utbagpiper
Banned
imported post
combatcarry wrote:
Between two thinking, charitable individuals who are looking for understanding, rather than to take offense, such discussions can be very enlightening and in most cases tend to highlight how very much various churches hold in common, contrasted to the relatively small (though admittedly often very important) areas where they disagree. Beyond that, I think an increased understanding of other religions helps to increase understanding of and appreciation for one's own chosen beliefs.
That said, I find internet based text among the most difficult ways to have such a discussion. Far too much of human communication is non-verbal and misunderstandings (regardless of whether offense is taken) are just far too easy and common across a text only medium. Face to face (and ideally over some food) is really the best bet. If one is to venture into such discussions in a text only medium, I believe it should be on forumns where such discussions are expected and welcome.
While I am sympathetic and even agreeable to the notion that religion ought not be as taboo as it is, the reality remains that many persons are very sensitive to, emotional about, or otherwise would prefer not to discuss religion in "public" settings. So I will offer my opinion that delving into religion here would be grossly off topic and far more likely to cause fractures and division than to advance in any way the goals of this site.
With that, I will resist mightily the urge to discuss religion itself other than to point out a small difference in word usage that often causes misunderstanding. When Mr. Lonsberry or other use the term "Christian" as something different than what mormons/LDS are they are using a narrower definition of that term than LDS would use. I do agree, largely, with the assessments regarding "historical christianity" IF that term is limited to the period of roughly 200 AD to about 1830 AD. Perhaps if used in contrast to what....say "primeval christianity" to denote the time period roughly prior to 200 AD or so there would be little misunderstanding. But to use "Christian" or "Christianity" alone implies to me, at least, those who subscribe to some basic beliefs regarding the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, His role as Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and attempts to follow His teachings in one's own life, rather than a more narrow view of those who accept the Nicaean and various other creeds that came quite some time following the Savior's mortal ministry.
I, for one--and most LDS--would never suggest that a person who so believes and professes and attempts to live is not a "Christian" simply because he may have a different view of the nature of the post mortal (or even ante-mortal) Christ than I do, a different belief in the physical nature of God, what day of the week constitutes the proper Sabbath, etc. Such things, while perhaps doctrinally important for one reason or another, are NOT the core of Christianity which I think can and is summarized quite well in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
That, to me, IS the heart and soul of the Gospel, the Good News, of Christianity and ANY who believes such, and makes attempts (however imperfect) to then follow the teachings of Jesus can rightly claim the moniker of "Christian" in my book. How well one emulates the Savior might well determine whether one can honestly be called a "good Christian" or not. But those who accept the core as expressed in that one verse can claim use of the word in my opinion. ALL else, important as it may be, becomes appendages to that central core.
combatcarry wrote:
I too love a good theology discussion, either within a single denomination or comparative between different denominations. Indeed, it has taken some real will power to resist responding to your earlier post.
Between two thinking, charitable individuals who are looking for understanding, rather than to take offense, such discussions can be very enlightening and in most cases tend to highlight how very much various churches hold in common, contrasted to the relatively small (though admittedly often very important) areas where they disagree. Beyond that, I think an increased understanding of other religions helps to increase understanding of and appreciation for one's own chosen beliefs.
That said, I find internet based text among the most difficult ways to have such a discussion. Far too much of human communication is non-verbal and misunderstandings (regardless of whether offense is taken) are just far too easy and common across a text only medium. Face to face (and ideally over some food) is really the best bet. If one is to venture into such discussions in a text only medium, I believe it should be on forumns where such discussions are expected and welcome.
While I am sympathetic and even agreeable to the notion that religion ought not be as taboo as it is, the reality remains that many persons are very sensitive to, emotional about, or otherwise would prefer not to discuss religion in "public" settings. So I will offer my opinion that delving into religion here would be grossly off topic and far more likely to cause fractures and division than to advance in any way the goals of this site.
With that, I will resist mightily the urge to discuss religion itself other than to point out a small difference in word usage that often causes misunderstanding. When Mr. Lonsberry or other use the term "Christian" as something different than what mormons/LDS are they are using a narrower definition of that term than LDS would use. I do agree, largely, with the assessments regarding "historical christianity" IF that term is limited to the period of roughly 200 AD to about 1830 AD. Perhaps if used in contrast to what....say "primeval christianity" to denote the time period roughly prior to 200 AD or so there would be little misunderstanding. But to use "Christian" or "Christianity" alone implies to me, at least, those who subscribe to some basic beliefs regarding the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, His role as Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and attempts to follow His teachings in one's own life, rather than a more narrow view of those who accept the Nicaean and various other creeds that came quite some time following the Savior's mortal ministry.
I, for one--and most LDS--would never suggest that a person who so believes and professes and attempts to live is not a "Christian" simply because he may have a different view of the nature of the post mortal (or even ante-mortal) Christ than I do, a different belief in the physical nature of God, what day of the week constitutes the proper Sabbath, etc. Such things, while perhaps doctrinally important for one reason or another, are NOT the core of Christianity which I think can and is summarized quite well in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
That, to me, IS the heart and soul of the Gospel, the Good News, of Christianity and ANY who believes such, and makes attempts (however imperfect) to then follow the teachings of Jesus can rightly claim the moniker of "Christian" in my book. How well one emulates the Savior might well determine whether one can honestly be called a "good Christian" or not. But those who accept the core as expressed in that one verse can claim use of the word in my opinion. ALL else, important as it may be, becomes appendages to that central core.
