Mudcat Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Don't feel overly inclined to answer the OP. It was a pathetic attempt at a shock tactic to draw readership.My own thoughts were spurred by a discussion somewhere else on the definition of the term "atheist". IMO there is a lot of shift in ground on that term over the years... but I imagine the same could be said for other terms... back in the day, a pirates "booty" had a different connotation and being "gay" was a good thing in everyone's perception.I think if we take the most basic definition for Christian.Chris Link to comment
bluebell Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Anyone who says they aren't is probably the broadest answer.Anyone who doesn't believe that Christ is the Son of God and the Savior, or who denies the Atonement would probably also fit without too much arguement.I agree with C.S. Lewis-since it would be wicked arrogance to think we could ever judge who is or isn't a 'good' Christian, I think we should keep the definition as simple as possible and leave out arguements of correct theology. Link to comment
Libs Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I wouldn't exclude people from the Christian category, who don't believe Christ is the Savior, Son of God, or even an unbelief in the Atonement. Many liberal Christians hold quite different views of who and what Jesus Christ was, but still consider themselves Christians, who follow the teachings of Christ.People who are not Christians are those who profess to follow another religion (Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims)...and atheists, of course. Link to comment
USU78 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/ Link to comment
Sky Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 A good read...Are Mormons Christians? Link to comment
TAO Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Mudcat... although society's definition tends to lean sort of towards religions that believe in Christ... I think that that isn't the true definition of Christian.I think the true definition of Christian is... someone who acts as Christ would in all times and all places... regardless of religion.Weird definition, I know... and could probably be more confusing... but I think this is part of the definition Christ intended. I don't know for sure though =P.So yes... people who don't act like Christ would, wouldn't be Christians. I think we all aren't Christian at certain times, and all are Christians in other instances.But yes, those are my ramblings =P. Link to comment
3DOP Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Don't feel overly inclined to answer the OP. It was a pathetic attempt at a shock tactic to draw readership.My own thoughts were spurred by a discussion somewhere else on the definition of the term "atheist". IMO there is a lot of shift in ground on that term over the years... but I imagine the same could be said for other terms... back in the day, a pirates "booty" had a different connotation and being "gay" was a good thing in everyone's perception.I think if we take the most basic definition for Christian.The first definition that popped up on GoogleMost of us might agree on the unbolded part. However many would take issue on exactly what the bolded part meant.To tell you the truth, I dunno who actually comes up with "definitions". I don't know what common criteria are required to formulate them.Most people don't argue about what is or isn't "red", "7" or "heartburn". However, there is a bit of a stir over "Christian".Rather than have LDS defend their position, in that they believe they are Christians. I would ask of LDS and anyone else who want's to participate in this rather difficult question.Who isn't a Christian?Hey Mudcat. Who isn't Christian? Certainly all those who say they aren't. 3DOP Link to comment
Calm Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Mudcat... although society's definition tends to lean sort of towards religions that believe in Christ... I think that that isn't the true definition of Christian.I think the true definition of Christian is... someone who acts as Christ would in all times and all places... regardless of religion.Wouldn't it just be simpler to use the term "Christlike" and avoid the confusion?There is a difference, imo, between a definition of "Christian" and a description of what a Christian should be. I think the best route personally would be to let people define themselves as Christian or not (I am curious as to what actual harm is done by letting people do so, you might confuse someone who is unfamiliar with Christianity just as people are sometimes confused by the various POVs of various LDS on this board, but if the confusion is a real problem then it should motivate them to educate themselves more about Christianity and I see that as a good thing). And in regards as to what a Christian should be...that is what I should be concerned with in a personal way, teaching my family and those in my stewardship and teaching any others through example (hopefully). Being territorial leads to greater disinterest in learning about one's faith and Christianity in practice as well as doctrine from what I've seen over time. Link to comment
Obiwan Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I have the anwser....Back when the "Trinity" was being haggled over which became the Nicene Creed, there were two major sides warring against each other. There was the side that won and then there was the side that resembled a great deal LDS Theology on the subject.The side that lost wasn't somehow "not Christian". Many were well respected leaders and theologians, top ones even. These people didn't somehow become "non-Christian" simply because they disagreed with the side that ultimately won.Thus, Christians today have no right to deny mormons of the title of Christian, especially since we fully DO follow the Bible, follow Christs words, and Christ warned his followers against such behaviors in Mark/Luke 9 in relation to other believers "not with them". He considered them also His Children, thus Mormons are considered also his children.Those who feel the need to identify mormons as not Christian are simply at the height of arrogance and elitism. The irony is is that those self same people will often accuse mormons of such for their beliefs. Reality however is otherwise. We fully embrace and accept all the righteous of the earth no matter their beliefs, because we know as Christ and otherwise has taught, that all righteousness comes from God, and God alone. Thus, those who feel the need to call us not christian, are only fighting against God Himself, fighting on behalf of satan himself. Because such animosity only creates more disunity of the Faith, rather than a coming together unto perfection of the Saints. Only satan wishes to destroy faith, rather than promote it.You can't promote Faith while also destroying it, and the proof of that is in the pudding. What percentage of those who leave the Church because of anti-mormonism, the fruits primarily from the Religious anti-mormon, even join another Faith? Few, very few. The vast majority leave Faith altogether. I frankly don't think God would be happy about that. God would rather his children be doing all they can to serve Him and others, and making every effort to be better and others better, rather than being so concerned with the particular theology being followed was 100% correct.After all, what does God judge us by? Our hearts and our fruits.He never said we are judged by the particular religion we belong to or the particular doctrine we embrace. We are only to do our best, and seek after the best according to his gifts and will. Link to comment
coolrok7 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 My basic answer to the question, Link to comment
Mudcat Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Anyone who says they aren't is probably the broadest answer.Anyone who doesn't believe that Christ is the Son of God and the Savior, or who denies the Atonement would probably also fit without too much arguement.I agree with C.S. Lewis-since it would be wicked arrogance to think we could ever judge who is or isn't a 'good' Christian, I think we should keep the definition as simple as possible and leave out arguements of correct theology.I am on the same page with you.. bold mine.edit add@ AllI suppose what has aroused my curiosity is how this topic might interplay with what LDS consider Anti-MoronsMormons who also profess to be Christians.If the CoJCoLDS is true and someone who is a professed Christian that has consistently made marked efforts at trying to disassemble that organization on whatever level is possible for them, then there seems to be a paradox created.I am wondering, if LDS trend towards the notion that "Anti-Mormon" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive terms.editted spelling, thanks for the heads up Blue. Link to comment
coolrok7 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Mud, if correct theology doesn Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 coolrok7:I guess the same reason Baptists don't join the Assembly of God church, or the Catholics don't join with the Jehovah Witnesses. But I'm fine with someone who claims to be a Christian being a Christian. Whether their actions are always Christlike or not. Link to comment
blueadept Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Only you, Mudcat, can start such a topic I could enjoy. Kudos.I am on the same page with you.. bold mine.AgreedI suppose what has aroused my curiosity is how this topic might interplay with what LDS consider Anti-Morons who also profess to be Christians.oops on the typo 'Anti-Morons' but hey...it worksAs 3DOP noted, Anyone who says their not Christian can be placed in the category. All the atheists I've met haven't had an issue with being labeled 'not a Christian.' Link to comment
Senator Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 To me, those not christian:Will be the ones, who at the day at which they shall behold the glory of The Son, will shrink and declare, "what is this glory, it is foreign to me"Those christian:Will be the ones, who upon beholding the glory of The Son will weep and declare, "Ahhhh, the source of my strength and inspiration!" Link to comment
emeliza Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I have to agree with BB and BA. Anyone who says they aren't a Christian, I would not consider them a Christian. That doesn't mean they aren't Christ-like as Cal suggestion earlier just because they aren't Christian.I don't think anti-Mormon and Christian are interchangable. I mean, you can be anti-Mormon and Christian, but just because you are Christian doesn't mean you are anti-Mormon. In a few cases it seems there are some that are anti-Mormon and they are Mormon. (sort of kidding there) I also know you can be anti-Mormon and not Christian, so definitely no relationship. Link to comment
emeliza Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 To me, those not christian:Will be the ones, who at the day at which they shall behold the glory of The Son, will shrink and declare, "what is this glory, it is foreign to me"Those christian:Will be the ones, who upon beholding the glory of The Son will weep and declare, "Ahhhh, the source of my strength and inspiration!"Yes....but since you can't actually use this as the basis of calling someone a Christian yet since you don't know who those people will be.....what do you do right now? Link to comment
Jason Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 A Christian in my book is anyone who professes to follow the teachings of Christ.They don't actually have to be following them to have me call them a Christian. Link to comment
Senator Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Yes....but since you can't actually use this as the basis of calling someone a Christian yet since you don't know who those people will be.....what do you do right now?I withhold judgement.and do no seek to label and catagorize. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/ Nails it. Nothing more to say.But I suppose I will come up with something eventually. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I am wondering, if LDS trend towards the notion that "Anti-Mormon" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive terms.Sounds good to me. Knew I would have more to say. What cracks me up is how divided alleged "Christianity" is- when it is supposed to be one faith one baptism- unity. Remember that? How come some get to be in the "club" and others don't?Some think Catholics are not "Christian". How can you be a Christian and condemn others for their beliefs when you all are so fragmented to begin with?You cannot even define yourselves clearly! (Not @ you, Mud- that is addressed to those of the "Christian" community who condemn other believers in Christ) Link to comment
Mudcat Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Mud, if correct theology doesn Link to comment
Anijen Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Hi Coolrok,Bold mine. Let me clear this up a bit on correct theology as it pertains to ones Christianity. Say you put a devout Catholic, LDS, JW, Protestant Armenian, Oneness Pentecostal and Protestant Calvinist in a room. Each individual would certainly believe they were a Christian, however there would likely be some diverse opinions in the room as each individual evaluated the beliefs of the other 5 people. If we use a very simple definition of Christian, like "a follower of Christ". I think all individuals would feel they met that standard would likely agree that the other members also at least believed they met that same standard. It is not that I think correct theology is unimportant. In fact, I think as Christians we should strive to have the most correct theology possible. However, there is a great deal of division on what "correct theology" actually is. Personally, I think we do better to come to the table with people who claim Christ and also claim different theology with a willingness to discuss these differences. I think to come to the table claiming Christ for ourselves and also seeking to strip similar claims proffered by others is perceived as somewhat of a kneecap maneuver to unman an adversarial position. I see it as counterproductive to open dialogue. I don't see why someone who considers themselves a follower of Christ but doesn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity would even want to discuss the concept of the Trinity if I had already polarized the conversation with a declaration they can't be Christian.I think trying to drag someone out of an erroneous position is a difficult if not impossible task. In my opinion, presenting views in an environment that is conducive to listening rather than adversity gives the truth an opportunity to speak for itself.In regards to your specific question. Though I don't think many LDS feel necessarily motivated to "join us" in some sort of denominational sense any more than "us" doesn't seem to want to "join them" either. I do think LDS have made strides with joint efforts with non-LDS Christians. I think they would make more efforts toward this "interfaith" sort of direction if it wasn't for the fact that many would not welcome them nor will likely embrace that notion in the near future. Regards,MudcatHi Mudcat,Its responses like yours which shows your wisdom and understanding! Link to comment
Libs Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Great post, Mudcat. You hit several nails on the head.No one is going to listen to someone who starts out by telling them they are not a Christian (when the other believes himself to be). Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I am wondering, if LDS trend towards the notion that "Anti-Mormon" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive terms.I don't. Not even slightly. I think it would be seriously mistaken and confused to treat Christian and anti-Mormon as mutually exclusive terms.They're about quite different things. They refer to distinct categories. It would be rather like treating vegetarian and brunette as mutually exclusive labels, or Canadian and married.Mud, if correct theology doesn Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.