Conservative Heresies: What is a real Christian?

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, says who? As far as I'm concerned, it is every bit as narrow-minded and self-righteous as any of the other items on your "Official a_e List of Conservative Heresies."

It is not narrow minded in the least to associate "Chrsitianity" with the basic definition of God that it had been associated with for the entire 1900 years before LDS came on the scene, but perfectly reasonable. You can't believe that Jesus Christ is a coke machine or anything else other than how he is defined by normative Christianity and be considered a normative Christian, that is a "Christian" with no qualifiers that signal that your beliefs are fundamentally different from traditional Chrsitianity....

...like conservative heresies or LDS redefinitions of God...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My point is that you have defined a subset of Christianity and have set it up to be the only set that really counts. The people you refferenced in your OP have done the same thing.

It is important to note that the subset that I have identified strays from the basic understanding of God that defines Christianity...

 

[Karl R]

How can LDS Christianity fall within the realms of "Christianity" when the LDS completely reject the Christian understanding of God and Jesus Christ, the primary subject of and defining characteristic of Christainity?

That's circular logic Angellous.

You've already decided who is "christian". Then you take your "christian understanding" of what "christianity" means, and use it to exclude the same people you already excluded.

If you start with the assumption that LDS are christians, then use their understanding what christianity means, they meet that "christian" definition.


LDS christianity can fall within the realms of christianity if they meet god's and christ's understanding of what the defining characteristics of christianity are.

Because of that little detail, I don't give a rat's *** whether the catholics, conservatives, JW, liberals, LDS, orthodox, UUs, or even Angellous_Evangellous believe that I'm a christian. That's a billion or so opinions that are absolutely empty ... because they don't count.

 

[kevmicsmi]

You also have to picket gay day at Six Flags and Disney World. And hate them some more. Then you have to not hire them (Ross Perot) and send promote hate literature (James Dobson). And hate them some more.

Also, boycott movies and write networks that have gay actors or themes. And hate them some more.

What is hateful about picketing an establishment that caters to children, but wont warn parents if an adult apropriate group is going to be visiting a park en masse on a certain day? What is hateful about Dr Dobson's litterature? I have never seen it, just curious. What is hateful about using your power as a consumer to remove adult themed shows from prime time hours on network television?

 

[Scuba Pete]

The acid test...

Yes, there is one and it is VERY specific. It's the very test that those who actually seem to abide by AE's OP seem to avoid. I didn't create it and niether did any synod or assembly.

John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." NIV

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's circular logic Angellous.

You've already decided who is "christian". Then you take your "christian understanding" of what "christianity" means, and use it to exclude the same people you already excluded.

Are you able to clearly demonstrate that I have done this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic

In any event, it does not appear circular to me to exclude people in my definition of Christianity that do not hold beliefs that are essential to my definition. That's sort of the point.

So we define Christianity as X. Those who believe/practice X are Christians. Those who do not believe/practice X are not Christians, depite their claims.

There is nothing circular about that whatsoever.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you start with the assumption that LDS are christians, then use their understanding what christianity means, they meet that "christian" definition.

I don't start with that assumption. Obviously.

LDS christianity can fall within the realms of christianity if they meet god's and christ's understanding of what the defining characteristics of christianity are.

This is an impossible requirement. Tell me what "god's and christ's understanding of what the defining characteristics of christianity" actually are. If you use the NT, it is the testimony of the church that authored the confessions that the LDS reject. That's why I am not arguing that LDS Christians won't go to heaven. That's why I do not argue that God is angry with them, ashamed of them, or that Jesus is hurt by them.

I am only arguing what I can prove - that the term Chrsitianity carries with it a traditional understanding of God that the LDS reject. Therefore, they cannot be called Christians, nor fit in the "Christian" realm because they reject the defining characteristics of what defines "Christianity."

Because of that little detail, I don't give a rat's *** whether the catholics, conservatives, JW, liberals, LDS, orthodox, UUs, or even Angellous_Evangellous believe that I'm a christian. That's a billion or so opinions that are absolutely empty ... because they don't count.

Great.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What is hateful about picketing an establishment that caters to children, but wont warn parents if an adult apropriate group is going to be visiting a park en masse on a certain day? What is hateful about Dr Dobson's litterature? I have never seen it, just curious. What is hateful about using your power as a consumer to remove adult themed shows from prime time hours on network television?

I rest my case.

I will post some evidence against Dobson asap.

http://troubledwith.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/troubledwith.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1225

Christian hate literature:
http://troubledwith.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/troubledwith.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1293

 

[kevmicsmi]

I rest my case.

are you insinuating what I said was hateful?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

are you insinuating what I said was hateful?

Absolutely not.

That you have to question what is wrong with picketing a gay day at Six Flags is illustrative of the mentality that is hateful. I cannot conclude that you are hateful because I don't have the evidence. I refrain from making character judgements in RF...

What can be more obvious display of hatred than publically decrying their behavior as harmful to children?

 

[kevmicsmi]

Absolutely not.

That you have to question what is wrong with picketing a gay day at Six Flags is illustrative of the mentality that is hateful.

What can be more obvious display of hatred than publically decrying their behavior as harmful to children?

I guess it would depend on WHY they are picketing. If they are picketing because places like Disney world wont even warn travel agents about the weeks their park will be used for an adult themed day, I agree with the picketers. I wouldnt be publicly decrying their behavior as harmful to children, I would be decrying the park not letting vacationers plan around those type of events. I dont want to go to disney worl and have to explain to my five year old why two women and two men are holing hands and kissing. If they had a porn convention there, I would want to know before I reserved my room at hotel Disney for a week. If satanists were holding a satanic day, I would want to know because I would not want to explain this to my child of five.

Of course If The Democrats had a rally there I would want to know so I could picket and publicly decry their behavior as harmful to realists

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I guess it would depend on WHY they are picketing. If they are picketing because places like Disney world wont even warn travel agents about the weeks their park will be used for an adult themed day, I agree with the picketers. I wouldnt be publicly decrying their behavior as harmful to children, I would be decrying the park not letting vacationers plan around those type of events. I dont want to go to disney worl and have to explain to my five year old why two women and two men are holing hands and kissing. If they had a porn convention there, I would want to know before I reserved my room at hotel Disney for a week. If satanists were holding a satanic day, I would want to know because I would not want to explain this to my child of five.

Of course If The Democrats had a rally there I would want to know so I could picket and publicly decry their behavior as harmful to realists

A "gay day" does not mean that it is an adult-themed event.

 

[kevmicsmi]

A "gay day" does not mean that it is an adult-themed event.

Yes it does. I explained why I dont want my young children to see that type of behavior.

 

[Squirt]

This isn't the first time that I have been brutally attacked by you with the name of Jesus.

You're still keeping track? But "brutal attacks?" :biglaugh: Really? You underestimate me.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Yes it does. I explained why I dont want my young children to see that type of behavior.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200308%5CCUL20030807a.html

Here is a good article on what I was talking about.

 

[Karl R]

This is an impossible requirement. Tell me what "god's and christ's understanding of what the defining characteristics of christianity" actually are.

Have you tried asking them?

Maybe god hasn't told you his definition because he doesn't want you making that distinction?

I am only arguing what I can prove - that the term Chrsitianity carries with it a traditional understanding of God that the LDS reject. Therefore, they cannot be called Christians, nor fit in the "Christian" realm because they reject the defining characteristics of what defines "Christianity."

Can you prove that the traditional understanding of christianity matches god's understanding? If not, what does it prove?

Unless the "defining characteristics" that you use are somehow more correct than the ones the "heretical conservatives" are using (and the only way do know that is to know what definition god uses), than you're making the same kind of presumptions that the conservatives are.

 

[Squirt]

It is not narrow minded in the least to associate "Chrsitianity" with the basic definition of God that it had been associated with for the entire 1900 years before LDS came on the scene, but perfectly reasonable.

I'd say it was more like 1600 or 1700 years. And a lot happened in that first two hundred years.

You can't believe that Jesus Christ is a coke machine or anything else other than how he is defined by normative Christianity and be considered a normative Christian, that is a "Christian" with no qualifiers that signal that your beliefs are fundamentally different from traditional Chrsitianity....

Well, when we say Jesus Christ is a Coke machine, your perspective will perhaps come off as being arguably intelligent. Meanwhile... :biglaugh:

 

[Squirt]

Maybe god hasn't told you his definition because he doesn't want you making that distinction?

Are you saying, "Judge not"? What a novel approach to Christianity!

 

[Squirt]

Hardly.

If you say so. I guess I'm gong to have to try harder then. :slap: But I've got to tell you, your "Squirt's Being Mean to Me" thread leads me to believe otherwise. I've never seen anyone throw such a lovely pity-party for himself.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're still keeping track? But "brutal attacks?" :biglaugh: Really? You underestimate me.

I don't doubt that there are lower levels to which you could sink. You've started by taking my God's name in vain by using it as a means to attack my person. Using that as a starting point, I can't speculate as to how much farther that you can go.