posted
The evangelicals are not using "believes in the council of Nicea" as their defintion of Christian. As had been noted, many of them believe that Catholics are not Christians either.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said what I said was intolerent. I have no idea how that could be an accurate description. I was hoping you'd explain why you thought it was.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not sure I see the difference between the groups that departed from the LDS church (some of them claiming to be closer to "original" Mormonism) wanting to call themselves Mormon and groups that departed from mainstream Christianity (claiming to be closer to "original" Christianity) wanting to call themselves Christian. "
I don't either and I think they are wrong headed to try and do so.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Also, for crying out loud, Catholics were not the original Christians. The Christian movement didn't start out with the Catholic church.
-pH [/QB]
The first Pope was Jesus' main man. Without the catholic church, christianity dies and doesn't spread throughout europe. Whether or not you agree with the religion, everything starts from what the catholic church did to spread the word of Christ. Yes there are many 'sects' of christianity that were around from the time of Jesus, but the spread of Jesus' word and the differentiation from the Jews began with what eventually became the catholic church.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
It's not using a different definition, but asserting that the Catholic one is definitely wrong and that they have no right to call themselves Christian. I'm not sure that is necessarily intolerant, but it is disrespectful.
Okay, your post got mixed in with the one above it in my mind. I don't know that I think it's all that disrespectful to have that attitude, simply because by that logic, a faith's definitions should be all-inclusive. If I claim to be a certain faith, and the members of that faith say, "No, you don't meet the definition of a follow of our faith," I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
quote:Where you see the differences of the "consiquences" as an important distinction, I personally don't.
I'm not trying to say you should see them as important. I'm trying to say that I (and many others) see them as important. Also, my post didn't relate to whether Mormons should call themselves "Christian" (I think they should). It related to you claim that the differences in our conceptions of Christ don't create differences in our beliefs about the role of Christ. They do create differences. What I particularly object to is when such a statement misstates the beliefs of others, which I believe your original statement did.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Also, for crying out loud, Catholics were not the original Christians. The Christian movement didn't start out with the Catholic church.
-pH
The first Pope was Jesus' main man. Without the catholic church, christianity dies and doesn't spread throughout europe. Whether or not you agree with the religion, everything starts from what the catholic church did to spread the word of Christ. Yes there are many 'sects' of christianity that were around from the time of Jesus, but the spread of Jesus' word and the differentiation from the Jews began with what eventually became the catholic church. [/QB]
Let's try this again. Jesus' original followers weren't a part of the Catholic church. Period. Whether or not the Catholic church helped spread Christianity is irrelevant to your claim that the first Christians were Catholic.
The first person given authority over the church Jesus founded was Peter.
(As a trade-up, John gets to live forever. Or until Christ comes again. I think John DEFINITELY got the better end of the deal.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
It's not using a different definition, but asserting that the Catholic one is definitely wrong and that they have no right to call themselves Christian. I'm not sure that is necessarily intolerant, but it is disrespectful.
Okay, your post got mixed in with the one above it in my mind. I don't know that I think it's all that disrespectful to have that attitude, simply because by that logic, a faith's definitions should be all-inclusive. If I claim to be a certain faith, and the members of that faith say, "No, you don't meet the definition of a follow of our faith," I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
-pH
It's disrespectful in the aspect that an evangelical that doesn't consider a catholic or a mormon to be christian believes so because they think their faith is the only faith that can be considered christian. And that if you don't meet the qualifications as to what they believe, you're not a christian. As has been stated, catholics and/or mormons generally do not consider evangelicals to not be christians. And for the most part, are pretty tolerant of other religions.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PH, I think you are getting mixed up between (I hope I get this correct) genus and species in religious nomenclature.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
It's not using a different definition, but asserting that the Catholic one is definitely wrong and that they have no right to call themselves Christian. I'm not sure that is necessarily intolerant, but it is disrespectful.
Okay, your post got mixed in with the one above it in my mind. I don't know that I think it's all that disrespectful to have that attitude, simply because by that logic, a faith's definitions should be all-inclusive. If I claim to be a certain faith, and the members of that faith say, "No, you don't meet the definition of a follow of our faith," I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
-pH
It's disrespectful in the aspect that an evangelical that doesn't consider a catholic or a mormon to be christian believes so because they think their faith is the only faith that can be considered christian. And that if you don't meet the qualifications as to what they believe, you're not a christian. As has been stated, catholics and/or mormons generally do not consider evangelicals to not be christians. And for the most part, are pretty tolerant of other religions.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.
I can believe I'm plenty of things. It doesn't obligate other people to believe I am those things.
posted
"It related to you claim that the differences in our conceptions of Christ don't create differences in our beliefs about the role of Christ. They do create differences"
I think at this point it isn't about misunderstanding. Rather, its about disagreement. You believe your conception of Christ changes his Role. I believe it only changes the consiquences. Don't think we can go any more from here.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Let's try this again. Jesus' original followers weren't a part of the Catholic church. Period. Whether or not the Catholic church helped spread Christianity is irrelevant to your claim that the first Christians were Catholic.
-pH [/QB]
What I said was catholics were the original christians. Jesus' original followers considered themselves Jews, even after His death. Without the organized religion that became the catholic church, there would be no other christian varieties of churches. Catholics spread and maintained the word of Christ through Europe and Asia and Africa and in the new world. Unless your gnostic or greek orthodox, pretty much every other religion that uses the christian bible traces its origins in some way or another from the catholic church.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think at this point it isn't about misunderstanding. Rather, its about disagreement. You believe your conception of Christ changes his Role. I believe it only changes the consiquences. Don't think we can go any more from here.
It's a disagreement about what I believe. The only reason you can possibly disagree about that is by telling me that I don't believe what I say I believe. It's exactly what Ron was doing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Just a quick statement, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Mormon who will say that Catholics/Protestants are not Christian. A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as savior and also in the principles he taught.
I'm speaking specifically to someone calling him/herself Mormon when most Mormons would not agree. If that isn't intolerant, then I fail to see how thinking that someone is not Christian when he or she does not meet your faith's definition of "Christian" is intolerant.
Also, for crying out loud, Catholics were not the original Christians. The Christian movement didn't start out with the Catholic church.
-pH
I never made any comments about whether someone should or should not be called a Mormon, nor will I. I do not know nearly enough about the splintering of the Mormon church to say anything about it.
As to the Catholic Church -- it was the original church. When Constantine got all the factions together and told them to stop bickering and make up their minds, that was the origins of the organized catholic/christian church. Before that, it was very disorganized, mostly underground, and often considered a cult. Once it became organized it began to spread more rapidly and also, it began to splinter.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Let's try this again. Jesus' original followers weren't a part of the Catholic church. Period. Whether or not the Catholic church helped spread Christianity is irrelevant to your claim that the first Christians were Catholic.
-pH
What I said was catholics were the original christians. Jesus' original followers considered themselves Jews, even after His death. Without the organized religion that became the catholic church, there would be no other christian varieties of churches. Catholics spread and maintained the word of Christ through Europe and Asia and Africa and in the new world. Unless your gnostic or greek orthodox, pretty much every other religion that uses the christian bible traces its origins in some way or another from the catholic church. [/QB]
AGAIN, I will say that the Catholic church spreading Christianity IS NOT THE SAME as Catholics being the first Christians.
quote:Okay, your post got mixed in with the one above it in my mind. I don't know that I think it's all that disrespectful to have that attitude, simply because by that logic, a faith's definitions should be all-inclusive. If I claim to be a certain faith, and the members of that faith say, "No, you don't meet the definition of a follow of our faith," I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
That's not it at all. First, "Christian" is not a faith. It's a superset of faiths. Second, I'm not saying that a faith's definitions should be all inclusive, but rather when they don't respect other people's beliefs and faith, they are being disrespectful. They may not be wrong to be disrespectful, perhaps those beliefs and people don't deserve respect, but that doesn't change that they are disrespectful.
I think you may have gotten the definition of respect mixed up. You can believe whatever you want. That is not the defining aspect of respect or not. When you dismiss another person or their beliefs, you are not respecting them. It is not what you believe, but your regard for the other person's beliefs as valueless, that makes it disrespectful.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, Catholics believe that the Church founded on Pentacost is the same entity known as the Catholic Church today. Each of the original twelve except Judas was a member - in fact, together with Paul and the one appointed to replace Judas, the leaders.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is YOU who say that Mormons regard other people's beliefs as valueless. You are making this up. It isn't true.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I can believe I'm plenty of things. It doesn't obligate other people to believe I am those things.
-pH
But if I disagreed with what you believe you are because I consider myself to be the 'true' brand of that particular belief, it can make me intolerant. Especially if I tell you that you are 'wrong'. Whether or not I agree that I am intolerant.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: pH, Catholics believe that the Church founded on Pentacost is the same entity known as the Catholic Church today. Each of the original twelve except Judas was a member - in fact, together with Paul and the one appointed to replace Judas, the leaders.
True..."On this rock I will build my church." The Catholic church teaches that this is where they began.
Historically, I tend to think that the real, organized church began with Constantine (as I said before) but in religion classes, I learned that the first pope was Peter.
quote:Originally posted by pH: Let's try this again. Jesus' original followers weren't a part of the Catholic church. Period. Whether or not the Catholic church helped spread Christianity is irrelevant to your claim that the first Christians were Catholic.
-pH
What I said was catholics were the original christians. Jesus' original followers considered themselves Jews, even after His death. Without the organized religion that became the catholic church, there would be no other christian varieties of churches. Catholics spread and maintained the word of Christ through Europe and Asia and Africa and in the new world. Unless your gnostic or greek orthodox, pretty much every other religion that uses the christian bible traces its origins in some way or another from the catholic church.
AGAIN, I will say that the Catholic church spreading Christianity IS NOT THE SAME as Catholics being the first Christians.
-pH [/QB]
I didn't say "first", I said "original" christians. There's a big difference there.
You can sit back today, after 2000 years and say that Jesus and his apostles were the "first" christians. But they weren't, they were Jews. As I said, even after Jesus' death the apostles and his followers considered themselves Jewish. Christianity as a faith (church) started when the organized church that followed Jesus came into being. And that organized church that spread the word of Jesus and started it all became the catholic church. That was the original christian church.
And yes, Catholics believe that the apostles and the work they did after Jesus' death was the foundation for the catholic church. The organizing force that gave birth to the church. And Paul is considered the first Pope.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You made up the part about Mormons considering other people's religions as valueless. It isn't true.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about LDS there[edit:], although, yeah, I'll expand it to them. When you say that dkw, for example, isn't really a minister of God and all the ceremonies she officiates are without authority, you are disrespecting her and her faith.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
First of all, I'm no fan of Bible thumpers. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to say they're intolerant in this case. And when it comes to what defines a Christian, there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation and that needing an intermediary to God whe it comes to confession is also a disqualifying factor. By their definition, some groups of Christians, including Catholics, place importance on both of these. As a result, they do not consider Catholics to be Christian by their definition. I don't see that as the horribly terrible thing some seem to. It's not like they're thinking that everyone else eats babies and worships Satan.
First of all, I'm no fan of Bible thumpers. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to say they're intolerant in this case. And when it comes to what defines a Christian, there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation and that needing an intermediary to God whe it comes to confession is also a disqualifying factor. By their definition, some groups of Christians, including Catholics, place importance on both of these. As a result, they do not consider Catholics to be Christian by their definition. I don't see that as the horribly terrible thing some seem to. It's not like they're thinking that everyone else eats babies and worships Satan.
-pH
Then you missed my post above about evangelicals believing the Mormon church is a 'trick' by satan to lure people away from being 'saved' and true christianity. I think you're probably giving some evangelicals too much credit. If you were to speak with many evangelicals, and have them tell you that catholics aren't christian because they eat fish on fridays and follow the pope, and mormons aren't christian because Joseph Smith was crazy and blasphemed the gospel and bible, you would see that they don't always disagree because of docterine or dogma. They disagree because they are indeed intolerant of other religions, even those who do believe in Jesus Christ. I've heard a lot of ridiculous things from evangelicals about other religions that they neither know nor understand. I can't speak as to the motivating factors behind the Regents Univeristy students not wanting Mitt Romney to speak, but as I said it didn't suprise me that a evangelical christian university didn't want a speaker at their univeristy because he's mormon.
I can deal with people who don't agree based on docterine. Unfortuately, from experience, docterine is rarely why they disagree.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
First of all, I'm no fan of Bible thumpers. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to say they're intolerant in this case. And when it comes to what defines a Christian, there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation and that needing an intermediary to God whe it comes to confession is also a disqualifying factor. By their definition, some groups of Christians, including Catholics, place importance on both of these. As a result, they do not consider Catholics to be Christian by their definition. I don't see that as the horribly terrible thing some seem to. It's not like they're thinking that everyone else eats babies and worships Satan.
-pH
Then you missed my post above about evangelicals believing the Mormon church is a 'trick' by satan to lure people away from being 'saved' and true christianity. I think you're probably giving some evangelicals too much credit. If you were to speak with many evangelicals, and have them tell you that catholics aren't christian because they eat fish on fridays and follow the pope, and mormons aren't christian because Joseph Smith was crazy and blasphemed the gospel and bible, you would see that they don't always disagree because of docterine or dogma. They disagree because they are indeed intolerant of other religions, even those who do believe in Jesus Christ.
I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
quote:there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation
No matter what Jesus had to say.
*sigh* I am not trying to start an argument about works vs. faith. I'm explaining why some people don't consider some faiths to be Christian.
-pH
But you still haven't explained why this doesn't make them intolerant.
What if I said I don't think black people are human, even if they say they are? Is it intolerant of me to say such a thing if, by my definition, they simply aren't included?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: They disagree because they are indeed intolerant of other religions, even those who do believe in Jesus Christ.
Yes, but to be fair, they are also less tolerant than other groups in regards to other races, cultures, and their own spouses as well.
quote:I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
Really? There aren't any bigotted Southern Baptists? Because that disagrees with the research that I'm aware of that puts South Baptists among the groups that display almost the highest levels of prejudice.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys, I just wish there was a little more respect for evangelicals in this thread. It's bothering me so much that such a stink is raised about respecting people's religious beliefs, and yet it's considered perfectly okay to trash evangelicals, an action that none of you seem to find the least bit intolerant.
quote:Originally posted by pH: [I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
-pH
I can deal with people who don't agree based on docterine. Unfortuately, from experience, docterine is rarely why they disagree. Maybe you've never heard an evangelical tell you mormons are evil and mislead by the devil, but I have. Many a time. I've also been told that I was going to hell for being a catholic. Nice people, very tolerant.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's a disagreement about what I believe. The only reason you can possibly disagree about that is by telling me that I don't believe what I say I believe. It's exactly what Ron was doing."
No it is not. I understand you believe differet things about what reasons He did things, who He was that did them, and what those things ultimately lead to. Still, the Role is Jesus as Christ and Savior of the World.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're going to have to define "trash" for me. Is it saying negative things about a group, even if those things happen to be true. If not, I don't think what I'm doing fits. edit: And I want to emphasize that I'm not talking everyone who is an evangelical.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: [I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
-pH
I can deal with people who don't agree based on docterine. Unfortuately, from experience, docterine is rarely why they disagree. Maybe you've never heard an evangelical tell you mormons are evil and mislead by the devil, but I have. Many a time.
They believe that Mormons are being misled, yes. And there are other religions who think Mormons are being misled, too. And I think that believing that a religion is misguided does not a bigot make.
For people who are getting so up in arms about religious intolerance, you're being pretty intolerant, yourselves.
quote:Originally posted by pH: You guys, I just wish there was a little more respect for evangelicals in this thread. It's bothering me so much that such a stink is raised about respecting people's religious beliefs, and yet it's considered perfectly okay to trash evangelicals, an action that none of you seem to find the least bit intolerant.
-pH
I'm simply relating my experiences. I do not negate what they believe, or why they believe it. I do have a problem with what I've experienced from evangelicals and how they (dis)respect other faiths.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, Are you saying that all evangelicals have a problem with Mormons because of doctrinal differences and that there aren't any bigots?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: [I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
-pH
I can deal with people who don't agree based on docterine. Unfortuately, from experience, docterine is rarely why they disagree. Maybe you've never heard an evangelical tell you mormons are evil and mislead by the devil, but I have. Many a time.
They believe that Mormons are being misled, yes. And there are other religions who think Mormons are being misled, too. And I think that believing that a religion is misguided does not a bigot make.
For people who are getting so up in arms about religious intolerance, you're being pretty intolerant, yourselves.
quote:Originally posted by pH: You guys, I just wish there was a little more respect for evangelicals in this thread. It's bothering me so much that such a stink is raised about respecting people's religious beliefs, and yet it's considered perfectly okay to trash evangelicals, an action that none of you seem to find the least bit intolerant.
-pH
I do have some intolerance for evangelicals. I admit it. I have had multiple bad experiences in which, most notably, I have been accused (as a catholic) of not being Christian. (As it happens, they may currently be right, but that's because I'm not really Catholic or Christian any longer.) I have run into some good, well intended people who consider themselves evangelical and some who are even tolerant of other beliefs, but even many of the good, well-intentioned ones make it a mission to "save" those who have the slightest variation in belief from themselves.
As a result of my bad experiences, and even though I have run across some good evangelicals, I tend to generalize and be intolerant of them.
So yes, absolutely, intolerance can go both way. I think the first step is admitting it exists. I try very hard to check what I say and use qualifiers such as "some" or even specifics such as "I have met some..." as I did in my first post in this topic.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
AT NO POINT did I say there were no bigots. I'm saying that YES, FOR THE MOST PART, ULTIMATELY THEY ARE DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES.
For God's sake, I'm done. You guys go ahead and keep patting yourselves on the back about how "tolerant" you are. This is clearly never going to be a productive discussion.
quote:This is clearly never going to be a productive discussion.
You think maybe your habit of throwing out insults when they are not warranted and not engaging people's statements or respecting what they have to say might have something to do with that?
edit: People have related experiences with bigotted evangelicals here. I mentioned the research that shows that they are more prejudices and more likely to get divorces than most other groups. You've responded with "They disagree because of doctrinal differences." I don't think the people who you are talking to's experience nor that research strongly support this claim. Then you insult people and now you are storming off, because people have said bad, but quite possibly accurate things about evangelicals.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see nothing posted here that is intolerant with evangelical religions. I've posted from my experiences with evangelicals regarding other faiths. I'm certainly not saying they all believe that way. But many do. If it were isolated incidences of one or two people I wouldn't bother relating the stories. But I've experienced it over a widespread sampling of evangelicals.
Frankly, I don't care what evangelicals say about catholics or mormons. I find it intolerant, yes. And I'm going to relate my experiences with those people in a conversation about whether or not evangelicals considering other christian religions not christian in order to further my claim that of intolerance.
How that is being intolerant is beyond me.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
