Why do some people believe mormons are not christian?

[Kuan]

So, you can probably tell I'm Mormon and I'm willing to debate my religion or answer questions. The purpose of this thread though is that I have had many people tell me I'm not Christian even though I believe in Jesus. I'm wondering why that is. Thanks for any answers!

[fewwillfindit]

I did not read the entire article, I was just using some of the verses in there to illustrate my point. Please debate me and my arguments, not the conclusions of whatever links I happen to use (I use a lot). Just because I may quote from Dawkins or someone else, it doesn't mean my conclusions line up with theirs.

It was the verses in the link to which I was referring. Perhaps you could quote the ones that you think support your contentions so that I know what to debate. My point is that those verses do not prove what you think they prove.

[Darias]

continued from Post 89. . .

[font=Impact]1. (Continued)[/font]

My point about James and Paul etc. was that the fact that their theologies differ is not surprising. It's not just the various authors of the New Testament; many of the earliest Christians disagreed, the most famous divides occurring between Paul's convictions and those of Peter concerning gentile Christians (whether or not they should obey various Jewish laws, practicing circumcision, eating pork, etc.).

A number of modern apologists try to cherry-pick New Testament verses in order to present a solid, non-contradicting narrative, AKA doctrine. They make it seem as though Paul and Peter and James and Jesus all had 1 single message with no differences whatsoever. And I find this particularly deceptive.

First, for all the authors of the New Testament, the "Word of God" was the Tanakh. Paul and his letters, which comprise most of the New Testament, did not consider his writings and teachings to be God's literal breathed word. Such thinking would be blasphemous. For example, when Paul said:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

He is not referring to his own letter here, nor his own teachings. Again, he is referring to the Tanakh, the Jewish scriptures.

Note the difference between the NASB, as close as English can get to the original Greek, and the NIV:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

.

Now that difference may seem trivial to some, but not to me. The first, and more literal translation seems to say that the Old Testament was Inspired. The Second claims that it was dictated.

I'm not an expert on Jewish Orthodoxy or Jewish theology in general, but I don't think that it is a common belief that the writings in the Tanakh are spoken by God himself -- cnorman18 will have to back me up on this because I am not certain myself.

Either way, whether the Old Testament was written by men inspired by God, or if God Himself dictated it to them as the pens moved magically in their hands -- the fact still stands that Paul did not consider his letters and teachings, as recorded in the New Testament, to be the Word of God.

During his time, the gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, were not written. These texts are different accounts of Jesus' life and words which are attributed to Matthew Mark Luke and John. In a historical context, the first three books can be derived from a similar source, which a number of historians call "Q."

The book of John is too different to have come from the same source. The original text, which is theorized as "Q" was probably written by a scribe or something and later recorded down by various people.

The book of John is older. The message in John places heavy emphasis on the innocence of Roman's in the death of Christ, and a similar emphasis on the guilt of Jews. It was probably written during a time when Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians were growing ever more divided.

Not to over-simplify things, but in a sense, the New Testament contains history, stories about Christ, and various letters and sermons by the early Christians.

There is a reason why the words attributed to Christ are written in Red. They wouldn't need to be if the whole New Testament was dictated by God.

The fact that a number of Christians believe that the Bible (or the New Testament) is the literal, infallible, inerrant word of God is very strange to me...

I would liken it to 2,000 years from now, Christians taking the teachings of Pat Robertson, Charles Stanley, and Joel Osteen -- add them to the existing scriptures and consider them the holy word of God.



[font=Impact]2.[/font]

Point 1.)

Such messages are important. For instance would you not agree that faith is necessary, but to have a true relationship with God you must do his works.

Believe and you will be saved, unless you don't do good which then becomes evidence you weren't really saved. Do you see how this is circular logic? The simple answer would be believe And do works otherwise you aren't saved. Can you you not see the difference between these two passages?

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected . . . You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

In the former, Paul claims that salvation is by grace through faith alone -- not by works. Notice how he says the true believers were created in advance to do good -- as in their future was laid out before them and they had no choice in the matter. Indeed, Paul believed he was the slave of Christ and that the future was predetermined and that there was an elect.

James on the other-hand clearly states that faith isn't enough, that doing works IS real faith -- true religion. His writing implies works are a choice, an act of proving one's devotion and love to God by loving and helping others. In short, if there is no works, one's faith is vain, dead, worthless and useless.

AND THAT, is pretty much in lock step with what Christ said (see what he said about the judgment, Matthew 25: 31-46).


Point 2.)

The Christian theology of personal relationship with Jesus comes from John Wesley, the 18th century evangelist. He placed heavy emphasis on an emotional religious experience -- which was in stark contrast to the solemn legalism of the established Anglican Church.

I, like you, prefer this type of spirituality, although the relationship I pursue is with God, not Christ the mediator. And a distinction should be made. Jesus the Son is not the same person as God the Father. But this is for another debate.



[font=Impact]3.[/font]

It was a metaphor for a moral lesson.

That is a very slippery slope. Perhapse Jesus was a man and the name Son of God was merely a metaphore of God's blessing upon him. I imagine you also do not believe in miracles. God is impossible. You are looking at God through the word instead of looking at the word through God. Don't try to apply rules to God. If the bible says 5'000 men(not counting the many thousands of women and children present) were fed by a few loaves of bread and some fish then it did indeed happen.

First you quoted me out of context. I said:

Christ himself used stories. The parable of the sower wasn't about a real person, and it wasn't about agriculture. It was a metaphor for a moral lesson.

I specifically said that the parables Christ used were not literal histories; they were stories. How is that a slippery slope?

If you are referring to the way I compared his stories to those in Genesis, well I can understand how you might have a problem with that.

Just because I don't believe Genesis was a literal history of how the world came into existence (I cannot because facts forbid me to), it doesn't mean I wish to throw out the baby Jesus with the bathwater.

1. Jesus called Himself the Son of Man.

2. Miracles are only possible via Divine intervention. But little miracles (chance and happenstance, as well as random good deeds) happen every day. They are the ones that really matter -- not fantastical displays, the likes of David Blaine.

3. I never said God is impossible. I'm a Theist for God's sake! I believe God exists and I try to love Him by living a good life and loving others. I can't prove his existence or objectively know for certain that He does exist -- hence my Agnostic Theism.

4. Please clarify. I'm not sure what you are saying here:
"You are looking at God through the word instead of looking at the word through God."

5. Describing history and reality as it is, isn't putting God in a box. Conflating God and the Bible, even confusing the words in the Bible as God themselves, is applying rules to God.

Saying "Don't apply rules to God" sounds a lot like the arguments I mentioned from Luther and other Christians concerning the Sun and the Earth. If the Bible says the Sun stood still -- you better believe it stopped moving around the Earth for a while!

6. God did not say that Jesus magically created baskets of fish and bread from one meal -- enough to feed thousands. The Gospels say that. Again, the Gospels were written accounts of the life of Christ, the first of which were penned generations after Christ's death. All but 1 borrowed from the same source text -- Q. Again, the gospels along with Paul's letters were not considered the Word of God by the earliest Christians -- the Tanakh was.



[font=Impact]4.[/font]

Nothing short of a miracle or some future technology could extend the lives of human beings that long.

Are you saying God could not have performed such a miracle?

No I am saying that it is physically impossible that anyone on Earth, past or present could live for 900 years. If God is omnipotent, then He could have magically extended the life of human beings -- but it seems much more logical to say God didn't do that. The Bible could have been referring to how old the family was -- their years were probably different than ours, IDK. To be honest, it just seems like a "pie in the sky" type of tale, and I don't see how it is particularly relevant to Christianity.



[font=Impact]5.[/font]

I believe in the moral lessons that it teaches

So do most Athiests. How does that make you a Christian?

I know that people can't really call themselves Christians unless they do believe and practice the moral lesson taught by Christ: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. Your acts of love matter so much more than your theology and traditions: this is the lesson Christ taught using the Pharisees as examples of this.



[font=Impact]6.[/font]

This is the second time you've accused me of not being a Christian and I don't appreciate it. Only God can judge who is and who is not -- you don't get to do that.

Actually I can say what I like. True I do not get to tell you what you do or do not believe. However what you believe is not in question. It is the fact that what you believe is not correct.

However I will concede to the point that you do not have to believe the bible is true in order to be a christian. I misspoke. Believe that Jesus died for your sins, rose from the dead, and is the only way into heaven is what makes somone a christian. Aso beieving that God is the one and only God. If you have faith enough to doubt the bible yet still believe these things, then i envy you. If I did not have my faith in the bible i would probably doubt my religion constantly.

Of course you are free to think I'm wrong; just don't condemn me to hell as so many of my co-coreligionists have done.

Faith isn't supposed to be easy, comfortable, and blind. The Bible says to love God with all your heart soul and MIND. As Christians we have to face reality and adjust our interpretations and beliefs accordingly; THIS IS HARD, especially if you grew up in a fundamentalist household. BUT it must be done; that is the test of real faith -- can you keep it when reality stares you in the face? Simply, clinging tighter to fundamentalism will not change the facts of the universe, that's just blind faith.

I do not doubt God constantly. My faith in God is not afraid of the facts of science and history; in fact it embraces those things. I don't believe that there is an anti-God/liberal elite agenda trying to rewrite history and lie about the sciences -- that's just silly. Fundamentalists, however, are afraid of such things because it threatens their understanding of the scriptures and of the universe.

The thing is, whether you believe that the whole Bible is free of error and infallible and spoken directly from God. . . Or even if you believe men were inspired by their faith in God to write it -- keep this in mind:


Interpretation is not inerrant.



[font=Impact]7.[/font]

The Bible is full of laws, some of which Christianity has adopted as their own. Morals, however, are not a Christian creation. Many people, of all faiths and none, can be very moral and good people -- even those who never heard of the Bible.

Morals are not a Christian creation, they are Gods creation. That is WHY somone who has never heard of the bible still has basic morals.

Morals (empathy, compassion, love, altruism) are part of human nature, just as much as human vices are (greed, aggression, hate, selfishness). I suppose you could say that morals are of God if you believe that He is ultimately responsible for our existence -- but you have to admit that there are natural causes for this human behavior as well.



[font=Impact]8.[/font]

You'd be surprised how many people don't read the links I provide, whether I'm talking about politics, religion, or history. LOL.

I promise to read it. I am thankful to you for providing proof.

I'm gonna go ahead and call myself out on this. I did not read the entirety of the article I referenced. I used it because it contained verses on the flatness of the earth as well as comments about them. I know someone else had an issue with the conclusion of the article, which I did not read entirely. I still haven't read the whole thing but I normally do read my sources thoroughly -- I just didn't take the time to research that point as much as I could have. There are other sites out there that mention Biblical inconsistencies (which isn't really a problem for me; as I already explained why they exist) as well as Biblical inaccuracies about the universe. I will admit that the Bible does contain some accurate information about nature, but a lot is wrong.


[font=Impact]9.[/font]

My bible has a different interpretation which says: "The world is firmly established."

Now this sounds more it is saying that the Lord established the world and he is going to protect it.

In my translation of the bible it uses the word "established" instead of "fixed the earth immovable", which is why it is important to know which translation you are reading.

Also all of the examples are taken out of context. It seems they are praising God's works, saying somthing like " God created the Earth and will not let it be destroyed" rather than, "The continents are not moving!"

I prefer Bibles that are true to the original language of the original text. I do not like modern meaning inserted into holy books.

It was an ancient belief that the earth was fixed and did not move, and that the sun spun 'round it. Even after heliocentrism was adopted, it was only recently in the 20th century that Plate Tectonics was developed and explored.

In the early 20th century such ideas were just as controversial as Evolution is today. Christians believed that science was trying to corrupt the word of God again. The Bible clearly says that the foundations of the earth are permanent and continents can't simply slide across the ocean!

Besides, the NIV says this:

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.

Before such passages were used to defend geocentrism. In the early 20th century, they were used against the science of continental drift.

[prkrruns]

You seem determined to disprove the bible. So far all you have done is shown that the bible is not a collection of post-it-notes, from wchich a man can take one verse or another. The only way to understand what the bible teaches is to read it in it's entirety. All you have shown me is that the bible is truly the word of God. Although I doubt God "breathed" it seeing as he has no substantial body that we know of, yet we are the hands of the Lord with which he does works upon the earth. Therefore by extension we are also the mouth. Inspired by God is enough for me.

I can only assume that God knew some men would try to skew the message of the bible by taking one verse or another and twisting it towards their ends. It is this very reason I imagine that he had it written so that only those who read it all and understodd every passage within its context, would glean the truth of God's word.

That is why I find it haard to believe that anyone who only believes part of the bible can truly be a christian. For if the only way to know the truth is to know the ENTIRE bible, then those who peck at its contents only glean a fraction of the knowledge it contains.

I can tell you now that for every story you disregard as a fairy tale and every law that you disdain, is a mark against your faithfulness towards the Lord. The bible is not a story book for men like you to take one story or another and interpret it to suit your wordly needs. It is "fixed immovable".

Do not interpret the bible using knowledge of the world, rather interpret the world using knowledge of the bible.

[Kuan]

The knowledge of the world is proven. The knowledge of the bible is unproven.

[prkrruns]

Actually the knowledge of the bible is proven. Not only are many historical events in line with the bible, but William Lane Craig has written extensively on the subject. Unless I am mistaken I believe he spent several years proving the bible. If you gve me a little time I will look around for some sources.

[Kuan]

Actually the knowledge of the bible is proven. Not only are many historical events in line with the bible, but William Lane Craig has written extensively on the subject. Unless I am mistaken I believe he spent several years proving the bible. If you gve me a little time I will look around for some sources.

The history inside the bible is different than what you were using it for.

[prkrruns]

I could not find any links so I guess you will have to read one of his books. He talks about it in "On Gaurd" so that would be a good place to start.

[Kuan]

I could not find any links so I guess you will have to read one of his books. He talks about it in "On Gaurd" so that would be a good place to start.

I will add that to my list of books to read. I do agree that "mormonism" is polytheistic. But I do not find it contrary in my own interpretation of the bible. I also understand why you would not consider us to be christian.

My problem though is when people try to bash my religion and label it as a "cult" in a derogatory way. Using the claim we are not christian to attack us rather than have a discussion as we have had here.

[prkrruns]

I see your point of veiw. You are definitley a religion, not a cult. While we may disagree on what that religion is, that is neither of our falts. I will enjoy debating with you in the future(who knows, I might even be on your side!).

[Darias]

You seem determined to disprove the bible. . . .

No. I have no agenda. I'm just explaining it from an historical perspective while defending my position. I'm not saying the Bible is false or anything like that. I'm a Christian. I've been reading it all my life -- although for the most part, via the filter of my former fundamentalist beliefs. My mindset is the product of facing the reality of history and science and choosing to maintain a faith that others tend to discard altogether in light of the facts.

So far all you have done is shown that the bible is not a collection of post-it-notes, from wchich a man can take one verse or another.

I hope I didn't imply that the Bible was an assortment of myths, because it's not. That's a simplistic view of a very good book, rich with history, moral lessons, battles, love, death, life etc. There's just something about the Psalms in particular that give me a feeling like no other...

But I digress...

All Christians since Christ have interpreted God's word, and the teachings about it, in their own way -- this is why there are so many denominations, sects, etc. The evidence is clear that even the earliest church fathers disagreed amongst themselves -- just as we are doing now.

The only way to understand what the bible teaches is to read it in it's entirety.

Reading it from beginning to end is not enough: because it isn't 1 work created by 1 author with 1 message.

The only way to truly understand the Bible as it is, is to read it in its original context, keeping in mind who the author is, when it was written, what is going on, what language it was written in, and what the message is.

And I'm no Bible master myself. I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything about the Bible --- and I haven't read every verse from cover-to-cover. Still, I prefer to approach it from a scholarly, historical perspective -- the Ouija board approach - eyes closed, feeling your fingers blindly through the pages and stopping when it feels right, hoping to receive a divine revelation -- that's definitely not how the Bible can be properly understood.

Slaphappy theology smears all these ideas together into a mangled messy narrative, stringing random cherries along the way to produce a deceptively fool-proof message of unity from Genesis to Revelation and out into the congregation. Simple-sermon givers leap from book to book, chapter to chapter, finding all the lil kernels of truth they wish to talk about to prove their point that the Bible wants them to do/think/believe [THIS] (insert whatever). And viola, a doctrine is born.

These include: Calvinism, Arminianism, the Papacy, the trinity, the rapture, "creation science," Once-saved-always saved, Baptism seals salvation, speaking in tongues seals salvation, salvation by works, salvation by faith, tribulation, pre-tribulation, transubstantiation, etc.

All you have shown me is that the bible is truly the word of God.

I'm not sure how I did that unless my arguments were so unorthodox that you just turned and ran head-over-heals back to your previous convictions and opinions.

Although I doubt God "breathed" it seeing as he has no substantial body that we know of, yet we are the hands of the Lord with which he does works upon the earth. Therefore by extension we are also the mouth. Inspired by God is enough for me.

Well this is a start, God-inspired is much more reasonable than literal/dictated.

I can only assume that God knew some men would try to skew the message of the bible by taking one verse or another and twisting it towards their ends. It is this very reason I imagine that he had it written so that only those who read it all and understodd every passage within its context, would glean the truth of God's word.

Every believer does this consciously or not -- from theology, right down to their preferred version of the Bible. We look for what we agree with and we tend to overlook the rest. This is why you don't avoid pork and you feel fine about unveiled women in church. It's also why you haven't given every possession you own to the poor.

That is why I find it haard to believe that anyone who only believes part of the bible can truly be a christian. For if the only way to know the truth is to know the ENTIRE bible, then those who peck at its contents only glean a fraction of the knowledge it contains.

I can tell you now that for every story you disregard as a fairy tale and every law that you disdain, is a mark against your faithfulness towards the Lord. The bible is not a story book for men like you to take one story or another and interpret it to suit your wordly needs. It is "fixed immovable".

Do not interpret the bible using knowledge of the world, rather interpret the world using knowledge of the bible.

Everyone has their issues with the Bible. I have problems reading about the wholesale God-ordained slaughter of men women and children. I have a problem with stoning disobedient children, as commanded by God. I have a problem with forcing women to be silent in church. I have a problem with the bloodthirsty, sword-tongued monster-Christ depicted in Revelations -- those things appall me and it's very hard for me to say -- yep, that's God's good will.

It's much easier to attribute those things to ancient cultures, mythos, conflicts, and moral codes -- than to attribute all that unjust blood-shed to God.

If I am to be judged for the sensitivity of my conscience, then so be it. I hope that being rational and compassionate doesn't shame my Lord God too much.

If I interpreted the world via a literal reading of the Bible, I'd be a geocentrist, creationist, non-pork eating, gay-sinner stoning, homophobic, misogynistic, slave-owning, anti-science, intolerant, superstitious, wide-eyed, religious fruit cake -- pretty much a Medieval Christian.

But I'm in the 21st century. I can't afford to commit mental suicide.

There have been times when I thought, "would the Lord love me more if I rejected gays, science, earthly joys (food, love, etc), and if read the Bible literally, and believed that most are going to hell -- would that then guarantee my salvation? Would that please God?"

Somehow I think it would not. And if God wanted me to He should have let me live during the Dark Ages.