R
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
I think they have run out of ideas to bring against zerinus, so they are now talking about the kitchen sink—in Esperanto!
zerinus
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Mormon pantheology and Zerinus’ signature flourish bring to mind a plethora (hooray “Three Amigos” and el Jefe !) of sticky questions.
One: was ET a lost mormon ‘god’ when he landed on THIS planet, er, “Kingdom?”
Two: what kind of mormon ‘god’ was that alien Nimrod in “Predator” and why was he picking on those Catholic, uh, fallen away heretics?
Three: why do mormon apologists always refer to science fiction to justify their pantheistic beliefs?
Four: why does Zerinus persist in quoting from a book NO ONE ELSE believes to be ‘sacred’ but the mormons???
Ponder on.
Robert
One: was ET a lost mormon ‘god’ when he landed on THIS planet, er, “Kingdom?”
Two: what kind of mormon ‘god’ was that alien Nimrod in “Predator” and why was he picking on those Catholic, uh, fallen away heretics?
Three: why do mormon apologists always refer to science fiction to justify their pantheistic beliefs?
Four: why does Zerinus persist in quoting from a book NO ONE ELSE believes to be ‘sacred’ but the mormons???
Ponder on.
Robert
L
look3467
Guest
How about a small corner?And AJ has a corner on “Truth.”
:banghead: :whacky:
Robert
Peace>>>AJ
L
look3467
Guest
The Mormon belief is like any other belief structure. They all have within them a desire to please God by whatever way they know to do it.
If, God was limited, as some seem to believe and think, then there would have been an absolute no use for God to love the world enough to give His only Son for it.
All the righteous ones, so is the belief, are the only ones to have excess to heaven, while the rest of the world is lost.
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob was the linage by which salvation came to the world and one by which only through that linage was there any hope in accessing heaven.
But God, in His mercy stole that birth right from them and gave it to the world, making of both Jew and Gentle one of twain.
Ref: 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Was there anybody left out? Mormons maybe?
If Godly love is not in the mix, then religion is of no heavenly use!
I say, love with the love of God to thy neighbor, to whom Christ has purchased with His own blood.
Peace>>>AJ
If, God was limited, as some seem to believe and think, then there would have been an absolute no use for God to love the world enough to give His only Son for it.
All the righteous ones, so is the belief, are the only ones to have excess to heaven, while the rest of the world is lost.
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob was the linage by which salvation came to the world and one by which only through that linage was there any hope in accessing heaven.
But God, in His mercy stole that birth right from them and gave it to the world, making of both Jew and Gentle one of twain.
Ref: 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Was there anybody left out? Mormons maybe?
If Godly love is not in the mix, then religion is of no heavenly use!
I say, love with the love of God to thy neighbor, to whom Christ has purchased with His own blood.
Peace>>>AJ
M
mark_a
Guest
What constitutes kitchen sinks?
L
look3467
Guest
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Do we need a kitchen sink definition?
Is it a tradition of the elders that a kitchen sink be maintained and observed and all those not using it to wash the hands are condemned?
But eat the word of God (Bread) with unauthorized views (unwashen hands).
Listen, traditions are all well and good, but the heart of it all is in the individual willingness to please God, out of shear love and not of one constrained by limitations such as mandatory washing of hands in the sinks of our institutions.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Out of love and respect for God :1Pe 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
…“Go and sin no more”…Joh 8:11
Peace>>>AJ
E
Erich
Guest
As I recall, you started this thread (on ***Catholic Answers Forums ***in case you missed the forum title) asking for an “accurate definition or description of what constitutes a Christian.”
As mercygate pointed out, baptism IS one of the constitutive acts of the Christian faith.
As wisdomseeker pointed out, Jesus built a Church not churches with many different interpretations of His Word.
Seraphim pointed out that you are ignoring those who are trying to teach you something, and/or you have not liked what you have been reading.
And of course it was St. Augustine who said **“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” **
Would you rather we just post in LDS fora and blogs explaining how any definition we could come up with of what constitutes a Mormon is somehow “better than” any definition originating from Salt Lake City?
M
mercygate
Guest
Actually, zerinus’ point should not be trivialized: “Because the Catholic Church says so!” just does not close the case for those who have genuine reservations.
Although, as you well know, history and the paper trail support the Catholic position, many people truly believe that SOMETHING MUST BE FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH THE HISTORICAL RECORD because they so strongly believe that the Catholic Church cannot possibly be the Church Jesus promised to build.
So you get theories like that espoused by R. C. Sproul, that the need for an identifiable church “falls away” after the closing of the scriptural canon, when Scripture becomes the only thing necessary. Or you get apostasy theories, as with the JWs and the Mormons, or you get persecution theories Trail of Blood] where the “true” church survives underground despite persecution by the Catholic Church, only to re-emerge in all it’s unspoiled Protestant purity in the 16th century.
zerinus and I strongly disagree on the point that part of the definition of Christian must include the teaching office of the church in question. The Great Commission (to the Eleven) included the authority to TEACH. That means teaching the truth about God. Therefore, what any individual person may believe or understand, though important, is more importantly tied to the family tree of the Church through which he professes his faith in Jesus Christ.
I doubt that the Last Judgment is going to take the form of a theology quiz for most of us, but pointing in the direction of a correct understanding of the Godhead does point us toward the truth (and we all know Who that is). The troops on the ground may not need to know all subtleties but the generals better know where the caravan is headed for the sake of the troops on the ground. A small error in the beginning can become a catastrophic misconception further down the line.
As zerinus points out, ALL of us have our ditherers. Catholics, Protestants and Mormons all have their share of folk who silently dismiss the ‘party line’ and live in their own little world. I have an ex-Mormon friend (not at all hostile to his upbringing) who tells me that many Mormons simply wink at certain teachings because their lives are so tied up with the family and social support structures for which the Mormons are justly respected.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I know people who joined the Mormon church precisely because of those family things and wouldn’t dream of leaving it because of the social disaster that would ensue. A good many of them ~ at least the ones that I’ve run into ~ don’t know as much about some of the more arcane aspects of their faith as those of us who take a greater interest it such things. So whether they know and privately disagree or just don’t know ~ the result is the same ~ they stay because to do otherwise results in social ostracism. There may not be a shunning component to formal Mormon rules, but it exists nevertheless.
Whatever the faith, it’s better to be 100%. It’s more honest. Whatever you’re professing to believe in, 100% faithfulness is more respectable than lukewarm half-hearted faith. I think Zerinus is 100% Mormon. I don’t pretend to understand his motivation for visiting this forum but I think it’s pretty clear that he’s 100% Mormon, there are no doubts there.
As Catholics we are called upon to believe all that which the Church presents for us as doctrine. If we pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe, we’re not truly Catholic, just as if Zerinus picked only those parts of Mormonism he liked he would not be truly Mormon.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you for your comments. Perhaps I can inject a new thought into this discussion to make it go forward in the right direction again. I tried to make my definition of what constitutes a Christian in my Blog post as precise and scripturally sound as I knew how to make it. If you guys disagree with my definition, instead of just presenting an alternative definition, why don’t you clarify for me and everyone what it is that you think is wrong with my scriptural analysis, and why? Where have I gone wrong in my scriptural reasoning, in your opinion, that makes that definition wrong? I sure like to know!
zerinus
M
mercygate
Guest
I have to sign off the net now but want to answer carefully later. I don’t think your blog definition is “wrong.”
But for now:
Possibly, I would suggest that the term “disciple” (as you use it) points to the sentiment and to the sincerity of the follower of Christ. We who learn at the Master’s school are His disciples, or followers and are thus, Christians. Even heretics merit the name of “Christian.” From inside the house, we may call them Arians or Nestorians, or Montanists, or Cathars, or Lutherans. But their belief system sits in the Christian corner of the faith world. They are not Hindus.
From outside the house, Mormonism would appear to be Christian. From inside the house, using standards not less credible than your own, Mormons – because they reject the Christian doctrine of God – place **themselves **in another faith compartment from the rest of the Christian world.
You, yourself, zerinus, point out that the early Church was rife with people who were labeled and understood to be ‘Christians’ who held beliefs absolutely contrary to the developed doctrines of the mature Christian Church. History shows that a faith system becomes “not-Christian” when it rejects the Apostolic Church because, as our Lord Himself says: “He who rejects you, rejects me.”
A person may be perfectly sincere and perfectly mistaken.
But then, once the historic piece clunks you over the head, you just cannot ignore the connection between the Mystical Body of Christ and the historic Church, which Catholics understand to be spiritually and doctrinally continuous in the Churches in communion with the See of Peter. “He who rejects you, rejects me.”
Z
zerinus
Guest
Again, thank you for your comments. I think the difference between our two points of view is that I tried to make my definition of a Christian purely scripture based, and scripture derived. I was not trying to define a Christian so that it would somehow equate to Mormonism—although I am hoping that it does. I tried to make my definition as objective (and scripture based) as possible. You on the other hand want to define it so that by your definition Christian=Catholic! I don’t think that that definition of a Christian will ever be as objective as I have tried to make it.
zerinus
E
Erich
Guest
One can be a non-Catholic Christian, just as one can be non-Christian.
Matthew 28:19 (which you quote in your blog) is clear on the importance of baptism, so I would include proper baptism in any definition I were to try to come up with.
John 17:11 (which you don’t quote) is clear on the importance of unity. Of course, God is perfect so the Trinity’s unity is perfect as well, whereas man is imperfect so man’s unity of belief is just as imperfect (as witnessed by the fact of the existence of schisms/denominational splits/etc). The Church is one because of her source (God), because of her founder (the Word made flesh), and because of her “soul” (the Holy Spirit).
Binding and loosing (and who can bind/loose and who can’t), i.e. teaching authority, is important. D&C is considered scripture by LDS, but not by anyone else (whether or not they acknowledge the authority of the Successor of Peter), so if you’re going to give D&C the same “weight” as the Bible you’re going to have to satisfactorily explain why D&C should even be considered authoritative at all.
Zerinus, have you read By What Authority?
M
mercygate
Guest
There again we come up against “what Scripture is” in the heart of the Church. The New Testament arose FROM the Church, FOR the Church (one of the criteria for determining the canon was whether a book was being read universally [catholic-ally] or nearly so IN THE LITURGY). The Eucharistic liturgy was (and is) the constitutive act of the Christian community. Scripture “LIVES” there.
For us, it is a logical impossibility to accept the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God unless we also accept who gave them to us.
I realize that for a Mormon, this view does not hold water since you do not (or did not?) have a closed canon. The fact that Mormons hold other writings as inspired and equal to Scripture changes the picture for you. But still, you do not REJECT the NT canon. For us this seems puzzling since you believe the Apostasy occurred a couple of hundred years before the canon was closed – therefore the canon was determined by an apostate Church.
So the question remains: On what terms do you accept the NT canon? In the past 150 years, much manuscript evidence has emerged to validate and affirm the canon independently of the Church. But from 33 A.D. until about 1860, the main support for the canon was: “Because the Church said so.”
Educate me. Do Mormon sacred writings anywhere state that the canon of Scripture is “the” canon up until Joseph Smith?
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Mercygate:
God bless you and you great posts!
As for Zerinus responding to it: don’t hold your breath.
He is spending his time looking for a phrase in your post to move the argument to something he can justify with his mormonism.
He NEVER addresses direct questions even when he avers “I answered that question in my blog, see here.”
Keep us the good work: myriads of us enjoying your clarity and faith.
Robert
M
mercygate
Guest
Thank you for your kind words.
I, do not have a problem with zerinus directing us to his blog because he has spent a lot of time preparing the articles there. A carefully thought-out position is a good thing. One thing I know: I do NOT know much about Mormonism. I do not see zerinus as failing to engage a sincere question. Sure: he gets testy now and then. (I recall an exasperated “So what!” in one of his posts). But mostly he tries to stay rational and on point.
I have Mormon relatives. They are the nicest, most generous and gracious people you could ever want to know. So I have a soft spot for them, even while remaining completely baffled by their origins, theology, and history.
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Truly written, as my mormon friends and relatives are honest and upright. Yet, some cannot handle direct questions about this sect’s origins. If it is brought up in conversation (always by them), then a direct inquiry will change the subject abruptly.
I have had many ‘discussions’ with Zerinus. He has avoided answering me for well nigh a year. The same applies to Hose Monkey and Paul Dupre: he avoids the short, to the point, answer and prefers to weave and bob to get a concession.
Then he uses that concession (if he gets one) to make a mormon point: God being flesh and blood like us because some dicta (tertiary source) in a college textbook claims the ancient Jews thought God to be like a man.
His “evidence” is anecdotal, and that can be frustrating.
Still. it is entertaining. And at the going rate, a steal in today’s economy.
Robert
I have had many ‘discussions’ with Zerinus. He has avoided answering me for well nigh a year. The same applies to Hose Monkey and Paul Dupre: he avoids the short, to the point, answer and prefers to weave and bob to get a concession.
Then he uses that concession (if he gets one) to make a mormon point: God being flesh and blood like us because some dicta (tertiary source) in a college textbook claims the ancient Jews thought God to be like a man.
His “evidence” is anecdotal, and that can be frustrating.
Still. it is entertaining. And at the going rate, a steal in today’s economy.
Robert
L
look3467
Guest
A Mormon, a Buddhist, a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Atheist etc. etc.
Could we say, based on God’s view of us, rather than mankind’s view of God view of us, that in all of the above beliefs love is the common thread that could link all of them to God?
If yes, then we have to respect all beliefs in light of God’s love, and comply with the second greatest Commandment.
Peace>>>AJ
Could we say, based on God’s view of us, rather than mankind’s view of God view of us, that in all of the above beliefs love is the common thread that could link all of them to God?
If yes, then we have to respect all beliefs in light of God’s love, and comply with the second greatest Commandment.
Peace>>>AJ
Z
zerinus
Guest
I use scripture is my theological discussions in the same way that Jesus used it to answer the Jewish priests, Rabbis, and religious leaders. When they challenged Him on various doctrinal and theological grounds, He always responded by quoting scripture at them. Now they could have answered Him in the same way as you do—and in fact in a sense they did. The Jewish religion or “church,” if I may call it that (it is an accurate term, considering the etymology of the word “church”), was an ancient and well established religion, with a regularly established ecclesiastical hierarchy which went back to the days of Moses. It was as ancient and well-established as the Catholic Church is today. But Jesus often quoted their own scriptures against them, as the following examples demonstrate:
Matthew 15:
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition
Matthew 22:
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Matthew 12:
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
I use it in the same way. I consider Christian scripture to be the source of all Christian doctrine. Nothing else is equal to it—not even Catholic “tradition”. If there is a conflict between the two, scripture always wins. Your argument that I cannot quote scripture to correct Catholic doctrine is based on a false and twisted logic. It is as absurd as it was for the Jews to tell Jesus that He could not use scripture to correct their erroneous beliefs and teachings on the grounds that they were the true church that God had established, the scriptural canon was written by and belonged exclusively to them, and they were the only ones who had the right to interpret it! That argument is as absurd when applied to the Catholic Church as it was when applied to the ancient Jewish church or religion.
I have used Christian scripture to formulate a theological definition of the word “Christian” because I am not aware that a better alternative source exists. No Catholic has ever convinced me that there is one. Does that automatically make the Catholic Church infallible? I don’t think so; any more than the old Jewish canon made the the Jewish church in the days of Jesus infallible.
zerinus
- Status