(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Nor does it insure that you are a Christian either. Ultimatly what makes one 'Christian' is whether or not God Judges you saved.
Which means you have no basis to who is a Christian and who isn't - meaning the Mormons and the Davidians might be Christians as well.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Then "Allow" me to return it to the conversation. As Two men in Jesus' parable were 'ALLOWED' To build a house any where they wanted, but ultimatly only the wise man was praised in the end for building his house correctly.
And since, according to you, everyone is wrong to some extent then that means no one is building the house correctly. Meaning neither you nor Fr0d0 would be praised for the way you built your understanding.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Not Christian, both men are religious. In the end being a Christian is the difference between having a home, and being homeless. Just because a man once owned or built a home does not mean 'life' will not leave him 'homeless' in the end.
You got any evidence of their "homelessness"?
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: If you say so. Where I live wrong answers are the ones that get marked.
What do you mean? Are you saying that your teacher gave you marks for wrong answers? That would explain your poor language skills.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: It is the 'Done that" part of your cliche that says you were Christian.
Only if you apply the cliche literally - which would be a pretty stupid thing to do.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: I am not speaking to frodo. I am speaking to you. You need to define your own terms so i can beat you with them later. If you use frodo's terms you have an excuse as to the reason why you should not be beaten with your adopted philosphy.
Other than my stated position about who I consider to be Christian, I have no "adopted" philosophy about what constitutes Christianity. Unless contraindicated by evidence or argument, I'll accept a Christian's terms regarding membership to their club.
In this case regarding what constitutes "mainstream Christianity", I accept Fr0d0's definition and the arguments he provided for them - feel free to prove it wrong and I'll change my position if and when you do.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Catholics identify themselves as Catholics first. God will determine whether or not they are Christians. Are their doctrines sole sourced in the bible? no.
So, if you can't determine whether Catholics are Christians, why do you make the same determination for Mormons?
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Because they follow the teachings of Joseph Smith first and not Christ. To be 'Christian' one must follow the teachings of Christ first.
That's not what they say. According to what I read about them, they say that they do follow the teachings of Christ first - it just so happens that bible was corrupted over centuries and it, therefore, does not accurately teachings of Christ and the real teaching had to be re-iterated via Joseph Smith.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: You misidentified the claim. To be 'Extra-biblical' means to add to what the bible says. Not to correct an assertion based on a 'extra biblical claim.' Example to claim the omni benevolence of God one must source material not found in scripture or they must superimpose meaning onto the text/take it out of context. (eisogesis) This is an extra biblical claim. to correct the claim is not extra biblical because the content of the bible was used to compile the correction. This complation is known as an exegesis. Which is not extra biblical even though it is not found in the bible word for word.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/110-extra-biblical
The apologetics index is not a dictionary I refer to. When I say extra-biblical, I mean "Pertaining to information or content outside the Bible". That's it.
You say omni-benevolence is not found in the bible and provide quotes to contrary - I accept that and am content to regard that claim as extra-biblical. However, Christians believe in that claim and are still considered Christians, which means going extra-biblical is not a limitation.
You say Mormons believe some stuff not found in the bible - I accept that as well. But since going extra-biblical is not a limitation, I consider them Christians because the rest of the stuff they believe in does come from the bible.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Mainstream Christianity are those who seek to follow the teaching of Christianity as outlined in scripture, forsaking all extrabiblical teachings, especially concerning the message of attonement and salvation.
Very good - now that you've provided the definition, support it with evidence. Specifically, mainstream means "the common current thought of the majority" - so, in order to establish your definition as the correct representation of mainstream Christianity, you have to show that the majority of those who call themselves Christians fit this definition.
And while you do that, keep in mind your repeated insistence on how you don't subscribe to the god of pop-culture Christianity. Given that mainstream means what is accepted by popular culture, then that automatically means you are not a part of mainstream Christianity. And if your definition is correct, then that means you don't "seek to follow the teaching of Christianity as outlined in scripture, forsaking all extrabiblical teachings, especially concerning the message of attonement and salvation".
This should be interesting.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: The bible. The bible is the sole source for biblically based Christianity. If one seeks to worship and be redemeded by the God of the bible then it is to the bible one must turn for instruction for redemption.
That is your assertion. Now, what is the basis for this assertion? Because there is a big difference between being the source and being the sole source.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Not true.
Here is the defination you keep reading past that you must first reconsile for your statement to have any traction: Doctrine:
" principle or position or the body of principles in a system of belief"
Joseph Smith 'doctrine' includes the whole sale dismissle of the bible as anything other than a recruitment tool. According to him "all of it's teachings are corupt." That is why he has invented his own book of doctrine and covenants.
Except, its not dismissal of the bible so much as its reinterpretation. His book of doctrine and covenant - according to him - was based on the bible - the "correct" and "uncorrupted" parts.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Where did I say that? I have said many times that we are responsiable for all the bible however it is written. If God does not agree with what is written it is on Him to forgive for following a corrupt book, change what is written with a discovery like the dea sea scrolls or perserve the word where it is critical.
And that is precisely what Smith says happened. Christian all the way.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Oh, I do love it when you guys want to teach from the bible
"Teach"? No thanks.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: For proper exegesis to take place we must first identify the subject of the passage being discussed.
Proper exegesis? Meaning "interpretation of a text"? But I thought you didn't "interpret" the bible.
(September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: So clearly as Paul had intended in verse 9 of Romans 3 when he said 'All" He was refering to God's people as well as those who are not. (He even says as much in verse 9)
In which case he'd be wrong.
According to your interpretation - the one you gave here - "all" simultaneously refers to everyone in the world and people who "run to do evil and cannot wait to kill someone". Which simply isn't true.
