are we considered christian?

[Dear Mee]

PSEUDOGRATIX says:

Unlike the question of whether someone is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or a player in the MLB,*** there is no physically verifiable way to determine whether or not someone is indeed a "Christian" or not.*** As such, it is futile to point at people claiming to be Christians or denominations claiming to be Christian or theology that is claimed to be Christian and say, "No, you are not Christian/you're denomination isn't Christian/you're theology isn't Christian."

I respectfully suggest, that (the selected words) might be because we don't know what one looks like? I further suggest, that might be because the Company Reps and Execs (of Christendom) long ago lost the Founders original Mission Statement and have replaced in with their own Business Plan(s).

It appears to Mee, this confusion is quite justified and stems from ignorance and dependence. The state of "ignorance" is modified by 'teaching'. It matters little, from a pedagogical positon, whether or not the info that rushes into the ignorance void is correct/true, the teaching/indoctrination--information/misinformation--will quite likely direct the behavior of the recipient(s). Changing said "behavior" is far more difficult than creating it, generally speaking.

Two thousand+/- years ago a man tried to do both. Although a Master Teacher, devoted to his purpose--even dying in his attempt--it appears he failed. Albeit heroically, and not without adulation for his courage, if not with understanding of his message.

Traditional Christianism claims he came once with his message, and they/we didn't get it. Although claiming to, but with little evidence of success--other than some beautiful architecture, music, meetings and hiearchy.

Mormonism claims he came three times, with the same message...have they/we got it yet? Evidence? More architecture, music, meetings, hiearchy AND programs.

This might be why P-DOG-R is correct about "the futility" of knowing who's-what. "They all look the same." They act pretty much the same. They might chase different "pets" but they get the same comforts from them. Within their architecture, music, meetings and programs can be found some justification for their existances from a social, psycological support-group purpose.

A good thing, but not all that Christ had in mind, IMHO, when he said in effect to change the world and tend to the needs of humanity: "...Freely have you received, freely give." (Matt.10: In John 13:35, he indicates how "...all men shall know that you follow me if you have love for one another." And, Matt. 7:15-23 sets forth some good criteria for identifying Christians, v-20, "...by their fruits..."

Now, with, literacy, access to info, and awakened conscience, humanity is approaching the time of moving beyond the fore mentioned state of "dependence" upon traditional schools of theology to tell them what's right about their interpretation, and what's wrong with the other guys.

Who's a Christian? What's Christianity? I suggest someone, or a group of like-minds, who might not profess to be. They just go about being honest, charitable and sincere. Teaching children the advantages of sufficiency, they point out the evils of past generations, not their superiority, while still appreciating the fact they tried with what they had. Maybe, the coming generations just might get his message. Dear Mee, i hope so.

[BlueDreams]

I voted it doesn't matter.

And it truly doesn't.

Christian is a title we give ourselves.

It can be used to include or exclude.

It can be hopped about and bent to fit whatever we hold to be true belief.

It can be simply a culture for some.

Only we know our stance with G-d,

Only we can decide if we believe in Christ and how we believe that

So therefore, only we know if this title fits the state of are souls and hearts

With luv

BD

[pseudogratix]

This might be why P-DOG-R is correct about "the futility" of knowing who's-what. "They all look the same." They act pretty much the same...

That isn't at all what I am talking about. It has nothing to do with similarities or differences. I am talking about the fact that barring a universally recognized authority, it is futile to dispute anyone's claim that they are a Christian, anyone's claim their denomination is Christian and anyone's claim their theology is Christian.

And, Matt. 7:15-23 sets forth some good criteria for identifying Christians, v-20, "...by their fruits..."

Yet another example of someone completely missing my point. Sure, we can all start quoting scripture as to what we think the correct criteria for determining who is or isn't a Christian should be. However, when it is all said and done, it is just one man's opinion against another because there is no universal recognized authority to confirm with as to who is or isn't a legitimate Christian.

It is a simple matter to confirm whether someone is a member of a given church, but beyond that there is no governing authority.

[1dc]

. . or the complete and final authority, the Biible . .

. . with the Bible referring to scripture outside of itself, it witnesses it is not the complete word of God. With the light of Christ working in men, the word of God continues. Christ is the final authority of who are His.

[1dc]

I voted it doesn't matter.

And it truly doesn't.

. .

That is a nice thought . . perhaps true when applied internally. But it just might matter relative to the original concern:

all these friends at school say mormons arent christian.

When someone says someone is not Christian they are bearing witness . . and bearing false witness is something true Christians should be concerned about and carefully avoid (generally even the appearance of such).

True Christians seek to fully understand and be fair in their dealings with their fellow men. They give the benefit of doubt to those with similar pursuit in following Christ's teachings.

Christ once asked for a sinless learned one to throw the first stone (none would do it with Him being there but we can presume many would have done so in different circumstances) . . we might ask ourselves the same question . . which of these "friends" who are "perfectly Christian" should stand up and throw the first stone? Do such Christian friends need Christ standing before them to make the right choice?

[Dear Mee]

Gee P-Dog, i think we make the same point. maybe i'm a bit convoluted but...

QUOTE (Dear Mee @ Mar 5 2005, 11:58 PM)

This might be why P-DOG-R is correct about "the futility" of knowing who's-what. "They all look the same." They act pretty much the same...

That isn't at all what I am talking about. It has nothing to do with similarities or differences. I am talking about the fact that barring a universally recognized authority, it is futile to dispute anyone's claim that they are a Christian, anyone's claim their denomination is Christian and anyone's claim their theology is Christian.

QUOTE

And, Matt. 7:15-23 sets forth some good criteria for identifying Christians, v-20, "...by their fruits..."

Yet another example of someone completely missing my point. Sure, we can all start quoting scripture as to what we think the correct criteria for determining who is or isn't a Christian should be. However, when it is all said and done, it is just one man's opinion against another because there is no universal recognized authority to confirm with as to who is or isn't a legitimate Christian.

It is a simple matter to confirm whether someone is a member of a given church, but beyond that there is no governing authority. ****

I agree with your last statement. For any church to claim exclusive authority hearkens back to the dark-ages when the Divine Right of Kings ruled the masses physically. And fear of God, administered through Priest Craft, controled them intelectually and spiritually: absurd!

I quoted the above scripture because i understand it to be a universal type statement. It does not state, or imply, membership in anything but humanity. Church membership is similar to Nationalism--a construct of man--grouping people conveniently for societal purpose. Not all bad, some better than others. But, IMHO, we do well to see them for what they are. To imprint either with exclusive Divine Sanction seems manipulative and with intimidative purposes. Is this what you are suggesting, P-dog? If so, reread my post. That is what i attempted to say, but maybe not too well. Be in peace. DM

[Laban's Heparin]

Sure Mormons are christians. I voted "YES" without hesitation.

Ironically, an exmormon I know summed it up best, at least for me, by observing, "Mormonism is just a small twig on the vast tree of the sect of Christianity."

The "small twig" comment aside, which he didn't mean as a slight, just as where he perceived Mormonism's standing on that "vast tree", I am personally very generous about who is or is not a Christian. Any vague belief in christ and his atonement will put you on that big old tree as far as I am concerned.

[Dear Mee]

I like "The twig" idea too. (Wonder why an active M didn't come up with the idea?) But maybe, it's simply being-and-doing, not "even vague beliefs", that puts one on the tree as a part of God's human "photosynthesis process" recycling 'goodness'?

[Dan Vogel]

Of course Mormons are Christians. Correct doctrine does not make someone a true Christian. Were the Corinthians not Christian because they differed with Paul on the resurrection? Or, was Paul a true Christian as opposed to the Jewish apostles because they had differences of interpretation? The problem is, mainstream Christians try to control the definition of Christian for political reasons. It

[Nepheye]

Some good points. We really won't know who are the ones saved until the Day of the LORD. Till that time it seems best that Christians simply keep to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Paul certainly did call those at Corinth brethren, and they certainly had various states of being and actions, but there was at least one individual that he singled out as not being in fellowship.

As there are limits, what do you or others think those limits are? Can we define them here from specific Scriptures?

I'm also reminded of the limits Jesus gave. Didn't He also say that in the last days there would be so much deception going on that perhaps even some of the elect would be deceived? If so, what might be some specific deceptions that Jesus warned us about that we might protect our souls?

[John Corrill]

I would suggest that anyone who believes in the New Testament and in Jesus Christ and is a Christian. One's "Christianity", IMO, is defined by the believer, not by some outside observer.

To say that Mormons are "not Christians" is just wrong, IMO. Members and the church as a whole definately believe in, respect, pray to and honor Jesus Christ. Sure, every denomination has their own "twist" on how they do this, but the same core belief in Jesus Christ is fundamental.

The problem, as I see it, is when one starts distancing themselves from others because of minor differences rather than coming together by embracing the common and significant fundamental belief; Jesus Christ in the case of Christianity.

These minor differences in belief get expressed in phrases like "you're not Christian" and "you're not worthy". When taken to the extreme, hurtful words turn into hurtful actions and we end up with garment wavers at General Conference as wells as very good people being judged and labeled "unworthy" and subsequently excluded from some of lifes most special events, like weddings, etc.

I would suggest that Christians of any flavor ask themself this question: Is someone else's version of Christianity enough to return them to God? If not, and you expect them to believe like you in order to be "saved" or considered "worthy", then you are guilty of this kind of judgement.

[pseudogratix]

Gee P-Dog, i think we make the same point. maybe i'm a bit convoluted but...

You seem to be missing my point altogether.

For any church to claim exclusive authority hearkens back to the dark-ages when the Divine Right of Kings ruled the masses physically. And fear of God, administered through Priest Craft, controled them intelectually and spiritually: absurd!

I am not talking about the individual claims of any given denomination. I am talking about the fact that there isn't a recognized governing authority over all the denominations claiming to be Christian.

I quoted the above scripture because i understand it to be a universal type statement. It does not state, or imply, membership in anything but humanity.

Exactly. Thank you for demonstrating my point again. You are trying to establish a criteria for filtering out who is and isn't Christian. In your opinion the passage in question is (or should be) universally accepted as some kind of touchstone for determining who is and who isn't a really Christian. Of course, it could very well be that some people might claim to be Christians without recognizing this criteria as a touchstone. In fact, there are no doubt some who claim to be Christians that don't even accept the Bible as a standard work of Christianity, or even a literal work, and/or even as an integral part of their faith.

Church membership is similar to Nationalism

[Dale]

Hi,

Orthodox Christians feel they are orthodox historic Christianity. So they define persons involved in churches that dissagree with their claims to orthodoxy as non-Christian cultists. I have tracts, books from every anti-Mormon outreach that matters. I have all the major DVD's & films they are using on LDS as training in witnessing to Mormons materials. My testimony is that they are using spurious witnessing ploys to try to witness to Mormons about the so-called errors of their faith. The stuff they produce never gets bettewr to me.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

You really can't improve on a truth, if a answer changes, then there is a question to it being true in the first place. A example would be on JS calim of more than one God. The only real answer is the answers the Bible give and the prooftexts for.

Mark

John 1:12

[sr1030]

LDS can claim that their church is Christian, and even claim to be the only true or real Christians. Nothing stops them from doing that. They have that right. It is just simply an inaccurate claim. If LDS are Christians, (followers of Christ), then they are the only ones, as they have their own version of Christ.

We (Christendom) are not like LDS. We don't want to be like LDS or to be identified with them. We also have that right. Don't we?

LDS are exclusive and they have the right to be. But then, so does Christendom.

Why would LDS seemingly want to mislead people into believing that they believe in the same Christ that Christendom believes in?

sr

[pseudogratix]

We (Christendom) are not like LDS. We don't want to be like LDS or to be identified with them. We also have that right. Don't we?

You still don't get it. There isn't a universally recognized governing voice for Christendom. Yes, all the various denominations and believers can make claims until they are blue in the face about other denominations and believers, but it is as futile as the NY Yankees complaining that the Dodgers aren't really an MLB team without the actual existence of the MLB.

[sr1030]

pseudogratix: You still don't get it. There isn't a universally recognized governing voice for Christendom.

You still don't get it. There doesn't have to be a universally recognized governing voice for Christendom.

pseudogratix: but it is as futile as the NY Yankees complaining that the Dodgers aren't really an MLB team without the actual existence of the MLB.

You mean Christendom doesn't really exist?

sr

[pseudogratix]

...

[pseudogratix]

You still don't get it. There doesn't have to be a universally recognized governing voice for Christendom.

For matters like this there needs to be if a conclusion to the matter is desired. Otherwise, it is simply an exercise in futility.

You mean Christendom doesn't really exist?

Only as a collective of those who claim to be a part of it. There is no officially sanctioned body that can be referred to as Christendom. It is like having a bunch of baseball players and baseball teams but no governing body like MLB.

[1dc]

LDS can claim that their church is Christian, and even claim to be the only true or real Christians.

You bore witness with that statement as present tense. Can you back that up with quote and source (within present teachings)?

If LDS are Christians, (followers of Christ), then they are the only ones, as they have their own version of Christ.

False. There is only one true Christ of the New Testament who died as Savior for us all . . LDS have an understanding of His Gospel as proclaimed by the Bible and as witnessed by the Book of Mormon. You may not agree with it, but then Christians routinely disagree with each other about what the Bible says, which at least partly explains why there are many sects.

We (Christendom) are not like LDS. We don't want to be like LDS or to be identified with them. We also have that right. Don't we?

Sorry, since LDS are Christians we are like other Christians whether you want that or not. Just don't call your Church the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you're good to go. You're pretty safe with the church of SR1030.

LDS are exclusive and they have the right to be.

Thank you for recognizing that which is not yours to grant. The claim is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church on the earth to have the fulness of His Gospel as truly restored by Christ. If you choose to reject what Christ claims as His we respect your desire to believe otherwise.

Why would LDS seemingly want to mislead people into believing that they believe in the same Christ that Christendom believes in?

Why would you seemingly want to mislead people into believing that there is more than one Christ who atoned for our sins and was resurrected, as that is the One that LDS proclaim?

No one is mislead with the key principles taught to those investigating the Church online. Those who themselves desire to mislead may post otherwise, however.

[Nepheye]

John said:

I would suggest that anyone who believes in the New Testament and in Jesus Christ and is a Christian. One's "Christianity", IMO, is defined by the believer, not by some outside observer.

Nepheye: A better way to look at it (from my perspective) might be to ask if there is a difference between being a Christain and being a disciple of Jesus Christ by the terms Jesus Himself gave. As I look at it as taking the terms from Jesus, the definition of being a Christain/disciple, that it has been defined by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and as such, to provide a different definition than He gave is by His own testimony - to deny what He did and said is the very covenant and law of God.

To leave what Jesus said on a different table and instead think we define it individually is might be perceived as practical athiesm?