How long should a faith carry the weight of their history?

[Stephen168]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your references nor what you are saying–no doubt my fault due to my own ignorance.

The ‘no true scot’ fallacy is when a term is suddenly changed to advance the argument. For example:
Catholic: All Catholics like fish.
Mormon: I know a catholic who hates fish.
Catholic: Well ‘no true Catholic’ would hate fish.
The Catholic suddenly changes the definition of Catholic to advance their argument. When a term is known in advance the fallacy does not apply: No true Catholic would reject the Pope as the head of the Church. Almost by definition a Catholic is one who accepts the Pope as the head of the Church.
When Dianaid doesn’t like someone’s definition of something she likes to drag out the ‘no true scot’ fallacy and miss use it. Even though we agree that a Christian is someone who worships the triune God, Dianaid would like to believe it was a sudden change in definition on your part.

 

[Della]

The ‘no true scot’ fallacy is when a term is suddenly changed to advance the argument. For example:
Catholic: All Catholics like fish.
Mormon: I know a catholic who hates fish.
Catholic: Well ‘no true Catholic’ would hate fish.
The Catholic suddenly changes the definition of Catholic to advance their argument. When a term is known in advance the fallacy does not apply: No true Catholic would reject the Pope as the head of the Church. Almost by definition a Catholic is one who accepts the Pope as the head of the Church.
When Dianaid doesn’t like someone’s definition of something she likes to drag out the ‘no true scot’ fallacy and miss use it. Even though we agree that a Christian is someone who worships the triune God, Dianaid would like to believe it was a sudden change in definition on your part.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation.

I wasn’t familiar with the concept. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and effort to argue using fallacies as a basis, isn’t it? But people do, for reasons of their own, which is why it’s so hard to get across to them the plain facts. If they do it, others must be doing it too, is some people’s logic (not accusing Dianaid of doing it, but I can see how a person could think others do and so have that in their minds, coloring what others are saying). I don’t see the point in doing that. Seems like an odd way to try to convince another person of one’s position to me.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

As for false prophecies, the history of Eastern Orthodoxy is replete with the near-constant embrace of bogus miracles and false doctrines - some of which, to its credit, the Eastern Church eventually rejected, and some of which it still holds to today. E.G., in Jerusalem, the miracle of the “holy fire” which supposedly “miraculously” ignites within Christ’s empty tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on Easter Sunday is known to be a fake.

First, The Holy Fire Miracle is a miracle, not a prophecy. Any miracle that happens can either be of demonic or heavenly origin. It has been proven to be of heavenly origin as when the Armenians paid the Turks to let their Patriarch be in the Holy Sepulchre and the Orthodox Patriarch was standing at the exit of the church near the left column when the Holy Light split the column vertically rather then going to the Armenian Patriarch.

But you’re claiming it is not a miracle at all - so you must have never been there and seen the evidence for yourself.

Please take 10 minutes to read this: holyfire.org/eng/ and then take 48 seconds to watch this video of it: youtube.com/watch?v=fUFeFYw4aMg Notice how people keep their hands & face in the Fire and they do not get burned!

If you do not believe that to be a miracle, then take a fire and place your hand & face in it for the same length of time they do and see what happens! - of course this comment is retorical as I do not wish you to be harmed in anyway.

The fact of the matter is that the Holy Fire Miracle has been investigated and proven it is continues to happen year after year.

The earliest documentation of the miracle was done in the 4th century by Sts. John Damascene and Gregory of Nissa who both document that the Miracle of Holy Fire was even present in the 1st century as witnessed by St. Peter the Apostle after Christ’s Resurrection. All 3 of these Saints are pre-schism Saints recognized by the Catholic Church today.

Yet, countless Eastern Orthodox still believe that it’s a miracle because that’s what they are told.

Countless Eastern Orthodox believe that it’a a miracle because that is what they have personally witnessed.

The same is true of many Eastern Orthodox who believe in the existence of heavenly “toll houses” which are experienced by souls after death. This is not based on Apostolic Tradition, but on the private visions of certain post-Schism saints.

The spiritual reality of the “toll houses”, again is not a prophecy but the consistent teaching of the Church, has been passed down from generation to generation since Christ Himself was hear on earth. Like the term “Trinity” which was not found in the Bible nor in the early Church Fathers, the term “toll houses” was not used until centuries after Christ’s Resurrection although the belief was there from the beginning. This is spiritual reality of “toll houses” was even spoken about in the Old Testament as “Jacobs’ Ladder” and in the book of Tobit where it is stated that Almsgiving covers a multitude of sins and by early Christians like St. John Klimatikos in his work the Ladder of Divine Ascent. We, as Christians, must purify ourselves body and soul of all sinful attachments (passions) in this earthly life. It’s not an easy thing to do, but it is possible as all things are possible with God.

The term “Trinity” has been accepted by Catholic and Orthodox alike in describing the spiritual reality of our Triune God; however, the term “toll houses” is not even accepted by Catholics. The reality that the Church Fathers are conveying by using the term is accepted by the Orthodox Church.

The current Catholic interpretation of the spiritual reality of “toll houses” is Purgatory; however Purgatory is described by the Catholic Church to be very different than the “toll houses” as rather than teaching that the demons wanting to drag each soul down to hell test each soul to see if it is free from attachment to sin/passions & if not, they take it - the soul is defended by his/her guardian angel (toll houses), the soul is burned to remove existing attachment to sin (purgatory).

 

[ralphinal]

The current Catholic interpretation of the spiritual reality of “toll houses” is Purgatory; however Purgatory is described by the Catholic Church to be very different than the “toll houses” as rather than teaching that the demons wanting to drag each soul down to hell test each soul to see if it is free from attachment to sin/passions & if not, they take it - the soul is defended by his/her guardian angel (toll houses), the soul is burned to remove existing attachment to sin (purgatory).

Who says that demons take souls to hell to test them?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Who says that demons take souls to hell to test them?

Sorry if I was unclear. Demons want to take souls to hell! After death, a soul together with their guardian angel goes through a spiritual experience which has been described by Church Fathers as “toll houses” where the demons try to accuse the soul of various sins that the person committed and sometimes did not committ while here on earth.

In attempts to make this spiritual reality understandable, many Church Fathers have given the analogy of “toll houses” here’s an example:

After death, the guardian angel takes the soul and they come to he Demon of let’s say of Fornication. The Demon of Fornication will accuse the person of committing Fornication 1,234 times bringing demonic witnesses who say they saw the person do this sin at specific times and locations. Then the weights of those sins are place that on one side of the scale and then the guardian angel says the correct # was 1,023 times as some of the demon witnesses lied since at those times the person was really at this location doing this at that time. Next the guardian angel will say that the person repented fully of that sin being free from that sin for x # of years prior to his/her death & that they even spent x # of years helping helping others overcome that sin (for example). And then the repentance weights are placed on the scale - if the scale weighs heavier on the Demonic side, then they rip the soul out of the hands of the guardian angel and take them to hell, but if the scales weighs heavier on the guardian angel’s side, then the soul & guardian angel continue on their way until they get to the next “toll house” of maybe the Demon of Gluttony or Greed or something. This continues until either the soul is taken to hell by the demons as the soul is found not to have been purified of all sin, or it continues until the soul has been vindicated of all the sins and enters heaven.

Of course, this is an analogy since hell and heaven will not be opened until after the Last Day when the souls will be reunited with their transfigured bodies. Until then, they await in what Jesus referred to as “Abraham’s bosom” where they begin to experience the prelude to what they will experience body and soul in their eternal destination.

 

[Xavierlives]

Not…exactly. What you have said means that we aren’t CATHOLIC. Nor are we Trinitarians in the same way you are. Since we do believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God and our Savior, the second Member of the Godhead without Whom none can be saved, then we are Christian. We aren’t your sort of Christian, but…Christian we are.

They also believe they are equals to Jesus or his brother, where the book of Isaiah says otherwise.

 

[dianaiad]

I only wish I could agree with you, but I can’t. You don’t hold to Christian teachings therefore you aren’t Christian.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

The word Christian means one who holds to Christian teachings.

That’s circular, Della. The problem is who gets to define what teachings ARE 'Christian."

I’m certain that you can understand that even those who are not Catholic, and whose beliefs are different from yours, firmly believe that THEIR teachings are the ‘Christian’ ones.

In reality, as long as a Christian satisfies the most basic requirement of being Christian (and you can look that definition up in any dictionary), then ANY belief a Christian holds IS a Christian belief.

It doesn’t mean that this belief is RIGHT, but it is Christian–because a Christian holds it. It may be off the rails, all wet, totally nutty–but if a Christian holds it, it’s a Christian belief.

And 'Christian" is defined as: " •a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination" or (and I think even that’s a little narrow…not all Christians belong to a specific denomination) “A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity…a religion based upon the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who is believed to be the Messiah prophesied in the OT.”

To boil it down even further, a Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as s/he believes them to be, and who claims to be one.

You are a Latter Day Saint or Mormon because you hold to those beliefs

And you are a Catholic, rather than a Baptist or a Mormon or a Quaker, because you hold to those beliefs. That doesn’t mean you are NOT Christian. By the way, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

. It’s, as you say, just a label, but it has parameters of meaning.

Yes…about two of them.

You wish to change the parameters to make your beliefs fit,

No, I wish to remind you that you are a subset of a very large belief system; Christianity. you are a member of the largest subset of Christianity, true…and arguably the one which has been around the longest, but you are still a subset of a much larger group. You don’t get to define the beliefs of the entire group ‘Christian’ by the beliefs of this specific subset.

but they don’t.

They aren’t CATHOLIC beliefs. They are, however, Christian beliefs, because we are Christians (since we believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and is at the center of our religion) and we hold them.

Those who do not hold to the Trinity are not Christians.

Says who?

 

[dianaiad]

They are something else–what isn’t up to Christians to decide.

(grin) But you just HAVE decided, Della. You have decided that we aren’t Christians. Heaven alone knows why you decided that. Are you afraid that someone might look at us and think…well, look at these weird Mormons; they are Christians, so Catholics must believe everything Mormons do?

I mean, really…would you be concerned that someone would confuse a Quaker with you, or a Baptist with you?

Counterfeit money can be claimed to be the real thing but it isn’t no matter how closely it resembles real currency. If you are content being an LDS, then be one. But please don’t expect Christians to name you what you aren’t just because you’d like us to. We can’t do it because it isn’t true. No harm, no foul.

But there is harm, Della. Please think about this…and look at your history. What is the VERY first thing one religious group did to another just before they sent armed men against them, made laws against their beliefs, or did other nasty things to them?

The first thing any body does is…proclaim that the other guy isn’t “Christian.” That makes them ‘other’ in a way that allows the burnings, the stakings, the torture, the mobbings, the turning out of homes, the confiscation of property and of imprisonment. It happened to the Catholics in King Henry’s time. It happened to the Protestants in Queen Mary’s time. It happened to the Catholics again in Cromwell’s time…and King Charles II got his licks in when he got back. It happened in America all over the place…and it still does.

I wasn’t kidding when I used the analogy of the baby birds attempting to shove their siblings from the nest; the consequences of being shoved out are almost always fatal…and the consequences of having fellow Christians deny you the right to call yourselves Christian tend to be equally nasty.

People do not change, Della. there has only ever been one reason to deny someone who believes that Jesus is the Savior the title “Christian,” and it is to make that person ‘other.’ If one is “other,” then he is fair game for whatever you want to do to him; “other,” means 'not us–" “not quite people.”

So here’s the deal. I am not Catholic. I am Mormon. We have different beliefs in many areas. WE have beliefs in common in many areas, as well—beliefs that differentiate our two groups from most Protestants, as a matter of fact. We Mormons have beliefs in common with Protestants that differentiate us from Catholics. All Christians have beliefs that are different from all other Christians, to a greater or lesser extent. Some of these beliefs are correct. Some are not…all are Christian.

Some of us are ‘saved’ (whatever that means to whomever) and some are not. (shrug) all are Christian, because of that ONE important belief; we all believe in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and claim the Name.

You do not get to decide what beliefs are 'Christian" and which are not. Neither do I. I do think, though, that since your definition of the word is “he who believes the truth about Christ” or “he who believes what I do about Christ,” then it’s a good thing that I don’t share your definition.

Because if I did, as I said…I’d be the Christian and you—would be something else.

And that attitude starts wars.

We both can’t be RIGHT about our beliefs, but we do share in the greater idea; Jesus is the Christ, the Living God, the Savior, the Only Begotten Son of God, Whose birthday we celebrate in nine days, seven hours, eleven minutes and 30 seconds from now. (I have a count down clock, and I just SCARED MYSELF!!)

 

[dianaiad]

The ‘no true scot’ fallacy is when a term is suddenly changed to advance the argument. For example:
Catholic: All Catholics like fish.
Mormon: I know a catholic who hates fish.
Catholic: Well ‘no true Catholic’ would hate fish.
The Catholic suddenly changes the definition of Catholic to advance their argument. When a term is known in advance the fallacy does not apply: No true Catholic would reject the Pope as the head of the Church. Almost by definition a Catholic is one who accepts the Pope as the head of the Church.
When Dianaid doesn’t like someone’s definition of something she likes to drag out the ‘no true scot’ fallacy and miss use it. Even though we agree that a Christian is someone who worships the triune God, Dianaid would like to believe it was a sudden change in definition on your part.

that begs the question. Who is this ‘we’ who agree that a Christian is 'someone who worships the triune god?"

Do please come up with an answer that is NOT incredibly circular.

 

[dianaiad]

They also believe they are equals to Jesus or his brother, where the book of Isaiah says otherwise.

Well, we don’t actually believe we are His equals, y’know. He IS, after all, Jesus the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, the second Member of the Godhead; God, through Whom God the Father created all things that are.

You raise a question, though. What do you mean by “Jesus or his brother?”

On one level, we are all the brothers and sisters of Jesus, since we believe that we are all the spiritual offspring of God. (yes, that includes Lucifer and all the angels) That doesn’t make us equal with Jesus, mind you. On another level, we are His siblings because we all share ancestry with Adam. (which leaves Lucifer and his group behind…) On a third level, though, none of us are His siblings, because there’s something about being the ONLY Begotten Son of God that precludes that.

So…who is the ‘brother,’ to whom you refer?

 

[dzheremi]

Getting away from Mormonism and back to the topic, my question about this is: Why should any faith ever stop carrying the “weight” of their history? The weight is part of this history. History is not just what happened in 325 AD or 451 AD or 1054 AD or even 1965 AD. It is the inheritance of every person who continues on in whatever faith tradition that they are in. We make it what it is, so if we suddenly decide that we want to ignore or soften or otherwise disavow this or that particular piece, it seems like abandoning the faith to avoid uncomfortable periods or events. This is not what the apostles or their disciples did. This is not what we should do either, if we care at all about continuing as an apostolic faith, as opposed to something generated from some new manipulation of that same history on the part of people who do not value or understand what they are defiling.

For instance, the first Crusade, as a justifiable call to the defense of the faith (in my personal opinion, anyway), is far more easy to digest than the fourth Crusade, with its abominable sack of Constantinople. Yet they are both a matter of historical record, and one should not forget the terrible events in order to emphasize only the good or noble. We can either face up to our history in both its good and bad points, or we can be cowards and hypocrites for the sake of making ourselves feel better. I’m not interested in the latter at all, personally. It does nobody any good.

 

[Della]

(grin) But you just HAVE decided, Della. You have decided that we aren’t Christians. Heaven alone knows why you decided that. Are you afraid that someone might look at us and think…well, look at these weird Mormons; they are Christians, so Catholics must believe everything Mormons do?

I mean, really…would you be concerned that someone would confuse a Quaker with you, or a Baptist with you?

But there is harm, Della. Please think about this…and look at your history. What is the VERY first thing one religious group did to another just before they sent armed men against them, made laws against their beliefs, or did other nasty things to them?

The first thing any body does is…proclaim that the other guy isn’t “Christian.” That makes them ‘other’ in a way that allows the burnings, the stakings, the torture, the mobbings, the turning out of homes, the confiscation of property and of imprisonment. It happened to the Catholics in King Henry’s time. It happened to the Protestants in Queen Mary’s time. It happened to the Catholics again in Cromwell’s time…and King Charles II got his licks in when he got back. It happened in America all over the place…and it still does.

I wasn’t kidding when I used the analogy of the baby birds attempting to shove their siblings from the nest; the consequences of being shoved out are almost always fatal…and the consequences of having fellow Christians deny you the right to call yourselves Christian tend to be equally nasty.

People do not change, Della. there has only ever been one reason to deny someone who believes that Jesus is the Savior the title “Christian,” and it is to make that person ‘other.’ If one is “other,” then he is fair game for whatever you want to do to him; “other,” means 'not us–" “not quite people.”

So here’s the deal. I am not Catholic. I am Mormon. We have different beliefs in many areas. WE have beliefs in common in many areas, as well—beliefs that differentiate our two groups from most Protestants, as a matter of fact. We Mormons have beliefs in common with Protestants that differentiate us from Catholics. All Christians have beliefs that are different from all other Christians, to a greater or lesser extent. Some of these beliefs are correct. Some are not…all are Christian.

Some of us are ‘saved’ (whatever that means to whomever) and some are not. (shrug) all are Christian, because of that ONE important belief; we all believe in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and claim the Name.

You do not get to decide what beliefs are 'Christian" and which are not. Neither do I. I do think, though, that since your definition of the word is “he who believes the truth about Christ” or “he who believes what I do about Christ,” then it’s a good thing that I don’t share your definition.

Because if I did, as I said…I’d be the Christian and you—would be something else.

And that attitude starts wars.

We both can’t be RIGHT about our beliefs, but we do share in the greater idea; Jesus is the Christ, the Living God, the Savior, the Only Begotten Son of God, Whose birthday we celebrate in nine days, seven hours, eleven minutes and 30 seconds from now. (I have a count down clock, and I just SCARED MYSELF!!)

Your definition of Christianity is simply the wrong one. That’s the plain truth. You are not a Christian. If you want to think you are, that’s up to you. But, history is against you. The Church is about 2000 years old, founded by Christ himself with an unbroken line of successors. It has out lasted many a sect, many a civilization and will continue to do so until Christ comes again. Christmas is a Catholic holy day. It means Christ’s Mass. You can celebrate Jesus’ birth if you like and welcome, but it didn’t come from your faith community, it came from the Church. Christmas for a Catholic is celebrating not only Jesus’ birth but also the Eucharist he himself gave us, the receiving of his body and blood, soul and divinity. And there is nothing on this earth that can replace that.

 

[dianaiad]

Your definition of Christianity is simply the wrong one.

Not according to any dictionary I know about, Della.

…and if you are going to come back with some version of 'I don’t define my religion by the dictionary…" you are quite right. you shouldn’t. However, we DO, we English speakers, define English WORDS in the dictionary; and dictionaries define words by how everybody who actually USES those words define them.

That is, they are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s why you will find that the definition of “gay” includes the idea of homosexuality, and recently, that’s the prefered definition. Very few people use ‘gay’ the way my parents did, or even the way I did. That’s because this word has come to be associated almost exclusively with homosexuals. It’s too bad, but that’s the way it is; the meanings of words are voted upon; a word means what everybody agrees it means.

Well, EVERY dictionary I know about defines “Christian” pretty much the way I have. Which means that the vast, and I do mean the VAST, majority of people define ‘Christian’ the way I have…and no single Christian group has the right to glom onto it and hijack it for their own use. Catholics don’t. Protestants don’t. We don’t. That’s simple fact, as proven by all the linguistic evidence there is.

That’s the plain truth.

No it’s not. So there. See? my statement is certainly as valid as yours is, and I have all the combined English speaking world as evidence for my position.

You are not a Christian. If you want to think you are, that’s up to you. But, history is against you. The Church is about 2000 years old, founded by Christ himself with an unbroken line of successors. It has out lasted many a sect, many a civilization and will continue to do so until Christ comes again. Christmas is a Catholic holy day. It means Christ’s Mass. You can celebrate Jesus’ birth if you like and welcome, but it didn’t come from your faith community, it came from the Church.

Careful, Della. While I am extremely happy to be celebrating Christ’s birthday on December 25th, the consensus of everybody (even Catholic scholars) is that He wasn’t actually BORN then. The vote is still out as to when He WAS born, but if you are basing the truth of your religion upon the fact that you celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th, you are standing on very thin ice.

Christmas for a Catholic is celebrating not only Jesus’ birth but also the Eucharist he himself gave us, the receiving of his body and blood, soul and divinity. And there is nothing on this earth that can replace that.

Perhaps not, Della. Remember this; I do believe that I, as a member of the CoJCoLDS, have the full truth of the gospel, and you,as a Catholic, do not. I’m well aware that you firmly believe exactly the opposite.

Neither position has anything to do with whether either one, both, or neither of us is Christian.

My point is: it isn’t being RIGHT that makes a Christian a Christian. It’s not being Catholic, or being Trinitarian, or celebrating Christmas (many Christians don’t, y’know…or celebrate it elsewhen). What makes a Christian a Christian is where s/he puts Christ. If He is placed at the center of their beliefs, then they are Christian.

The heirarchy goes like this: theist, Judeo-Christian, Christian–whatever denomination you belong to. Now some people put an additional step in there, right after “Christian” and before individual denominations; “Catholic,” Protestant" and “other.” (Restorationists might go in the ‘other’ column.) In that case, we Mormons would be 'other."

However, we are all still in the Christian file box, even if we occupy very different file folders.

I hope you will forgive me if I don’t think that your declaration of my non-Christian status has a whole lot of authority behind it–about the same amount, I think, that you would give my declaration that YOU are not Christian.

Think about that one for a minute.

 

[Xavierlives]

But there is harm, Della. Please think about this…and look at your history. What is the VERY first thing one religious group did to another just before they sent armed men against them, made laws against their beliefs, or did other nasty things to them?

You have mentioned this a couple of times now. Are you truly afraid of a Mormon Holocaust or is this just fear mongering? Because a lawyer I can say that religious freedoms are pretty much set in stone. I can see only a few ways for this Mormon persecution to occur: 1. The United States collapses and protections of the Constitution no longer apply to the Mormon church and it suffers; 2. the United States is in complete upheaval that all religion is limited through a constitutional amendments.

The first thing any body does is…proclaim that the other guy isn’t “Christian.” That makes them ‘other’ in a way that allows the burnings, the stakings, the torture, the mobbings, the turning out of homes, the confiscation of property and of imprisonment. It happened to the Catholics in King Henry’s time. It happened to the Protestants in Queen Mary’s time. It happened to the Catholics again in Cromwell’s time…and King Charles II got his licks in when he got back. It happened in America all over the place…and it still does.

I wasn’t kidding when I used the analogy of the baby birds attempting to shove their siblings from the nest; the consequences of being shoved out are almost always fatal…and the consequences of having fellow Christians deny you the right to call yourselves Christian tend to be equally nasty.

Do you know what the cowbird does? It comes along and finds a suitable nest of another bird. It lays its eggs and lets the other bird warm it and care for it. Eventually the chicks all hatch and the host bird starts caring for the parasitical brood. After a particular point when the chicks are bigger, the host figures it out. Some species continue to feed the parasite at the expense of their own chicks. But some hosts recognize the fraud and refuse to acknowledge the cowbird as its own. Isn’t it amazing that God has created all of this and now we can use it as an analogy?

People do not change, Della. there has only ever been one reason to deny someone who believes that Jesus is the Savior the title “Christian,” and it is to make that person ‘other.’ If one is “other,” then he is fair game for whatever you want to do to him; “other,” means 'not us–" “not quite people.”

So here’s the deal. I am not Catholic. I am Mormon. We have different beliefs in many areas. WE have beliefs in common in many areas, as well—beliefs that differentiate our two groups from most Protestants, as a matter of fact. We Mormons have beliefs in common with Protestants that differentiate us from Catholics. All Christians have beliefs that are different from all other Christians, to a greater or lesser extent. Some of these beliefs are correct. Some are not…all are Christian.

Some of us are ‘saved’ (whatever that means to whomever) and some are not. (shrug) all are Christian, because of that ONE important belief; we all believe in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and claim the Name.

You do not get to decide what beliefs are 'Christian" and which are not. Neither do I. I do think, though, that since your definition of the word is “he who believes the truth about Christ” or “he who believes what I do about Christ,” then it’s a good thing that I don’t share your definition.

(You can snicker about this because I am too). You are saying

Call us Christians, because we are Christ centered.
By the way, we have a distinct plan of salvation, that excludes everyone but the Mormon “Christians.”
Because we are right and you are wrong, we are the “true Christians” and you are nothing.
So, in effect, if we validate you, we are invalidating ourselves…

**Because if I did, as I said…I’d be the Christian and you—would be something else. **

And that attitude starts wars.

We both can’t be RIGHT about our beliefs, but we do share in the greater idea; Jesus is the Christ, the Living God, the Savior, the Only Begotten Son of God, Whose birthday we celebrate in nine days, seven hours, eleven minutes and 30 seconds from now. (I have a count down clock, and I just SCARED MYSELF!!)

I will say, I am praying for you, Diana, more than I was even a month ago. I am praying for you because it seems at times here that it is like you are getting a letter in the mail that does not have a stamp, and you are writing on the envelope “insufficient postage” and dropping it back in the mailbox. Instead of reading the message these people are sending, you are finding fault in their delivery. Don’t get me wrong, as a former debate teacher, I am having to ignore quite a bit but I am listening to their message.​

 

[soren1]

Your definition of Christianity is simply the wrong one. That’s the plain truth. You are not a Christian. If you want to think you are, that’s up to you. But, history is against you. The Church is about 2000 years old, founded by Christ himself with an unbroken line of successors. It has out lasted many a sect, many a civilization and will continue to do so until Christ comes again. Christmas is a Catholic holy day. It means Christ’s Mass. You can celebrate Jesus’ birth if you like and welcome, but it didn’t come from your faith community, it came from the Church. Christmas for a Catholic is celebrating not only Jesus’ birth but also the Eucharist he himself gave us, the receiving of his body and blood, soul and divinity. And there is nothing on this earth that can replace that.

Della,

You really ought to listen to Danaiad here. You cannot expect people to agree on who is a Christian if there is not first an agreement on what Christian means. As far as the meaning of the word “Christian” goes, not all of history supports your position. For instance, Justin Martyr spoke of the Gnostics as “Christians” and medieval Catholic writers (and even some more recent ones like Belloc) commonly spoke of Islam not as a non-Christian religion, but as a Christian heresy in the same vein as Arianism. At the same time, there are uses of “Christian” that go along with you. St. Augustine, for instance, did not recognize Pelagians as Christians. Examples on both sides could be multiplied.

Now Vatican II spoke of Christians as those who believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Mormonism denies the Trinity clearly, and carefully understood denies the Incarnation as well. The purpose of the Council’s definition, however, is not to set up a once-and-forever rule about who gets to call themselves “Christian” but to distinguish the Council’s documents on ecumenical and interreligious dialogue: our dialogue with Mormons is therefore interreligious, not ecumenical. This does not mean, however, that we have any business telling Mormons how they need to use the word “Christian.” There are theological and moral differences between Catholics and Mormons that prevent us from viewing them as fellow believers; those differences must be observed in theory and practice, but they have the right to call themselves what they want.

 

[Xavierlives]

Della,

You really ought to listen to Danaiad here. You cannot expect people to agree on who is a Christian if there is not first an agreement on what Christian means. As far as the meaning of the word “Christian” goes, not all of history supports your position. For instance, Justin Martyr spoke of the Gnostics as “Christians” and medieval Catholic writers (and even some more recent ones like Belloc) commonly spoke of Islam not as a non-Christian religion, but as a Christian heresy in the same vein as Arianism. At the same time, there are uses of “Christian” that go along with you. St. Augustine, for instance, did not recognize Pelagians as Christians. Examples on both sides could be multiplied.

Now Vatican II spoke of Christians as those who believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Mormonism denies the Trinity clearly, and carefully understood denies the Incarnation as well. The purpose of the Council’s definition, however, is not to set up a once-and-forever rule about who gets to call themselves “Christian” but to distinguish the Council’s documents on ecumenical and interreligious dialogue: our dialogue with Mormons is therefore interreligious, not ecumenical. This does not mean, however, that we have any business telling Mormons how they need to use the word “Christian.” There are theological and moral differences between Catholics and Mormons that prevent us from viewing them as fellow believers; those differences must be observed in theory and practice, but they have the right to call themselves what they want.

And they call themselves Mormons.

 

[Della]

Della,

You really ought to listen to Danaiad here. You cannot expect people to agree on who is a Christian if there is not first an agreement on what Christian means. As far as the meaning of the word “Christian” goes, not all of history supports your position. For instance, Justin Martyr spoke of the Gnostics as “Christians” and medieval Catholic writers (and even some more recent ones like Belloc) commonly spoke of Islam not as a non-Christian religion, but as a Christian heresy in the same vein as Arianism. At the same time, there are uses of “Christian” that go along with you. St. Augustine, for instance, did not recognize Pelagians as Christians. Examples on both sides could be multiplied.

Now Vatican II spoke of Christians as those who believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Mormonism denies the Trinity clearly, and carefully understood denies the Incarnation as well. The purpose of the Council’s definition, however, is not to set up a once-and-forever rule about who gets to call themselves “Christian” but to distinguish the Council’s documents on ecumenical and interreligious dialogue: our dialogue with Mormons is therefore interreligious, not ecumenical. This does not mean, however, that we have any business telling Mormons how they need to use the word “Christian.” There are theological and moral differences between Catholics and Mormons that prevent us from viewing them as fellow believers; those differences must be observed in theory and practice, but they have the right to call themselves what they want.

If Mormons are not Christians we don’t have to recognize them as Christians. They, on the other hand, can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn’t make it true. That’s my point in a nutshell.

 

[dianaiad]

You have mentioned this a couple of times now. Are you truly afraid of a Mormon Holocaust or is this just fear mongering? Because a lawyer I can say that religious freedoms are pretty much set in stone. I can see only a few ways for this Mormon persecution to occur: 1. The United States collapses and protections of the Constitution no longer apply to the Mormon church and it suffers; 2. the United States is in complete upheaval that all religion is limited through a constitutional amendments.

You mean…they are set in the Constitution. Please do not confuse the Constitution with iron restraints. The Constitution is only effective, as the scriptures are only effective, if people actually pay attention to them.

As to your dismissive referal to a “Mormon Holocaust…” (and this is getting the thread back on topic, in a round about way…) While we certainly didn’t suffer a holocaust in the way that the Jews did in Germany, we most certainly DID suffer a diaspora event–nearly a 100 years AFTER the Constitution, with it’s First Amendment, was enacted. If you want to talk about a religion and its history…c’mon. There have only been two religions in the history of the world that were absolutely driven out of the nation in which they lived, and the Mormons are one of them. Good grief, man, it was just LAST YEAR that a Mormon politician was shut out of a run for the Presidency because of his RELIGION.

It was in my lifetime that a Catholic was elected president…and that there was a huge controversy over why he should be…because one had never been elected before. There have been many, MANY instances of religious persecution against various groups, BY various groups, over the last 250 years, constitution notwithstanding.

Do you really think that the last few decades mean anything in terms of the history of the world, especially when the prejudice and hatred keep popping up?

You can bet on the paper laws if you want to…but I’m more inclined to look at the way people work with those laws, and history proves that if there is a way around them that will allow them to act upon their prejudices, they will find it.

Laws exist for a reason. They exist to control behavior. There is no law declaring that a human being may not hold his breath for an hour, is there?

That’s because it’s not possible for a human being to hold his breath for an hour. There need not be a law, because it would not be possible to violate one.

The very fact that we HAVE the Constitution, with the First Amendment, is tacit acknowledgement that people have, do, and will continue to violate the principles it protects. It is an agreement among people that here, in this time and in this place, we will behave ourselves.

But some don’t, and that’s why we attach consequences to the breaking of that agreement. There would be no need to declare jail terms for breaking a law–if nobody ever broke it.

So, my friend, the very fact that it is against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion is proof that people actually do discriminate against people because of their religion–else there would be no need of the law.

Do you know what the cowbird does? It comes along and finds a suitable nest of another bird. It lays its eggs and lets the other bird warm it and care for it. Eventually the chicks all hatch and the host bird starts caring for the parasitical brood. After a particular point when the chicks are bigger, the host figures it out. Some species continue to feed the parasite at the expense of their own chicks. But some hosts recognize the fraud and refuse to acknowledge the cowbird as its own. Isn’t it amazing that God has created all of this and now we can use it as an analogy?

Well, you guys certainly, in the history of your own churches, showed a great willingness to kick the chick out of the nest–and out of their homes, towns, states and even nations, using all manner of methods from mobbing to murder. So I suppose the analogy is apt.

The problem, for you, of course, is that while the cowbird may not be a blackbird, and may lay her eggs in the blackbird’s nest, the chick does not grow up to be a blackbird, or force the blackbird chicks to be cowbirds…and the point is, they are still, all, BIRDS.

(You can snicker about this because I am too). You are saying

Call us Christians, because we are Christ centered.
By the way, we have a distinct plan of salvation, that excludes everyone but the Mormon “Christians.”
Because we are right and you are wrong, we are the “true Christians” and you are nothing.
So, in effect, if we validate you, we are invalidating ourselves…
​

I see. So because we have a specific doctrine that says you must be baptized in the manner we approve of, and because we have the specific doctrine that Christ is the Way by which we are saved, and because certain specific things must happen in order to achieve, heaven, that we are not Christian?

How is that different from what the Catholics, or you, believe?

I will say, I am praying for you, Diana, more than I was even a month ago. I am praying for you because it seems at times here that it is like you are getting a letter in the mail that does not have a stamp, and you are writing on the envelope “insufficient postage” and dropping it back in the mailbox. Instead of reading the message these people are sending, you are finding fault in their delivery. Don’t get me wrong, as a former debate teacher, I am having to ignore quite a bit but I am listening to their message.

Oh, trust me, their message is loud and clear. Their problem, most of them, is that they aren’t comfortable with the fact that I actually understand the message–and am not distracted by the code its wrapped in.​

 

[dianaiad]

I will say, I am praying for you, Diana, more than I was even a month ago. I am praying for you because it seems at times here that it is like you are getting a letter in the mail that does not have a stamp, and you are writing on the envelope “insufficient postage” and dropping it back in the mailbox. Instead of reading the message these people are sending, you are finding fault in their delivery. Don’t get me wrong, as a former debate teacher, I am having to ignore quite a bit but I am listening to their message.

I ran out of space in my last answer to this, but I do want to add a thank you for your prayers, Xavier.

 

[dianaiad]

Della,

You really ought to listen to Danaiad here. You cannot expect people to agree on who is a Christian if there is not first an agreement on what Christian means. As far as the meaning of the word “Christian” goes, not all of history supports your position. For instance, Justin Martyr spoke of the Gnostics as “Christians” and medieval Catholic writers (and even some more recent ones like Belloc) commonly spoke of Islam not as a non-Christian religion, but as a Christian heresy in the same vein as Arianism. At the same time, there are uses of “Christian” that go along with you. St. Augustine, for instance, did not recognize Pelagians as Christians. Examples on both sides could be multiplied.

Now Vatican II spoke of Christians as those who believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Mormonism denies the Trinity clearly, and carefully understood denies the Incarnation as well. The purpose of the Council’s definition, however, is not to set up a once-and-forever rule about who gets to call themselves “Christian” but to distinguish the Council’s documents on ecumenical and interreligious dialogue: our dialogue with Mormons is therefore interreligious, not ecumenical. This does not mean, however, that we have any business telling Mormons how they need to use the word “Christian.” There are theological and moral differences between Catholics and Mormons that prevent us from viewing them as fellow believers; those differences must be observed in theory and practice, but they have the right to call themselves what they want.

Thank you.

I think.