DescentBB

JWs don't follow a subtext, they are strict Bible fundamentalists.
Bible Restorationists if you will.
(thx to Spidey on the first page for introducing this term)

I'm not sure how Mormons are restorationists - since they introduce a NEW religious text (the book of Mormon)...
But then i guess since all religious sects claim to be the Truth, all except the status-quo could claim to be restorationists.

(oops, i was still editing this while you replied)

roid wrote:JWs don't follow a subtext, they are strict Bible fundamentalists.
Restorationists if you will.

Thats why I say take it with salt

Just looked them up on teh wiki, and I guess they would be a Christian Denomination (according to the logic in my post), as of what I read their biggest thing is they don't like the Trinity.

No, Roid. I'm asking for a point-by-point elaboration on the inaccuracies that he claims the video is rife with.

Also, if I were in denial of controversies regarding the Bible, I wouldn't have said it was "defendable," I would have said it was unquestionable.

Roid wrote:But then i guess since all religious sects claim to be the Truth, all except the status-quo could claim to be restorationists.

You can't restore what never existed. History will have its say. The Apostle Paul spoke of men having one wife.

1 Timothy 3 wrote:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

1 Cor 9 wrote:5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

That said I believe that the Mormon church, by and large has distanced itself from polygamy. There is an irony in a restoration denomination moving away from their roots.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Roid wrote:But then i guess since all religious sects claim to be the Truth, all except the status-quo could claim to be restorationists.

You can't restore what never existed. History will have its say. The Apostle Paul spoke of men having one wife.

Never existed? Are you saying that Christianity was NEVER right?

I'm talking about Restorationism - they can claim to be putting Christianity back into line with God's original ideals. They can claim the Bible was incomplete or bits were edited out.

EVERY monotheistic religion (and a lot of other religions) has little explanations for why they alone have the monopoly on truth.

To answer the original question from a linguistic perspective:

We use words in order to communicate ideas. Whether or not Mormons, JW's, and other groups qualify as \"Christian\" depends very much on what you intend to communicate by using the word, and how clearly you intend to communicate your ideas.

If you believe the Bible to be generally unreliable or untrue, you probably wish only to distinguish between \"people who put somebody called Jesus at the center of their religion\" and \"people who don't\". As roid, Spidey, and Jeff250 have said, all of the groups in question believe in some concept of Jesus as Christ. If there's nothing further to be gained by being more specific than that, using \"Christian\" as a blanket definition is fine... but, be aware that using such a blanket definition is likely to confuse and obfuscate your point if you're talking to Christians. This is particularly true because a lot of people have emotional connections (positive or negative) to the word \"Christian\".

Many people who put Jesus at the center of their religion care not merely that other religions also have a \"Jesus\" figure, but about the details of that figure. Fundamentally, when I say \"Jesus\" I expect a Catholic or Pentecostal or whomever to have the same guy in mind as I do. I don't expect the same out of a Mormon, at least not one who's read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, because those books introduce a very different concept of Jesus from the one in the Bible. And I don't expect the same out of a Muslim, Buddhist, Unitarian, Scientologist, etc. because, while some of those groups might speak of a \"Jesus\" as a great teacher, they miss a lot of what I consider fundamental to who Jesus is. When I use the term \"Christian\", I normally intend to include those whose idea of Jesus is compatible with mine, which, as before, may confuse or obfuscate my point if I'm talking to non-Christians.

All that is to say, there is no \"right\" definition of the word \"Christian\" from a linguistic perspective. But there is clear and unclear communication, and using the word differently from the way your audience understands it is likely to cause confusion.

------------

To answer the original question from a doctrinal perspective:

I consider a Christian to be a person who (a) believes a few fundamental things about Jesus as taught in the Bible, and (b) tries to follow Jesus' teachings as recorded therein. The major fundamental beliefs I'd list under (a) are that Jesus is God, that He lived as a human, died, and was resurrected, and that He did it in order to remove the penalty for our sins and to give us direct access to God.

In this sense, I don't consider Mormons (as a whole) to be Christians due to point (a), though there are certainly some who are. As I mentioned before, certain key Mormon books (particularly D&C and PoGP) and teachings of their \"prophets\" paint a very different picture of Jesus: that He originally was not a God, that He came to earth in order to rise to God-ness through good behavior, and that each of us can rise to our own God-ness and inherit our own planet through good behavior. If someone believes those things, I don't consider them to believe in Jesus as described in the Bible.

I also have to say, many Mormons do a far better job of following Jesus' Biblical teachings than your average Christian -- they're often ahead on point (b). It's unfortunate that they've been led to believe the way to salvation is through their own good works which lead to exaltation. In my experience, this leads to a lot of despair, because we all know we can't be good enough. The gospel is a message of hope -- that Jesus did the work for us and gives us a free gift of salvation. It's disturbing to see it turned into a message of bondage -- that you just have to keep working harder.

-------------

To address the point about inconsistencies, etc:

I admit, the Bible has passages and descriptions that are \"out there\", hard to believe, etc. Spidey is right about that. But the book of Mormon is on a whole different level. Even if you believe the Bible to have wildly exaggerated tales, it's still useful for archaeological and historical study, because it at least was written based on some form of true history. It's a story about real people, places, and battles, with a spiritual angle that may or may not be true. The book of Mormon, on the other hand, is absolutely useless for historical or archaeological study. It's a purely fictional book, on the same order as Scientology. It's not a story about real people, real places, real battles, or real anything. (See The Bible vs the Book of Mormon video if you're curious.)

Lothar wrote:I also have to say, many Mormons do a far better job of following Jesus' Biblical teachings than your average Christian -- they're often ahead on point (b). It's unfortunate that they've been led to believe the way to salvation is through their own good works which lead to exaltation. In my experience, this leads to a lot of despair, because we all know we can't be good enough. The gospel is a message of hope -- that Jesus did the work for us and gives us a free gift of salvation. It's disturbing to see it turned into a message of bondage -- that you just have to keep working harder.

Yes, they (Mormons) usually do fairly well with that.

Sorry you feel that's a "message of bondage", I'd have to say that's a misunderstanding. They (Mormons) believe that Jesus Christ died to pay the price for our sins, thus opening the way for us to return to Heaven, if the individual does his/her best to repent of their sins through Jesus Christ and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ which means the individual must strive to do good works. Doesn't mean the person has to be absolutely perfect. It only means the person needs to be striving to follow the teachings of Christ, and of course repent when they sin. Doesn't seem like a "message of bondage" to me, but is instead a message of hope.

Lothar wrote:The book of Mormon, on the other hand, is absolutely useless for historical or archaeological study. It's a purely fictional book, on the same order as Scientology. It's not a story about real people, real places, real battles, or real anything.

Naturally, the Mormons would disagree. I'd say there is sufficient "unknowns" about the peoples and histories of the ancient North and South American continents to be able to say that while much is difficult (if not impossible at this time) to verify, there is very little (if any) that proves it didn't happen.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

TechPro wrote:To me, this statement is funny 'cause the Jew's DNA happens to also be rather closely related to Asians.

Source? Or are you a DNA expert?

Are you?

TechPro wrote:

Lothar wrote:It's unfortunate that they've been led to believe the way to salvation is through their own good works which lead to exaltation...

Sorry you feel that's a "message of bondage", I'd have to say that's a misunderstanding. They (Mormons) believe that Jesus Christ died to pay the price for our sins, thus opening the way for us to return to Heaven, if the individual does his/her best to repent of their sins through Jesus Christ and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ which means the individual must strive to do good works.

Absolutely. It's completely Biblical to say that anyone saved by Christ is called to strive to do good works. In fact, I'd say you're also right that striving to do good rather than evil should be the response to that grace.

I think Lothar's concern is valid, though. When the human works themselves become the requirement, rather than a response... salvation becomes something earned and based on humanity's deservedness rather than Christ's sacrifice.

That view has been troublesome for followers of Christ since the beginning; heck, the book of James was nearly excluded from the canonical Bible because it emphasizes the importance of human works so much!

Anyway, maybe you can provide some insight, TechPro: I've heard it said that the official stance of the LDS church is that a "death-bed convert" (someone who comes to faith at the very end of their life) cannot be saved, because they were not able to demonstrate good works. Do you know if this is correct?

Foil wrote:Anyway, maybe you can provide some insight, TechPro: I've heard it said that the official stance of the LDS church is that a "death-bed convert" (someone who comes to faith at the very end of their life) cannot be saved, because they were not able to demonstrate good works. Do you know if this is correct?

Good question. No, that's not correct. A person can be a "death-bed convert", however Mormon's believe it's much better to convert long before the "last minute". While probably not so with all, many of the "death-bed converts" would probably be converting just to save themselves and may have wasted years of opportunity to do good. But that's not for any of us to decide. Only Jesus Christ has the right to judge the individual's repentance and conversion.

It may be useful to know that Mormon's also believe that after death ... while waiting for the Judgement (when all the souls that have lived will stand before Christ and be judged) ... the spirits of good people have the chance to teach other spirits who are also waiting for judgement. All of the spirits can choose to accept the teaching or not. Regardless of accepting the teaching or not, how they are judged is up to Jesus Christ.

Now that most everyone has had a chance to speak, can someone tell me what is the purpose of denying someone the title of Christian.

Spidey wrote:Now that most everyone has had a chance to speak, can someone tell me what is the purpose of denying someone the title of Christian.

It's MINE... ALL MINE I WANT IT BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!

It means alot to those who have an emotional attatchment to being 'Christian', and some want to deny it simply because they see some other religions as too different from their own for them to accept it being in the same category.

It's not always about denying someone the title.

For someone who believes that the term \"Christian\" inherently includes some very specific beliefs about Christ (which includes me), the concern is whether the person identifying themselves as such actually holds those central beliefs.

It's a bit like me calling myself a \"New York Giants Fan\", although I'm really a Dallas Cowboys fan, and only a fan of the Giants by loose association. To an outsider, it doesn't matter, I'm an NFL fan either way. But to a die-hard Giants fan, I'm using the name without the true loyalty behind it.

Spidey wrote:Now that most everyone has had a chance to speak, can someone tell me what is the purpose of denying someone the title of Christian.

As Wings said, there are those who have an emotional attachment to the word and can't stand to hear it applied to groups or people they don't respect. It's a way of denying association to those you dislike while affirming association to those you like.

There are also those (like me) who think clear communication is important. I hesitate to call certain groups "Christian" because I think it'll give people a mistaken idea of the group's beliefs and/or behavior. (I sometimes hesitate to call myself "Christian" for the same reason -- it leads people to draw incorrect conclusions about me.)


To turn the question around, Spidey: do you think it's appropriate to refer to someone like Fred Phelps ("God hates fags") as "Christian" or "Baptist"? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of using those terms to refer to him? Would you have a problem with other Christians or Baptists trying to deny him the label?

Lothar wrote:There are also those (like me) who think clear communication is important.

I like how C. S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity:

People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?": or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Ok, first I would say if the reason is fear of association, isn’t pride one of the deadly sins?

Also to answer your question regarding Fred Phelps…I don’t really know how to answer that in an absolute way, but I do know that the person who is most outspoken against homosexuality on this board, also carries the mantle of Christianity the highest.

I have heard this kind of talk (God hates Fags) among people who conceder themselves to be good Christians. I looked up ole Freddy, and I must say he is offensive, prolly the entire church, but they are still Christians. I Guess every group has its losers.

Are you trying to say…only good people can be Christians? I mean, I would certainly hope that only good people could be considered Christians…but that prolly just aint the truth…

I also want to say Lothar, that I watched that video, and I prolly would have never said the things about the bible I did after seeing “that” video, but my comments were a result of seeing the one Thorne posted. (which was obviously meant to be offensive)

Spidey wrote: ..but I do know that the person who is most outspoken against homosexuality on this board, also carries the mantle of Christianity the highest.

why do you think that is? is it bad? if so why. (no to derail this thread.) ..(this is to anyone)

Wow, I step away from the forum for a while and look what appears.

Well, I'm currently a JW as of recently, but have been familiar with their bible teachings for good part of my life.

As far as Christian, we definitely consider ourselves Christians. There are a few things that do separate us from other Christian groups that have been mentioned in the forum. I'll address a couple.

As far as teachings, we consider the bible THE authority when it comes to our teachings and doctrine. Which is why we avoid anything not biblically based like the holidays, various traditions, etc... I won't go deeper than that at the moment because those discussions tend to go downhill fast with the variety of views we have on this forum hehe.

Yea, we belief in Jesus wholeheartedly. I think that a lot of people somehow believe that we don't since we don't consider Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit as the same entity (Trinity teaching). Using biblical reasoning, we see them as separate (Father and the son, with the Father being greater).

But I really wanted to answer the main subject of whether we consider ourselves Christian or not, and the answer is a definite 'yes'.

However \"Christendom\" is never talked about fondly in JW writings.
Us and Them.

roid wrote:However "Christendom" is never talked about fondly in JW writings.
Us and Them.

Roid, I see how you are trying to word it, but you very well know that Christendom and Christianity have different meanings. Christianity is talked about fondly. Christendom is not. And when we do, it's quite often the same issues that Athiests bring up as well.

When you really think about it though. Every Christian denomination thinks that their way is the right way. And frowning upon the ways of other denominations isn't new. It's been going on for quite some time now.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:

roid wrote:However "Christendom" is never talked about fondly in JW writings.
Us and Them.

Roid, I see how you are trying to word it, but you very well know that Christendom and Christianity have different meanings.

Different meanings only for JWs.

Sergeant Thorne
Admiral Thrawn

What's up with that. For a while i thought Sergant Thorne was a JW - but that was you.
what's with the names, are you sockpuppets?

roid wrote: Different meanings only for JWs.

From the dictionary.

Christianity - Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character; the state of being a Christian

Christendom - Christians collectively; the Christian world

In some cases though, Christianity is used to refer to Christians as a whole, but by using both, it's much easier for the audience to know when you're talking about the practice of following Christ's teachings, or Christian religions as a group. Although, I will state that when we mention Christendom, we do quite often refer to the other christian religions without including ourselves in that group even though we do consider ourselves Christian.

And Sergeant Thorne isn't me. I'm much cooler!

Sorry Thrawn, the dictionary is unacceptable in this discussion…

Dictionaries are just not useful in answering the question of who is a Christian. You'll notice that Thrawn even had to go above and beyond the dictionary to clarify what he and his organization mean by \"Christian\" and \"Christiandom,\" since they have a special understanding concerning these words. This is all the point is. Everyone uses \"Christian\" in a different way, so the question of who is a Christian is a different question to different people. Dictionaries don't resolve this problem, since they aren't an authority on which definition is right, only which definition is most popular.

Lol, but it’s funny how you missed it when I put it in my own words in the thread that spawned this one.

“Also, Anyone or group that believes Christ is the son of God, and or takes him as their personal savior can be considered Christians…even if “you” think everything else they believe is BS. “

Admiral Thrawn wrote:... I'm much cooler!

You see, these are the kind of unfounded, wrong conclusions that get people in trouble in an otherwise intelligent discussion.

Hehe, "sockpuppets". Roid wants me to be a psycho.

ur nicks mess with my minds!

It all comes down to the way one defines the term \"Christian\".

For most people who identify themselves that way, the term is associated with a specific set of beliefs. For others, it's a more general term.

----------

Discussion in here has slowed down, so maybe I'll throw this one out there:

If the term \"Christian\" is used to mean anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ... would that include Muslims (who believe Jesus was a prophet before Muhammed came, and include portions of the gospel about Christ in the Qur'an)? (I don't believe that would be proper usage, of course... but what do you guys think?)

Foil wrote:Discussion in here has slowed down, so maybe I'll throw this one out there: :wink:

If the term "Christian" is used to mean anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ... would that include Muslims (who believe Jesus was a prophet before Muhammed came, and include portions of the gospel about Christ in the Qur'an)? (I don't believe that would be proper usage, of course... but what do you guys think?)

In my post i'd said i recon Christians are those who believe that the prophesized Christ has come and gone. They're not Jesusarians, they are Christians.

Thus neither Jews and Muslims would not be Christians.
Oh wait - do muslims believe that Muhammed was the prophesised Christ? If that were the case then i guess by my definition they would be Christians too.

It's a poorly named religion >:(
They should be named JesusChristians.
Coz even Jews believe in the Christ, they as just still waiting. So by some defintions they could be called Christians too, just coz they beleive in the Christ concept.

actually, early believers were named followers of the way. \"Christians\" was actually a derogatory name given to them in Antioch by the Romans.

But the understanding of the whole thing has been posted pretty well in a couple of posts already. It isn't the name that is bad, it's peoples inclination to morph words to whatever meaning they want over time.

Kilarin's Quote from C.S. Lewis really said it best; although I doubt all here will get the entire scope of what Mr. Lewis is saying.

Jesus and Christ is the same person. One is a personal pronoun (Jesus) and one is a label of er.. vocation. (Christ) which means Saviour.

Oh, I don't think that Muslims believe in Messiah like Jews or the Christians. They will concede that Jesus was a prophet of God (and only that), but Mohammad was greater.
And Foil, Muslims don't follow the teachings of Christ... they wouldn't be caught dead doing that. They are \"good reading\" but don't merit devoted study. So no. Christ claimed there was only one God and the He Himself was witnessed the beginning of creation. Also that He was to be the sacrifice that would atone for ALL sins (past present and future). Get a Muslim to swallow that. (lol .. and most people for that matter as sin is considered \"antiquated\" here in the States any more.)

Duper wrote:Oh, I don't think that Muslims believe in Messiah like Jews or the Christians. They will concede that Jesus was a prophet of God (and only that), but Mohammad was greater.

Yes, in Islam Jesus is considered a much lesser prophet than Muhammed.

Duper wrote:And Foil, Muslims don't follow the teachings of Christ... they wouldn't be caught dead doing that. They are "good reading" but don't merit devoted study. So no. Christ claimed there was only one God and the He Himself was witnessed the beginning of creation. Also that He was to be the sacrifice that would atone for ALL sins (past present and future). Get a Muslim to swallow that.

No, actually Muslims don't believe Jesus made those claims at all. In the Qur'an, Jesus is said to deny that he made claims of Godhood.

That's what I meant, that Muslims follow what they believe to be Jesus' teaching (though that doesn't include parts of the Christian gospel).

thanks for the clarification. Been a rough weekend.

This is just for clarity.

Jesus interpreted means \"The One Who Saves\"
Christ interpreted means \"The Anointed One\" same as Messiah does.

Correctly interpreted his name is thus :

\"The Anointed One Who Saves.\"

No big deal, just figured I'd throw that in.