D
dianaiad
Guest
Huh?
There are 'two classes of atheists?"
Well, come to think of it, there are…the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ sort. I can’t see Catholics in either class, though.
If every Christian group denied the title "Christian" to another
- Status
There are 'two classes of atheists?"
Well, come to think of it, there are…the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ sort. I can’t see Catholics in either class, though.
P
Publisher
Guest
“By this shall all men know you are my disciples, that you love one another.”
We all have a long way to go it would seem.
T
That_one_guy
Guest
Thank you. I’ve been watching this. It is very sad how any group can arrogantly assume that they and they alone have the complete monopoly on God.
I sometimes wonder if people actually read their Bibles. Or do they just search for scriptures to back up their own personal feelings?
Romans 2:1 So no matter who you are, if you pass judgement you have no excuse. It is yourself that you condemn when you judge others, since you behave in the same way as those you are condemning.
This may (ironically) seem to be doing what I just said.
I love my Catholic faith. And I love how the Church accepts other peoples Baptisms. I love the progress the magisterium is making on various issues concerning other peoples faiths and also world issues. The odd thing is, that nothing has really changed, just been slightly updated.
Sometimes, I must confess, however, that I feel like being apostate just so I don’t have to be associated with the “my-way-is-the-only-way” crowd. Jesus said HE is the way. Who are we to twist that to mean "my particular brand"s way?
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Talmage.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, I think that the word “Christian,” since it is an English word, (at least in English it’s an English word, if you get my drift) should be defined by speakers of English. That generally means that it is defined in a way that all speakers of English can agree upon, so that when it is used, everybody knows what is being spoken of.
In this case, the dictionary definition is a simple descriptive noun: “Christianity” is that group of belief systems based around the idea of Jesus Christ. A “Christian” is someone who follows a belief based around the teachings/idea of Jesus Christ.
There isn’t anything in the above definition that implies ‘truth.’ It’s a classification of belief.
Now, if you figure that the only ‘true’ church is a Christian one, then you are then faced with an amazing number of belief systems within that larger set ‘Christianity.’ All of them can be true to some extent, only one of them can be "the one and only true church,’ (because the others, having different beliefs from the ‘one and only true church’ would automatically then be false) and it is possible that each and every one of them is false.
The problems come when one of these subsets commits a fallacy of composition…like a Mustang owner declaring that only Mustangs can be Fords, only Fords can be cars, and only cars can be motor vehicles.
that sort of thing tends to frost the Chevies, y’know?
Now, to continue the car analogy, this doesn’t mean that the Ford Mustang isn’t the best car in the world, or the flashiest, or the ‘most true’ motor vehicle ever built. I might well argue that it is (especially a certain 1965 cherry red convertible, for which I have a nostalgic longing…)
But no matter how much I think of that Mustang, the fact is, a Chevy Malibu is also a car. So, unfortunately, is a Yugo.
As for me, I am not about to tell anybody that they aren’t a Christian, or can’t call themselves that. However, when one of you, Catholic, Protestant, Evangalist or not, tells me that I am not a Christian, I will respond as I have to: yes. I am. I can’t lie and tell you that I am not when I believe to the bottom of my soul that I am, can I? You really want me to lie about that?
I’m not a Catholic. I’m not a Baptist. I’m not a Lutheran or a Methodist or an Episcopalian or any other sort of Christian…I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It doesn’t really matter whether you think I"m a Christian or not–I think I am, and I will continue to do so until Christ Himself tells me that I am not.
I do not ask that you believe that I am.
I simply ask that you do not tell me that I am not and expect me to agree with you–or even to let it pass without comment. Argue with me about correct and incorrect doctrine. Tell me I’m wrong about everything…fine. We’ll talk.
But do not insist that I say that I am not a Christian, because that just isn’t going to happen.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Talmage wrote a lot. where did he write this?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Dispies are not Protestants - they are not Christians, if they accept the ideas in Dispensationalism. As the ideas in it show, Dispensationalism as an understanding of God & the universe is an alternative to Christianity - not another form of it. To call it dangerous is like saying that Fred Phelps is not a zealous advocate of homosexuality. It is anti-Christian through & through; & the longer it goes unwarned against, the more harm it will be able to do. :bighanky: :bighanky: :bighanky:
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
The Articles of Faith.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I have that book, of course (as soon as I can dig it out of that box over…no, not there…over there…I did mention that I just moved, yes?..never mind, I think I have the text online. )
Could you narrow that down a bit?
Thanks.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ok.
Found a searchable copy of “The Articles of Faith” by Talmage. Did a search for “atheist.”
Came up with three quotes; I see where your ‘two classes’ came from…though you ARE aware that he was quoting someone else, right?
According to him, one class of atheist (which he actually split into the two we now call ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ atheism) is the sort that doesn’t believe in a god at all.
The second class is the class you are putting yourself into. I don’t see it, myself, but I can see where at least on the surface you might. This is the class Talmage (who is actually quoting …Pratt, I think?..never mind.) puts the folks who believe in a god who is so nebulous, so impossible to define or imagine, that he may as well not exist; he calls these two classes a: the god that doesn’t exist anywhere, and b: the god that exists nowhere.
I can definitely see where someone who believes in a god without ‘body, parts or passions’ (never could figure that one out; ‘love’ is a passion, right?) and is ‘large enough to fill the universe and small enough to fit in the human heart’ might see himself in that description.
I think he was referring more to the deists, though. (shrug) I’d have to look at his other opinions to decide that.
R
ralphinal
Guest
dianaiad,
Are you saying that the LDS church no longer teaches that at some point after Jesus ascended into heaven, the Christian Church began to go apostate and slowly vanished under non-Christain doctrine until JS restored it?
Are you saying that the LDS church no longer teaches that at some point after Jesus ascended into heaven, the Christian Church began to go apostate and slowly vanished under non-Christain doctrine until JS restored it?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Isn’t that a little like walking up to a perfect stranger (who, by the way, isn’t saying anything) and asking “are you saying that you have stopped beating your wife?”
If that stranger is polite, all you will get is a raised eyebrow.
Would you care to restate your question?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Does the LDS teach that at some time, the early Christian Church began to go apostate, eventaully leaving the faith founded by Jesus and requiring a restoration through JS?
D
dianaiad
Guest
The LDS church teaches that at sometime in the early first and second centuries, after the apostles died, the priesthood authority was lost. Apostasy set in, and the priesthood authority had to be restored.
As well, many of the truths that were lost in that apostasy also had to be restored.
Your question, as worded, implies that we teach that there was no truth left, and no Christianity or faith in Christ around. We don’t. We teach that a great deal was lost and needed to be restored, but a great deal remained, as well.
There is a difference between what we teach–and the question as you have asked it; and the difference is indeed pretty important.
R
ralphinal
Guest
In LDS understanding, what does the word “apostate” mean?
D
dianaiad
Guest
From www.lds.org, under “Gospel topics,” under “apostasy” you will find the following:
Does that help?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Sort of. Is an apostate Christian faith still Christian or is it something else?
D
dianaiad
Guest
You just answered your own question; “Is an apostate Christian faith…”???
If we were to cease to call “Christian” everybody who believed something incorrect, or didn’t understand Christ completely, then none of us could be Christian, could we?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Let me explain where I am coming from. If I leave the Catholic Church, I would be an apostate Catholic. To be apostate means to no longer follow the teachings of the religious group to which you were a member. If I no longer follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, and I no longer attend that Church, I am no longer Catholic.
By saying that other forms of CHristianity went apostate, the LDS are saying that Christians left the true teachings of Christ and are therefor either heretical or no longer Christian.
There is no other way around it.
D
dianaiad
Guest
By saying that the Christians apostatized from the early church of Jesus Christ, we are saying that they became a different sort of Christian.
As you remark, if you left the Catholic church, you would be an apostate Catholic. However, unless you left any belief in Christ whatsoever and no longer considered yourself Christian, you would remain Christian.
After all, Catholics still consider themselves to be the one, the only, the original, Christian church, right? If you didn’t, you would have to admit that you were, in some way, apostate from the original.
…and everyone who believes something different than Catholicism teaches is apostate from that one, true, original Christian church.
So you are hoist on your own petard, here…y’see, Catholics, by your own admission, still consider Protestants who still believe in certain things (though they are apostate in others) to be “Christian.”
Hmmnn. beliefs that are ‘apostate’ from Catholicism, which you consider to be the one, the only and the original true church, are still Christian.
So…I guess there is indeed “another way around it.”
- Status