Blurring the lines.

[Mister Agenda]

Actually that is what I am doing (I am taking it up with the people who call others Christian when they themselves call each other by a different name. )

For example Mormons are supposed followers of the prophet Moroni, and the third testament of the bible. They consider 'Christians' followers of the second testament which is has been corrupt over time. That is the reason for the distinction of 'latter day saints' and the title 'Mormon' over Christian.

Even so many here (Atheists) would argue that they are Christian when they themselves do not see it that way. So I am asking the lablers why do you insist that in this case Mormons are Christians?

It's no more a sign that Mormons aren't Christians for calling themselves Mormons than it is for Baptists calling themselves Baptists. Mormons identify as a Christian denomination. They believe Jesus is the son of God. That puts them in camp Christian.

As per my open ended defination I support one of the broadest ranges of Christianity of any formal denomination.

Unless you count the denominations that don't deny that Mormons are Christians.

I honestly think you guys (those who are guilty of this) lable people christian in a straw man effort to devalue or defame the religion, inorder to make an easier arguement.

You've already established that you're clear as mud in your ability to correctly discern what motivates the people to whom you talk. Another layer of make-believe on top of NT/OT only Christianity is just icing on the cake of what's wrong with a literal belief in the Bible. Can you quote anyone here using Mormonism to critique more traditional Christianity? While you're racking your head to come up with something to back up your claim, I'll save you the time by telling you no one has, because that would be stupid. Are you ever going to stop accusing us of the things that pop into your head as you type?

Actually it is, if you choose to speak about star wars fandom. How can you claim no responsiblity of a subject matter if you take the time to speak on it?

I don't care about Star Wars. I care about statements being true. If you say something I know to be incorrect and/or unfair, I will respond no matter what the topic is.

It would seem that most of you have a 'catholic' based understanding of Christianity.

It would seem you can't retain the information that we don't believe in God. And my education in Christianity was from a Pentecostal perspective, so there's another stupid assumption shot down.

---

3.Latter-day Saints do not believe scripture consists of the Holy Bible alone but have an expanded canon of scripture that includes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Further more Mormons believe that their cannon is open, meaning that the 'president' of Mormonism is in direct contact with God and can make changes as God changes his mind. Like the acceptance of Black people in 1979 (Prior to be anything other than white was a curse from God. The darker the skin the more God hated you)

Here is a quote from the last President of Mormonism on Jesus:
"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_B._Hinckley

In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, p. 192, 321, 516, 589). Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and me (McConkie, p. 192, 589). Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22) as does his wife, and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth.

Very few, if any, of the 'different' Mormon doctrines are found in their Standard Works: the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Rather, they are taught by Mormons of high standing: prophets, apostles, members of the 70 Quorum. McConkie, for example, was a member of the 70's Quorum, a very high ranking Mormon, and wrote the book, Mormon Doctrine, from which much of the documentation for this is taken.

Monson The current President of the LDS has done/said nothing to correct Hinkley.

Chris·tian/ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.

noun
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

---

Ok then, I'm a God believing Atheist! Or does Atheism have rules that prevent me from both believing in God and calling myself an atheist?

No, atheism has no rules preventing that. It doesn't even need to be capitalized unless it's at the beginning of a sentence or part of a proper name (like American Atheists) because it's not a proper noun. Neither is theism.

You can call yourself whatever you want, we can't stop you, and it wouldn't really be right to do so if we could. You wouldn't actually be an atheist, because definition, but you can certainly call yourself one.

---

It just comes down to a giant "nuh uh" contest. Mormons claim to be Christian, Drich says "nu uh", several Protestant sects say Catholics aren't christians, catholic church says "nu uh", Drich claims to be a real Christian, <insert random sect here> says "nu uh".

There's no end to the circle, because there's no "true christian" test.

Yet, i'm willing to bet there is a test to be deemed an atheist. Other than what a person claims for themselves.

Same at the 'theist test': 'Do you believe in a god or God, yes or no?'

The Christian test, on the other hand, is: Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus and in following his teachings, yes or no?

[Esquilax]

Okay Drich, Huggy, GC, etc...

How about this: you guys get together with all the other denominations of christianity- all of them, don't skimp out on a single one, that'd be unfair- and you all come up with a list of all the things one need do to be a "true christian," and all the things that would discount one from the same label. Once you and the thousands of other denominations of your religion have made this yardstick by mutual consent, come here and present that list to us, and we can have this discussion of who is and isn't a true christian.

What you can't do is keep the list all to yourself, dispatching little tidbits of it to us as is convenient to you, because in that case we have no idea whether you're just making it up as you go along or not. What you can't do is assume you have exclusive rights to determine who is and isn't a christian without the say of the other denominations, without presenting proof that this is true, because your assertions of authority tend to clash with the assertions of authority of all the other denominations, and we have no reason to believe you over them.

Keep it fair, guys: all I'm asking here is that you don't just make this one big game of Calvinball. I don't think that's too much to ask, and it's odd that you guys haven't thought of that yourself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I honestly think you guys (those who are guilty of this) lable people christian in a straw man effort to devalue or defame the religion, inorder to make an easier arguement.

You're a True Christian®, right? Well, you defame your own religion, by your defense of slavery.

[Mister Agenda]

There is a very simple test to determine whether one is a Christian or not. 1st do the claim to be? 2nd do they follow the canonical teaching of Jesus Christ?

That's the made-up version of the test specifically designed to let certain denominations claim that certain other denominations are not actually Christians. My verson relies on the dictionary defintion of Christian.

Why are their requirements for atheism who has no rules, and no requirements for those who claim Christianity who does have rules?

There is A requirement for atheism (and theism), which is simply the definition. The definition of Christian is slightly more complex, but basically anyone who professes Christ and the value of his teaching is in the club.

You want it to be otherwise, solely for the authority you think it gives you to declare other denominations you disagree with 'not Christians'.

Now, Muslims aren't Christians. They too include the OT and NT but have an additional book on top. They think Jesus was a holy miracle-worker born of a virgin. However, they think he was a prophet sent from God, not actually the son of God or God incarnate. For this (actual) reason, Muslims are not Christians.

[robvalue]

I don't think we need to employ semantics in order to still point out that there's no evidence... of any of it...

I can point it out continually if it will help stop confusion in the future.

[Mister Agenda]

According to Joseph Smith His 'good news' about his new jesus came from an angel... It's almost like Paul had Joseph in mind when he wrote this.

And it's almost like Moses (or whoever actually wrote it) had Jesus and Paul in mind when he wrote this:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."-Deuteronomy 4:2

---

Which of the 40,000 plus Christian churches has decided that your viewpoints on Christianity are absolutely correct, and why should I or the other 39,999 care?

a little late to the party huh? (BTW that number gets bigger every time you use it)

There are currently approximately 41,000 Christian denominations. The number keeps growing. And you are the last person who should be snide about anyone else's intellectual integrity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...ominations

ALL Canonical Jesus Christ center religions, can be considered to be 'true Christians.' I dont know what that number is but I am sure it is alot more than 1.

The vast majority of people who use words don't add in that 'canonical' bit. Why should your minority view trump standard usages?

ahh, no. it is because you have nothing to gain places you in a position of having nothing to loose, meaning you can and do twist the bible so that you can indeed gain from Christianity.

Gain what? You're not being treated more poorly than the inane Muslims who post here.

[Chas]

Just an open ended question.

What's with blurring the lines between those who claim Christianity and those who actually practice it? We've had a couple of recent examples of you guys assuming everyone who claims to be christian happens to be Christian just on their proclaimation. Why is this? I have brought up that Christ himself says in Mat 7 that not everyone who claims to be a follower is indeed a follower. What's more he even went so far as to say even some of those who do great things in His name are followers of Christ. But only those who do the will of the Father.

This means that a Follower of Christ is one who follows the instructions given to us to follow. Not anyone who just calls out 'Lord, Lord.'

I hope none of you think that God is bound by your understanding of some death bed effort on your part to keep you out of Hell.

A problem with this is the "actually practice it" part. There are so many interpretations of Christianity, who's to say which is actual and which is not?

Your question ends up going down the No True Christian™ rathole.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think any of us really care.

If someone wants to call themselves a Christian I don't see what business it is of mine to doubt or question them.

You're right, however it's the business of the church and when someone who calls them self a Christian and we call them out, why is it you all jump on the bandwagon and question what we have to say?

GC

Because you change the meanings of words to suit your prejudices. I'm not a fan of Mormons (they add another layer of silliness to the silliness already there), but they believe Jesus was Christ and the son of God. The name of their church is 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints'. it's based on the life and teachings of Jesus (though elaborated on), and that's what makes a denomination Christian based on standard defintions.

[Godscreated]

As far as I'm concerned, these lines are drawn by the theists. And they draw more and more lines, until it's just a garbled mess.

From my point of view, don't know if most atheists agree, I couldn't care less what a theist calls themselves. Or whether other theists agree with their classification. To me it's like argueing over the colour of an invisible dog.

What does make me laugh is when people talk about "true" or "real" versions. All you've got is a book, that's as far as the reality of the myths goes. There is no "true" way to build a story about what is real and what is not, in a fictional but somehow real way. Just like there is no "true" way in which all the Harry potter characters actually existed. It's all made up. No one has the authority to say what is and isn't the best, or real, version of made up interpretations of reality.

The author of the Harry Potter series admits the books are made up, the writers of the Bible gave their lives in defense of it's truth, way big difference.

GC

[The Grand Nudger]

That's just another part of the myth GC. In any case, this "die for a lie" shit is pointless. Martyrs exist, that doesn't seem to convince you of the authenticity of their respective faiths, or engender any sympathy in you towards their cause.

Allah-hu-akbar, and have a nice day.