bit more figurative, as in "we are all sons (daughters) of god."

The issue is that it is not inclusive enough to account for all who consider themselves "Christians." I doubt we can seriously create a definition that includes everyone in a manner that everyone will find acceptable. If we made it so broad (like "belief in Christ") it would cease to have any meaning. As such, it is necessary to create a point where some would be excluded in order for the term to have any real bearing on an intellectual level.

Am I wrong?

Edit: Added a quotation mark and this disclaimer.

[jimboston]

It would be funny to do a similiar cartoon based on the Old Testament and another based on some of the things that 'happened' during the time of Christ. I bet they would look ridiculour too.

[Ray Rider]

It says in the Bible that even the demons believe in God and tremble. A person has to define what they mean or it's virtually meaningless.

The Apostle's Creed has been used for over a thousand years to briefly summarize the core Christian beliefs. Here is the early version of it, called "The Old Roman Creed:"
I believe in God Almighty
And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried
And the third day rose from the dead
Who Ascended into heaven
And sits on the right hand of the Father
Whence he comes to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost
The holy church
The remission of sins
The resurrection of the flesh
The life everlasting.

[jonesthecurl]

Well that's not gonna include anyone from a different church...

[Army of GOD]

What the Hell does it matter anyway?

I'm a *cough* former *cough* Catholic, and couldn't care less if some random Shintoist called themself a Christian.

1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress

Winrar

[demonfork]

Pimpdave...

When a Mormon professes to be a Christian do you think that he/she is lying? Do you think that they are trying to fool everyone into thinking that they are something that they are not?

[Frigidus]

Pimpdave...

When a Mormon professes to be a Christian do you think that he/she is lying? Do you think that they are trying to fool everyone into thinking that they are something that they are not?

I think he believes they're deluding themselves. Sort of like how someone saying they are a moderate doesn't make them a moderate.

[pimpdave]

Pimpdave...

When a Mormon professes to be a Christian do you think that he/she is lying? Do you think that they are trying to fool everyone into thinking that they are something that they are not?

I think he believes they're deluding themselves. Sort of like how someone saying they are a moderate doesn't make them a moderate.

Maybe, but I'm just asking questions right now. Maybe we can get some actual interesting (and ideally educational) religious discussion in here, instead of the "God is Real! God is fake!" shouting matches that typically take shape.

I find it particularly suspicious when a religion isn't forthcoming and completely open about their doctrine or their past, which is another way in which Mormonism is vastly different from Christianity.

[Johnny Rockets]

You guys think you're being clever with this "belief in Christ" nonsense, but you all seem to be taking for granted that what you mean is self-evident. Indeed, what you mean might be self-evident, but if that is the case, then it is very likely overly simplistic and you should stop displaying your simplistic viewpoints in such a pompous manner.

What does belief in Christ mean? Does it mean the belief that Christ was a guy that lived? Does it mean the belief that Christ was a really moral guy? Does it mean belief that Christ was a prophet of god? Does it mean belief that Christ died on a cross and resurrected? Does it mean belief that Christ was the son of god or literally god on earth? Does it mean belief that Christ is the only way to eternal life? Does it mean the belief that the belief in Christ is necessary even if he didn't even exist? These things all include belief in Christ but are not necessarily all-inclusive.

If JR and AAFitz's opinions on Christianity and "belief in Christ" are really as simplistic as they are trying to detail (I use the preceding term loosely), then I wish they would stop being condescending to pimpdave, and maybe be a little more condescending to their own childish views of "belief in Christ." Indeed, if all it takes to be a "Christian" is a "belief in Christ," then every human being on the face of the planet who accepts the existence of a dude named "Jesus" who lived 2000 years ago could be called a Christian; this would include people across hundreds of religions (and non-religion, including myself) and would pretty much negate any reason to make the distinction. Additionally, the fact that so many "Christians" think there is more to being a "Christian" begs that there is more to be said (not to mention disagree) about the distinction.

So, please, don't be a tool. I don't know if you just don't like talking about it (if that's the case, just f*ck off) or if you seriously believe what you guys wrote, but I think you need to seriously reconsider.

EDIT: Fastposted by jones in his particular manner.

Assumptive Dick.

There is nothing condescending with what I wrote. If you believe PRIMARILY, as in you Worship the dude then you would be considered a Christian. The rest is a human, social and cultural argument developed by man consisting of the methods and assumptions of what Christians believe Christs expectations are.

All Christ's message boils down to is:

1) Believe in me.
2) Love one another.

It took humanity in all of its stupidity to f*ck it all up.

It's pretty fucking simple, dude.

When you debate on what is the right way, or the wrong way, and who is, or is not "Christian" just remember to gut check
#1 and #2. If your causing harm, in the name of whatever god you believe in the you just might be a shitty Christian.
Expect to pay for that behavior.

JRock

(Before I get pigeon-holed, I neither go to church, read the bible, or belong to any organized religion, which I believe has fucked up the message from the get-go.)

[demonfork]

Pimpdave...

When a Mormon professes to be a Christian do you think that he/she is lying? Do you think that they are trying to fool everyone into thinking that they are something that they are not?

I think he believes they're deluding themselves. Sort of like how someone saying they are a moderate doesn't make them a moderate.

Maybe, but I'm just asking questions right now. Maybe we can get some actual interesting (and ideally educational) religious discussion in here, instead of the "God is Real! God is fake!" shouting matches that typically take shape.

I find it particularly suspicious when a religion isn't forthcoming and completely open about their doctrine or their past, which is another way in which Mormonism is vastly different from Christianity.

What past doctrine are Mormons not open about?

[2dimes]

You should totally read the bible J, don't approach it like a regular book. Just open it to where ever and let it talk to you. If you're into it after that maybe try to read it but it's a tough go trying to read front to back. I recomend hanging in the new testament too but there's some fun wrath in the front part.

[2dimes]

Maybe, but I'm just asking questions right now. Maybe we can get some actual interesting (and ideally educational) religious discussion in here, instead of the "God is Real! God is fake!" shouting matches that typically take shape.

I find it particularly suspicious when a religion isn't forthcoming and completely open about their doctrine or their past, which is another way in which Mormonism is vastly different from Christianity.

What past doctrine are Mormons not open about?

Seriously?

[Johnny Rockets]

You should totally read the bible J, don't approach it like a regular book. Just open it to where ever and let it talk to you. If you're into it after that maybe try to read it but it's a tough go trying to read front to back. I recomend hanging in the new testament too but there's some fun wrath in the front part.

I've read it. Nice piece of ancient Hebrew history blended with fables, misquotes, and now irrelevant laws and customs. But considering every revision has altered the previous document to serve the at-the-time political environment and agendas of whoever was holding theocratic power at moment, I'll pass on letting it rule my day to day life.

I give it 2 stars.

JRock

[demonfork]

Maybe, but I'm just asking questions right now. Maybe we can get some actual interesting (and ideally educational) religious discussion in here, instead of the "God is Real! God is fake!" shouting matches that typically take shape.

I find it particularly suspicious when a religion isn't forthcoming and completely open about their doctrine or their past, which is another way in which Mormonism is vastly different from Christianity.

What past doctrine are Mormons not open about?

Seriously?

Yes seriously...could you please enlighten me?

BTW before you answer and just so you know I haven't come across very many people (including Mormons) that know more about Mormonism than I do. Religion is a hobby of mine and I am especially fascinated with Mormonism so if you're a typical anti-mormon with typical anti-mormon regurgitations please spare yourself the trouble.

[pimpdave]

BTW before you answer and just so you know I haven't come across very many people (including Mormons) that know more about Mormonism than I do. Religion is a hobby of mine and I am especially fascinated with Mormonism so if you're a typical anti-mormon with typical anti-mormon regurgitations please spare yourself the trouble.

So then why was it okay for Joseph Smith to defraud people out of their money and to kidnap, rape, and murder in order to feed his criminal sex obsession with young girls, but it is no longer acceptable according to official Mormon statements?

Why was it acceptable for Joseph Smith to burn down a newspaper critical of his fabricated beliefs and attempt to murder the editor of that periodical?

Why did Joseph Smith get rid of dissenters, when Jesus continued to accept and love Thomas?