General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

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.

I have the bible
Which is why I clearly have made the distinction between Biblically based Christianity and all other forms of it.
Again you can call yourself christian 'small c' all you want. It means nothing.

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.

Again right or wrong is not determined in the building process, as both men were allowed to build where ever and whatever they wanted. To build correctly is to build on the foundation Jesus Christ Identifies as the Rock. This Rock is only described in the bible.

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"?

Indeed
I've posted it a couple times in this thread already. Here it is again:
1 cor 3
And you are a house that belongs to God. 10 Like an expert builder I built the foundation of that house. I used the gift that God gave me to do this. Other people are building on that foundation. But everyone should be careful how they build. 11 The foundation that has already been built is Jesus Christ, and no one can build any other foundation. 12 People can build on that foundation using gold, silver, jewels, wood, grass, or straw. 13 But the work that each person does will be clearly seen, because the Day will make it plain. That Day will appear with fire, and the fire will test everyone’s work. 14 If the building they put on the foundation still stands, they will get their reward. 15 But if their building is burned up, they will suffer loss. They will be saved, but it will be like someone escaping from a fire.

16 You should know that you yourselves are God’s temple.[a] God’s Spirit lives in you. 17 If you destroy God’s temple, God will destroy you, because God’s temple is holy. You yourselves are God’s temple.

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.

Here we mark answers wrong. we do not mark them correct.

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.

Been there done that refer to an old mountain dew commercial. To have been there done that is to have expereinced a place and a given activity. To say you have been there done that about christianity means you were a Christian.

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.

Which is fine so long as we are speaking of 'c'hristianity.

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.

Then cut and paste frodo's answer. I do not read anything addressed to someone else.

So, if you can't determine whether Catholics are Christians, why do you make the same determination for Mormons?

Because the bible is apart of their worship. How much will be judged on a person by person basis by God. Mormons only use the bible as a recruitment tool. Their leading 'prophet' idntified the bible as being corrupt and not good source for doctrine.

That's not what they say.

Then provide a link. You have been confirmed as untrust worthy.

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.

Then if true this means they are not bible based Christians are they? I am only speaking to bible based Christians and have done from the start. These are Joseph smith based christians, and build their christianity on a foundation joseph smith has laid.

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.

then provide a link to the dictionary you sourced this defination. The term Extrabiblical is a appologetic term by nature, if your using it in your own special way (making up crap as you go in order to save face) then our conversations will be cut shorter and shorter as I am not here to try and chase your personal definations down.

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.

again not a valid arguement as your defination for the term 'extra biblical' is based on something you just made up.

Your strawmen will not be answered sport, just identified and dismissed.

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.

It's very simple. a Christian (Large C denoting Someone Identified and recognised by God.) Is the one in 1 cor 3 who has built his house on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Who is Tested by Christ's water, and by Paul's fire. (The water completely washes away the indivisual/not saved and the fire consumes all the works leaving the person in Heaven as if he were homeless/saved) the small 'c'christian is one who builds his house/faith on someone elses interpretation of who Jesus is, and is washed away. The Large 'C'Hristian is one who may enter Heaven with nothing to enter Heaven to great reward.

And while you do that, keep in mind your repeated insistence on how you don't subscribe to the god of pop-culture Christianity.

Done

Given that mainstream means what is accepted by popular culture, then that automatically means you are not a part of mainstream Christianity.

Ah, no. Mainstream and popular culture have nothing to do with each other. Because what is popular in the culture may not have anything to do with what is mainstream.

In this instance, specifically biblical Christians may not be the largest group who identifythemselves as christian, but they are indeed the vast majority who have been identified as Christian by God.

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.

you like eupth's second horn fails before the most basic understanding of God.

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.

... No other source claims to be a direct teaching of Christ. therefore sole source. The gospels were written by eye witness to Christ/Apstoles or by scribes who wrote for the apstole. First person second person experience

Even the book of mormon does not claim to be a direct teaching of Christ. The revelation taught in mormonism was derived from special gold plates that only joseph smith could feel and see, and was translated by an angel one letter at a time when he looked into a hat.

Orgin of invisiable gold plates aside, the transcriber of the plate was not one of the orginal twelve diciples as they did not have access to the amount of gold needed to compile the book of mormon, the book of doctrine and covenants, and the 'pearl of great price.' All of which contain 'the third testament.' so that means the orginator was the first person, then you have joseph smith who was calling out these books one letter at a time, then you have the 'angel' who was giving the translation, finally you have the publisher who is writting it all down. we are at least 5 people removed. two of which are not identifiable. The orginal author and the guy who transcribed them onto "gold plates."

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.

uh, no. Read his quote again. 'The bible as we have it is completely corrupt.' then he lists how it has been corrupted. The book of doctrine and covenants is a third testament which means he intended it to replace the 'new testament' as people in his day thought the new testament superceeded the old.

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.

not at all. Jospeh Smith said that becuse the corruption ran so deep in Judaism and Christianty He send a special breed of white jew across asia across the land bridge between what is now russia and alaska, down the west coast into his home town, and burried these invisiable plates to keep them safe from the 'red man', and shortly there after the 'savages' wiped out the whole colony.

How does this differ from the dead sea scrolls? well primarly we have the actual scrolls. Many have examined them and studied them. We know them to be several hundred years older than anything else we had up to that point. Not only that aside from a few gramatical errors the bible stands as it did before the discovery.

With joey's imaginary one can not claim the perservation of God's word because the source material does not exist.

Proper exegesis? Meaning "interpretation of a text"? But I thought you didn't "interpret" the bible.

I never said that. another straw man. I said the message I presented to you was directly from scripture. that particular message was.

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.

So Paul a Pharisee/Rabbi/Teacher of the Law does not know how to rightly divid Jewish scripture?

Your an Idiot.
How much pride does it take to assume that the bible is wrong about it self while you (can admit to not knowing much about it) remain right?

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.

Can you name one person who has not ever hated another?

According to Christ to hate another is the same as Killing them.