Your failure to make an argument proves you wrong — flannel jesus

Someone not making an argument makes them wrong? That's just dumb.

Anyway, Mormons aren't Christian, the only ones who think so are Mormons. Black Israelites are not Hebrews, the only ones who think so are Black Israelites.

Anyway, Mormons aren't Christian, the only ones who think so are Mormons — Lionino

I hope you don't expect people on a philosophy forum to just accept your word for it without coherent arguments. There's a higher criteria for acceptance than that here (hopefully).

All the while no one would expect "coherent arguments" to state that Muslims aren't Christians, common sense is all that is needed.

Anyway, 15 posts of yours and it is just complaining + complaining. If you provide some content in the next one, I will reply. Otherwise, no.

You stated Mormons aren't Christian. You haven't given any argument at all towards that end but a bunch of silliness. If I wanted you to give a coherent argument about why Muslims weren't Christians, I bet you could. Somehow, you can't for Mormons.

You're incorrect.

More ex-mormon complaining ^

From a self-identification and core belief standpoint, Mormons are Christians because they center their faith on Jesus Christ and His teachings. However, differences in doctrine, additional scriptures, and unique beliefs have led some other Christian denominations to question or reject Mormonism as part of traditional Christianity. The debate largely hinges on theological differences and the definition of what it means to be "Christian."

The Book of Mormon repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world. It teaches that through His Atonement, all people can be forgiven of their sins if they repent and follow Him. One of the most well-known verses, 2 Nephi 25:26, states, "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." — ChatGPT

Alternatively, we could go with Nietzsche's observation to further appease everyone: "There was only one Christian and he died on the cross."

The debate largely hinges on theological differences and the definition of what it means to be "Christian." — ChatGPT

True. What I've noticed though is that, if you seek a definition of Christianity from most of these Churches, they'll give a very basic broad intuitive understanding of it, like "someone who believes in Christ and seeks salvation through asking for forgiveness and grace through Christ", maybe throwing in a bit about Baptism. And by the standards of almost all of these basic definitions, Mormons most definitely fit the bill as "Christian".

But then when you ask them "are Mormons christian?" despite the obvious answer being Yes because they fit the criteria laid out, they'll add in some arbirary (or at least I consider it arbitrary) criteria that seems almost specifically chosen just to exclude Mormons, which is funny.

Alternatively, we could go with Nietzsche's observation to further appease everyone: "There was only one Christian and he died on the cross." — Nils Loc

Solid quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

But no true Scotsman would reveal what lies beneath his kilt,

Looking over the vast range of what "Christianity" has come to mean for different persons over centuries of life, the common insistence amongst the different groups that only one way is correct has become more 'universal' than any particular set of creeds, liturgy, or view of the world reflected in each iteration.

Thinking of Jesus as just a man like anybody else makes you nothing because that is not a particular belief or worldview. To be Christian, you need to believe that Jesus Christ is divine and died for us. Mormons aren't Christian, neither are Kardecists.

Yes, I am being restrictive. Words have meaning. — Lionino

This amounts to claiming that Christianity coincides with exactly one of the many historical Christologies, i.e. the Trinitarian-Chalcedonian one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

In Christianity, Christology[a] is a branch of theology that concerns Jesus. Different denominations have different opinions on questions such as whether Jesus was human, divine, or both, and as a messiah what his role would be in the freeing of the Jewish people from foreign rulers or in the prophesied Kingdom of God, and in the salvation from what would otherwise be the consequences of sin.[1][2][3][4][5]

From the second to the fifth centuries, the relation of the human and divine nature of Christ was a major focus of debates in the early church and at the first seven ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division".[6] Most of the major branches of Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to this formulation,[6][7] while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches reject it,[8][9][10] subscribing to miaphysitism.

It amounts to claiming that many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches are not Christian. This view is in violation of the doctrine of pretty much every Christian church in existence.

Make a choice and explain why.
1. This is ridiculous. Christianity IS true and that’s all there is to it. I’m not doing this silly thought experiment. Count me out. (No further explanation needed.)
2. I would become an atheist.
3. I would search for a God that isn’t false.
4. None of the above. I would do something else.

Well, as sketched above, my path had been from 4 through 3 to 2. :halo: — 180 Proof

I ended up at 3. as well.

You don't really need to go searching. God is already there is Scripture. The Old Testament is written before Jesus walks the Earth.

God is already there is Scripture. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, like the plot device of "Manwë" in The Silmarillion (or "Sauron" in LotR). :smirk:

Not a Christian so I won't answer. — Lionino

By a quick count you have more than half the responses on this thread.

What a Christian is or is not is not-so-simple - there is no shibboleth - maybe at one time. And certainly many people claim exclusionary criteria.

. The latter has centuries of sophisticated and curated thought building its tradition, — Lionino

This seems right. And I'd like to think it was evolving, but the sheer inertia of that thought also impedes its own movement, which means its ground changes even if the words don't. But it leaves the question to you, for you to reconcile. You, and others, seem to feel that affirmation of the supernatural as a fact is a sine qua non of Christianity (which in fact is not and never was true - the creed is, "We believe..."). If so, then what matter the "centuries of sophisticated and curated thought"?

My own view differs. In short, it's the thought that matters, and the supernatural clatters along like tin can trash tied in back and dragged along, making noise increasingly irrelevant and heavy enough to slow progress - perhaps fatally so.

I'm told the Greeks, the intelligent and thoughtful ones, were mainly monotheist and understood their Pagan gods not as divine supernatural beings so much as distilled personifications of human qualities and behaviors - of course not quite that simple. The Jews took an enlightened different path, Christianity being a departure from that. But for me what is interesting - if I can get it into a nutshell - is that while the Greeks, and I suppose all the other Pagans, personified their psychology/pathology as individual gods, Christians "personified" their being itself as God. And that being unendurably terrible, personified their better nature as the son of God, with whom we can all deal equitably. There are steps yet to be taken if religion is to survive - but that another topic.

Or in sum, no doubt being a Christian was once something definite. Now, not so much: anyone is a Christian who claims to be, although some of those claims, at one end of the continuum, being absurd, disgusting, ignorant or foolish, or combinations of.

If you believe in Spinoza's God isn't everything God to you? So then Jesus is God. As are we.

Anyway, Mormons aren't Christian, the only ones who think so are Mormons. — Lionino

I hope you don't expect people on a philosophy forum to just accept your word for it without coherent arguments. — flannel jesus

It is true that only Mormons think Mormons are Christian, and this is a strong argument given that Mormons are a significant minority.*

In Christianity membership is usually defined by baptism, and therefore one can determine whether someone is seen to be a Christian by considering whether they require baptism upon converting. The majority of Christians are made up of Catholics and Orthodox, and neither group recognizes Mormon baptism as valid or Christian. Protestantism consists of many different groups, but they all seem to agree that Mormons are not Christians.

* Mormons would account for only 0.61% of Christians as of 2024, according to Wikipedia and a main source of the Wikipedia article.

It is true that only Mormons think Mormons are Christian — Leontiskos

That is decidedly untrue. All I have to do is find one non-mormon who thinks mormonism is a christian religion, and it's untrue. That's a pretty easy bar to pass.

That is decidedly untrue. All I have to do is find one non-mormon who thinks mormonism is a christian religion, and it's untrue. That's a pretty easy bar to pass. — flannel jesus

If that's the litmus test you would apply then it's clear you're not taking the question seriously in the first place.

You, and others, seem to feel that affirmation of the supernatural as a fact is a sine qua non of Christianity (which in fact is not and never was true - the creed is, "We believe..."). — tim wood

That is an odd line. The Nicene Creed affirms exactly what Lionino says, namely that Jesus is the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father. The Apostles' Creed is not much different. It's hard to see how any of this avoids being "supernatural."

...Or are you under the impression that belief and affirmation are altogether distinct?

if that's NOT the litmus test, then you don't mean the words you said. You must mean something else, something you didn't say.

Or are you under the impression that belief and affirmation are altogether distinct? — Leontiskos

Affirmation as a fact.. I can affirm all kinds of things - and what would that mean? To affirm them as facts, then, would make them different, in all contexts where the difference would matter.
Edit, clarification: the Creed affirms these things as matters of belief, explicitly.

if that's NOT the litmus test, then you don't mean the words you said — flannel jesus

I don't mean your strawman, but that goes without saying.

so what do you mean?

Affirmation as a fact.. I can affirm all kinds of things - and what would that mean? To affirm them as facts, then, would make them different, in all contexts where the difference would matter. — tim wood

I think that is an odd distinction in the first place, but it is certainly anachronistic to use "facts" in such a manner, contrasting it with the "beliefs" of 4th-century Christians. Unless I am mistaken, you are the first one in the thread to make use of the term "facts" in this manner.

Edit: If you are saying that Christians never affirmed that Jesus is God, they only believed it, I would say that this is both anachronistic and incorrect. A creedal profession involves such affirmations, and therefore an argument from creeds does not support this interpretation.

May I ask what the odd distinction is? The first word of the creed is "Πιστεύομεν ," which means we believe - no translation slippage or trickery at all. And I buy what I've been told, that the original Christian thinkers were pretty smart fellows. At the least they thought to couch their creed explicitly in terms of belief and not of mere fact. Which only a little thought will show and demonstrate their wisdom. With beliefs you don't have to worry too much about predicates or predication, which are fatal if applied to any idea of God.

As to being the first, it's merely a matter of recognizing that a belief and knowledge of a fact are different things, though possibly sharing some overlap. I reckon lots of folks here can, have, and do make that distinction.

so what do you mean? — flannel jesus

We can make it very practical:

• Flannel Jesus: Hello, I am already a Christian and I would like to join your Christian community.
• Church leader: Oh, okay. Which denomination do you hail from?
• Flannel Jesus: Latter-day Saints.

Now the only Church leader who will say, "Oh okay, I agree that you are already Christian and require no baptism or initiation before joining our community," would be a Mormon leader. So you can go on claiming that Mormons are Christians, so long as it is admitted that 99% of Christians disagree with you.

Now the only Church leader who will say, "Oh okay, I agree that you are already Christian and require no baptism or initiation before joining our community," would be a Mormon leader. So you can go on claiming that Mormons are Christians, so long as it is admitted that 99% of Christians disagree with you. — Leontiskos

I can't say I have spent a lot of time in Unitarian Universalist Churches, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of UU leaders would be untroubled by such a claim by a Mormon. It seems more a matter of a church leader's ability to see past a tribalistic mindset, to me.

At the least they thought to couch their creed explicitly in terms of belief and not of mere fact. Which only a little thought will show and demonstrate their wisdom. With beliefs you don't have to worry too much about predicates or predication, which are fatal if applied to any idea of God. — tim wood

Er, but the councils that produced the creeds were painstakingly concerned with predicates and predication, as was the Emperor himself. None of the history surrounding the conflicts of religion around the time of Constantine would make any sense at all on your view. For example, the martyrs who died for their beliefs were not dying for "beliefs you don't have to worry too much about."

As to being the first, it's merely a matter of recognizing that a belief and knowledge of a fact are different things, though possibly sharing some overlap. — tim wood

"Fact" as you are using it dates from about the 17th century. The belief-fact distinction is extremely anachronistic when applied to the 4th century. Neither does the Greek pistis indicate something that is not being affirmed.

I can't say I have spent a lot of time in Unitarian Universalist Churches, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of UU leaders would be untroubled by such a claim by a Mormon. — wonderer1

Egads. Mormons would constitute 0.61% of Christians and UU would constitute 1% of Mormons. You are talking about tiny outliers here. And the simple reason why neither group is generally considered Christian is because they are not Trinitarians.

I made a claim about 99% of Christians and in response you effectively said, "Well, if UU can be called Christian then .006% of Christians might call Mormons Christian." This literally does not affect my claim or argument whatsoever.

(This thread explains why I rarely engage religious topics on TPF.)

ah church leaders specifically. So you did mean something quite a bit different from the thing you said, thanks for clarifying.

Yes as far as I can tell, officially the majority of Christian churches, maybe all non Mormon Christian churches, consider Mormons non Christian or at the very least reject Mormon baptism. You are correct about that. Not the thing you said originally, but this new thing you're now saying, yes.

It's interesting that Mormons also don't accept the baptism of other Christian churches.

Anyway, I don't think this is the best metric for determining who we ought to consider Christians. I mean, 90% of Muslims are sunni, and a huge portion of them would say Sunni is the only real Islam, the other 10% aren't real Muslims. I wouldn't take that seriously from a sunni, and I don't personally take the comparable thing going on here from other Christians all that seriously. I mean, maybe if you're a Christian it makes sense for you to take that seriously, but I'm not beholden to any particular churches dogma and thus I'm not obliged to apply some arbitrary rule to decide Mormons, who are Christian by any obvious metric other than popularity among other Christians, are somehow not Christian.