Axtech wrote:Yes, but Narbus is using examples only if everything in the bible is taken literally. Mormans are Christians who don't take it all literally (among other changes). However, their beliefs are dirived directly from the teachings of Christ, just interpreted differently. Therefore, they are Christians.
Christianity is a religion unto itself. You seem to think otherwise. You are mistaken.
Really, there should be a different classification for anyone who believes in Christ, but does not necessarily believe that Christ is the only way into heaven. The problem is that "Christian" is used for both people who believe in Christ and those who believe in Christ as the only way into heaven.
There are other classifications. They are "Catholic," and "Mormon," and "Protestant," and such.
If we had two different terms, this discussion would make more sense. I mean, that way you could use evidence from the bible to say why you don't think Mormans are following the bible they way they should be, instead of arguing whether or not they fall under a certain category.
Well, if they wanted to be Christians, then they would follow the Bible in the manner of a Christian. So, from the point of view, they aren't following the Bible the "right way."
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
Narbus wrote:There are other classifications. They are "Catholic," and "Mormon," and "Protestant," and such.
Indeed. And those are subclassifications of the larger group, "Christian". Anyone who believes in Christ is a Christian. If someone believes the Bible is complete bullshit, but believes in the teachings of Jesus, he is a Christian. There are other gospels besides those in the Bible. There are other means of believing.
However, I still think this argument is silly. A rose by any other name and blah blah blah.
Christianity is not a "larger group." It is a religion unto itself. I have read up on this, I have researched it. This is how it is.
Are you going to argue transistor properties with me next? Perhaps question my judgement on the best way to apply Kirchoff's laws to BJT's? This is the same thing. I have done the reading, I understand what's going on here. Christianity is not a catch-all belief system. It is it's own religion.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
It is its own religion, with subsects under it. I'm glad you've done your research, but that doesn't automatically make you an expert. I too have researched and read up on both the Bible and Christianity itself. We're not going to win this argument by throwing around "I'm smarter than you"s. You haven't offered any evidence that Christianity is a religion separate from its subsects. So either offer some, or let's call a truce and move on.
offer up some evidence that it is a religon and also a larger group of subsects.
why should he be the one to provide proof? so far he's been the only one, so right now i'm inclined to believe Narbus over anybody else in this thread.
Yes, please. Find somewhere in the Bible that says, "And the Lord sayeth unto Joe, "It's okay if you want to tack on a bunch of other stuff, and change a lot of the important ideas to fit your own religion. That's peachy, you can still be a Christian."
I have provided pages of statements that held messages to the contrary. It's your turn. Aerin, if you've researched the Bible, it should be easy for you.
I understand that a lot of people want Christianity to be that catch-all that takes all kinds. But it isn't. The Bible is clear.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
Narbus, I've argued consistently that what the Bible says, ironically enough, has nothing to do with what it means to be classified as a Christian. I thought the dictionary was pretty clear that one merely has to believe in Jesus Christ in order to call themselves Christian. Nowhere in the definition does it say anything about what scriptures, if any, one has to accept or follow. You're arguing from a Biblical point of view. I'm arguing from an objective one.
Ok. An example.
In a science text, written by a PhD. who did the ground breaking work, a term is coined and defined, based on that work.
In the next year's dictionary, the term is included, but the defintion is different from that provided by the founder of the term.
Whose defintion is more likely correct?
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
The scientist's, of course, but that is not an accurate comparison. Nowhere in the Bible does it define Christianity. Even if it did, to say that the Bible says that the Bible is correct, and that this is correct because the Bible says so, is to use circular logic. It cannot be rationally defended. No, we're talking about the meaning of words in the English language, specifically of the word "Christian". Where do you go when you want to learn the meaning of a word? I know I don't go to the Bible. The Bible will give you a Chrisitian perspective on Christianity, but we're not looking for a Christian perspective, we're looking for an objective, rational perspective. The dictionary is the authority on word meanings in our language. It is the most objective resource on semantics that we have. In matters of word meanings, it trumps the Bible.
The etymology of "Christianity" Christian - O.E. cristen, from L. Christianus, from Gk. christianos, from Christos (see Christ). First used in Antioch, according to Acts xi.25-26. Christianity "the religion of Christ," is from c.1303. Christian Science is from 1863.
Also fun to note: "First used in Antioch, according to Acts xi.25-26."
25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Lookee there. The term Christian was coined in the Bible. And it was used to describe those who believed in the Biblical teachings of Christ. Good to know.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
The religion of Christ, yes. All subcategories of the religion of Christ are Christian (including Morman). Now, the strict following of the bible alone, taking everything litterally is the Chritianity that you've been describing. It is a subcategory of the above mentioned "Christian" faith.
Basis, yes.
The steam engine is the "basis" for the internal combustion engine.
The wheel is the "basis" for the car.
The NES is the "basis" for the Gamecube.
Just because it was inspired by a predecessor does not mean it is that predecessor.
The religion of Christ is the one he preached, the one where he is the only way to salvation. If you don't believe in this religion, you are not Chrisitian.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
The religion of Christ is the one he preached, the one where he is the only way to salvation. If you don't believe in this religion, you are not Chrisitian.
I agree with that quote. These other religions believe in Jesus Christ, but not necessarily in his teachings. Christianity has simply become a belief in the man himself, but not necessarily his exact teachings.
If I believe that Jesus Christ exists and is the son of God, does that make me a Christian?? Narbus seems to believe that is not enough.
Narbus, this whole time you have been arguing why you don't think Mormans follow the bible (and therefore the teachings of Christ) correctly. However, that's a moot point. As far as this discussion goes, it doesn't matter how they follow the teachings of Christ, only that they do. That is what makes them Christian. Your main argument has been that they don't believe in Christ as the only salvation. However, they are following that which is their own interpretation of the teachings of Christ, which makes them Christian.
Can we talk about something else now? Like, the Ark myth. What's the deal with that? Wouldn't the carnivores eat the herbivores? And how'd they all fit in there? Anyone who believes in this want to explain it to me?
One last comment from me about the whole Mormon thing, and then I'm silent about for the rest of the thread*
Words only have what meaning we give them. That is constantly a sticking point in any religious discussion. One of the main sticking points here is that Mormons, Catholics, what-have-you attach great value to the word "Christian." It carries with it a certain weight and quality that automatically generates at least some kind of emotion in nearly everyone, and involves people in the organization. So the notion that they aren't Christians is a delicate one to begin with. I don't know there's an actual Mormon or Catholic out there that won't try and find some justification to hang onto the title, even flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary, due to the emotion that is sunk into the word.
Many people are willing to stand up for these people, as has been demonstrated in this thread, because of a desire to encourage people in their faith, whatever that faith may be.
Despite what else you may think, I hold the same desire. My desire, however, maniefsts itself in an urge to get people to think about their religion. Why? I don't know. Possibly because I was a "Sunday Catholic" my whole life, possibly because I'm a naturally antagonistic person, possibly because I disagree with the concept of organized religion of any kind. It doesn't really matter.
In the case of Mormons and Catholics, who base their religion on the Bible and try and hold onto the title of Christian, it comes out as an attempt to force them to look at what they really believe. Do they believe in the Bible, or in the Book of Mormon? What does that mean for them? For their faith, and so on.
I also know several "Biblical" Christians, and I don't think it's fair that other people try and take their faith from them by throwing the title around as much as it is. I'm a libertarian, politically, and I've seen many people out there throwing around the term and getting it all wrong, confusing it with anarchist, particularly, and it's very frustrating.
For my Christian friends, I can imagine they feel the same way. To have someone lay claim to what they are, only without knowing what it actually is they are.
That's why I've been pushing this so hard this thread. I want people to be fair to everyone, including Christians. Given what the Bible does say, I don't think it's fair to do this to Christians. I also think that people need to look at their own religion more closely, and take pride in what it does that Christianity does not do. I think it's wonderful that Catholics take a more "living text" approach to the Bible, as I think it really encourages that deep introspection I feel is necessary to faith of any kind. Take pride in what you are, not what you think you should be, and all.
So that's that. Any non-Mormon specific questions that may have arised, I'll be glad to address. Any that relate to the previous discussion (and I'm the judge of what's too close and what's not) will be summarily ignored. There may be mocking involved, I make no promises.
To Aerin:
I seem to recall from somewhere or other that the Bible says God told Noah how much meat and such to bring, and how to arrange the animals so as to not have the "eat thy neighbor" problem. If anything else, I would guess that the incident between the lions and the unicorns encouraged Noah to use the wacking stick a bit more liberally with the particularly peckish carnivores.
Interesting Side Note: The Flood tale actually shows up much earlier than the Bible, in the epic of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian myth.
*Offer not valid in CA, GA, or FL. May cause unintended side effects, including insomnia, seizures, and your brain coming to life and taking over the world. Offer null if something impossibly stupid is said later, even if I'm the one who says it.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
The Flood is actually present in the mythology of nearly all cultures, and probably refers to an expansive flood that actually occurred at the end of the last ice age and destroyed much of the human/land animal population.
If anyone's interested, this is a really good short story about one interpretation of the flood myth, winding together Biblical and other historical accounts with the Atlantis myth. Very cool.
Exactly.