Who Gets to Define 'Christian'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahimsa

Guest
By Orson Scott Card (a Mormon):
On the level of theology, doctrine, practice, ritual, and even history, we Mormons stand alone, neither Protestant nor Catholic. Just as Lutherans and Baptists and Presbyterians generally don’t accept the authority of the Pope, we don’t accept the authority of anybody except those that we believe hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on earth today.

And so when we send out our missionaries to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as we understand it, it is perfectly fair for Baptist ministers and Catholic priests and any other religious leader to point out to their congregants precisely what we point out to them — that our beliefs are very different from theirs.
They call us wrong; we call ourselves right.

But that’s a matter of private belief and conscience. Those who put our religion to the test and come to believe in it don’t do so because we fooled them into thinking we believe just like Dr. Mohler.

If that was our message, who would join us? They could join the Baptist Church and accomplish as much (and it would be cheaper and easier, given the way we Mormons tithe and abstain from alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco).

We openly state that we teach a version of Christianity radically different from all others. We proclaim it.
Click to expand...
But let’s remember now why we are having this discussion. It’s because Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States, and Mitt Romney is a Mormon…
Click to expand...
Now, what if you are an American citizen who absolutely hates every Mormon doctrine you’ve heard about?

My advice is: Don’t join the Mormon Church if you feel that way. But what does it have to do with choosing a President?
Click to expand...
 
A_Pac said:
Mitt Romney?
🙂
Click to expand...
Hi A Pac, Please be careful. Forum rules forbid the discussion of candidates for President.

Having said that, I think that Mitt Romney, with all due respect, isn’t the best person to define “Christian”. I daresay he might not be comfortable with that assignment, but I haven’t actually asked him 🙂
 
In this country, the non-cultists. You know, the non-Catholic, non JW, non-Mormon majority.
 
I seriously want to know. Is there a larger point you’re trying to make with this?
 
Heaven forbid letting everyone say for themselves whether they believe in Jesus or not. I know that’s not bigoted enough for these times, but it just seems to come with less paper work than being intolerant.

A Pac
 
I think everyone is entitled to say for themselves whether or not they believe in Jesus.

I also am free to have an opinion as to whether the Jesus someone else says they believe in is the *same Jesus *I believe in. And so do they.

Edited to remove a redundant word in the first sentence.
 
I never refer to myself as a Christian. i always say i am a Roman Catholic.
 
estesbob said:
I never refer to myself as a Christian. i always say i am a Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
lol, I just had this conversation with a friend.

I prefer to refer to myself as “Christian” rather than RC. “Christian” because I believe we are called to emulate Christ rather than being called to emulate Rome or Romans.

“Who gets to define ‘Christian’”? is an interesting question. Reminds me of the comment by Gandhi in the movie Gandhi, which basically said “I would be a Christian but for the example of Christians”.
 
There are no Roman Catholics.

There are Catholics of the Latin Rite, in union with Rome.
 
This seems like a silly question to me… But I like how CS Lewis puts it in the preface to his book Mere Christianity-which is a written version of some radio addresses he made years and years and years ago…

“Now if we allow people to start spiritualizing and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’ the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word…”

“We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 10:26) to 'the disciples’to those who accepted the teaching of the the apostles. There is no question of its being extended to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fasion were ‘far closer to the spirit of Christ’ then the less satisfactory of the diciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian”

So basically it is not who defines the word, but who accepts the teachings of the apostles. Those would be the ones that are “christians.” Did that answer the question?
 
Terri, I’m not 100% sure, but I suspect the question pertains to those faiths that call themselves Christian but that are so different that many others do not consider them Christian at all.

Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and I’m sure some others are considered by many more “mainstream” Christian faiths to be non-Christian. Some will even go so far as to call them “cults”. The reason for the non-Christian label is due to their doctrines being so different.

A member of one of those faiths, such as a Mormon, may feel rather offended at the idea that someone else, say, a Baptist, will call them “non Christian”. I suspect that’s where the original question comes from.
 
So, each person gets to decide if they are a member of the group based on the individual’s own criteria? Cool.

I think that I will be a Buddhist . I’ll add followers and demand that everyone acknowledge that although I don’t hold the historic Buddhist’s believe system as correct, I am a Buddhist.

In fact, one of my core beliefs is worshipping a red cabbage named Fred and eating lots of dark chocolate. But heck, I’m a Buddhist just the same.

What? people who belong to this faiths who have studied and spent years learning about their religions are offended? They have no right to be offended. I get to set my own definitions based on my own feelings.
 
Hellisreal said:
There are no Roman Catholics.

There are Catholics of the Latin Rite, in union with Rome.
Click to expand...
Who generally describe themselves as Roman Catholic. Otherwise when someone asked me what i was Id have to say “I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite, in union with Rome”😃
 
deb1 said:
So, each person gets to decide if they are a member of the group based on the individual’s own criteria? Cool.

I think that I will be a Buddhist . I’ll add followers and demand that everyone acknowledge that although I don’t hold the historic Buddhist’s believe system as correct, I am a Buddhist.

.
Click to expand...
There is a member of CAF who has already done that. She claims to be a Christian-Wiccan -Buddhist.
 
deb1 said:
So, each person gets to decide if they are a member of the group based on the individual’s own criteria? Cool.

I think that I will be a Buddhist . I’ll add followers and demand that everyone acknowledge that although I don’t hold the historic Buddhist’s believe system as correct, I am a Buddhist.

In fact, one of my core beliefs is worshipping a red cabbage named Fred and eating lots of dark chocolate. But heck, I’m a Buddhist just the same.

What? people who belong to this faiths who have studied and spent years learning about their religions are offended? They have no right to be offended. I get to set my own definitions based on my own feelings.
Click to expand...
Do you also eat alot of red meat?

CDL
 
estesbob said:
Who generally describe themselves as Roman Catholic. Otherwise when someone asked me what i was Id have to say “I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite, in union with Rome”😃
Click to expand...
Byzantine Catholics are not ‘Roman’ Catholics. They are Eastern Rite Caholics. But they are Catholics in union with CC, the Latin Rite. I now I’m a Latin Rite Catholic married to an Easter Rite Catholic. 😃

All groups who use the word ‘Catholic’ are in union.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top