Chris

Well, your 'definition' is a little weak.  The classical definition for 'Christian' as used for more than a thousand years, affirmed as essential facets of what constitutes a 'Christian' things that the Mormons do not.  Namely, 'Christianity' embraces also the doctrine of the trinity, and the affirmation of the three ecumenical creed, which the Mormon church is not in line with.

If you think taking a word used one way for more than a thousand years and then softening it so much that an atheist could fit (because according to your definition, an atheist could do this:  "Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.") then more power to ya.

Such annoying equivocation like that is why I consider myself an atheist.  Who cares if my belief system is not consistent with atheism?  I get to make it up as I go along, right?

Anyway, if we really are going to use such a wussy definition like that, then I can simply coin a new word, which will mean everything meant by the word 'Christian' that was in use for 1900 years, and will therefore exclude the Mormon beliefs.  Let's just call this new word 'x' for now until I think of a better word.  

This approach will work until more politically correct chaps come along and hijack the term 'x' thus prompting me to invent yet another word.   How much easier if we just retain the definition held for centuries?

So, playing this game, the question would be "Are mormon's 'x'?" and the answer, again, would be 'no.'

The classical definition for 'Christian' as used for more than a thousand years

If your definition is so classical and used for over a thousand years then why is it inconsistant with every dictionary I pick up? Show me this classical definition somewhere in the mainstream. What next, you gonna say this definition of yours includes going to church every sunday? Or you must 'embrace' the young earth malarky and not be an evolutionist? So you have a doctrinal dispute or disagreement with the Mormons, you also have one with TonyN. I'll be you that dime to a dozen boxes of doughnuts you have them with many others. According to you I guess you are the only 'real' christian in existance. The rest of them will be spending eternity in Hell with us heathens.

Johnny dies and goes to heaven, for three days God invites him to eat dinner with him. For three days God opens a can of tuna and breaks out the crackers. For three days johnny can look down into hell and see everyone there feasting on all the good stuff. Johnny can't take it anymore and asks; "God, why is it we eat tuna and crackers everyday while the heathens are eating the good stuff?" God looks at johnny and says, "Well, it ain't worth all the trouble cooking just for the two of us." :D

 So lay it out for us johnny. Post your 'classical' definition here with all it's docturnal requirements for what constitutes a "Christian" so we can see how many folks here are real xtians.  Another dime/doughnut bet I'll make is I bet if I whipped that list out to any xtian that didn't fit the perfect mold and said "According to sntjohnny you are not a real xtian."  they would say "Sntjohnny is full of defication". So who am I to believe? You? Naw, I'll go with the 'weak' definitions as laid out in every dictionary I've ever seen. I still would like to see that list though, lay it on us.


Anti;

 :D  LOL! That was funny stuff. I never thought of that. Hilarious!  I 'bout busted a gut! :D

?????

I'll be you??  Saved?? Where did I say either one of those things?

Have you been skipping your medication agian?

Unless you're refering to my johnny and God joke. Well, if you are the only 'real' christian around, stands to reason your going to be the only one in heaven.

 

OH! My bad, that was a typo. It was supposed to read, "I'll BET you that dime to the box of doughnuts..."

Sorry, sometimes my proof reading skills are lacking.

Anyways..... I'm still right and you're still wrong. :D

Oooops.

Part of my last sentence didn't make sense...went back to edit it...but there was no edit key.  Whats up with that?

What i was saying (you may have figured it out) is this.

Then don't tell me what "christian" means if the only thing that i need to know is how to be "saved".  I want to be "saved".  If being christian by definition is this or that and does not guarantee salvation, then don't waste my time with all that hoopla.  Tell me the real message on how to get "saved".

And yes, i agree snt.johnny with your last comment.  Perhaps we should be asking....

Will the mormons get "saved"?

Then, Harry, we are saying the same things...or asking...the same question with different words.  The answer, im sure will be interesting.  looking forward to it.

Geegee, you couldn't edit that thread because you weren't signed in, and I forgot to modify the forum settings that would have required you to be registered.

----------------------

I'm going to leave some of the meat behind my distinctions between 'saved' and 'christian' for later.  If it comes to it, it comes to it.  But I think I can clarify the purpose of my thread topic.

The word 'Christian' has come to refer to some sort of moral pronouncement about someone, as though to say that they are not a Christian is to say that they are not a good person.  Rather then denoting a certain set of beliefs, its come to represent behaviors, or attitudes even.  That is not entirely bad in theory, except what has happened is that the belief set has become completely divorced from the other things.

As such, being associated with the term 'Christian' helps with credibility.  I think in the case of Mormonism, that is a big part of it.  I haven't met a Mormon yet that didn't think he was a Christian.  I wonder if it makes them feel better becoming a Mormon because they think to themselves that they are not going 'that far,' really.

Now, the belief set that has classically been described as 'Christian' contains WITHIN that belief set the fact that pure doctrine saves nobody.  Jesus saves everybody.  So it is your relationship with Jesus that counts.  Doctrine- within that belief set, still- is affirmed as important and can seriously affect that relationship (perhaps your view of Jesus is so different then the actual Jesus that you are not actually believing in Jesus at all).

So, I have no doubt that some Mormons really do have a relationship with Jesus.  And I have no doubt that some doctrinal purists have Jesus dissected just right, and having carved him up properly, do not have a living relationship with him.

But its still an important question, because if we can't be clear about what the words we use mean, we can't possibly properly communicate.   And I wonder if perhaps some of this is intentional.

lol.  I'm only saying that it is not the topic of this thread.  If you wanted to start another thread on it, go for it.

Ok, johnny, that's all fine and dandy. But you still haven't layed out this classic 2000 year old definition of yours, complete with all nessasary doctrine needed to fit this definition, nor explained why this definition of yours is not in the mainstream.  

You started this thread with a question, then answered it with a 'No' but will not explain yourself. The only reason I could gleen out of your responses was "Because they don't believe in the Trinity".  That doesn't jive with the mainstream definition of "Christian".  

Methinks you're teetering on the no true scotsman fallacy fence here. There are those who would say you're not a "true xtian unless you are a Roman Catholic. Would they be committing the NTS fallacy? How about the Muslim who doesn't support suicide bombings against the enemies of Allah? Are they "true" Muslims?

You call the Mormons non-xtians because they don't hold the same docturnal beliefs you do.  They believe in the christ and they fit the definition of Christian.  Christianity encompasses all Jesus believers from the RCs to the 7th day advents. To say Mormons ain't because they don't believe in the trinity or 7th days arn't because they go to church on saturday instead of sunday is to commit the NTS fallacy.