religion limiting spiritual development?

[sandandfoam]

He's definitely not to me. What was your point?

The point is you may think he's a god, I think he's an idiot, and neither of us is wrong.
edit. -Note 'god' with a small 'g '

 

[Magic Man]

The point is you may think he's a god, I might think he's an idiot, and neither of us is wrong.
edit. -Note 'god' with a small 'g '

Ah, quite true. Finally, someone admits what I already know: I'm always right!

No, I don't think he's a god in the "he's so good, he's a soccer god" way, but I would tend to agree with the idea that we are all gods.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Mormons also profess to be Christians, yet they reject the Christian God revealed in the god-head of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They do not believe that Jesus was the eternal God in the flesh who has no beginning. They believe that the Bible has been distorted, and the Christian church is in apostasy, requiring restoration by a modern day Prophet.

The "Mormons =/= Christian" sentiment always drives me up the wall. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. You can set up boundaries around that to exclude Mormonism if that makes you feel better, but then you have created an exclusive group within the definition of Christianity, and that requires some addition to the term.

In your case, this boundary is trinitarianism. You are trinitarian, we are not trinitarian (in the sense that the term has been defined, anyway). Therefore it would only be true to say Mormons are not trinitarian Christians, not that Mormons are not Christians.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

The "Mormons =/= Christian" sentiment always drives me up the wall. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. You can set up boundaries around that to exclude Mormonism if that makes you feel better, but then you have created an exclusive group within the definition of Christianity, and that requires some addition to the term.

In your case, this boundary is trinitarianism. You are trinitarian, we are not trinitarian (in the sense that the term has been defined, anyway). Therefore it would only be true to say Mormons are not trinitarian Christians, not that Mormons are not Christians.

It really has nothing to do with the doctrine of the trinity. The battle is always within authority. You can only believe in a version of Christianity based on what you define as authorative. What is the final source of authoratity of what is true? I have no difficulty with calling Mormons..." LDS Christians". However, Mormons believe and worship a different Jesus Christ that is revealed by extra-biblical revelation. Do you seem to agree with my conclusion; why or why not? Could you believe in the Mormon version of Jesus Christ without the Book of Mormon?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

It really has nothing to do with the doctrine of the trinity. The battle is always within authority. You can only believe in a version of Christianity based on what you define as authorative. What is the final source of authoratity of what is true? I have no difficulty with calling Mormons..." LDS Christians". However, Mormons believe and worship a different Jesus Christ that is revealed by extra-biblical revelation. Do you seem to agree with my conclusion; why or why not? Could you believe in the Mormon version of Jesus Christ without the Book of Mormon?

And what gives one religious group authority to define what is 'Christian' or not over another? Mormons would not go around saying "Well, the Catholics profess to be Christian, but they don't believe the Godhead are distinct and individual beings merely united in purpose". We do not assume the authority of defining Christian even though we believe we are correct in our understanding of Christ.

As much as you are willing to call Mormons 'LDS Christian', I feel confident in assuming you wouldn't give the same treatment to the 'mainstream' Christian core in normal discussion.

In my opinion, the "not the same Jesus" is hogwash. If some people thought I was immortal, and others that I were mortal, they don't believe in two different me's, they believe in me differently. We believe in Christ differently, but we still believe in Christ.

 

[doppelganger]

Please define a Christian.

One who refers to one's self as a "Christian." The authority is always with the person whose beliefs they are, even if they refuse to acknowledge that they are responsible for what they believe.

 

[Wandered Off]

The authority is always with the person whose beliefs they are, even if they refuse to acknowledge that they are responsible for what they believe.

Does this position reduce belief to a choice?

 

[doppelganger]

Does this position reduce belief to a choice?

No. It acknowledges that I only have very limited control over the symbolic tools (whether "choice" is one of them or not is questionable) from which someone else's reality is derived.

 

[Wandered Off]

Ah, I think I get it. So to the extent that we have control, then, we have responsibility. Is that a fair characterization?

 

[Random]

Does this position reduce belief to a choice?

Nothing can ever be "reduced" to choice. There is no reduction in it.

 

[Wandered Off]

Nothing can ever be "reduced" to choice. There is no reduction in it.

It would be a reduction if there had been something besides choice involved.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

One who refers to one's self as a "Christian." The authority is always with the person whose beliefs they are, even if they refuse to acknowledge that they are responsible for what they believe.

If that's the correct answer, then being a Christian means nothing. It's a meaningless religious identity. I thought Christians proclaim that Jesus is Lord. How can a person who claims to be a Christian by more authorative than Jesus Christ Himself...who the Christian proclaims Jesus as Lord? What is a Christian by your definition of being a Christian? I thought a Christian is someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ. How is a Christian to understand what Jesus actually taught?

 

[Random]

It would be a reduction if there had been something besides choice involved.

You mean a deterministic system? Yes, then pehaps the efficacy of the choice might be reduced (as is the state, for example, with Democratic elections...), but it's potence as the ultimate power of discrimination is not lessened, ever. Put another way, choice cannot be explained by physicalism or metaphysical monism, and cannot be reduced to a pre-determined activity by the forces that act upon it.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

And what gives one religious group authority to define what is 'Christian' or not over another? Mormons would not go around saying "Well, the Catholics profess to be Christian, but they don't believe the Godhead are distinct and individual beings merely united in purpose". We do not assume the authority of defining Christian even though we believe we are correct in our understanding of Christ.

As much as you are willing to call Mormons 'LDS Christian', I feel confident in assuming you wouldn't give the same treatment to the 'mainstream' Christian core in normal discussion.

In my opinion, the "not the same Jesus" is hogwash. If some people thought I was immortal, and others that I were mortal, they don't believe in two different me's, they believe in me differently. We believe in Christ differently, but we still believe in Christ.

Do you believe that the Muslim Jesus or the Hindu Jesus to be the same Christ that your believe and worship? Remember, the LDS founder taught that Christianity is apostate. Your LDS mission is the restoration of apostate Christianity. That is the foundation of the Mormon religion.

 

[doppelganger]

Ah, I think I get it. So to the extent that we have control, then, we have responsibility. Is that a fair characterization?

Maybe. I wrote a long piece on this actually and it probably deserves its own thread. "Choice" as I use it here is a reflection of the limitation of others power over my behavior, though it doesn't necessarily mean that I have "freedom" in choosing the behavior I exhibit. "Responsibility" is a mobius strip. What I mean by that term in the earlier post is that all the components that come together as my reality and manifest in my apparent "choices" are in the interactions of my conscious thought with unconscious processes and memories. That doesn't necessarily mean that there's some thing ("I" or "mind") causing those interactions - even though grammatically and psychologically it seems that way.

A tool cannot measure itself, when it has only itself for a measure.

 

[Wandered Off]

You mean a deterministic system?

Yes, an element of one. I think belief is more complicated than strictly a choice. I cannot, for example, choose to believe that Thor is the chief among deities. Try as I may, I cannot. This tells me that belief is not choice alone. Choice may well be involved, but there is more, which is why I used "reduced" in the post.

I like Dopp's thoughts on this as well.

 

[doppelganger]

It's a meaningless religious identity.

Aren't they all when you really think about it?:rainbow1:

I thought Christians proclaim that Jesus is Lord.

Some of them do.

How can a person who claims to be a Christian by more authorative than Jesus Christ Himself...

Because "Jesus Christ himself" has "authority" as a result of the assignation of such authority in one's reality. Indeed, ideas like "redemption by faith" necessarily depend on the fact that "Jesus Christ" has only so much authority as my thoughts and symbolic system afford it. If those symbols change their meanings for me, you can't by change them to what you need them to be any more than I could do that for you.

Your symbols govern your reality and my symbols govern mine. And occasionally there'll be enough overlap for you and I to share a communication. Isn't that cool?

I thought a Christian is someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Then for you it is.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Aren't they all when you really think about it?:rainbow1:



Some of them do.

Because "Jesus Christ himself" has "authority" as a result of the assignation of such authority in one's reality. Indeed, ideas like "redemption by faith" necessarily depend on the fact that "Jesus Christ" has only so much authority as my thoughts and symbolic system afford it. If those symbols change their meanings for me, you can't by change them to what you need them to be any more than I could do that for you.

Your symbols govern your reality and my symbols govern mine. And occasionally there'll be enough overlap for you and I to share a communication. Isn't that cool?

Then for you it is.

Your answer could be right or wrong, depending on the reality of Jesus Christ being who He claimed to be as revealed in the Holy Bible. If Jesus Christ was God incarnate, then a person's belief in him or lack of belief in Him does not change the reality of the authority that Jesus would have as being the Almighty God in the flesh. Now, if Jesus Christ reavled in the Scriptures is not true, then there is no real authority of the person of Jesus Christ. Personal symbols and your own reality does not sustain the universe, does it? Did you make the sun rise this morning, or make the air that you breath? Did you determine that you were going to be born into this world, or did a God create you apart from your preception of reality?

 

[doppelganger]

Your answer could be right or wrong, depending on the reality of Jesus Christ being who He claimed to be as revealed in the Holy Bible. If Jesus Christ was God incarnate, then a person's belief in him or lack of belief in Him does not change the reality of the authority that Jesus would have as being the Almighty God in the flesh.

Sure. It could also be that he's just a character in several different works of allegorical fiction.

Now, if Jesus Christ reavled in the Scriptures is not true, then there is no real authority of the person of Jesus Christ. Personal symbols and your own reality does not sustain the universe, does it?

Sure it does.

Did you make the sun rise this morning, or make the air that you breath?

Yes.

Did you determine that you were going to be born into this world

I have no idea.

or did a God create you apart from your preception of reality?

I would have to create a "God" first so I could label it "apart from my perception of reality." Then it would depend on what other content I packed into "God." So yours is a hypothetical question I can't really answer.

 

[cardero]

I don't see it. The only limits regarding religion that I know of are self-imposed.

I would add "faithfully self-imposed".