All Muslims Are Christians!

[volgadon]

My second of the day.

This one, though, is my favourite. http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-late-sir-john-ogilvy

[Saints Alive]

Very convenient of Rob to post this on the anniversary of 9/11

[volgadon]

Very convenient of Rob to post this on the anniversary of 9/11

To be fair to Rob, I'm sure whoever posted the original on facebook did so to counter anti-Muslim sentiment on this day.

[KevinG]

Who can argue this Muslims point that they follow Jesus when born againsim has watered down following Christ to the point where you can read a tract left in the bathroom stall, say the sinners prayer and be saved?

Personally I prefer the fullness of the gospel where we have faith in Christ, covenant with Christ and follow all of His teachings.

Edited September 11, 2012 by KevinG

[RobertAC]

I can see the author's POV on this one. Jesus is mentioned in the Koran as an important prophet. However, from my limited understanding of Islam, Jesus was not crucified. On the view of the crucificition, Muslims and Gnostic Christians seem to hold a similar view. Jesus was the divine teacher, but not necessarily the blood sacrifice for mankind. Is it a requirement for a Christian to believe that Jesus died to cleanse the sins of all? Or can a Christian venerate Jesus as the ultimate prophet who brought monotheism to a world that was predominately polytheistic? Also from my limited understanding of Islam, Jesus is understood to be the prophet who will return to Jerusalem, and all of the Muslim faithful will be resurrected at that time.

[Saints Alive]

I can see the author's POV on this one. Jesus is mentioned in the Koran as an important prophet. However, from my limited understanding of Islam, Jesus was not crucified. On the view of the crucificition, Muslims and Gnostic Christians seem to hold a similar view. Jesus was the divine teacher, but not necessarily the blood sacrifice for mankind. Is it a requirement for a Christian to believe that Jesus died to cleanse the sins of all? Or can a Christian venerate Jesus as the ultimate prophet who brought monotheism to a world that was predominately polytheistic? Also from my limited understanding of Islam, Jesus is understood to be the prophet who will return to Jerusalem, and all of the Muslim faithful will be resurrected at that time.

In any case I think it should be clear to a sane and rational mind that Mormon-Christians and "Christians" have more in common than Muslims and "Christians"

[The Nehor]

Yes, sorry; I agree- the word "Christlike" would have been better.

I was not picking on you. I was picking on the original facebook post.

[Bart Burk]

Muslims reject the idea that Jesus was the Son of God, reject the atonement, and reject the resurrection. The Mormons accept all three. In doing so Muslims reject the teachings of the New Testament. Muslims can't be classified as Christians.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Bart Burk

[The Nehor]

Who can argue this Muslims point that they follow Jesus when born againsim has watered down following Christ to the point where you can read a tract left in the bathroom stall, say the sinners prayer and be saved?

I think instead of watering down Christianity we should reclassify these people as Gnostics as the secret knowledge (the prayer) is how you achieve salvation. More properly they should be classified as sorcerors as the magic words compel Christ to save them. Should I suggest this to them or would you like to?

[KevinG]

Muslims reject the idea that Jesus was the Son of God, reject the atonement, and reject the resurrection. The Mormons accept all three. In doing so they reject the teachings of the New Testament. Muslims can't be classified as Christians.

They could on a very lose definition (people who believe Jesus existed or was a prophet) but in the colloquial most English speakers understand "Christian" to be someone who follows a religion where Christ is the Savior.

Rob knows this of course but he is having a little fun at our expense since we continue to humor his arbitrary lines drawn on who is considered authentic Christianity and who is not. Of course his brand always wins according to his criteria.

[Bill Hamblin]

This is, of course, nincompoopish equivocation.

First of all, Muslims don't consider themselves Christians. Although Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all considered "People of the Book/Bible," the Qur'an clearly distinguishes between Christians and Muslims regarding Jesus as the Son of God. If Mormons didn't claim to be Christians, it would be a small matter to say Mormons aren't Christians.

Second, all of this nonsense depends on how you define Christian.

Someone who follows Jesus' ethical teachings.

Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons

Someone who believes Jesus is the Messiah.

Evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons

Someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God

Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons

Someone who accepts the concept of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed.

Evangelicals, Catholics

Someone who accepts the Trinity and Transubstantiation

Catholics

One can choose any list of defining doctrines one wants to include or exclude certain groups.

The point of such definitions is to foster clarity of thinking. Thus, my definition of Christian is based on Mt. 16:16-- one who accepts Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

This has the merit of excluding Muslims, who don't call themselves Christians but accept Jesus as the Messiah, and also including all other historical groups who have claimed to be Christian.

These types of definitions are not about gaining sectarian advantage, but of clarity of thought and discussion--something Evangelicals don't seem to realize.

[MiserereNobis]

Is a Christian someone who believes Jesus

1) is a real person

2) is the divine Son of God and our savior

3) is defined by the creeds

The New Testament teaches #1 & 2, so I think we can reject #3 as a requirement.

Hmmm... except that the Creed predates the formal canonization of the New Testament. The people who put the Creed together are the same ones who put the New Testament together. It's interesting to accept one of their actions and not the other.

Also, you are rejecting #3 using a principle that is not listed in #1 or #2. Perhaps there is more to being a Christian than just #1 or #2, eh?

[Ahab]

... all of this nonsense depends on how you define Christian.

Someone who follows Jesus' ethical teachings.

Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons

Someone who believes Jesus is the Messiah.

Evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons

Someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God

Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons

Someone who accepts the concept of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed.

Evangelicals, Catholics

Someone who accepts the Trinity and Transubstantiation

Catholics

You forgot one.

Someone who believes there is such a thing as a Christ, or Messiah, but doesn't know Jesus is him.

Jews

One can choose any list of defining doctrines one wants to include or exclude certain groups.

Yep, like how some people leave Jews out of the picture because they just don't know who or which person is Christ.

The point of such definitions is to foster clarity of thinking. Thus, my definition of Christian is based on Mt. 16:16-- one who accepts Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

That definition was given by someone who was aware of which person is Christ, though. Why should that be a qualifier? Isn't it enough to know there is a Christ out there somewhere who will someday come ot this Earth and set everything in good order? The Jews don't know who he is now but they know there's a Christ, and I think they know him better than some other "Christians".

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Hmmm... except that the Creed predates the formal canonization of the New Testament. The people who put the Creed together are the same ones who put the New Testament together. It's interesting to accept one of their actions and not the other.

I accept the good works of scripture those people put in the New Testament... which they themselves didn't write, by the way... but what I don't condone is the good they left out which they could have put in or added to it.

It could have been a lot better than it is now. They set limits to it, just as they limit who they consider to be Christian.

Also, you are rejecting #3 using a principle that is not listed in #1 or #2. Perhaps there is more to being a Christian than just #1 or #2, eh?

Yes.

[MiserereNobis]

One can choose any list of defining doctrines one wants to include or exclude certain groups.

I agree, we shouldn't choose definitions in order to include or exclude. Words have meanings and the meanings are important and we shouldn't force meanings onto them.

The point of such definitions is to foster clarity of thinking. Thus, my definition of Christian is based on Mt. 16:16-- one who accepts Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

I think this is an excellent starting point. Of course, we have to ask, what does it mean to accept Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. Those terms matter, too.

This has the merit of excluding Muslims, who don't call themselves Christians but accept Jesus as the Messiah, and also including all other historical groups who have claimed to be Christian.

These types of definitions are not about gaining sectarian advantage, but of clarity of thought and discussion--something Evangelicals don't seem to realize.

Indeed.

[thesometimesaint]

For what LDS believe of Christ.

SEE

http://myldscorner.blogspot.com/2011/12/living-christ-testimony-of-apostles.html#.UE-rEoYyCSo

[Freedom]

Hmmm... except that the Creed predates the formal canonization of the New Testament. The people who put the Creed together are the same ones who put the New Testament together. It's interesting to accept one of their actions and not the other.

Also, you are rejecting #3 using a principle that is not listed in #1 or #2. Perhaps there is more to being a Christian than just #1 or #2, eh?

It is one thing to put together pre-existing books, and quite another to create new doctrine. The fact that Hitler gathered the great art of Europe does not prove the art fake, nor does it prove his action true. I'm not trying to equate the writers of the creeds to Hitler, I am just using an exaggerated example. Many religious leaders exclude Mormons from Christianity because of #3, namely the non-biblical trinity doctrine. The face book page alleges that Muslims are Christians because of 'a'; mormons believe someone is christian because of 'b', many trinitarians believe someone is christian because of 'C'.

[Buzzard]

Hey, maybe we can claim that we "complete" Islam, since Mohammed is not definitively God's last prophet. Get with the program, all you Muslims, time to take the discussions. Turnabout is fair play, after all.

[Nemesis]

It is one thing to put together pre-existing books, and quite another to create new doctrine. The fact that Hitler gathered the great art of Europe does not prove the art fake, nor does it prove his action true. I'm not trying to equate the writers of the creeds to Hitler, I am just using an exaggerated example. Many religious leaders exclude Mormons from Christianity because of #3, namely the non-biblical trinity doctrine. The face book page alleges that Muslims are Christians because of 'a'; mormons believe someone is christian because of 'b', many trinitarians believe someone is christian because of 'C'.

Godwin's law violation. Thread closed.

Nemesis