Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't know who issues this "rulebook" at all. Who issues the Union card? Mormons think they're Christian. The Pew Research Council thinks they're Christian. The National Survey of Religious Identification thinks they're Christian. The American Religious Identity Survey thinks they're Christian.

It's absurd to say that non-Christian secular groups can decide who is and isn't Christian . Utter nonsense. What do they know about theology? They know statistics, but not theology. They don't know distinctions or unifications. If they were major multidenominational Christian religious councils, that would be another matter entirely. But the denominations have rejected these groups.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

WHAT GIVES YOU PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON THEIR IDENTITY?

Everyone has the right to decide for themselves how they view other people. That doesn't make any difference on what they are, but everyone has the right to form their own views and think their own thoughts. A Christian would likely have a greater understanding, given their greater understanding of what it is to be a Christian than most non-Christians have, to determine who is and is not a Christian than a secular organization.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Their beliefs? Eh?

Maybe a Satanist thinks he's christian, and if he told any secular institution, they'd think it was kinda cool, adn list him as one. BUT HE WOULDN'T BE.

And I have NEVER heard that Mormons classify themselves as Christians. Externally they resemble christians, and they may depend on that the way I do on people's knowledge of Catholicism so I don't have to explain three hours worth of history explaining Orthodoxy.

I heard a Mormon religious leader say that their movement is trying to get acceptance as Christians from the other denominations, but as yet haven't had any luck.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

We've come pretty far from post 721, where you asked "isn't there something rather flawed in the logic that, "everyone thinks so, so it is so." And how does everyone thinking it is true (assuming for a moment that they do, though I disagree) make it objective?

So. Is our stand that what is, is, or is our standard that majority rules? If every person on the whole PLANET believed Mormons weren't Christian, that would have no impact on whether they were or not, if God is to be the judge.

There doesn't seem to be much point in my dragging in example after example of doctrinal differences that mattered to Christians (like the Catholic Church's rejection, until the 1960's, of churches in the Orthodox tradition, or hundreds of years of war in Ireland) if you won't accept that they exist. I can post examples from 20 websites explaining that those churches don't think Roman Catholics are Christian, but you think they aren't 'major" enough. Well, the Protestant tradition is like that. It doesn't have the same central post office that the Catholic churches do. And if I bring in groups that do NOT have a dog in the fight, because they're secular, they're unimportant, too. Talk about proving a negative. I've given you several lists of Christians. You haven't given me one. Because you CANNOT list 30 churches that haven't had doctrinal disputes. Give me your list of "major denominations" that refuse to consider the Mormon Church Christian, or shut up.

Originally Posted by Leif Erikson

So sisterandcousinandaunt, in your opinion, the Graduate School of the City University of New York has the right to decide who is Christian and who is not? A secular research center gets to decide for the Christians who is Christian, in your opinion, and not the major denominations?

How does one go about proving a negative? You're giving me an impossible task. Show me major denominations that in modern times accuse one another of being non-Christian.

Me and the major Christian denominations .

I don't know very much about these groups or the positions of the major denominations as regards them. I personally believe some of their beliefs to be heresies, but I don't know what the major denominations say, and so haven't much comment to make on this.

Sure there are individuals who say that. Who cares about individuals? They are an inexpressably small sample of evidence. It's large groups, major denominations that matter.

Your only evidence is a single church. The evidence of a single church is not the same as the evidence of a major denomination. It's like saying, "There is a major poverty problem in the US! The proof is that I know a poor man!" If you know one poor man, that doesn't mean there's a major poverty problem. If a Baptist church claims Catholics aren't Christian, that doesn't mean that this is the position of the Baptist denomination as a whole.

Leif, seriously. Are you registered to vote in the US? Here's a quote from
http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle3282.html in 2004.

Mormon representation in American politics has grown beyond demographic equilibrium. With over five million members living in the United States (11 million world wide), Mormons account for 1.6% of the U.S. population, but more than 5% of elected representatives in congress. Please don’t tell Jesse Jackson.

Just a few examples: in the House of Representatives there is Jeff Flake (AZ), John Doolittle (CA), Wally Herger (CA), Howard McKeon (CA), Ernest Istook (OK), Mike Simpson (ID), Thomas Udall (NM), Rob Bishop (UT), and Chris Cannon (UT). All except Udall are Republican. (Udall notes his faith as unspecified, but he comes from a long historical line of Mormon politicians) There are 21 Mormon members in the House of Representatives all together.

In the Senate there are 5 Mormons. Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, both from Utah, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho and Gordon Smith from Oregon (the latter is considered a moderate Republican). The fifth member of the Senate is the ultimate exception to the rule: Senator Harry Reid, senior member of the Democrat leadership and, by all accounts, left-leaning.

Outside Washington you have the successful gubernatorial candidacy of Olympic organizer Mitt Romney, Bay Buchanan, radio talk show host Glenn Beck, and most recently, former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was confirmed as Secretary of the EPA.

If Mormons WERE Christian they'd be the third largest batch in the country. Mitt Romney declared today. You have a vague sense that Pentacostals are heretics, and now you'll put that to a plebiscite, if you think that will win your point.

The only place this behavior is described in the Bible is as 'Pharisee,' and that's the title they go by in Screwtape, too. Is that the title you're working for?

[Rían]

I think you're going a bit overboard with those last two sentences, Sis.

Here's my personal experience - I don't consider Mormons to be Christian, and neither do any of the non-Mormon Christians that I've talked to or read from. The main reason would be their concept of who/what Jesus and God are - that they were once people and just got better, basically, and that we, too, can become gods just like them. They can certainly call themselves "Christian" if they want to, though - that's their right - and it's my right to determine whether or not I think it is an accurate description.

Originally Posted by sis

If every person on the whole PLANET believed Mormons weren't Christian, that would have no impact on whether they were or not, if God is to be the judge.

IYO, how would God judge that? What standards would he use?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't know who issues this "rulebook" at all. Who issues the Union card? Mormons think they're Christian. The Pew Research Council thinks they're Christian. The National Survey of Religious Identification thinks they're Christian. The American Religious Identity Survey thinks they're Christian.

WHAT GIVES YOU PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON THEIR IDENTITY?

Then what gives the people that you listed above this right?


(btw, congrats on 100 posts! )

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But major Christian doctrines are not so controversial. You're right that there are some issues where there is one passage found somewhere that seems to say one thing, but someone disagrees. That tends to divide people. But on all the central doctrines of Christianity, there are multiple passages that all say the same thing.

Most agree on what I would call the central doctrines, and I'd say you can even go further than christianity on many central concepts like treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself, which spans way beyond christanity. The problem is what many consider "central". It's the details which followers tend to put way too much weight upon, and often disagree over. How to treat and place within society those of different sexes. How much you truely respect those who have different opinions than your own.

What I've noticed from observing the strongly religious over time is a certain inability to see beyond what I would call fairly minor divisions. Continually seeing the glass as half full or less when relating to others, when they are often so close. I can't believe any creator would give its creation such free will only to expect such conformity as an outcome.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So people can be Christian and have a lot of differences. There aren't disputes that I know of between the major denominations, in modern times anyway, which cause one to call the other non-Christian. For we still agree on the essentials.

But what if they are not "christian" yet agree on many of the central principles? The ones that truely matter in day to day existence. Is the label "christian" stronger than the practices expected of one?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They are both right, only being spoken to by God in different ways, and then mistakenly believing that their interpretation is the only correct one.

How do we know that they are mistaken? Mohammed had dreams and revelations as well. You've layed yours out very eloquently and I respect it. But how can I give more weight to them than to the thousands of others throughout history, some having no relation to christianity at all?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

God is the only absolute that can be relied upon. Hence, he is "the truth," as truth cannot be understood with any certainty outside of him, and the absolutes cannot be known without him. As there is no certain truth we can rely on outside of him, he is "the truth."

I don't personally put a whole lot of weight on "the truth". Life is about adjusting to circumstances, compromising, trying to understand one another. I supposed if you only have an eye on the afterlife that "the truth" reigns above all, but in my mind that kind of outlook inspires people to put bombs on their backs.

Relying on absolutes insists that there is only one path and one end, and this thing we call "free will" is simply our ability to not follow that one right path. The right path is not the "free" one, but the one we are supposed to follow.

If this were the case, and there were only absolutes, I'd say to god, "why did you bother?" It would be like having twenty children in hopes of turning out one good one, as opposed to trying to lead them all to their own particular happiness. Simply put, why give your creation free will if you don't want them to use it in any way other than the one you intended?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And your disagreement with me in page 238 of the Philosophy Thread, where you said all is still relative because it's still humanity deciding whether or not to rely on God, and so it still comes down to relative humans, fails on two counts.

First is the logical flaw that the fact that some humans might choose to ignore God when he has plainly revealed his truth to them doesn't mean that God is unreliable or that truth is relative, but merely that humans are unreliable.

I'd say that it means that god is a bad communicator, because he hasn't "plainly revealed" anything. I believe truth is relative because I do not believe god exists. But, if he does, then he has done a mediocre job at best on revealing the specifics of said "truth".

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The second problem with that position is that paradise is not due to our strength in holding to God, but rather is due to his strength in holding to us. In the final analysis, nothing depends on relative humans and their relative human knowledge, but on the absolute God and his absolute knowledge and absolute power.

Where's the free will in that? You are painting a god that does nothing more than throw a bunch of rats into a cage and reward those who find the right way out. I can't imagine any creator motivated by love would be that cold.

[Lief Erikson]

Forgive the enormity of this response, brownjenkins!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Most agree on what I would call the central doctrines, and I'd say you can even go further than christianity on many central concepts like treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself, which spans way beyond christanity.

And those who apply such principles to themselves benefit from them, no matter what religion they adhere to.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem is what many consider "central". It's the details which followers tend to put way too much weight upon, and often disagree over. How to treat and place within society those of different sexes. How much you truely respect those who have different opinions than your own.

An issue doesn't have to be "central", or necessary for salvation and to be a Christian, to be very important socially and just in everyday life. That people pay a lot of attention to the "details" you mention is good, but as you point out, many times people who are really very similar tend to focus too much on points of difference.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

What I've noticed from observing the strongly religious over time is a certain inability to see beyond what I would call fairly minor divisions. Continually seeing the glass as half full or less when relating to others, when they are often so close. I can't believe any creator would give its creation such free will only to expect such conformity as an outcome.

Neither do I. That's why I'm not saying every denomination but one is damned . Not very many Christians say that. I wouldn't even assert that all non-Christians are damned, because there's one scripture that suggests people can be saved after death, and another that suggests they can be saved in this life by following by nature those things required by the law.

I think that there is an element to this that being an outsider looking in on religions, with a different personal way of life, the differences that they consider important may not look important to you because of your different values. But I agree with your main point that many times, people do focus too much on the issues of division.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But what if they are not "christian" yet agree on many of the central principles? The ones that truely matter in day to day existence. Is the label "christian" stronger than the practices expected of one?

I guess my previous two paragraphs pretty much respond to this. I don't think that the label "Christian" is important at all. How we live matters. Indeed, in the New Testament, descriptions of justice at the Final Judgment are focused upon people's actions.

What everyone needs to be saved is to faith in Christ. The reason that this is so important, in my opinion, is that when you believe, Christ enters you and transforms your actions so that you behave in pure ways. It isn't you being more holy than other people, but God's holiness shining through you. And as one proceeds in one's relationship with him, and his nature enters one more and more fully, his personality dominates.

Some Christians get arrogant and nasty because they believe that they have God and thus are holier than others, not understanding that it is God who is holy and who saved them. Whatever they have, if anything (sometimes I'd say that such people don't have real relationships with God, and such behavior certainly doesn't come from God. True Christianity is characterized by humility), it comes from God and not from them, so arrogance about it is absurd.

But it is true that God focuses to a large extent on the purity of his people. He wants to get rid of evil, sin, all dark actions and thoughts. The more people are freed of these things, the more joyful their everyday lives are and the more good they are as people. I've met some Christians like this, who truly live as God does, and they are very unassuming and are the kindest, most loving people I know. With some of them, love just oozes out of them. You can see it in their eyes and faces, can feel it, and it is there in all their actions.

That isn't to say that there aren't non-Christians who are also very loving. There are, and some of them, I think, have genuine relationships with Jesus or at least the Law without knowing it. King David in Psalms talked about how dearly he loved the words of the Law and meditated on all the Lord's decrees.

I know that my position may look elitist or arrogant, but I don't think it is. Because God saves us- we don't save ourselves, so we are unworthy and are merely made worthy by God's grace. And that grace is available for everyone. Also, God predestined us to have it, so we cannot claim glory for ourselves in having taken what he gave us.

Yet the basic religious viewpoint is this:
God gives grace to people. Then his purity fills them and their lives are transformed. Since their lives are transformed and filled with God, they then behave in kind, loving and pure ways. They sometimes mess up, but God teaches them steadily and purifies them. Thus their actions are right and those of people who don't have God in their hearts, and hence don't have his purity sanctifying and purifying them, often naturally come out wrong. Jesus said, "out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks." So if one is just living one's own life in one's own way, then what comes out of one's mouth and actions isn't likely to be the same as what comes out of the mouth and actions of one who has God in his or her heart.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

How do we know that they are mistaken? Mohammed had dreams and revelations as well. You've layed yours out very eloquently and I respect it. But how can I give more weight to them than to the thousands of others throughout history, some having no relation to christianity at all?

I don't expect you to. If you were sure I had God in my heart and trusted me, then I might expect you to take it more seriously. But since you don't know, not believing in God yourself, of course I wouldn't expect you to. And when I read the accounts of some Christians where they claim revelations and visions, I don't always believe it. I don't know those people. How am I to know whether or not their experiences are true, or if they're from God or their own imaginations? Only if they have a record I can look at, a public life that shines with God, or something like that, then I'd probably be more trusting.

As for you, you know me and so don't think I'm lying, but you don't know that what I experience is any more reliable than the experiences people have in any other religion. So logically you wouldn't know which to pursue, or even if any of them is valid.

My answer is as follows. I believe that if you pray for the true, real God to reveal him or her or itself to you, and truly seek him/her/it in prayer with an open heart. I would strongly advise praying too for an open heart and mind, since often we can't really provide that on our own, at least nowhere near as well as God can.

If you do that sincerely, I believe that Jesus Christ will respond to you. Then you will know from personal experience who the real God is, and you certainly won't need my experience or the experiences of anyone from any other religion to tell you. You could then decide for yourself what you believe, rather than going on guesswork about God, as you currently are.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't personally put a whole lot of weight on "the truth". Life is about adjusting to circumstances, compromising, trying to understand one another.

That's only logical, because human knowledge is all relative and minus God, I can't think of any much more logical approach to reality except searching for God. To me, searching for God if one doesn't have him is the most logical course for one who knows he doesn't have him, and perhaps for one who doesn't believe in him, for if there is no God, despair is the only logical course. And we need more to live than despair.

Minus God, we have the pleasures of this world to immerse ourselves in, but these are potentially transitory. Pain is meaningless. Life is meaningless and without value. Morality comes purely from humans and only exists for the utilitarian ordering of society, but then, the ordering of society in utterly twisted ways is also acceptable, if it is useful for us. If it is useful for us to kill our children (I'm talking about outside of the womb, at the moment), that is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing of value in a child. In fact, if it is of value to us to kill anyone, that might be good (since all that is good is what is good for oneself on a personal level, when it comes down to it). Life as a criminal might make the most sense, if we can be pretty sure we'll get away with the crime and the gain is sufficient. Whatever I feel makes me happiest and I feel most benefits me is fine.

So if someone comes around tomorrow and beats you up and tortures you to death, that's just as fine as getting engaged to be married. It's all meaningless. And as we control our own fates, any stronger force might come along, a force of nature, a random fluke, or someone else's self-centered cruelty, and could abruptly destroy you. Life is a constant state of meaningless, pointless selfishness.

There's no point to it except giving oneself whatever pleasure one can, knowing that one's way of life may be destroyed at any moment and believing that after one dies, one is erased and made as though one never was.

That's a pretty dismal worldview. So in view of that as the only alternative, seeking God is the most logical course. Though one might be just so immersed in one's pleasurable current lifestyle that one doesn't want God to come into it. The trouble with twofold.

Firstly, if God does exist, then one's pleasurable lifestyle might be immoral. As you have repeatedly pointed out, moral values that come from humans are relative. That doesn't mean that God's are, or that right and wrong don't exist on an absolute level. If one purposely skips looking for the truth, one may be called to account for that by God after death, before death or whenever.

Secondly, it goes on the faulty assumption that one's current pleasurable lifestyle is more pleasant or better in the short or long run to continue with than whatever God might have in mind. Maybe it is, but if God is good, it isn't.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I supposed if you only have an eye on the afterlife that "the truth" reigns above all, but in my mind that kind of outlook inspires people to put bombs on their backs.

I don't think that that makes sense. If we live our lives based on lies or mistaken assumptions and beliefs, our judgment on whatever issues we confront will be tainted and we'll make many more mistakes. So seeking to know the truth is very logical for day to day life.

But I know that you think one can't know the truth, because it's all relative. And you think that, very logically, because you assume that knowledge comes from humans. Humans might be wrong. So one can't be sure of anything, so nothing is absolute.

Yet all the same, you seek to come as close as you can to what the state of reality is (and when I say truth, I mean the state of reality), because you know that you'll probably make more mistakes if you don't seek to learn more about the state of reality.

So truth is essential for ordinary, day to day life just as much as it is for the afterlife. I personally didn't begin thinking seriously about the afterlife until a month or two ago. But I've been thinking about truth from day 1.

And people don't go to college to be taught lies. They go to college (hopefully) because they hope to learn something more about the state of reality. Maybe that knowledge will improve their quality of life down the line. So many people care about truth, at least on some level, and the closer one is to truth in whatever subject, the less likely it is that one's life will be fraught with error in that subject.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Relying on absolutes insists that there is only one path and one end,

Depends what religion you adhere to. Hindus believe that they're right about their religion, and many of them think of it in an absolute way, involving reality. Yet according to their religion, all the major religions are valid paths to God. Unitarians tend to feel the same way, I think. So I think that they often do think of there as being one state of reality, or as being absolutes, without just one path. Though I'm not a Hindu or a Unitarian, and neither do I know any of them very closely, so I may well be mistaken on this.

But anyway, what's wrong with the view that there is one path and one end, in your opinion?

And a second question: what's worse about that view, in your opinion, than the view that people live meaningless and often tortured lives here, with self-centered pleasure-fulfillment the most logical course, and with everyone ending up erased in the end anyway?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and this thing we call "free will" is simply our ability to not follow that one right path. The right path is not the "free" one, but the one we are supposed to follow.



If this were the case, and there were only absolutes, I'd say to god, "why did you bother?" It would be like having twenty children in hopes of turning out one good one, as opposed to trying to lead them all to their own particular happiness. Simply put, why give your creation free will if you don't want them to use it in any way other than the one you intended?

I don't believe in free will. Also, even assuming free will did exist, it definitely wouldn't wipe out ultimate divine responsibility. For God is all knowing and all powerful. He knows future and past fully and completely, and he could have made the universe in some other way if he wanted to. He could have fashioned it in a way in which he foreknew everyone would use their free will to choose good. Instead, he fashioned it knowing that people would betray him. In all the possible ways he could have made humans and made the universe, would every single one of them come out with humanity freely sinning? Not likely.

I also don't believe that the Bible is clear about what happens in hell. One passage says body and soul are destroyed in hell. Another passage, one from Daniel, says that hell involves people receiving everlasting disgrace. A passage in Revelation describes the smoke, or the sign of their destruction, rising forever and ever, yet this doesn't have to mean that they are forever being tortured. Though there are many passages in the Bible that say there will be eternal fire, there is only one passage in the Bible that explicitly says people will be tortured forever, and that one is in Revelation, vision-form.

In a word from the Lord given in the Old Testament, God said that Elijah would return before the coming of the Christ. This was fulfilled in John the Baptist, yet John was not a reincarnated Elijah. He had the same spirit as Elijah, which is a different part of a person than the body and soul.

The scripture says body and soul are destroyed in hell, but it doesn't mention the spirit. The spirit, which may encompass a person's beliefs or ideology, their motivations, drives and views, may be what is tortured forever and ever. And that torture is refutation and disgrace.

Hitler is disgraced forever, his views and actions utterly condemned. So his spirit is right now enduring torture. And John the Baptist was Elijah's spirit.

So that's my view on hell. I think hell destroys the body and soul, as the Bible says, but doesn't torture them forever. I think the damned are annihilated.

It's up to God whether or not he'll create someone for temporary purposes and then make them disappear after he's through with their purpose. He is all knowing, and hence is in the best position to decide whether or not that is best. It is human arrogance to say that he couldn't possibly be right in making this choice, or the choice that pain or evil exist on the temporary basis he has given them.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'd say that it means that god is a bad communicator, because he hasn't "plainly revealed" anything. I believe truth is relative because I do not believe god exists. But, if he does, then he has done a mediocre job at best on revealing the specifics of said "truth".

I think the truth about God is very plainly revealed, and revealed in many different ways. There are many very powerful evidences that Christianity is the true religion, but the strongest evidence of all is simply the personal experience of Christ that he offers to anyone who truly seeks him. If you meet him, you know he's real and then you don't have to ask questions or examine evidence anymore.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Where's the free will in that? You are painting a god that does nothing more than throw a bunch of rats into a cage and reward those who find the right way out. I can't imagine any creator motivated by love would be that cold.

You've put your finger on one of the problems I have with free will. Free will means that humans decide whether or not they'll be saved. God saves, but people have to choose his salvation, which means God was not in control of their futures but instead left their futures to them, which is equivalent to leaving it to random chance from God's perspective, since his hands are off.

A God who predestines his creatures to be with him forever, and is in control of their futures and lives, is one who clearly cares about them intimately. He cares about them enough to ensure that those he has chosen reach him. Which means he is picking the "rat" up out of the cave and bringing it to his bosom, rather than waiting to see which one finds its way out.

That is another problem I have with free will. The emphasis on personal achievement. If we make our own decisions in our lives, choosing our own actions and fates, then while God calls to us and seeks that we come near to him, we always have the option of refusing. Hence our eternal destinies are in our own hands, and hence our salvation doesn't come only from God but also from us. And we also have the freedom to turn away from God at any time after the initial encounter, which means that our sanctification comes not only from God but also from us. In fact, to rejoice in salvation at all, we must have faith in ourselves, and in our own capability to hold to God to the end as he holds to us.

So humility is, to a pretty significant extent, voided. For it really is human achievement as well as divine intervention by which we are saved. Which, in my view, stinks.

But I don't think that all who believe in free will have fully thought that through or behave in the logical ways their beliefs should lead them to behave in. So many Christians believe in free will and aren't at all arrogant, but are very humble.

By the same token, many atheists or agnostics also don't follow their beliefs through to their logical conclusions, and rather than leaving pleasure-obsessed, self-centered lives, they lead lives that do assume certain moral values on a basis of good and bad, right and wrong, and what's fair or unfair, even though they don't believe that these values exist.

People do tend to be inconsistent.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

We've come pretty far from post 721, where you asked "isn't there something rather flawed in the logic that, "everyone thinks so, so it is so." And how does everyone thinking it is true (assuming for a moment that they do, though I disagree) make it objective?

So. Is our stand that what is, is, or is our standard that majority rules? If every person on the whole PLANET believed Mormons weren't Christian, that would have no impact on whether they were or not, if God is to be the judge.

The word "Christian" is just a label for people of a certain belief system. Mormons don't share that belief system. Differentiating between the two doesn't say that one is right and the other wrong about their religion, what is or isn't, or how people stand in God's eyes. It's just a description about the basic belief system they hold to, and how close it is to other belief systems.

Would you call a Muslim a Christian? Probably not. And the average Muslim probably doesn't think of himself as a Christian either. But maybe in God's eyes he is one. Who cares about God's eyes, in this case? The term "Muslim" and the term "Christian" and the term "Mormon" are simply labels that describe belief systems, and since the Mormon belief system has very serious differences from the Christian belief system, they aren't considered to be Christian.


I'll probably respond to the rest of your post later. At the moment, after all the time I spent on responding to brownjenkins, I don't have time.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I respect the relationship of the Jews to the Old Testament. I think, no offense intended, that they are wrong on some points. There are some passages which seem to me to be indicating the Trinity.

I would first refer you to certain prophecies of the Messiah found in Isaiah 9:6-7.
But back to the Trinity now, I would like to next point out Genesis 1. The word for "God" which is used is "Elohim," which is plural. So even as we affirm God's oneness, we declare him simultaneously to be plural through the use of that word.

There was a passage in Ezekiel also, where God said that his Spirit roved to and fro across the land, searching for someone to pray for Israel, but could find no one. God is there referred to in plurality as well, but I'm having trouble finding it.

First, we do not consider the Messiah to have come (no offense, but it's pretty easy to write a narrative of Jesus that makes him look like the Messiah without necessarily being it, if you've got the Messiah blueprint in front of you; and this includes Jesus self-narrating [for instance, about the young ass on which he enters Jerusalem].) But more importantly, the Messiah is not part of the Godhead. He's a messenger from God, a savior, but the child is born unto US, not unto God. He is the Anointed One, but so is a king (check out Saul, for instance - Samuel anoints him). He's obviously rather special, but the God bit comes from the New Testament.

As for the Spirit, God IS spirit. He is everywhere and everything. But specifically, the "Spirit of God" is usually used as a metaphor for prophecy (Ezekiel of course being a prophet) e.g. Ezekiel 11:24 Afterwards the spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity.

As for Elohim, God goes back and forth between plural and singular in the Torah. But regardless, plural doth not a Trinity make. Plus, I don't think Queen Elizabeth II is a Trinity, for all she may use the royal "we."


EDIT: Just to respond to this:

Originally Posted by Lief

How does one go about proving a negative? You're giving me an impossible task. Show me major denominations that in modern times accuse one another of being non-Christian.

I'm not sure how modern you like to call modern, but I'll just start where I know.

John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, central martyr text of Anglicanism.

"Now I besech the liuyng God which hath receaued me to his mercy and brought to passe that I dye stedfast and vndefiled in his truth, at vtter defiaunce and detestation of all Papisticall and Antichristian doctrine, I besech him (I say) to kepe and defend all his chosen, for his names sake, from the tyranny of the Byshop of/ Rome that Antichrist, and from the assault of al his satellites."

Acts and Monuments, 1570 edition, Book 10, pages 1638-9

From a series of tracts called the Millennial Harbinger, 1833

"The antichristian power, whether it be called Papistical, Mahometan, Pagan, or Atheistic, will as certainly be destroyed as Jesus reigns in heaven. "

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

HECK NO! No darned way.

They believe that Christ is human, they don't believe in the trinity...they believe only a certain thousand will make it into heaven (so why bother with the tracts?!!)...lots of stuff.

btw, Prince, the singer, is a Jehovah's Witness.

I knew about the 144,000 and I think I remember reading somewhere that they didn't believe in the Trinity too. I guess just reading those little Watchtower pamplets gives a pretty narrow view no wonder people convert. Are they considered a cult? (luckily I've never actually had to be home when they come to the door...or at least I PRETEND I'm not at home!)

[Count Comfect]

More: from the current webpage of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod

"To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine "that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified," the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds."

I rather think calling the papacy the antichrist counts as calling Catholics unChristian...

[hectorberlioz]

Wow. They are mean...

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I rather think calling the papacy the antichrist counts as calling Catholics unChristian...

The Seventh Day Adventists also tend to refer to the Pope as the antichrist and Rome is the Babylon spoken of in Revelation.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Wow. They are mean...

Surprising how centuries of burning alive anyone with a doctrinal difference will set people's back up.

Speaking of doctrinal differences...http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

First, we do not consider the Messiah to have come (no offense, but it's pretty easy to write a narrative of Jesus that makes him look like the Messiah without necessarily being it, if you've got the Messiah blueprint in front of you; and this includes Jesus self-narrating [for instance, about the young ass on which he enters Jerusalem].)

I know that religious Jews don't believe that the Messiah has come, but there are multiple problems with your above statement.

First, the disciples who preached the message you see in the New Testament died for their beliefs. You don't die for what you know is a lie. That makes them first class witnesses, who plainly believed that what they were saying is the truth.

Secondly, many details in the New Testament are things that would likely have caused division, and which the disciples would have profitted by mentioning. There also are issues of division that the Early Church had to deal with, and which they would have been tempted to just include words from Jesus about it that would have solved the issue. The fact that they didn't tamper with his words or with the events, but put down many that made the church look bad and didn't put in answers that would have resolved division shows that they were seeking accuracy with great care.

You also mention self-fulfilling prophecies. About some prophecies, such as the ass, you are completely correct that he could have just fulfilled that on purpose. Yet there were many prophecies that Jesus couldn't have fulfilled have fulfilled on purpose.

For instance, the date of his birth (I think that Daniel predicted the date at which he would come), the fact that he would be born in Bethlehem, his betrayal, his crucifixion (pierced for our transgressions), his resurrection (the Messiah would see the light of life after dying, and would divide spoils with the strong), and the destruction of Jerusalem which Daniel prophesied would follow the Messiah's death.

Those are a few examples that immediately spring to mind. I think that I can come up with more though, if these aren't enough for you.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

But more importantly, the Messiah is not part of the Godhead. He's a messenger from God, a savior, but the child is born unto US, not unto God. He is the Anointed One, but so is a king (check out Saul, for instance - Samuel anoints him). He's obviously rather special, but the God bit comes from the New Testament.

And according to Isaiah Chapter 9, he is "Mighty God, Everlasting Father."

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for the Spirit, God IS spirit. He is everywhere and everything. But specifically, the "Spirit of God" is usually used as a metaphor for prophecy (Ezekiel of course being a prophet) e.g. Ezekiel 11:24 Afterwards the spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity.

I wasn't referring to the fact that the "Spirit" is referred to. If I was going to do that, I would refer probably to Psalms, where, if my memory isn't failing me, David refers explicitly to God's "Holy Spirit," by that name.

But no, I wasn't arguing that the reference to God's Spirit must be a different member of the Trinity. I was pointing out the fact that in this passage of Ezekiel, God, who is roving to and fro, seeking someone to pray for Israel, says, "Who shall we find to pray for us?" He refers to himself as a plurality.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for Elohim, God goes back and forth between plural and singular in the Torah. But regardless, plural doth not a Trinity make. Plus, I don't think Queen Elizabeth II is a Trinity, for all she may use the royal "we."

I think that when Elizabeth refers to herself as "we," it's because she represents a state and speaks as head of the country. Though the expression is a little dated now, seeing as she is mainly a symbol. But she doesn't make her very name a plural. When people say Elizabeth's name, they aren't saying, "they." It is an interesting choice God made at putting "we," into his very name, as he doesn't choose his names randomly but with care. So one should consider why he calls himself a plural carefully.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

EDIT: Just to respond to this:
I'm not sure how modern you like to call modern, but I'll just start where I know.

John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, central martyr text of Anglicanism.

"Now I besech the liuyng God which hath receaued me to his mercy and brought to passe that I dye stedfast and vndefiled in his truth, at vtter defiaunce and detestation of all Papisticall and Antichristian doctrine, I besech him (I say) to kepe and defend all his chosen, for his names sake, from the tyranny of the Byshop of/ Rome that Antichrist, and from the assault of al his satellites."

Acts and Monuments, 1570 edition, Book 10, pages 1638-9

From a series of tracts called the Millennial Harbinger, 1833

"The antichristian power, whether it be called Papistical, Mahometan, Pagan, or Atheistic, will as certainly be destroyed as Jesus reigns in heaven. "

I don't consider the 16th century to be modern times. Do you? I doubt you'd here many Anglicans nowadays who agree with him on this issue, either.

But the point you and Sis are making is well made, that even if right now there isn't accusation of heresy and severe conflict going on between the major denominations, in the past, there was such conflict and division. It doesn't happen much anymore, but it did then. So if you or sisterandcousinandaunt still have a problem on this point, I'd refer you both to my post 750. My main response to the issue of denominational differences is there.

[Count Comfect]

Lief, God is OUR father; there's no need for a Son of God in the Jesus sense. Every Shabbat, we recite a prayer that refers to him as "Avinu Malkenu" = Our Father, Our King in Hebrew. I stand by the fact that (not wishing to get into attempting to disprove the New Testament, which can only get me into trouble, given that there are about a billion Christians...) there's no reason to see the Messiah as the Son of God or part of a godhead in the Old Testament, unless you reread New Testament ideas back into it.

As for the holy spirit, I assume you're looking at Psalm 51:[11] Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
But holy is an adjective. God's spirit, the spirit of God, the divine (literal) inspiration that is given to the blessed, is holy - it is a holy spirit. But it is not The Holy Spirit that Milton conceived of as brooding, dove-like on the abyss, nor the dove the descended at Jesus' baptism.

And on the other point, I'd say the current webpage of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri might be more recent than the 16th century, although it still holds 16th century beliefs (hey, Christianity's a 1st century belief, and Judaism older than that...)

[Nurvingiel]

Well, the Jesus as the Son of God (or not the Son of God), is a major difference between Christianity and Judaism.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, the Jesus as the Son of God (or not the Son of God), is a major difference between Christianity and Judaism.

The Count's point is Jesus as The Son of God is the doctrinal difference.

[Nurvingiel]

I really don't know anything about Judaism. Heh. Sorry Count.

Errr, what do you mean The Son of God?

[Count Comfect]

oh, sis is just making the point that I said we're all god's children, so it's the definite article that matters. Jesus is A son of god, just as I am. See?