DiscussMormonism.com

Went over to MDD lurking to try and find a mercyngrace quote when I could not resist reading through their very lame attempt to find a definition of Christian from the New Testament. Of course Mormons will not hone in upon the power of the gospel, the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost except its ricochet of "the spirit".

Perhaps they could look in Acts chapter one where Christ is turning all those Jews who believed in him, turning them into Christians by INSISTING that they continue UNTIL the promise of the Father, the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost is received.

EWWWWWW~~~~~~ sounds like an actual event has to take place before Christ will own any of his disciples for real. LDS refuse to be held to account against a defining EVENT that must occur before a name is taken and membership in the only true church is assured. They want to be less well defined than that.

Some will say,,,,,but you expect perfection, none are perfect, who do you think you are. Perhaps a little FAITH in Christ will help. lol

Let's list the strident commands of Christ along the way to entering in at the straight gate and standing upon the rock of Christ.

1. In the sermon on the mount the Lord said:'
Take no thought for you life.......seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.
2. Luke 9: 62
62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
3. Luke 14: 26
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
4. By learning you do not get it, it must be revealed unto you.
Luke 11:
25 ¶ At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28 ¶ Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Yeah light and easy AFTER it is revealed unto you. Hitting your head against the wall of disbelief with no revelation......not so light and not so easy.

5. TA DA!
Acts 1
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

This right here is Jesus making his disciples into living Christians by power and revelations which he commanded they receive by staying on it without doing any other thing until it is realized............like he said in the Sermon on the Mount...........take no thought for your life......This is the key to becoming a real Christian, one whom Christ received by his own name and power.....honor God by making your initiation MORE important than any other consideration under heaven. Is that too hard? Is that too much to ask? Apparently so when we go so much else at hand. Hypocrites...................oh, but let me just say how wonderful everyone is in their own special way.........kisses..........kisses. Ahem!

This was my response to the thread:

I wonder the relevance of the OP question. For the sake of discussion, I'm curious what the philosophical and ethical moralism arguments would be to determine what a "Christian" is or what such a person would look like. Furthermore, is there a consistent opinion of such a definition expressed in the New Testament let alone in the first and second centuries?

The OP question seemed to be so loaded that I had to call it out. I don't like what it seems to suggest about people with whom we may disagree.

Valentinus wrote:This was my response to the thread:

I wonder the relevance of the OP question. For the sake of discussion, I'm curious what the philosophical and ethical moralism arguments would be to determine what a "Christian" is or what such a person would look like. Furthermore, is there a consistent opinion of such a definition expressed in the New Testament let alone in the first and second centuries?

The OP question seemed to be so loaded that I had to call it out. I don't like what it seems to suggest about people with whom we may disagree.

Okay. So did I delineate a proper Christian or prove once again that nobody cares. all is stubble and ready to burn.

As a general term, Christian is defined as anyone who has faith and believes in Jesus Christ.

Dogmatism, theology, etc. is where people seem to lose sight of what is important and begin to commit spiritual violence.

People care about what makes a person a Christian. LDS do. Calvinists do. Arminians do. Catholics do. The one true way to be a Christian is in the eye of the beholder and therefor does not really exist. In fact, it seems more a bias and/or prejudice than anything else.

Valentinus wrote:As a general term, Christian is defined as anyone who has faith and believes in Jesus Christ.

Dogmatism, theology, etc. is where people seem to lose sight of what is important and begin to commit spiritual violence.

People care about what makes a person a Christian. LDS do. Calvinists do. Arminians do. Catholics do. The one true way to be a Christian is in the eye of the beholder and therefor does not really exist. In fact, it seems more a bias and/or prejudice than anything else.

But, as GBH pointed out, Mormons have faith in a different Christ to the rest of Christianity.
Are the FLDS Chrustians too?

I remember that thread about "What is an 'apostate'?" http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/500 ... -apostate/

Perhaps this "what is a Christian" thread will be just as enlightening.

Valentinus wrote:As a general term, Christian is defined as anyone who has faith and believes in Jesus Christ.

According to whom? The world? Is not the prerogative to name what IS a Christian owned by Christ and non other? Who are you to say against what he has commanded? bleh!

Dogmatism, theology, etc. is where people seem to lose sight of what is important and begin to commit spiritual violence.

Since God and Jesus Christ command dogmatically you are suggesting that they commit spiritual violence by so doing? Stupid!
Fluffy puppy rhetoric.

People care about what makes a person a Christian. LDS do. Calvinists do. Arminians do. Catholics do. The one true way to be a Christian is in the eye of the beholder and therefor does not really exist. In fact, it seems more a bias and/or prejudice than anything else.

What you are saying is that you really do NOT care and it is more important to own a franchise that empowers whateverthehell you wanna think as valid as anyone else. bleh again.

If I CARE to get to Provo, Utah, and I seldom do, it would bother the heck out of me to end up in Tabiona. Even though beholding Tabiona with my eye is a very pleasant view. They have a river running through it as nice as Provo's. Maybe better.

What quote are you looking for? I'll try to find it through my content page if you'd like.

Cate

Wasn't there a time when the Mormon church did not want to be identified as Christian, or am I mistaken?

Valentinus wrote:As a general term, Christian is defined as anyone who has faith and believes in Jesus Christ.

Nightlion wrote:According to whom? The world? Is not the prerogative to name what IS a Christian owned by Christ and non other? Who are you to say against what he has commanded? bleh!

I would agree with you considering that Jesus, in Biblical scripture, doesn't determine a list of qualifications that make a person a Christian. What we have are different disciples who openly disagreed with each other and their individual theologies.

The Athanasian and Nicene Creeds seem to be the standard by which many contemporary Protestants gauge what a Christian is to truly believe. Some, such as Calvinists, adhere to the five point T.U.L.I.P. as an appropriate place to start.

You have to understand that just because the LDS church says they are the authority on such matters is merely a claim. Not a fact. Also, your testimony is simply that, a testimony; an intangible personal witness to things believed to be true but may not be true in reality.

Valentinus wrote:Dogmatism, theology, etc. is where people seem to lose sight of what is important and begin to commit spiritual violence.

Nightlion wrote:Since God and Jesus Christ command dogmatically you are suggesting that they commit spiritual violence by so doing? Stupid!
Fluffy puppy rhetoric.

I'm suggesting that scriptural authors have determined that God and Jesus Christ do such. A good example of spiritual abuse can be found found in the pastorals when they are read in light of the Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians.

Because you reject the notion of Jesus a pluralist, as properly portrayed in the Gospels, does not diminish such a value. It would seem, to me atleast, that Jesus rejected dogmatism considering his troublesome relationship with the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Valentinus wrote:People care about what makes a person a Christian. LDS do. Calvinists do. Arminians do. Catholics do. The one true way to be a Christian is in the eye of the beholder and therefor does not really exist. In fact, it seems more a bias and/or prejudice than anything else.

Nightlion wrote:What you are saying is that you really do NOT care and it is more important to own a franchise that empowers whateverthehell you wanna think as valid as anyone else. bleh again.

I make no secret of my adherence to a universalistic Christian mindset. I'm not looking for a faith that tells me what to believe, how to believe and why to believe. I'm not looking for a faith to tell me what to do, essentially. If you're comfortable being controlled in such a system then good for you. I hope your faith serves you well.

Nightlion wrote:If I CARE to get to Provo, Utah, and I seldom do, it would bother the heck out of me to end up in Tabiona. Even though beholding Tabiona with my eye is a very pleasant view. They have a river running through it as nice as Provo's. Maybe better.

You are a tempermental person with a peculiar axe to grind. Your logic is overly simplistic and lacks reason and rationalism.