So are you of the opinion that "thou" is correct and "you" is incorrect use of English? It seems to me by your argument, "thou" was the time honoured definition, yet "you" has become the correct word as usage has changed. Again, I'm not claiming that Mormons are correct in saying that they are Christians, I'm saying the definition is a denominational issue, given how different denominations disagree and do it differently.
It might be a denominational issue if Mormons were a denomination. Theologically speaking they are even farther away from us than Jehovah's Witnesses are, at least JWs can claim that there were once Arians in the Church, Mormons are more like Pagans.
Not a personal intervention, no. You can B/S that it "is" but your idea causes reasoning to laugh at you.
You are identifying human motives for the schism - too many popes at one time, venal objectives by those in the religious hierarchy, several behaviors that were clearly not acceptable and other perhaps more direct objections. And, there have been issues in the modern era, too - the Bakker family, the trouble with boys (which is still swept under the rug), the connections to government leading to promotion of decisions that can't stand the test of religion (tepid civil rights record, Vietnam, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, essentially zero action on the abuse of alter boys, etc., etc.). There are going to be problems when humans are involved. I've ignored that, because it doesn't address the major western Christian schism from a religious point of view - which I'm assuming is closer to the topic. I'm not looking for more than that major denominations have differences which each side would describe the other as having heretical departures from orthodoxy.
Do you know how this works? In order to decide whether something is "heresy" or not it requires a Church council, which is exactly what the Council of Nicaea was - they voted on it and declared Arianism heresy. They declared Apollinarianism a heresy, the adopted the Nicene creed and made it illegal for anybody to bring forth anything different as the true faith. It was a Church council that decided you didn't need to become a Jew to become a Christian. This is why Catholics don't call Protestants heretics and vice versa. The heretical views we speak of have already been dealt with at Church councils, it's not just a matter of some preacher yelling "heresy!".
Mormons were just an example, what about those who argue that the devil isn't real? They have a presence in more main stream Christianity.
These various decisions were made by a small collections of male humans, not god. Not everyone was represented, and many of these councils were affected by the politics of the time. It was far from uncommon to change mass numbers of people to the religion of the ruler through force. As a kid growing up in a Baptist family, I knew plenty of devout Christians who saw Catholicism as heretical. We were, of course, taught not to shout "Heretic!". But, the reason was not due to some analysis of their religion. It had more to do with OUR job, which was to convert these heretics in order to save their eternal souls.
Did your family read a lot of Jack Chick tracts? He thought the Pope was the anti-Christ. Not a very charitable attitude and not very Christian. And since Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and anybody else who has only been around for 500 years didn't exist yet, they weren't invited to the council's but I guarantee you that if the RCC decided to call a council today, the rest would come. Everybody who needed to be there was there.
Well, I'd say your estimate of who needed to be there missed a whole lot of people who reject the notion of a pope, of purgatory, of praying to Mary, of sprinkling water on the head of a newborn baby, of "converting" people by means of political force, transubstantiation, etc. My parents and some others from the university (this was in a town where the university was the major attraction) basically hid out in the basement while they studied religion. They attended the services, and some even officiated. But, they weren't particularly attracted to various specific aspects. I wasn't aware of what was going on there until somewhat later.
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that a person raised in a non Christian culture would come up with your synopsis if that person had only the Bible to work from. But, let’s say that everything that you wrote is exactly correct.... then I have to wonder why we have a book like the Bible that has so much extraneous stuff in it. If god is at perfect as you assert.. he could have (and should have) written out or inspired this summary centuries ago to limit the confusion and heresies that have proliferated over millennia. I mean jesus could have just said this instead of telling obscure parables. And it seems very odd to me that a primary messenger of this good news (Paul) would be a person who never even met jesus.
Nobody objected to Peter back then, who was the Pope, nobody objected to transubstantiation because Jesus himself said "this is my body". And if you read the Didache it tells you how to celebrate the Eucharist and how to baptize. If you don't have running water you can use still water, if you don't have enough to immerse, you sprinkle. And I don't think anybody cares about purgatory as much as you do.
You are skating by simply giving your own interpretation, with the implication that all others are wrong. Or, you are unaware of the other interpretations. I'm well aware that each individual believes his own version is the one true religion.
I don't see how any denomination....even remotely Christian could claim that their knowledge fo Jesus Christ comes from anywhere but the Bible. Given that.....there may be only minor interpretations of disagreement which are of little consequence. The main Christian doctrines of faith are obvious to anyone studying the Bible. You can examine the tenets of faith from various non-affiliated "Bible believing Churches" all over the world and they do not vary. Mormonism and others have added to, by way of their own prophecy and changed those doctrines. That very act was talked of often throughout the New Testament with a warning.
Dude, I think I've got your number, you sound like your garden variety Catlick hater. I know because I used to be a Babdiss, too. And a Lutheran. And a Pentecostal. I went to seminary to sort it all out, and there are certain historical and theological facts that are undeniable. But you're still denying them.
Let's just say anything that happened 2,000 years ago (2,025 to be more precise) is Deism not Theism.
That's pretty good. You've tried a bunch of them. I went through an investigation phase as well, including Buddhism and Bahia. Came back to the Pope's Flock however after all.
You @yabberefugee are just nicely thoroughly brainwashed as a Protestant. The book the book the book blah blah blah. Hahaha !!!
That's just your total inability to read a post. I don't hate anyone for their religion. I'm merely disputing the notion that Christianity is monolithic.
And I haven't told you everything, but I wasn't "investigating" per se', at least not conciously, just trying to fill in the gaps.
This is a funny thread — some theists fighting for the title "I am a True Christian™, And You're Not".
