ah…so you change the rules when it suits you?No, because there is no such title as President of the World. If you had said you are President of the United States, I would also say no, because there is only one President at a time, and Barack Obama is the current President. However, there are many Christians and many different kinds of Christians.
In this situation, I would say Curt is delusional and needs psychotropic medication (or else he is grossly misinformed about Judaism). Let’s find out if he still calls himself Jewish after taking some meds and going to psychotherapy.But there are lines that have been drawn, HAVE BEEN, as in already.
Let’s talk about Kemetics (Neo-Pagans worshiping the Ancient Egyptian deities).
“Curt” is a Kemetic Pagan, his patron goddess is Isis, and he declares himself of
the Jewish religion (not culture, not heritage, don’t go there). “Curt” is calling him-
self Jewish, of Judaism, has nothing to do with Judaism, Orthodox, Reformed, or
otherwise, worships Isis, is of the Kemetic tradition, calls himself a Jew in terms
of religion…Do you acknowledge his identification with Jews?
Do you acknowledge there are different kinds of Christians? And do you also admit there is not one kind of President of the World, that this category does not exist in reality? I see a difference here.ah…so you change the rules when it suits you?
You made the comment that they are because they say they are. That was YOUR qualification. Nothing about facts supporting it or not.
Then, when shown how silly your comment was, you change the rules.
Go figure
Those holding an erroneous belief on the Trinity have been around for a long time, before there even was a bible.Most nontrinitarians identify themselves as Christian.
Christian[edit]
The Encyclopædia Britannica states, “To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God…They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God’s highest creature by Whom all else was created…[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine.” Although the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a small number of Christian groups and denominations.
Various views exist regarding the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Those who follow the life and teaching of Jesus but consider the question of divinity to be completely inconsequential and a distraction to the message that Jesus taught.
Those who believe that Jesus is not God, nor absolutely equal to God, but was either God’s subordinate Son, a messenger from God, or prophet, or the perfect created human. Adoptionism (2nd century A.D.) holds that Jesus became divine at his baptism (sometimes associated with the Gospel of Mark) or at his resurrection (sometimes associated with Saint Paul and Shepherd of Hermas).
Modern Christian groupings
American Unitarian Conference
Associated Bible Students
Christadelphians
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith).
Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog for Church of Christ)
The Members Church of God International
Oneness Pentecostalism
Some forms of Quakerism hold universalist views.
Swedenborgianism
Unitarian Christians and Unitarian Universalist Christians
With all due respect, it is the Catholic Church that anathematizes them, just as the Church calls Protestants heretics (I believe). But Protestants don’t call themselves heretics, and those “Christians” who do not believe in the Trinity do not call themselves non-Christians. So according to Catholics, Mormons may be regarded as non-Christians, but not according to Mormons themselves and possibly other Christians who are non-Catholics, as well as non-Christians.Those holding an erroneous belief on the Trinity have been around for a long time, before there even was a bible.
“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).
PnP
That doesn’t mean they are.Most nontrinitarians identify themselves as Christian.
That does not prove anything. You say “BUT WIKIPEDIA SAYS SO!” but that doesn’t make yourChristian[edit]
The Encyclopædia Britannica states, “To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God…They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God’s highest creature by Whom all else was created…[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine.” Although the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a small number of Christian groups and denominations.
Various views exist regarding the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Those who follow the life and teaching of Jesus but consider the question of divinity to be completely inconsequential and a distraction to the message that Jesus taught.
Those who believe that Jesus is not God, nor absolutely equal to God, but was either God’s subordinate Son, a messenger from God, or prophet, or the perfect created human. Adoptionism (2nd century A.D.) holds that Jesus became divine at his baptism (sometimes associated with the Gospel of Mark) or at his resurrection (sometimes associated with Saint Paul and Shepherd of Hermas).
Modern Christian groupings
American Unitarian Conference
Associated Bible Students
Christadelphians
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith).
Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog for Church of Christ)
The Members Church of God International
Oneness Pentecostalism
Some forms of Quakerism hold universalist views.
Swedenborgianism
Unitarian Christians and Unitarian Universalist Christians
I didn’t say that. There are certain people who SAY they believe in and follow Jesus Christ,. . . But believers and followers of Jesus are not entitled to call themselves Christian?
Meltzerboy,With all due respect, it is the Catholic Church that anathematizes them, just as the Church calls Protestants heretics (I believe). But Protestants don’t call themselves heretics, and those “Christians” who do not believe in the Trinity do not call themselves non-Christians. So according to Catholics, Mormons may be regarded as non-Christians, but not according to Mormons themselves and possibly other Christians who are non-Catholics, as well as non-Christians.
Likewise, some Orthodox Jews call me a heretic because I am a Reform Jew, but I don’t consider myself a heretic.
So you acknowledge to, agree with this “Curt” who IDs himself aIn this situation, I would say Curt is delusional and needs psychotropic medication (or else he is grossly misinformed about Judaism). Let’s find out if he still calls himself Jewish after taking some meds and going to psychotherapy.
I appreciate this information. Thank you.Meltzerboy,
No, we don’t call them heretics. We call them “brothers”
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
No, I do not. Please re-read my response. I differentiate between delusional Curt and non-delusional Mormons.So you acknowledge to, agree with this “Curt” who IDs himself a
Jew though has nothing to do with it and on top of that worships
in the Neo-Pagan Kemetic tradition.
Okay, fine, let’s say “Curt” is not delusional, but is sane, competent, and savvy.No, I do not. Please re-read my response. I differentiate between delusional Curt and non-delusional Mormons.
You assume there is a difference between “Curt” and Mormons. I think neither are delusional, yet both are wrongNo, I do not. Please re-read my response. I differentiate between delusional Curt and non-delusional Mormons.
that is not the issue.Do you acknowledge there are different kinds of Christians? And do you also admit there is not one kind of President of the World, that this category does not exist in reality? I see a difference here.
TexanKnight’s response is good, but let’s try this now. “Curt” acknowledges that there are many kinds of DUCKS.Do you acknowledge there are different kinds of Christians? And do you also admit there is not one kind of President of the World, that this category does not exist in reality? I see a difference here.
Thank you for the beautiful illustrations. I don’t believe I ever actually saw a platypus before. The challenge you speak of may be for Catholicism but not necessarily for all of Christianity. There are other Christian denominations which accept Mormons as Christians.TexanKnight’s response is good, but let’s try this now. “Curt” acknowledges that there are many kinds of DUCKS.
“Curt” even acknowledges that billed beaver thing-y as a DUCK, just a different kind, of course.
IT’S AFREAKIN’ PLATYPUS!
“Curt” protests, “Yes, but it has a bill, it lives in watery environments, IT EVEN LAYS EGGS! It’s a DUCK, just a different kind.”
But it’s a MAMMAL. Ducks are BIRRRDS!
“Curt” protests still…
Such is the challenge which Christianity faces today in this post-modernist world.
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_image...unity/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/platypus.jpg
This is a Duck------------------------&------------------------This is a Platypus
And Our Hypothetical Curt is just Wrong.
(Oh Curt)
:nope:
Which ones specifically? My experience with Protestants in the South suggests that most do not.Thank you for the beautiful illustrations. I don’t believe I ever actually saw a platypus before. The challenge you speak of may be for Catholicism but not necessarily for all of Christianity. There are other Christian denominations which accept Mormons as Christians.
I nominate this post as the best of the thread. All in favor, please manifest it.TexanKnight’s response is good, but let’s try this now. “Curt” acknowledges that there are many kinds of DUCKS.
“Curt” even acknowledges that billed beaver thing-y as a DUCK, just a different kind, of course.
IT’S AFREAKIN’ PLATYPUS!
“Curt” protests, “Yes, but it has a bill, it lives in watery environments, IT EVEN LAYS EGGS! It’s a DUCK, just a different kind.”
But it’s a MAMMAL. Ducks are BIRRRDS!
“Curt” protests still…
Such is the challenge which Christianity faces today in this post-modernist world.
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_image...unity/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/platypus.jpg
This is a Duck------------------------&------------------------This is a Platypus
And Our Hypothetical Curt is just Wrong.
(Oh Curt)
:nope:
Probably many Episcopalians and Methodists and, in general, more mainstream Protestants.Which ones specifically? My experience with Protestants in the South suggests that most do not.
For a “holier than thou” Catholic, you sure are talented at being vitriolic. Instead of showing where I went wrong, you simply call my sources bunk. Well if I wanted to stomp all over your sources as you do mine, then I would say that the stuff invented by the Church is fictitious and has little credibility. You say I am wrong, but offer little in the way of explanation. I at least offer explanation, but you simply reject it. That accomplishes nothing.That doesn’t mean they are.
That does not prove anything. You say “BUT WIKIPEDIA SAYS SO!” but that doesn’t make your
views correct, every college student knows that. The groups you have mentioned are of a minorit-
y, who hold fast to the identification of “Christian” without any means to justify it. Funny how you
quoted the Encyclopædia Britannica, SKIPped OVER THE SECTION LISTING THE HERETICAL
VIEWS FROM THE EARLY CHRISTIAN PERIOD, only to THEN give us a listing of Modern FAKE
christians, which are just repetitions of earlier debunked nonchristian groups.