You seem to be missing the point. I don't care where one draws the line for whether someone counts as a Christian, I care about the fact that the line seems to be changing depending on whom it is made about.
And Jefferson was one of those people. And so was Joseph Smith, and so was CT Russell. I don't know if you have ever heard this term before but there is something known as "apostolic succession". What it means is that there are people in the world who have been ordained by other guys who were ordained by other guys who were ordained by other guys, and so on, all the way back to the Apostles. The RCC is heavily into this, as is my church, as are others. These guys have authority to teach what the Church has always taught, not make up their own version of things. Jefferson had no authority to teach on anything concerning Christianity, neither did Joseph Smith. Today they would be Joel Osteens or Joyce Meyers types - hucksters in it for the money, although it's tough to say if there was any money it it in Jefferson's day, although people still talk about him.
Yes and I think that is the point USfan made in the original OP. There is an original definition to which Jesus called to those that would follow him. The Nicene creed pointed to that definition. Those that follow Christ need to adhere to that. It takes effort. I know Christians that are often swayed to be "inclusive" by the philosophy of this world. Jesus aid it would be a narrow path and few (unfortuneatly) would find it.
In case you missed it, I'm not a Christian. That aside, as an unwavering defender of the Judaeo-Christian ethic, I find the question of whether Jefferson was or Mormonism is closer to true Christianity utterly uninteresting. I'd say the only way to verify anyone's Christianity would be to put him or her in the position of freeing Jesus or Barrabas; and I think plenty of "Christians" would choose the latter, and some pagans would choose the former. The obvious question being whether there's a necessary connection between that and what Christ taught. When did he ever claim any such authority? I'd say it's pretty hard to make money on a manuscript you never release for publication, wouldn't you?
A sect is a group that parasitizes its members. That's what Jim Jones did. That's what Mormans do too, if you are not careful. They are so thoroughly brainwashed that they are not careful.
Christian-esque sect. If Jesus ever really visited their prophet then even so they departed from His ways a long time ago. Jesus was a wine maker and wine drinker. They denigrate wine. Jesus was celibate as far as we know. They went through a polygamy phase. Jesus was pacifistic and did not want any practice of opposition to Roman rule. They murdered an entire wagon company at Mountain Meadows -- men, women, and children.
"A sect is a group that parasitizes its members." Says who? a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. (google) A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political, or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger group. Although the term was originally a classification for religious separated groups, it can now refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles. In an Indian context, sect refers to an organized tradition. (wikipedia) a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religiousdenomination. a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generallyaccepted religious tradition. (dictionary.com) a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader (Merriam-Webster) The selection of quotes above are a bit misleading in that I picked out unique definitions from each source, most of them also quote other definitions, but none of these sources (or others that a quick googling gave me) suggest that sects are defined by parasitising.
I don't think that's how words work. If I say cats and dogs are different, but you say dogs and cats both have ears, fur, legs etc. so dogs qualify as cats, I would think you're wrong. Deism has a definition, a set of necessary and sufficient criteria for the word to apply. These include a non-intervening god, and if your god intervenes, then you have violated one of the criteria which are necessary in order for something to be deism. That being said, you can easily say that your beliefs are very close to deism, or maybe that they are "for these purposes equivalent to deism".
You are tightening the goalposts too tight. This is like moving the goalposts to overcome definitional refinements and pragmatism. I'll leave it at that.
I mean, none of these parts are particularly uncommon for mainstream Christians to do as well. Several undoubtedly Christian denominations argue for teetotalism, and many have gone to war for various reasons. Jesus views on marriage seems to be (although I appreciate that I may have missed out passages) agnostic on the topic of simultaneous wives.
It's more like you and the english language. Any refinements are usually included in dictionaries and the like. I don't see the problem with saying "close to deism" or something like that.
I hope I've not come across as making important assumptions about your faith or otherwise. I try to make my arguments about what's in the posts. To be fair, I'm not super interested in that distinction either, it was just the most interesting thing I found about the OP.
Well, not all accept that the Nicene creed is a correct interpretation of Jesus' words, right? Mormons claim to follow Jesus but do not accept the trinity in the way described in the Nicene creed. I agree that this is a point made in the OP, and it is one that I agree with. My concern was that they effectively claimed that their interpretation was universal. I agree that it is common, and even that for some interpretations of who counts as Christian, it may be universal, but I would say that different people would disagree (based on their denomination) and as such, it would be reasonable to mention which denomination or interpretation the statement was made from (this is a subtle point though, and it has been blown out of proportion in this particular thread).
Anybody who does not drink/sip real wine for Sacrament wine has nothing in common with Jesus. As far as murder goes, I don't have a problem with murdering muslims in the name of the Pope. Muslims do it now in the name of Allah. But I have a problem with murdering a wagon company on its way to California.
You know that cats, dogs, bears, seals, sea lions, apes, monkeys, and humans are all related, right? They all have the same kind of teeth.
I have heard about and seen evidence that contradicts your evidence produced by very astute geologists. Just like the theory of evolution, a degree of faith and a d I hope you are kidding about the first comment. We are saved by grace and not of works....lest no one can boast. Gal 2:29 I believe. Drinking wine does not give you salvation through Jesus Christ though it may be enjoying and relaxing. I'll go one step farther.... The word "baptizo" which means to immerse also stood for "death by drowning" in the early culture. That makes sense because when you go down in the water that signifies death to self and when you come up that symbolizes "alive in Christ". Sprinkling sort of diminishes the meaning. My personal opinion is the importance of Baptism is just not a personal thing, but it is an uplifting experience for the entire Body of Christ as well as the heavenly beings. It in no way is connected with Salvation. It is an outward expression symbolizing an inner transformation and is done as obedience to Christ.
The true "Body of Christ" is the ONLY denomination that concerns me and I believe that trancends most Christian denominations. The Mormons do not accept the Trinity and they also do not accept the Divinity of Christ. They may follow Jesus as a Prophet though they say he is the Son of God. However they say that at the same time they say he is a created being. That would exclude Him from being the Alpha and Omega. The understanding from Phillipians 3, I believe, that God became flesh, is ignored.
