S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
fhansen
Guest
Raised Catholic, later came to believe Protestant theology and eventually was AOG. Later yet back to Catholic, much to my own surprise. About a 25 year hiatus that involved much seeking, soul-searching, learning, and living. All of it was a stepping stone to where I ended up. Some of us have to learn the hard way but often that means learning our lessons very well.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Substitute Catholic and you’ve spoken the truthExcuse me? Christian baptism has a clear definition with a clear formula and meaning. Deviating from it is easily identified. Mormon baptism is not Christian baptism; to say so is not any sort of fallacy, but a logical conclusion based on the clear definition of Christian baptism.
Do you even Christian bro?
Do you know your logical fallacies bro?
Last edited:
S
steido01
Guest
I’m familiar with terms of debate; I assure you I know them well.
You are misapplying the No True Scotsman. A clear definition of Christian already exists, has existed for millennia, and will continue to exist. It requires belief in the Trinity and Trinitatian Baptism. Deny these, and Christianity -by definition- does not exist. That’s not a fallacy; it’s plain fact.
If one were actually using a NTS, the conversation would go like this:
1: No Christian would deny Mormons are Christian.
2: But they do not believe in the same Trinity or Baptism, and are therefore something else by definition.
1: No true Christian would deny Mormons are Christian.
Person 1 has moved the goalposts by adding a NTS qualifier (“true”) to their false assertion that Mormons are Christian without offering any actual evidence. Person 2 has merely rightfully noted that the definition of Christian excludes non-Trinitarian cults. Person 2 has committed no fallacy. Person 1 is guilty of the No True Scotsman.
You are misapplying the No True Scotsman. A clear definition of Christian already exists, has existed for millennia, and will continue to exist. It requires belief in the Trinity and Trinitatian Baptism. Deny these, and Christianity -by definition- does not exist. That’s not a fallacy; it’s plain fact.
If one were actually using a NTS, the conversation would go like this:
1: No Christian would deny Mormons are Christian.
2: But they do not believe in the same Trinity or Baptism, and are therefore something else by definition.
1: No true Christian would deny Mormons are Christian.
Person 1 has moved the goalposts by adding a NTS qualifier (“true”) to their false assertion that Mormons are Christian without offering any actual evidence. Person 2 has merely rightfully noted that the definition of Christian excludes non-Trinitarian cults. Person 2 has committed no fallacy. Person 1 is guilty of the No True Scotsman.
Last edited:
H
huck
Guest
You are misapplying the No True Scotsman. A clear definition of Christian already exists, has existed for millennia, and will continue to exist. It requires belief in the Trinity and Trinitatian Baptism. Deny these, and Christianity -by definition- does not exist. That’s not a fallacy; it’s plain fact.
- 1st off I don’t claim the title of Christian so I don’t have a dog in the fight.
The purpose of even having a language is that when one person says or writes something everyone knows what he means. There needs to be a common understanding of what words mean if not universally then at least within a group. Unless you were to ask a large group of people for the definition of a Christian and a large percentage replied with your definition then your definition isn’t valid. I rather doubt that even within a pool of Catholics, your definition would win out.
S
steido01
Guest
Considering that most Catholics don’t even know what their communion teaches, you’re probably right. But ignorance —even gross ignorance— doesn’t make the definition any less accurate. I’ve literally quoted the Catholic Catechism on the topic: one is Christian by Trinitarian baptism. This is confirmed by Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Baptists, and the vast majority of Christians. Mormonism is not Christianity.I rather doubt that even within a pool of Catholics, your definition would win out.
H
huck
Guest
Considering that most Catholics don’t even know what their communion teaches, you’re probably right. But ignorance —even gross ignorance— doesn’t make the definition any less accurate. I’ve literally quoted the Catholic Catechism on the topic: one is Christian by Trinitarian baptism. This is confirmed by Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Baptists, and the vast majority of Christians. Mormonism is not Christianity.
- As mentioned earlier the purpose of a language is that when someone speaks everyone understands what is being said. Your definition may or may not be fine at a leaders conference. Since this is a forum for non catholic religions the catholic definition has no relevance.
S
steido01
Guest
I’m not even Catholic. The avatar should make that obvious. It’s the definition shared by all the groups I noted above and then some.
Mormons simply aren’t Christian.
Mormons simply aren’t Christian.
T
Theo520
Guest
For basic word definitions, we must rely upon common usage as shown in the many English language dictionaries.As mentioned earlier the purpose of a language is that when someone speaks everyone understands what is being said. Your definition may or may not be fine at a leaders conference. Since this is a forum for non catholic religions the catholic definition has no relevance.
That Mormons meet the basic definition of Christian doesn’t mean they should be embraced by Catholics as we embrace some Protestant denominations.
Last edited:
P
Promise91
Guest
technically yes i have changed denominations in a way.
I was born to an non-practicing Roman Catholic and i guess a non-practicing protestant? I believed in God as a very very small child but that was the extent to it. He spoke to me alot. My grandma who was around very often was a Pentecostal. Later she took me to church with her. They didn’t make sense in their teachings but I suppose since this was all I knew, you could say I was Pentecostal with rebellion. Hated the non biblical tradition Pentecostals held. Either way, eventually my grandma died in 2000 and I was baptized a year later. Years later, after one parent went to Freemasonry and claimed it to be Christian I left Christianity as wanted nothing to do with the Freemasonry god of evil. the other parent who was a non-practicing catholic went protestant and tend to hold many of the Pentecostal views and tends to be very much against catholism. Kept my faith in God but didn’t know his identity from him. Went Wiccan. Later God answered my prayers on his identity (gave me a vision of a fish formed with red ink mostly completed) and I went with Jesus Christ, Christianity and left Wicca which was very empty and silent. Since I have been non-denominational and extremely cautious and skeptical when it comes to denominations. Pretty much it is prayer, the bible, and caution. Later my boyfriend who is my now husband wanted me to re-baptized because of the change of religion. so i did, as i didnt have a problem with it and seemed to make sense. So both scriptures matthew 28 and acts 2 were hit in my 2nd baptism while my first was just the acts 2. id imagine no matter what my 2nd baptism is valid. I tend to still go to Protestant churches but i am extremely cautious and picky with them, and i tend to keep my mouth shut. I am in the gray area between catholic and protestant on different topics. i step on peoples toes often. None, the less I do have an interest in denominations and questions on what happened to the early church.
I do feel i have grown a ton over many years and i feel very secure in Christ so at least I have that if nothing else. Would have been nice if I knew things I do now as a kid but oh well.
I was born to an non-practicing Roman Catholic and i guess a non-practicing protestant? I believed in God as a very very small child but that was the extent to it. He spoke to me alot. My grandma who was around very often was a Pentecostal. Later she took me to church with her. They didn’t make sense in their teachings but I suppose since this was all I knew, you could say I was Pentecostal with rebellion. Hated the non biblical tradition Pentecostals held. Either way, eventually my grandma died in 2000 and I was baptized a year later. Years later, after one parent went to Freemasonry and claimed it to be Christian I left Christianity as wanted nothing to do with the Freemasonry god of evil. the other parent who was a non-practicing catholic went protestant and tend to hold many of the Pentecostal views and tends to be very much against catholism. Kept my faith in God but didn’t know his identity from him. Went Wiccan. Later God answered my prayers on his identity (gave me a vision of a fish formed with red ink mostly completed) and I went with Jesus Christ, Christianity and left Wicca which was very empty and silent. Since I have been non-denominational and extremely cautious and skeptical when it comes to denominations. Pretty much it is prayer, the bible, and caution. Later my boyfriend who is my now husband wanted me to re-baptized because of the change of religion. so i did, as i didnt have a problem with it and seemed to make sense. So both scriptures matthew 28 and acts 2 were hit in my 2nd baptism while my first was just the acts 2. id imagine no matter what my 2nd baptism is valid. I tend to still go to Protestant churches but i am extremely cautious and picky with them, and i tend to keep my mouth shut. I am in the gray area between catholic and protestant on different topics. i step on peoples toes often. None, the less I do have an interest in denominations and questions on what happened to the early church.
I do feel i have grown a ton over many years and i feel very secure in Christ so at least I have that if nothing else. Would have been nice if I knew things I do now as a kid but oh well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.