How often does anyone say things about your posts?

I didn't even notice you posted.

 

I recall you, Anti, equalling "christian" to "monkey"...or something like that.  Even a fellow athiest rebuked you for it.  Perhaps more people will take you seriously if you put more thought and WORDS into your posts???  (shrugs)  i don't know.  Just a friendly thought.

But here is more advice, don't pattern your thoughts in the manner I do, lest it becomes "garble".  lol. :D

I always see your post Heretic. I think their good.

Listen Apollos, We do not consider the Book of Mormon above the bible.

Doesn't the LDS church believe what the introduction of the BoM clearly states?

Regardless, you haven't answered my main point: who do you say that Christ is?

My fathers definition
Christian=hippocrit

Okay, I'll respond if it'll make you feel better.

Does your father consider all hypocrites to be Christians or just all Christians to be hypocrites?  :D

Tell me if you don't get, Apollos!

Can you read! I explained the best I could. Here, I got an idea I'll copy and paste the whole explanation:


Can anyone really say who Christ is? I can't you exactly who He is...

Yes, I read it the first time. It is your way of answering the question without answering it. How is it that someone who has been in the LDS church since they were 3 (assuming that it has been at least 12 years) does not know what the official doctrines are on the nature of Christ? How is it you can claim to be a follower of Christ if you don't even know who he is?

I am really not trying to be mean or argumentative, I'm just trying to get answers to some essential questions.

I'll cut-and-paste my response to your initial posting of the above:

Sure we can say who Christ is, it's all in the Bible. Who does the LDS church say Christ is? Is he strictly a created being who became exalted to godhood? Or was he Yahweh of the Old Testament? Is he the product of sexual relations between another God and his celestial wife?

Or is Jesus God, always has been God, equal to the Father yet distinct from him?

If one really wants to know God and puts some effort into studying, which the Bible says we ought to do, the Bible answers all these questions [and the BoM likely answers them as well since it is claimed to be on par with the Bible].

"I believe in following my heart."

It is precisely because I don't trust my own heart that I became a Christian.

Living through your heart is usually a recipe for heartbreak anyway, so I've learned to trust my mind instead, which is why I became an atheist.

"Living through your heart is usually a recipe for heartbreak anyway, so I've learned to trust my mind instead, which is why I became an atheist."

Interesting how two people might have a similar experience, 'retreating' to their minds to chart their way, but choose different ways, eh?

Might I hypothesize that the difference is that I felt I needed to also account for the fact that I could not trust my heart in my total worldview?  You probably don't think you need to explain the problems associated with acting on your 'heart' and so you became an atheist.  I think that the vulnerabilities associated with 'heart' action need as much explanation as anything else, and that lead me to theism.

What do you think?

Does that make sense?

I suppose. Just to clarify, because "heart" is really an euphamism, what we are really talking about is emotions, yes? In which case, I do think that the problems associated with emotions should be explained. I try to do this by using rational thought, rather than accepting emotional reactions at face value, so to speak.

Ok, here we go.

Are there any folks here, who consider themselves christian, who believe you  must believe the following to be a christian?

1. There is only one God.
2. Jesus is God Incarnate.
3. Jesus is not the Father.
4. Jesus physically/literally lived, was crucified and died, and rose again on the third day.

Kat, do you not believe any of the above?


Personally I think 2 and 3, being an oxymoron,  just points out an internal contradiction of christianity. This "trinity" explanation I hear of from christian people just makes their god out to be a schizo. "Well, they are all the same being, there just not the same being!"    Or "Same being with 3 personalities."   Schizophrenic.

Its an antithesis not an oxymoron.

Well heck Kat, three out of four ain't bad!  :D  I do think, correct me if I am wrong, the bible does credit the Jesus fella as saying he and God are one.  Is there any particular reason you don't accept that particular bible passage as true?

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

The following bit was snagged from johnny's post over in that other thread that is covering this same thing. I put it here because I like Kat and she's over here, not over there.  
(**Harry wonders if she's married or has a boyfriend** 8) )

An orthodox Christian is one that believes....

Well well, here we go. Your question wasn't "Are Mormons orthodox Christians?" It was "Are Mormons Christian?" Are you implying if you are not an orthodox xtian you're not a christian at all?

The chief point of the Athanasian creed is that the Christian God is trinitarian in nature.

Ok.

the Nicene Creed says "I believe... in one baptism for remission of sins..." but some people do not believe that this doctrine is really supported in the Scriptures.


No concensus? You claim belief in these creeds is required in order to be a Christian yet all Christians don't agree that the creeds are supported by the bible. Even if one does not believe a creed is supported by the bible they must still believe it in order to be a xtian? Oh sorry, an orthodox one. If you don't accept it then you are a heterodox christian? I see the same word in both of those. Let me help;
Orthodox Christian
Heterodox Christian
Can you guess which words are the same?

This 'definition' held fast pretty solidly until the split between the eastern and western churches circa 1,000 AD.

Looky there, more internal dissent in that group.....uh what was that group called? Dang I forgot, OH YEAH! Christians.  So, the definition held fast until 1000 AD. Seems like your saying that definition no longer holds fast today. You asked if Mormons were christians, implying you meant today, not over 1000 years ago. Hell, they weren't even around back then so no, over 1000 years ago I guess they were not.

You make mention of two of the three you listed yet no mention of the Apostle's creed. Why is that?