MsJack wrote:I suggest that's one possibility.
Well anything’s a possibility. But you forwarded an argument and I contested it. That’s why I commented. You claimed Mormonism would be best categorized as something other than Christian. I disagree. Thus, we argue.
One could just as well say that Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, Christians do not, and they are distinct in a taxonomic sense because of it.
One could say anything, but that’s not my point. I’m troubled by your refusal to concede that there is a main distinction between Jews and Catholics which is similar to such a main distinction between LDS and Jews. That distinction is that both Catholics and LDS believe Jesus Christ is the Savior. Now its true as we go down the taxonomy and filter the levels, we’ll find that there is distinction between LDS Christians and Evangelical Christians, for instance, but that hardly means Christianity has no definable distinction from Jews. I think my point stands.
Jews believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So do Protestants. So do Catholics. So do Mormons. Clearly, we're all Jews and you're just trying to confuse an otherwise simple issue.
So is the term Jews descriptive of the very God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? You realize that Christianity is Christianity because it entails, by definition, the belief in the Savior? This has nothing to do with the fact that there are similarities between Judaism and Christianity. Your apples and orangin’ it. There’s a reason why people refer to such a God as the Judeo-Christian God.
stemelbow wrote:They're distinctively marked now because they've had several thousand years to grow apart. They weren't distinctively marked when Christianity first started out. Even the Roman Empire considered it a subset of Judaism at first. The New Testament also makes this clear, what with the debates among Christians on whether or not to practice circumcision (and indeed, abandoning circumcision was one of the first steps Christianity took that distinguished it from Judaism).
So you’re making my case. Thanks by the way—Mormonism must be considered part of Christianity because there has not been thousands of years to grow apart.
Stemelbow, in case you've missed the many, many posts where I have mentioned it, I am married to a Mormon. An active, believing, garment-wearing, temple-recommend-holding Mormon.
I have missed that. I certainly don’t search out your posts, but I have read quite a few and don’t remember seeing it. Well, good for you and him. I hope its going nicely—that marriage thing.
If I were really trying to "nuance things to [my] favor," don't you think I'd want Mormonism to be classified as close to Christianity as possible? I mean, when my fellow evangelicals speak of my husband as an "unbeliever," I'd love to be able to say, "Don't be silly! Can't you see that he believes in Christ just like we do?"
One would think.
You may be arguing with an agenda here, but I'm not. I'm assessing the issue exactly how I see it without regards to whether it benefits me or not. I'd love to jump on the "Mormons are Christians and anyone who says otherwise is stupid" bandwagon, but I just can't. I don't think the issue is as simple as that.
Okay.
Also, since we're apparently comparing each other's posts to those of other people who aren't particularly relevant to the topic: your posts remind me of the folks from CARM. And that's not a compliment.
Great. I’ll embrace the put down as another in a long list that people tend to post here, when I discuss with them. I get it. Don’t worry. It is a bit ironic though, that you went off on Mormons just like CARM posters do, and yet you are accusing me of being CARM-like. I mean, perhaps that stings little, seeing as you tried to use that as a way to demean me, but its sadly true. Also, that you turned this all so personal against me and attempted to attack me, while discussing a frustrating topic is also very CARM-like. No big deal there. I love some current CARM posters. I had discussed with them for years.
No, because:
(1) Groups which aren't christocentric such as the Baha'i would be "Christian" by this definition
So how about if belief in the Savior is that which is explicitly stated as the, or a, central teaching of the faith? Does that constitute Christian?
(2) A similarly simplistic definition of "Judaism" would make Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons all "Jews."
This is where I don’t think you are thinking it through. Judaism isn’t used to describe Christians.
If it isn't "nuance" to suggest that belief in Jesus Christ puts someone in a category other than Judaism, then it isn't "nuance" to suggest that belief in the divine calling of Joseph Smith puts Mormons in a category other than Christianity.
A perfect example to ruin your theory here is by considering the scriptures according to Catholics and those considered by evangelicals. The differences here are key in understanding how your theory regarding the similiarity between Judaism and Christianity means that we have to co-opt the term Christianity to mean something other, or more, than what it naturally and commonly means.
Oh, hello again, square one.
Yep that square one thing is what I was afraid of. Of course I’ve explained why I fault your reasoning on this, but yet you maintain it anyway. I guess the most reasonable thing to do now is agree to disagree, but I fear that won’t happen, as it is more likely you’ll wish to respond and complain some more about me as a human.