Tbh, I agree Mormons seem pretty tolerant in my encounters. I really don’t have much negative things to say about them. They seem like good people.
My issue is the fundamental differences in Mormonism and at least Protestantism. I’m a none denominational Protestant, just to clear that up Incase someone throws in what Catholics believe.
According to their definition of a Christian, you are. You believe Christ is the son if God and you try to live your life according to his teachings as you understand them to be.
The article is claiming the modern day LDS church and missionaries bash other faiths. They don’t. Those quotes we’re from over a hundred years ago. And they were taken out of context. All of them were justifying their split from mainstream Christianity of the time. That yes indeed they believed other faith had fallen too far from the core teachings of Christ etc and therefore no longer valid in the eyes of God for carrying on his work.
There are thousands of sites online trying to smear the LDS church. It is nothing new. The truth lies in their works. Don’t believe everything you read online.
My documents state "Church of England, I went to Sunday school from 4 years old. I went to Church every day from 8-18 years of age, almost, I was confirmed at aged 13 or so. All of this was compulsory. All Religion seems to exist to service a weakness in Humans, like fear of death, not belonging, curiosity, and I contend that it has served a useful purpose for many, to give hope and moral rules to live ones life by. I also think we have a natural moral compass and don’t need to be a Christian , to attain that …I also see the control issues that the Church of Rome used and the way that many Christian Churches have sought to instill Man-made rules , for their followers. Shame really
I don’t. But at least I will consider it , before rejecting it out of hand if it does not fit my agenda or belief system
That’s incredibly tolerant of them. Allowing people who are worshipping the incorrect and incompetent Jesus of the Bible to be Christians.
I don’t know any other Christian denominations and apologists that would allow room for basically the highest form of heresy about the word of god in scripture and saying scripture is wrong and Jesus of the Bible is wrong and incomplete. Protestants and Catholics churches are unlikely to consider them as Christians for saying such things. To deny the word of god and scripture to be true. To say Jesus of the Bible is incomplete and incorrect is to deny him in the Protestant and Catholic faith. It would probably be considered blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and an unforgivable sin. So I’m still going with, not Christians.
Sectarian Shinto. They have a center in Yuanshan btw.
I don’t think you understood my comment. I didn’t say the believing part is stressful. I said everything else in life is stressful, and the faith is a bastion of comfort for some believers.
Anyway, the key word here is “some.” You might disagree, but according to my observation a lot of people still look to their religion for solace, which I can absolutely understand and respect.
This moral guidance part is actually the part I can’t get down with.
I think the people who need religion to dictate how they should behave in order to be a good person are dangerous. It shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out how to act right and not hurt others. And despite claiming to subscribe to living a Christ-like life, so many Christians are still incredibly obnoxious and arrogant, or espouse hateful views for their fellow human beings in the name of God.
I think for some people religions are tools to socialize.
Lots of people do end up meeting their future spouse at church!
To sum up this thread so far:
Would the real Jesus please step forward?
I’m confused as to how anyone is to know what are the exact teachings of Jesus. Scholars have been arguing about this for all eternity. My father (a biblical scholar) spent thousands of hours pouring over comparative bibles written in Greek, Hebrew, Latin and English. He’s still no nearer to understanding.
Any theologian worth their salt knows better than to talk about religion in too many definitive terms.
I’ve thought theology is a study that scholars have constructed to explain the bible without inconsistency, and some parts that cannot be explained were removed from the bible s heresy. Is it wrong?
Name one theologian that you read to come up with this kind of statement.
It can’t ever be an exact science. You have four Gospels for example written some time after the events had occurred by non-eye witnesses. What scholars try and do is crystallize the key tenets of Christ’s teachings and say “OK, this we can agree on”.
The only time they would throw something out is when the reliability of it is in question. For example the dates, location, and names don’t add up, not enough eye witness testimony, too far from the time of Jesus and the apostles to be reliable etc.
These then become apocrypha. And the arguments over these texts are never-ending.
I’m glad I spelled SOCIALIZE correctly.
It’s pretty interesting stuff. I thought this was a great history on the topic
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-New-Testament-Christian/dp/0060655186
This guy has also written about the supposed “Q source” which some believe to contain the earliest record of Christ’s teachings
That would be “apologetics”