Backglass wrote:I agree. All religious discussions should be private. If only more were like you and would take it private, it would be a lot nicer world to live in for the rest of us.
so you're not a fan of free speech? if you don't want to be involved in this discussion, i suggest not clicking on the link to this thread. really pretty simple. and btw, every time you post here, you're contributing to a religious discussion. get your head out of your ass. also, do you realize how ridiculously stupid it is to call the entirety of Christianity a cult?
rallison wrote:Personally, I think that a Christian is someone who believes in Christ, knows that He died for our sins and that there is no way we could be saved without him. A Christian is someone who tries to follow His teachings.
That’s what Christianity is to me. What is it to everyone else?
i've tried to make this point, perhaps not directly enough: a big part of the problem here is that some folks (jay, jenos, and beastly to a lesser extent) are trying to define Christianity in a narrow sense. conversely, as optimus has noted, plenty of non-LDS folks are trying to define LDS faith and doctrine arbitrarily, and not listening to the actual claims of actual LDS people.
it doesn't matter what you believe. if you want to talk about differences between the LDS church and Christianity, you need to do a few things first. one, know something about LDS teachings. optimus gave us something on that. two, know something about Christianity (this was the1exile's problem). three, remember that your branch of Christianity is not the end-all and be-all of the faith, and that there are much broader considerations than your own pet beliefs (i.e., jay's insistence on the "born-again" thing; not everyone considers this as THE defining mark of Christianity). and maybe four, don't get all twisted up about this; act like an adult.
so, back to the suggestion i've made before: one classic expression of what it means to be Christian is the Apostle's Creed. another is the Nicean Creed. would anyone like to compare one or both of these to what we know about LDS doctrine, and possible in light of optimus's post about it?
the problem i'm seeing here is a lot of reductionism. some folks trying to reduce LDS to some stereotype, then compare it to their reduced/biased version of Xty or some narrow part of it. alternately, some are taking a few phrases from mormon lit or joseph smith sermons and blowing them up huge, and trying to make a few lifted quotes into the basis for a final judgment. if we want to talk big picture, we have to know a lot of details, and have some guidelines for what the big picture actually is. probably too much to expect from a CC forum.
The cowardice exists in those who cant deal with life and must invent fables and lore in order to sleep at night.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
