Christianity vs Mormonism

[_GoodK]

It's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here. It appears by "Christianity" you are imagining a subset of Christianity and applying it to the whole, which seems to be uninformed. I wonder if you haven't always been LDS, or atheist, and not particularly well versed in other religions or denominational differences, even from a cultural point of view.

Maybe I am uninformed.

Or, I may just be refusing to give a special pass to those that choose to be vague about what they believe.

Again, I'm not following your line of reasoning here.

Who's being vague about what they believe? The watered-down moderates? The fundamentalists?

You can easily answer this question yourself by re-reading my post, and your words which I was responding to.

[Guest]

So why are you lumping them in with the watered-down moderates?

It's really difficult to follow your line of reasoning here.

When did I do this? You brought up the Catholics, not me. I never specified a specific brand of Christianity.

Catholics don't believe in a universal flood. They don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, either, and last I checked, they believe in evolution. So I think that put them squarely in your "watered-down moderate" camp.

I'll try and make this much more simple:

Anyone that believes, literally, that there is indeed a man named Jesus Christ, and his father (or maybe even himself) helped author a piece of literature, then that person is a Christian.

Does that include Muslims?

I think you're tripping up over how different sects of Christianity view the Bible. There are those who, while believing it to be inspired, or even "God-breathed," they don't believe it to be literal in the sense that you are claiming, and they don't believe it to be literally written by someone you'd call Jesus' dad.

[_JAK]

GoodK responds:
You seem certain, however I feel this is a moot point.

JAK:

Wrong, You attempted to contrast “Christianity vs Mormonism”

It’s an incorrect analysis. Some in the Protestant movement like to characterize “Christianity vs. Roman Catholicism.”

That is as incorrect as your topic beginning this thread. The point is that the Mormon organization is a Christian organization . The Roman Catholic Church organization is also a Christian organization.

You have made no refutation of the analysis.

The religion at issue is Christianity and its more than 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults.

Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. They total about 75% of the North American adult population.

Largest Branches of Christianity in US

Christian Groups by Size

The point is that your topic is flawed as you regard “Christian” as other than “Mormon.”

As I stated, Mormonism is a part of and an evolution of the Protestant Reformation (1517).

JAK

Ok. Here is your "refutation":


Wikipedia:
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
In the frame of European religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life".

wordnet.princeton.edu:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"


phmc.state.pa.us:

an organized system of faith and worship


Carm.org:

Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief.


nmhschool.org:

Latin: religio, ligo, "to bind together") A way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: ie Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering? ...


So, dear sir, again I will say it is a moot point.

And lest there be any more confusion:

wordnet.princeton.edu:

moot: arguable: open to argument or debate; "that is a moot question"

ncbuy.com:

Moot:
(1) of little or no practical value, meaning, or consequence. (2) subject to discussion or argument. (3) doubtful, theoretical, or hypothetical.

How's that?

It fails.

You have not distinguished Christianity from Mormonism as your title affirms.

You have no refutation.

Christianity is the religion under discussion. Mormonism is a division, a denomination, a sect, or a cult of Christianity.

Your comments are no refutation or defense that Mormon is a different religion. Islam is a different religion. Buddhism is a different religion (as example). There are others as I indicated.

In the websites I provided, Mormonism is listed as one of the many Christian groups.

Read the easy-access links I provided.

JAK

[_the road to hana]

It's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here. It appears by "Christianity" you are imagining a subset of Christianity and applying it to the whole, which seems to be uninformed. I wonder if you haven't always been LDS, or atheist, and not particularly well versed in other religions or denominational differences, even from a cultural point of view.

Maybe I am uninformed.

Or, I may just be refusing to give a special pass to those that choose to be vague about what they believe.

Again, I'm not following your line of reasoning here.

Who's being vague about what they believe? The watered-down moderates? The fundamentalists?

You can easily answer this question yourself by re-reading my post, and your words which I was responding to.

No, now you're being vague.

Who's vague about what they believe?

[_GoodK]

So why are you lumping them in with the watered-down moderates?

It's really difficult to follow your line of reasoning here.

When did I do this? You brought up the Catholics, not me. I never specified a specific brand of Christianity.

Catholics don't believe in a universal flood. They don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, either, and last I checked, the believe in evolution. So I think that put them squarely in your "watered-down moderate" camp.

I think we are beginning to understand eachother better now. I see where you could have assumed that Catholics belong in the watered-down camp.

For the record--I don't consider them to be moderates, considering the nature of some of their beliefs.

I'll try and make this much more simple:

Anyone that believes, literally, that there is indeed a man named Jesus Christ, and his father (or maybe even himself) helped author a piece of literature, then that person is a Christian.

Does that include Muslims?

No. I think the key word is Christ, and I doubt many self-proclaimed Muslims would consider Jesus "The Messiah."

I think you're tripping up over how different sects of Christianity view the Bible. There are those who, while believing it to be inspired, or even "God-breathed," they don't believe it to be literal in the sense that you are claiming, and they don't believe it to be literally written by someone you'd call Jesus' dad.

Yes, well, one of us is tripping up over it, but I think we are on the same page again. Like you said, those that don't believe the Bible is literally written by someone I would call Jesus's dad, those people are the ones that I accused of being vague.

[_the road to hana]

Yes, well, one of us is tripping up over it, but I think we are on the same page again. Like you said, those that don't believe the Bible is literally written by someone I would call Jesus's dad, those people are the ones that I accused of being vague.

That would account for most Christians, I think. They view the books of the Old Testament (essentially what amounted to pre-existing Jewish scripture) and the New Testament as a compilation of books authored by a number of different individuals, and not that any Supreme Being was literally the author in any sense other than an inspirational or facilitating one.

Sure, you'll find some fundamentalists who adhere to this, but they'd be in the minority.

[_Ray A]

I see where you could have assumed that Catholics belong in the watered-down camp.

For the record--I don't consider them to be moderates, considering the nature of some of their beliefs.

Can you give an example of some of those beliefs? And what do you think of Catholic theologians like Hans Kung?

[_JAK]

It's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here. It appears by "Christianity" you are imagining a subset of Christianity and applying it to the whole, which seems to be uninformed. I wonder if you haven't always been LDS, or atheist, and not particularly well versed in other religions or denominational differences, even from a cultural point of view.

Maybe I am uninformed.

Or, I may just be refusing to give a special pass to those that choose to be vague about what they believe.

Certainly there is a variance in the accepted dogma's between the thousands of different sects that claim to be Christian. I can't be expected to take this into consideration when analyzing the Bible, or the main tenets of Christianity. The moderates should take issue with the authors of the Bible if they don't want to be accountable for what it says.

This is exactly why I don't like the religious moderate. They seem to be more sensible than the fundamentalist, yet they give the fundamentalist a safe haven from critique.

And I don't think Catholicism is watered-down. I think Catholicism is a little more idiotic than Christianity.

GoodK in response to the road to hana:

Maybe I am uninformed.

Or, I may just be refusing to give a special pass to those that choose to be vague about what they believe.

Certainly there is a variance in the accepted dogma's between the thousands of different sects that claim to be Christian. I can't be expected to take this into consideration when analyzing the Bible, or the main tenets of Christianity. The moderates should take issue with the authors of the Bible if they don't want to be accountable for what it says.

You are correct about the thousand+ groups of Christians. (I’m skeptical that you can find evidence for “thousands.”) In these various groups, there is selective script citing. No single group takes the Bible as a whole with equal emphasis. That’s precisely the fertile field for the Protestant Reformation spins. The various groups don’t agree on “main tenets.” Where there is agreement there is not division. Just who are the “moderates”?

GoodK in response to the road to hana:

This is exactly why I don't like the religious moderate. They seem to be more sensible than the fundamentalist, yet they give the fundamentalist a safe haven from critique.

It’s a bit like no Republican should speak ill of any other Republican. That was the Ronald Reagan view. When it comes to politics, the politician wants not only the Christian fundamentalists, he wants the Christian moderates as well. And the various Christian groups don’t want to beat up on each other too much lest they divide the pressure they can put on a politician as a whole.

GoodK in response to the road to hana:

And I don't think Catholicism is watered-down. I think Catholicism is a little more idiotic than Christianity.

See this link:

List of Christian denominations by number of members

Your error is in a false contrast attempting to make “Catholicism” different from “Christianity.”

The list from Wikipedia is quite extensive and includes a number-count for the various Christian groups.

The Roman Catholic Church is Christian.

While some special interest and self-serving groups may enjoy exclusion of the Roman Catholic Church, they are historically wrong in doing so.

JAK

[_JAK]

Yes, well, one of us is tripping up over it, but I think we are on the same page again. Like you said, those that don't believe the Bible is literally written by someone I would call Jesus's dad, those people are the ones that I accused of being vague.

Your statement begs the issue and questions of biblical contradictions.

GoodK writes:
Yes, well, one of us is tripping up over it, but I think we are on the same page again. Like you said, those that don't believe the Bible is literally written by someone I would call Jesus's dad, those people are the ones that I accused of being vague.

See Biblical Contradictions

Another List of Biblical Contradictions

This List Gives Chapter and Verse for Inconsistencies as well as outright contradictions.

Even those who …“believe the Bible is literally written by someone I would call Jesus's dad”… have major problems with obvious inconsistencies and contradictions.

So the literalists are, themselves, not in agreement.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Good K

Will you list examples of that?

Sure, I'd love to. I assume you mean examples for Christianity, so here are a couple just off the top of my head:

A global flood that cleansed the earth, a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet, pregnancy without sex, diseases are caused by sins, two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population, something named God created the Earth in about 7 days - or at least in 6 steps.
These things I believe are manifestly false to anyone who has made it past the fifth grade.

They are manifestly false to anyone who attempts to couch them in literal terms. Taking the Flood story for example, why do you frame it as a global flood?

I'm sure I'm missing some obvious ones, and there are other things that I find morally wrong in the Bible, I can list those as well if you'd like.

Yes, I'd like a brief list of things in the Bible you find morally wrong.