|
Post by PeterB on Jul 18, 2006 21:28:51 GMT -4
I think it's around this point that I should mention a card game I have called "Credo". It's set in the late Roman Empire, from the 4th century to the early 7th century. Players represent factions in the church of the time, seeking to expand their flock. In the course of the game, you collect a number of bishops and secular authorities who have votes at various ecumenical councils. At the councils, you all vote on the next article of Christian faith. All ten articles together form the Nicene Creed. However, for every article, there are a range of versions, corresponding to the various interpretations of Christianity which existed at the time - Arian, Monphysite, Donatist, Pneumatomachic, Monothelite, and so on. Each of you starts the game with a random sample of versions of various articles, though these can change through the game as players refute others' versions of articles, and teach their own. At each Council, only one version of an article will be voted up and officially adopted. Whoever supported that version gains flock (and bishops), while those who supported other versions lose flock. The winner of the game is the player with the largest flock. Some may view this game as disrespectful of Christianity, but it's a very accurate recreation of the theological wars which affected Christianity at the time. In fact, the various events which can occur in the game are all based on events reported at the time. I wrote a more detailed review of this game for the wargames web-site www.grognard.com.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 19, 2006 12:26:33 GMT -4
The story of the Nicene Creed is another can of worms altogether. I hold it up as the "traditional" standard of Christian belief, not the authoritative or even original standard. I would only view "Credo" as disrespectful if I proposed to adhere to Christianity in total ignorance of its history.
I hold the Nicene Creed up not as a gold standard, but as a de facto standard of modern Christian belief; i.e., most people who call themselves Christians can get behind the creed as an accurate enough summary of what they believe as Christians. So when people start splitting hairs as to who is "really" a Christian and who isn't (which, it seems, Mormons suffer more so than most) then it's wise to pull out these widely-consulted yardsticks and see who really measures up. Especially in Utah you get people who say, "Mormons aren't really Christians because [insert alleged bellwether doctrine here]." As with many conspiracy theories, the real question is whether that's a good measure. You find you have a lot of people who just want to debate fine points of doctrine and whack people over the head with one book or the other. To me that's not what Christianity is or ought to be about.
Personally I say that if you believe Jesus was the son of God in more ways than the average human is, and you aim to obey what you believe he taught, you're a Christian. And Mormons pass that test with flying colors. In fact, I think the Mormons have the best attitude on that point. Somewhere in their writings or canon is a statement to the effect that they believe in the crucified Lord Jesus and everything else is subordinate to that.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jul 19, 2006 13:50:08 GMT -4
Personally I say that if you believe Jesus was the son of God in more ways than the average human is, and you aim to obey what you believe he taught, you're a Christian. And Mormons pass that test with flying colors. In fact, I think the Mormons have the best attitude on that point. Somewhere in their writings or canon is a statement to the effect that they believe in the crucified Lord Jesus and everything else is subordinate to that. It all comes back to the validity of the scriptures. Since Jesus said that not all who say to Him "Lord, Lord..." will enter the kingdom of heaven, the parable of the wheat and the tares, the warnings against accepting another gospel, and the uselessness of good works to obtain salvation, I'd say that what a person believes about Jesus, especially as to who He actually is, is of paramount importance. If the Mormons are right, we'll all be okay. If the Bible is right, Mormons are in big trouble. Doctrinal purity is essential in order to pass on the knowledge of how a person is saved. The way to eternal life is narrow, not wide. We Christians contend for the faith (once given) because we are commanded to do so and hopefully because we care about the souls of others--not to enjoy a sense of superiority. Here's a little something that contrasts some major differences between the 2 beliefs. I think the author makes great points in the last 2 paragraphs. www.irr.org/MIT/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 19, 2006 15:01:10 GMT -4
If works are completely useless in obtaining salvation, then why does it matter what church you belong to? Isn't joining a church a "work"? For that matter, isn't choosing what to believe a "work"?
Not really. Many people will most definitely not be okay at the day of judgement, but that judgement will be based much more one what a person actually is rather than what they believe.
If, for instance, they have been an unrepentent child molester who nevertheless has a solid belief in Jesus then they will still be much worse off than a hindu who lived a good and righteous life serving others yet never heard the name "Jesus". Surely you would agree with me?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 19, 2006 15:42:17 GMT -4
It all comes back to the validity of the scriptures.
Of course it doesn't. There were Christians before there was a Bible. I am not a bibliotheist.
Doctrinal purity is essential in order to pass on the knowledge of how a person is saved.
What a very tidy modern perspective on a 2,000 year old religion full of doctrinal vicissitudes and varying claims to "authority". I'm sorry, but I do not view the proper practice of religion as the hair-splitting attempts to interpret some selected set of writings in order to favor one's predispositions.
The way to eternal life is narrow, not wide.
That doesn't mean it's as narrow as you say, nor narrow in your particular preferred direction.
The sectarians are forever citing the same scriptures, all the while begging the question that they're the ones who are right. It's quite tiresome.
Here's a little something that contrasts some major differences between the 2 beliefs.
I'll draw my own conclusions according to my own data and experience, thank you very much. I don't need to be told what to believe by someone else.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 19, 2006 16:05:06 GMT -4
Some discussion of the specific points in www.irr.org/MIT/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html;1. Is there more than one true God? The LDS answer is no. Although we recognize the possibility of other gods currently existing and the possibility of ourselves becoming gods in the future, none of these gods are appropriate subjects for worship, and none have any ability to aid us in this life. Worship of God the Father through his son Jesus Christ is the only appropriate form of worship in the LDS church. All prayers and ordnances in the LDS church are addressed to Him and close with Jesus' name. 2. Was God Once a Man Like Us? The LDS answer is yes, but the Bible doesn't teach that God is a Spirit. And no, he isn't a man in the same sense we are (those of us who are men, that is). And yes he is all-knowing and all-powerful. John 4:24 - "God is a spirit..." cannot be taken to literally mean that God is a Spirit, because of the rest of the verse "...and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." So if we take this verse to literally mean God is a spirit, then we must also become a spirit to worship him - in other words, die. The Bible also proclaims "God is Love" (1 John 4:8). Which is he, a Spirit or Love? 3. Are Jesus and Satan spirit borthers? I already wrote at some length on this topic. Yes they are, but both are also spirit brothers to all of us. Jesus is unique in being the only begotten of the father in the flesh (he had no mortal father) and is co-equal with the Father. The LDS church does not teach that God the Father had intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus. 4. Is God a trinity? JayUtah illustrated that the LDS position on the trinity is actually quite close to what the theologans of other religions actually believe. 5. Was the Sin of Adam and Eve a great evil or a great blessing? Yes it brought about death and allowed sin to enter the world, but those are necessary elements of God's plan, so it may be viewed as a great blessing - without it God's plan could not have gone forward. The Bible is consistent with this view - saying bad things resulted from the original sin but not condemning Adam or Eve for it. 6. Can we make ourselves worthy before God? The LDS answer is no. Without Christ's grace on our part no action we can perform will allow us to become acceptable to God. We can, however, make ourselves incapable of receiving Christ's Grace. Someone who never repents of their sins is incapable of becoming acceptable to God. 7. Does Christ's Atoning Death benefit those who reject him? Yes and no. Christ's atoning death has defeated physical death completely - all who are born in this world will be resurrected and receive their bodies again in a perfected, immortal form. What the LDS church means by Exaltation and Eternal Life, however, is not mere immortality. It is living in the presence of God and becoming like him. It is not possible to gain Exaltation or Eternal Life and reject Christ. 8. Is the Bible the unique and final word of God? No. But it never claims to be either. 2 Timothy 3:16 does not state that all scripture has already been given, it is instead describing scripture (it "is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"). Hebrews 1:1-2 states that God had spoken only through prophets up to that point, but finally had spoken also through his Son. It does not state that there will be no more prophets. 2 Peter 1:21 says that prophets speak through the Holy Ghost. No argument there. Again, it doesn't say there won't be any more prophets. 1 Peter 1:23-25 says the word of God will endure forever, yes, but does "the word of God" mean the Bible only, or all of God's words? 9. Did the Church fall into total apostacy? The LDS answer is no, not totally. They continued to acknowledge Christ's existence and preserve the Bible as well as they could. Much of what the early church taught was lost, however. The most important thing that was lost was the priesthood - the authority to act in God's name, which died with the apostles. There are many predictions of a "falling away" and "false prophets" in the Bible, which refer to this apostacy. The statement that one cannot be Mormon without believing Mormon doctrine is true of any faith. Why do we not go around telling everyone else they aren't Christian? Well, we do believe we're the only true Christian Church, but that doesn't mean all the others are completely wrong. We believe you can be an excellent Christian in another church, just that the LDS church can provide even more help in being an excellent Christian and has the remaining items everyone needs for salvation. As for it not being taught publicly, obviously the writer of the article has never attended an LDS Fast and Testimony meeting, where nearly every person states that they beleive the LDS church is "the only true church". As I've stated, it would be counterproductive to start a discussion with someone by saying "everything you know is wrong" - especially when we don't believe that's the case. Edit: Spelling error
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 19, 2006 17:10:27 GMT -4
Thank you for the detailed response, Jason.
I, for one, see little value in organizations such as the Institute for Religious Research. They seem to do little more than wrap a divisive and elitist view of religion in a thin veneer of scholarship (and I use that term very loosely) to disguise the hate-mongering. They are the embodiment of what I alluded to earlier when speaking of those who only seem to want to quibble over fine points of doctrine, appointing themselves judges over what is kosher and what isn't. I have no use for that mode of religious practice.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 19, 2006 18:19:27 GMT -4
As an agnostic, I would like to weigh in here. I think I can fairly represent the other end of the tolerance spectrum.
Now, mind you, I'm not talking about glib and ignorant agnosticism, but agnosticism based on knowledge and experience. I'm unwilling to call myself an atheist, because an atheist firmly believes there is no God or gods whatsoever. I'm less certain.
I started out a hippy child. I was not allowed to spend the night at kids' houses if Sunday school was on the menu the next morning. When I was 8 my dad dragged me along on a 4 month stay with the Bear Tribe Medicine Society, a commune of sorts. Sun Bear would go off on speaking tours and come back with thousand-dollar wads of cash in his pocket. Wabun (his wife, and the leader in his absence) kept a loaded .357 under the buffalo hide on their bed. Kids often see and understand things that adults are too busy with their personal I-me-my trips to pick up on.
In my teens I picked up the Urantia book, a hefty tome indeed, and quite full of itself. Later still, mainstream church failed to meet my needs so I "gave it up for lent," mostly to shock my stepdad.
With my hard-science attitude, I can't point anywhere and say "God is over there." In spite of hard science, tho', I can't utterly discount belief. In my "church" the air is thin and smells of pine trees.
I've studied the beliefs of many people, and I would like to point out a commonality. The man later known as The Budda was 29 when he left the princely comforts of home. The man later known as Jesus the Christ was about 30 when he dropped his hammer. The man later known as Mohammed was 40 when he felt commanded to recite the verses later known as the Koran. Joseph Smith was around 22 when he was finally allowed to see the plates.
Astrologers, the first psychotherapists, noticed a common effect they called "saturn's return" in which men (more than women) freak out at some level between about 27 and 32 years of age and leave their old selves behind, seeking a new self in various ways. Obviously, not everyone has the same kind or intensity of experience, and the above mentioned leaders show a wide range for the age at which this happens. I've heard the phenomenon compared to the setting of Jello, which has a temperature-dependent timeframe.
Some of us feel called to God, and some don't. Some of us feel called BY God, and some don't. Personally, I finished college around that time and got a job having nothing to do with my education.
When I wonder "where" God lives, I point to my heart, your heart, his or her heart. It doesn't conflict with my belief in Newtonian Physics, and makes me feel better. When I wonder what God wants me to do, I look around and see the material world in front of me. I have a hard time with abstractions and belief in imaginary things.
And yet, nearing the age of 40, I'm feeling a call. I don't feel called to join a church. I'm going back into the military, as a national guardsman. I can believe in the abstraction of "state" and "nation" and feel called to spend some of my energy and care on them. I bring this up because as a color-blind individual with bad credit I'm limited to very few jobs. One of them is Chaplain's assistant. I have to look into my heart and find out if I could work for a Lutheran or Baptist or Mormon Chaplain. Or Rabbi. Or anyone else, depending on where the job opening is in the state. Or maybe I'll end up an admin clerk, serving the state with perfect paperwork, much as the Shakers served God by making perfect chairs and baskets.
Each one of us has a belief system formed by our personal experiences and local environment, as did the above mentioned religious leaders. Sometimes we form our beliefs AGAINST the grain, in reaction to the dominant ideological culture. Yeshu ben Josef has not been accepted as the messiah by Judaism, because, in a time of war and struggle with occupying forces, he became a preacher of love and kindness, rather than the militant revolutionary they expected. Siddhartha Gautama rebelled against his royal upbringing by joining the acetics, who starve themselves. When that didn't work he joined those who sought pleasure and comfort to deny the reality of the pain and suffering around them. The "third way" he found still used the language of death-and-rebirth used by his cultural milieu, and because of the dominant culture he personally became the god-like focal point for followers who felt for one.
So from my perspective, your beliefs are ALL valid if they work for you. If you feel better by exluding others, or including some-but-not-all, that's fine. We all have our calling, our relationship with the cosmos, our beliefs and rebellions. Some of us over the years have had interesting things to say that inspired others around us, and the words were remembered.
The Hindus believe not so much that we are or can become God (Shiva) but that God became us. Makes as much sense as anything, to me.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jul 20, 2006 0:51:31 GMT -4
Jay Utah:
Yes, there were believers before there was a Bible. They received the message through the preaching of Jesus and the disciples, which message we firmly believe is accurately reflected in the text of the New Testament. People are still saved through hearing the Word.
Jay Utah:
I'm not sure what you're talking about here when you say "doctrinal vicissitudes and varying claims to "authority." Christianity doesn't depend on the "proper practice of religion" as you ought to know since you claim to be one. It is faith in Jesus. It is important to understand precisely who He is, or you may find your faith misplaced. Will He hold that against a person? Every person I've met who's asked that question has already heard Christ's message and are looking for a way out.
Jay Utah:
True. Everyone who reads the Lord's words has to make his own determination of how narrow that gate is.
Jay Utah:
No matter what Christian source you refer to in order to compare these two faiths, you'll run into the same arguments. Do you maintain that every Christian who disagrees with Mormonism is a hate monger? Or just that site? I found no evidence of it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2006 11:05:18 GMT -4
I admit that the IRR site seems more rational than many critics of Mormonism I have come across, but think about what the goal is behind this site. It can only be to create fear , uncertainty, and doubt about Mormons. Note the statement that "we cannot consider them our brothers in Christ". What is the purpose behind making such a statement?
And there is a smug superiority that prevades the site. "Those poor, deluded Mormons. It's really too bad they're all going to hell because they're so ignorant. But now, thanks to my magnificent and well-researched efforts, you know better than to treat them like us, your fellow christians."
You won't find any LDS websites focusing on, say, the Roman Catholics or the Methodists and how wrong they are. We don't spend our time tearing down the beliefs of others because we understand that no good can come of such efforts. If you want to promote your own beliefs you should promote your own beliefs, not spend your time denigrating those of another.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 20, 2006 16:43:49 GMT -4
which message we firmly believe is accurately reflected in the text of the New Testament.
Who's "we"? You don't speak for me. You're welcome to have that belief, but kindly don't imply that I must believe in the infallibility of the Bible in order to call myself a Christian. That, to me, is just silly superstition.
In any case you evaded my point. You said it comes down to the authority of scripture, but you acknowledge that there was authority before scripture and it was allegedly by that authority that we got scripture, so the real authority (if there is any) cannot be the scripture.
I don't respond well to Bible-thumping. If you'd like to have a friendly conversation on my approach to the Bible and my reasons for it, then I'll oblige. But be aware that I do not regard the Bible as a complete, infallible authority, nor do I agree that any such belief is required of one who professes to be a Christian.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here when you say "doctrinal vicissitudes and varying claims to "authority."
I'm talking about the establishment of practical doctrine through ecumenical councils and democractic conventions over the centuries. I don't understand how such committee process necessarily arrives at any "doctrinal purity" that God would be bound to respect, or for which he even cares for.
Once upon a time, for example, the leaders of Christian churches claimed that Christian doctrine allowed for chattel slavery, a belief most modern Christians would find abhorrent. Christian doctrine used to forbid divorce or marriage outside of one's race, beliefs that are not shared or agreed upon by modern Christians. The so-called "purity" of doctrine simply does not exist today among professing Christians nor has it been manifest throughout history.
For vicissitude of authority, try a pope or two. Millions of Christians today consider the Pope someone who speaks authoritatively for God, and consider that an important Christian belief. Millions of other Christians don't believe the Pope has any more authority to speak for God than the next guy. Millions of others quite a long time ago elected a different series of popes and revered them as the mouthpiece of God. Who is in authority to speak for God? You? Me? An national convention? Some German guy in Rome? Some guy in Salt Lake City?
The obvious problems associated with putting faith in some person as authority for belief has led to trying to find some rigid, objective standard against which one's belief can be measured for orthodoxy. Looking around, many American protestants settled on the Bible. Since it has an early provenance and it's an inanimate object, it seems to be a better choice for the gold standard.
But stepping back we see this as just a deferral of the problem. Regarding the Bible as an authority doesn't automatically make it one in any objective sense, and denying that you interpret it in your own way (or in any way) doesn't mean you don't. You're back to a subjective opinion of "what God wants," only this time you're trying to hide the fact that it's a subjective opinion.
Stepping back even further we see the need for such infallible authority in any form as simply the formulation of religion as a contest that needs rules to separate the winners from the losers, or as an exclusive club that needs membership criteria to keep out the riff-raff.
Carried to an extreme, the frantic worry about "being saved" becomes a significant distraction. That's how you get people who worry that they won't be "saved" unless they go picket some gay man's funeral or churches that ordain women. Very often what masquerades as religion is really social activism, and what is held up as "important" Christian doctrine is really just a thinly-disguised attempt to create a certain social order.
Some people adopt a religion for egalitarian purposes. For those people, the payoff is approval -- the feeling that one is "saved". And so they need hair-split rules that determine who is "saved" and who isn't. Why? Because "being saved" doesn't have any pleasant distinction unless there are some people who are not saved. Without the precise ability to exclude someone from the club, you can't argue he's not a member. And if you can't argue he's not a member, then you lose the emotional payoff of exclusivity. Religion can become simply a way to enforce a social "us versus them" distinction, and that's not useful to me.
I don't agree with the "country club" approach to religion.
It is important to understand precisely who He is, or you may find your faith misplaced.
Hogwash. The nature of the Trinity, held by some to be the most important doctrine of Christianity, is defined as a mystery and has been hotly debated literally for centuries. As I said, it was defined as a mystery precisely because there was no agreement among the many theologians and authorities who debated it. Defining it as a mystery means that anyone who says he precisely understands it is automatically wrong. What many people hold as the most important attribute of Jesus cannot be known precisely. Oddly enough, this same unknowable "truth" is precisely the yardstick some use to reject Mormons. I find that rather hypocritical.
Again, I don't see this is as a useful approach to Christianity. The obsession with hair-splitting debates over historical tradition or the microscopic nuances in some Bible passage distract, in my opinion, from a pleasant and beneficial practice of Christian veneration.
I once witnessed a heated debate lasting more than half an hour over the "proper" elements of the Eucharist. It's a fact that to represent Jesus' blood Mormons use water, Catholics use wine (cheap wine, to be specific), and Lutherans use grape juice. What a silly debate. The Catholics argue that it turns literally to the blood of Jesus while the Episcopalians say it doesn't. They all yell at the Mormons for using the least blood-like liquid. None of them bothered to pay attention to the most important part of the Eucharist: Jesus' instructions, "When you meet, do this to remember me." It doesn't matter whether it's pepperoni pizza and Diet Mountain Dew as long as it's done in the context of the Eucharist and with the recollection of Jesus as its central theme.
I've always found it interesting how certain insidious mindsets can wreak havoc on one's view of the world. The most insidious interpretation, for example, is the one you don't know you're making, or the one you deny making. You read a passage "naturally" as if to say that interpretation is irrelevant. If you aren't even aware of the possibility that other interpretations exist, then you won't recognize that your "natural" reading is simply your intuitive interpretation. So many people claim to read the Bible "literally" as if this means they aren't actually interpreting, and thus they think they free themselves from the need to justify that interpretation.
Similarly the most insidious approach is the one you don't recognize as an approach. If you take the "natural" approach to Christianity, you deny that there is even such a thing as a choice in the matter, therefore no need to justify one's choice of actions.
This inability to distinguish interpretation from fact leads, in religious circles, to mindless dogmatism. In secular circles it leads to conspiracism.
Everyone who reads the Lord's words has to make his own determination of how narrow that gate is.
Then kindly allow me to make my determination and, if necessary, the Mormons collectively to make their own. You seem focused on trying to tell everyone else just how narrow the gate is and in what dimension it's narrow.
I've worshiped with the Mormons in Utah, the Catholics in Rome, the Anglicans in London, the Baptists in Kansas, the Coptics in Cairo, and the Orthodox in Athens. Many charismatic American Protestants are utterly unaware of the vast richness of Christian belief and practice throughout the world. The little dogmatic slice of it that forms American Charismatic Protestantism is unbelievably miniscule in the grand scheme of things.
No matter what Christian source you refer to in order to compare these two faiths, you'll run into the same arguments.
That does not make those arguments well-reasoned or valid. The question of whether mainstream churches do accept Mormons as Christians is a simple question of fact. As you point out, we can simply consult the various governing bodies of those organizations and determine in a purely factual way the answer to that question. That makes it a fairly uninteresting question.
The better question is whether mainstream churches should accept Mormons as Christians. That opens up the question to examining the basis by which those pronouncements are made. You're simply trying to divert attention away from the interesting question toward an uninteresting one you can pound your fist on and declare the problem solved.
The "Christian source" I most often choose to consult is the rank-and-file Christian, who may or may not belong to any particular church and may or may not agree with every one of his church's official statements of doctrine. That is a much more practical measure of Christian belief than the edicts of various ruling bodies.
As I said, you refer me to the terse official statements of various ecumenical bodies and councils. Not only does that dodge the real question, it brings in a whole bunch of confounding issues. Churches and their ruling bodies act as much in social and political roles as they do doctrinal roles. I just thumbed through the report of the Episcopalians' convention recently, whose policy decisions seem almost entirely occupied with keeping the Anglican Communion together and not with trying to discern what Jesus really wants people to do.
So the Catholics don't accept Mormon baptism as equivalent to Catholic baptism. I'm not suprised; not everyone's baptisms are considered interchangeable. Churches that require baptism by immersion reject Catholic aspersion baptism. The interapplicability of baptism is not an identical question to one's recognition of another's beliefs otherwise.
I noticed that one church tried to exclude Mormons because they believed wrongly about the Trinity (axiomatic difference), but in doing so inadvertently excluded the entire Eastern Orthodox church, who professes an "economical" Trinity. You have to take those statements with a grain of salt, especially when they boil down to "We think Mormons believe differently than we on this point, therefore they're wrong."
Now such councils can't simply be set aside. They do establish policy, yes, but just as often for reasons of social and political expediency, and to support the retention of memberships. They do establish doctrine, yes, but only by a consensus of interpretation and belief. That is important where a Christian community is concerned. If Christians want to congregate, they can do so only where a certain commonality is sought, established, and enforced.
Do you maintain that every Christian who disagrees with Mormonism is a hate monger?
Of course not. First, not every Christian who disagrees with Mormonism denies that Mormons are Christians. Not everyone is dogmatic about their beliefs nor feels he needs to be.
Second, whether one disagrees is not so important as what one does with that disagreement.
If one expresses that disagreement in self-serving "I'm right and you're wrong" terms rather than as subjective differences or an unshared axiom, then one has often begged the question of one's own correctness. I think my personal beliefs are correct, otherwise I wouldn't hold to them. But that doesn't bind anyone else to think the same way about what I believe. Much of what I believe in a religious sense is purely subjective. I cannot argue that it's "right" in an objectively arguable sense. Failing to recognize the tenuous nature of one's own beliefs can be considered hate-mongering.
If I happen to disagree with someone else's profession of belief, that doesn't license me to attempt vigorously to dissuade that person from belief. I don't go picket the Mormon church because I might disagree with their policy, for example, on ordaining women. I don't go around alleging to every Mormon I see that their founder drank beer and is said to have believed in "moon men". I disagree respectfully. I don't need to reinforce my beliefs by pounding into other people's heads the supposed foolishness of theirs.
I have seen quite a number of people profess to tell others "what Mormons really believe." Ditto for Catholics, Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Muslims, and Jews and what they "really" believe. These expositions are almost never written except for polemical purposes, almost never written by people who know what they're talking about, and consequently almost never right, and therefore almost never worth the time to read them. Promoting disbelief through denegration might be considered hate-mongering.
Or just that site? I found no evidence of it.
Did you look for any? The sole mission of the Institute for Religious Research is to identify reasons why certain people aren't Christians. They're attempting to enforce some mythical "doctrinal purity" by ensuring that those who are on the outskirts stay on the outskirts. An organization whose sole purpose is to exclude people based on their own notion of acceptability a pretty good definition of a hate group.
Just because they smile politely and write dispassionately and give you footnotes doesn't change their basic mission. As I've said, I have very little use for such organizations.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2006 17:05:51 GMT -4
Stepping back even further we see the need for such infallible authority in any form as simply the formulation of religion as a contest that needs rules to separate the winners from the losers, or as an exclusive club that needs membership criteria to keep out the riff-raff. Are you sure that "winning" is the only motive for such a search? I think there are at least some people who honestly want to find an infallible authority just to be sure they are doing things properly, and who are not concerned in the least with how others are doing. Of course, such persons do not then spend their time pointing out to others how they are doing things wrong.
I think your thoughts on the authority (or lack thereof) of the Bible were excellent Jay. I would add that I feel Protestents chose the Bible as their source of authority because they could not build a believable case on the alternative which the Roman Catholics use - that the authority to organize a church had been handed down directly from Christ and his Apostles.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 20, 2006 18:43:20 GMT -4
Are you sure that "winning" is the only motive for such a search?
No, I don't mean to say that. I intended that remark to refer to where I wrote that some religious adherents do so as a means of creating an arbitrary division that places themselves on the good side of it. (The farther back you step, the broader your field of view and the more people you inadvertently lump together. Sorry.)
I phrased it backards. If your goal is elitism then you need a standard you can purport to be unbiased, and that may include exalting some source to infallibility because you say it needs to be, not because it observably is.
I think there are at least some people who honestly want to find an infallible authority just to be sure they are doing things properly, and who are not concerned in the least with how others are doing.
I think there are indeed such people. You can tell the difference between the honest seekers of authority and the others, in my opinion, by noting whether that infallible authority is clung to like a life preserver or wielded as a weapon.
I know where you're coming from, Jason, but keep in mind that not everyone seeks infallible authority. I don't think it's wrong to believe it's out there and to look for it, but not everyone is content to follow that path. There are plenty of Christians who are quite happy doing without the notion of infallible authority. The "strait is the gate and narrow is the way" philosophy does not, in their minds, require infallibility to satisfy it -- there is a "good enough" that can be attained through various other means.
That turns the question into a conditional proposition: if you believe that infallible authority is necessary and attainable, then there will be those who seek it with virtuous intent as well as those who attempt to create it improperly out of something else.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 20, 2006 21:37:10 GMT -4
My long standing observation is that the an individual’s theology tells you much more about the person than about God. On the other hand those that practice devotional discipline and recognize that the personal experience of God can change over time have much to teach about Him.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 24, 2006 8:52:20 GMT -4
I just thumbed through the report of the Episcopalians' convention recently, whose policy decisions seem almost entirely occupied with keeping the Anglican Communion together and not with trying to discern what Jesus really wants people to do. This reminds me of what I posted in reply No. 31: My conclusion regarding a fair few Christian churches was that they teach: 1. A great deal of churchianity 2. A great deal of religiosity. 3. Heaps and heaps of Paulianity. 4. Quite a lot of Old-Testamentanity 5. And lastly, away down the line, more befitting No. 10 on this scale, a tiny bit of Christianity (i.e.: a little of the pure, unadulterated teachings of The Christ).
If you really look, you may sometimes observe all of the first four and absolutely none of No. 5.Some people get so tied up with dogmatism, procedures and holier-than-thou attitudes that they forget to follow what Jesus taught. He freely associated with all types, without distinction or prejudice, and taught tolerance and goodwill. Thanks, Jay, for joining the thread. It's a pleasure to read someone who thinks similarly to oneself. I've been hoping you might reply to PhantomWolf's thread, Being a Christian sceintist
|
|