Christianity vs Mormonism

[_huckelberry]

Jersey Girl you are mixing fact with fiction. You say "we need a savior" No scholars makes claim to knowledge that any particular God exists, theologians do. God is not a fact. It therefore follows that your statement "we are removed from any God" is also not a fact. And even for people who believe in a God, even the God of the Bible, it doesn't follow that they believe they must be saved, particularly by the Jesus described in the N.T., and by him dying in order that mankind can be with god. How is it that Muslims and Jews don't think they need to be saved to be with God, if as you say mankind has a "need" for a savior? by the way, do you happen to know who first came up with the idea of "Jesus dying to save mankind". Is that actually mentioned in the N.T. specifically, or did some early Christian theologian make that up? As you know, I'm not very familiar with the Bible.
................
My comment,

In the New Testimaent Jesus alludes to the doctrine in various ways it becomse explicit in the words of Paul and related writing suh as Hebrews. These of course are the oldest parts of the New Testement a fact which has lead scholars to argue about whether the picture of Jesus alluding to this idea was read back into the story by the Christian believers of the second half of the first century(being influenced by Paul) I agree closest with New Testament Wright who argue to my mind convincingly that the idea of sacrifice comes from Jesus. Perhaps it should be added that the idea is seen as a developement of parts of Isaiah c6th century bc. I think that connection is important not just because it is older but it points to ways that Jesus sacrifice can be seen as something more effective than the narrow view of a ticket out of hell. In Isaiah the suffering servant heals the wounds of the world through taking on the ills of the world. Many people and most Jews see the reference as to the role Isreal was called to fullfill. I think Jesus saw himself fullfilling that role in order to be the representative new Jew which fullfills that role. He sufffers to give forgiveness and make forgiveness shared between people the foundation for the future of humans. Now it is a bit of a reach for someone to try to put human relationships on a new and improved basis. It may even seem a fantastical aspiration of the earlier followers of Jesus to imagine a new and ideal sociaty could grow out of small beginnings. We now may complain that it has grown too little, that it is regularly corrupted by fat heads making money and fame out of it. It is corrupted by people who see nothing more in Christs blood than a merit badge making them better than others. Jesus would be horrified. But then he told stories about that horror as if it was already happening.

Somebody might complain that Jesuss ideals including the idea that forgiveness costs the person who does the forgiving and is worth doing anyway not to be new. It is not. It is the fundamental princpal that people have always sensed cannot be forgotten. It is what was given us in the beginning which somehow people set aside. We have a history of behaving at polar opposite of Chritian forgiveness while paying lip service to it. This condition is what is called sin in Christian thinking. I I cannot see how it matters if that came about from a fruit in a garden or some other process of events lost in the depths of time. We are not what we could be. In fact we are, despite being just wonderful folks in some ways, humans are also destructive selfish and dangerous.

To say we need to be saved makes sense only in the context where there is real hope that human can really much better than we are.
.................................

This notion of "saving" is a Christian one. If as you say on account of our "human nature" we must be saved...well didn't this God make us, are you saying he made us with flaws and yet needs a sacrifice in order to accept us?
................................
What I see is that saving is a Christian desire because Christians hold to a hope that life can better than it has been and still is. But you complain that Christian believe God wanted a sacrifice. It may be true that God is not without some responsibity for our condition. That could be part of the reason that in Chrstian thought it is God that makes tha sacrifice of himself. No human could do it. However it was made in such a way as to invite us to share the responsiblity with God. If we just say our evil is Gods fault he should take care of it we lose the possiblity of sharing responsibility and develpong the freedom and love which sharing that responsiblity can help grow.
..........................

It doesn't make sense Jersey Girl. There has to be some sort of "fall" by mankind, mankind has to be the culprit for the "fall" not God. Otherwise God would be wanting a sacrifice made to him, for his own imperfect work. So according to the storyline it has to be that God makes mankind perfect, but mankind does something which negates his work. So if one is going to accept as "fact" within the Christian paradigm that God needs a sacrifice, then there must be a "fall" and where else in the Bible other than the Adam and Eve story does this occur? Therefore according to Christian belief, God is literal, Jesus dying as a sacrifice to God for man's transgression must be literal, and therefore the Adam and Eve transgression must be assumed literal, because that places the blame away from God onto mankind. Otherwise if you don't take the Adam and Eve storyline literally, what we are left with is a God which creates an imperfect human species, and even though it's all his fault..he wants a sacrifice made. It would be like you teaching a class wrong math and when they answer math questions as you instructed, you punish them by not allowing them to go out for recess.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Goodk,

this issue could go in the Terrestrial if you'd like it to be there (more readers).

As to Christianity vs Mormonism, the Bible has some archaeological evidence, suggesting that the events could have happened (as opposed to the Book of Mormon, where the evidence is totally absent). That being said, it's still a leap of faith, but I think the Christians have more to stand on than the Mormons.

*shrugs*

Right. Mormonism can't even get off the ground.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Huck, looks as if we are on the same page, you said, into which i added UL & bold to emphasis agreement:

My comment,

In the New Testimaent Jesus alludes to the doctrine in various ways it becomse explicit in the words of Paul and related writing suh as Hebrews. These of course are the oldest parts of the New Testement a fact which has lead scholars to argue about whether the picture of Jesus alluding to this idea was read back into the story by the Christian believers of the second half of the first century(being influenced by Paul) I agree closest with New Testament Wright who argue to my mind convincingly that the idea of sacrifice comes from Jesus. Perhaps it should be added that the idea is seen as a developement of parts of Isaiah c6th century bc. I think that connection is important not just because it is older but it points to ways that Jesus sacrifice can be seen as something more effective than the narrow view of a ticket out of hell. In Isaiah the suffering servant heals the wounds of the world through taking on the ills of the world. Many people and most Jews see the reference as to the role Isreal was called to fullfill. I think Jesus saw himself fullfilling that role in order to be the representative new Jew which fullfills that role. He sufffers to give forgiveness and make forgiveness shared between people the foundation for the future of humans. Now it is a bit of a reach for someone to try to put human relationships on a new and improved basis. It may even seem a fantastical aspiration of the earlier followers of Jesus to imagine a new and ideal sociaty could grow out of small beginnings. We now may complain that it has grown too little, that it is regularly corrupted by fat heads making money and fame out of it. It is corrupted by people who see nothing more in Christs blood than a merit badge making them better than others. Jesus would be horrified. But then he told stories about that horror as if it was already happening.

Somebody might complain that Jesuss ideals including the idea that forgiveness costs the person who does the forgiving and is worth doing anyway not to be new. It is not. It is the fundamental princpal that people have always sensed cannot be forgotten. It is what was given us in the beginning which somehow people set aside. We have a history of behaving at polar opposite of (being) Chritian(s) forgiveness while paying lip service to it. This condition is what is called sin in Christian thinking. I I cannot see how it matters if that came about from a fruit in a garden or some other process of events lost in the depths of time. We are not what we could be. In fact we are, despite being just wonderful folks in some ways, humans are also destructive selfish and dangerous.

To say we need to be saved makes sense only in the context where there is real hope that human can really much better than we are.
.................................

Do you think some of these, "wonderful folks in some ways" are becoming more aware of the preposterous claims of eternal salvation through "the blood of Christ" and in LDSism, "Heavenly increase & personal Godhood"?

I think the social aspects of 'church communities' are very beneficial. Offering support and camaraderie to folks, who too often feel friendless in what has been an impersonal society, is one of the appeals of LDSism. If Jesus hadn't been hijacked by religion that compromised his higher humanitarian principles for lower, but more appealing, Mammoncentro pursuits of wealth, and empire building... Hey, but where there's life there's hope, eh? Warm regards, Roger

[_GoodK]

Goodk,

this issue could go in the Terrestrial if you'd like it to be there (more readers).

As to Christianity vs Mormonism, the Bible has some archaeological evidence, suggesting that the events could have happened (as opposed to the Book of Mormon, where the evidence is totally absent). That being said, it's still a leap of faith, but I think the Christians have more to stand on than the Mormons.

*shrugs*

Right. Mormonism can't even get off the ground.

What gets Christianity off the ground? Besides the theory that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. That has been stated ad naseum...

[_marg]

marg,

I will try to answer your post when I, well actually when I feel like it ;-). I should have written the portion you quoted this way, I'll bold the edit....



That human nature dictates our actions is fact.
That our actions are often destructive to ourselves or others is fact.
That, in the religious context of Christianity, we are removed from God (on account of our human nature) is fact.
That, in the religious context of Christianity, we cannot change ourselves long term.

In the religious context of Christianity, we need a Savior.

If the Fall is a myth created to explain the separation of humanity from God.

In the religious context of Christianity, we still need a Savior.

Can the Fall be metaphorical? I think so.

Jersey Girl, I see no logical justification from your premises to conclusion.."we need a savior". You leap to that conclusion but from your premises it doesn't follow.

In your Christian argument, you have a God which creates an imperfect human species, there is no "fall", according to you it is how we are all born. Whose fault is it that every single human born is destructive to others and self and therefore needs to be saved? I'm assuming by "saving" you mean go to heaven and be with God, instead of hell. Where is the logic in this God needing a sacrifice to be appeased, when it is for his own imperfect work of creation?

I appreciate you wanted to do away with a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve because that didn't seem realistic to you, but the entire argument of "Jesus dying for mankind's sins" which you appear to accept, is unrealistic and nothing you said made it realistic. Jesus needing to die for mankind's sins is as ludicrous as the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, probably even more so.

[_marg]

................
My comment,

I think Jesus saw himself fullfilling that role in order to be the representative new Jew which fullfills that role. He sufffers to give forgiveness and make forgiveness shared between people the foundation for the future of humans.

I fail to see the logical connect between Jesus dying and forgiveness.

What I see is that saving is a Christian desire because Christians hold to a hope that life can better than it has been and still is. But you complain that Christian believe God wanted a sacrifice. It may be true that God is not without some responsibity for our condition. That could be part of the reason that in Chrstian thought it is God that makes tha sacrifice of himself. No human could do it. However it was made in such a way as to invite us to share the responsiblity with God. If we just say our evil is Gods fault he should take care of it we lose the possiblity of sharing responsibility and develpong the freedom and love which sharing that responsiblity can help grow.

Re where I bolded above, your God certainly isn't making much of a sacrifice by having himself die if he's able to create himself in human form at will.

[_Roger Morrison]

marg,

I will try to answer your post when I, well actually when I feel like it ;-). I should have written the portion you quoted this way, I'll bold the edit....



That human nature dictates our actions is fact.
That our actions are often destructive to ourselves or others is fact.
That, in the religious context of Christianity, we are removed from God (on account of our human nature) is fact.
That, in the religious context of Christianity, we cannot change ourselves long term.

In the religious context of Christianity, we need a Savior.

If the Fall is a myth created to explain the separation of humanity from God.

In the religious context of Christianity, we still need a Savior.

Can the Fall be metaphorical? I think so.

Jersey Girl, I see no logical justification from your premises to conclusion.."we need a savior". You leap to that conclusion but from your premises it doesn't follow.

In your Christian argument, you have a God which creates an imperfect human species, there is no "fall", according to you it is how we are all born. Whose fault is it that every single human born is destructive to others and self and therefore needs to be saved? I'm assuming by "saving" you mean go to heaven and be with God, instead of hell. Where is the logic in this God needing a sacrifice to be appeased, when it is for his own imperfect work of creation?

I appreciate you wanted to do away with a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve because that didn't seem realistic to you, but the entire argument of "Jesus dying for mankind's sins" which you appear to accept, is unrealistic and nothing you said made it realistic. Jesus needing to die for mankind's sins is as ludicrous as the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, probably even more so.

Marg, interesting how we can read the same thing, and arrive at different conclusions... I 'think' Jersey Girl, by 'bolding' an edit was saying something like, "I" am not saying, "...we need a savior..." BUT that traditional Christianity says, "...we still need a savior." Possible??

by the way, i'm with you in calling their cards. The game IS over. But the obsessed keep mortaging the house to get back in the game, not knowing the cards were stacked against them from the beginning... Warm regards, Roger

[_GoodK]

marg,

I will try to answer your post when I, well actually when I feel like it ;-). I should have written the portion you quoted this way, I'll bold the edit....



That human nature dictates our actions is fact.
That our actions are often destructive to ourselves or others is fact.
That, in the religious context of Christianity, we are removed from God (on account of our human nature) is fact.
That, in the religious context of Christianity, we cannot change ourselves long term.

In the religious context of Christianity, we need a Savior.

If the Fall is a myth created to explain the separation of humanity from God.

In the religious context of Christianity, we still need a Savior.

Can the Fall be metaphorical? I think so.

Jersey Girl, I see no logical justification from your premises to conclusion.."we need a savior". You leap to that conclusion but from your premises it doesn't follow.

In your Christian argument, you have a God which creates an imperfect human species, there is no "fall", according to you it is how we are all born. Whose fault is it that every single human born is destructive to others and self and therefore needs to be saved? I'm assuming by "saving" you mean go to heaven and be with God, instead of hell. Where is the logic in this God needing a sacrifice to be appeased, when it is for his own imperfect work of creation?

I appreciate you wanted to do away with a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve because that didn't seem realistic to you, but the entire argument of "Jesus dying for mankind's sins" which you appear to accept, is unrealistic and nothing you said made it realistic. Jesus needing to die for mankind's sins is as ludicrous as the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, probably even more so.

Marg, interesting how we can read the same thing, and arrive at different conclusions... I 'think' Jersey Girl, by 'bolding' an edit was saying something like, "I" am not saying, "...we need a savior..." BUT that traditional Christianity says, "...we still need a savior." Possible??

by the way, I'm with you in calling their cards. The game IS over. But the obsessed keep mortaging the house to get back in the game, not knowing the cards were stacked against them from the beginning... Warm regards, Roger

Roger,

Would you agree with me in my belief that there are no better reasons to believe Christian tenets as there is to believe Mormon tenets?

Do you find anything about Christianity more compelling?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi GoodK, you asked me:

Roger,

Would you agree with me in my belief that there are no better reasons to believe Christian tenets as there is to believe Mormon tenets?

Do you find anything about Christianity more compelling?

"I" agree, there 'seems' to be no better reasons to to believe Christian tenets, than to believe Mormon tenets. In saying that, I think there are many reasons why folks do believe C and/or M. Few, if any, believe M, and not C. MANY believe C and not M. Each with their own reasons.

C more compelling than M? To each their own. In my seriously considered opinion (IMSCO) i think your questions, to me, might be too simple. They don't seem to take into consideration the reasons why individuals, and groups, believe as they do. And their personal needs gratified by doing so.

Simplistically, it's like asking a hungry person, and one who has just eaten, "are you hungry?" Then being critical of their answers. Maybe dumb, but there can be no wrong, or right answer based on subjective questions. Beliefs don't alter facts, they determine behavior.

It is behavior that determines reward or no-reward; not belief that may not influence behavior as one might think. I hope this is not toooo convoluted :-)... Warm regards, Roger

[_marg]

Marg, interesting how we can read the same thing, and arrive at different conclusions... I 'think' Jersey Girl, by 'bolding' an edit was saying something like, "I" am not saying, "...we need a savior..." BUT that traditional Christianity says, "...we still need a savior." Possible??

Well Roger, does traditional Christianity leave out a "fall" when it argues the purpose of "Jesus dying to save mankind". Because J.G left it out, and I'm not aware of Christianity assuming God created an imperfect man from the get go which needed saving, I assume that is J.G.'s personal spin. It really doesn't make much difference whether J.G. is arguuing her beliefs, or speaking for other's beliefs, in either case the argument or justification of Jesus dying to save mankind is extremely weak as to be completely nonsensical. In short her conclusion doesn't follow with adequate justification from the premises.