Christianity vs Mormonism

[_JAK]

GoodK responds:
You seem certain, however I feel this is a moot point.

JAK:

Wrong, You attempted to contrast “Christianity vs Mormonism”

It’s an incorrect analysis. Some in the Protestant movement like to characterize “Christianity vs. Roman Catholicism.”

That is as incorrect as your topic beginning this thread. The point is that the Mormon organization is a Christian organization . The Roman Catholic Church organization is also a Christian organization.

You have made no refutation of the analysis.

The religion at issue is Christianity and its more than 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults.

Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. They total about 75% of the North American adult population.

Largest Branches of Christianity in US

Christian Groups by Size

The point is that your topic is flawed as you regard “Christian” as other than “Mormon.”

As I stated, Mormonism is a part of and an evolution of the Protestant Reformation (1517).

JAK

[_GoodK]

It's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here. It appears by "Christianity" you are imagining a subset of Christianity and applying it to the whole, which seems to be uninformed. I wonder if you haven't always been LDS, or atheist, and not particularly well versed in other religions or denominational differences, even from a cultural point of view.

Maybe I am uninformed.

Or, I may just be refusing to give a special pass to those that choose to be vague about what they believe.

Certainly there is a variance in the accepted dogma's between the thousands of different sects that claim to be Christian. I can't be expected to take this into consideration when analyzing the Bible, or the main tenets of Christianity. The moderates should take issue with the authors of the Bible if they don't want to be accountable for what it says.

This is exactly why I don't like the religious moderate. They seem to be more sensible than the fundamentalist, yet they give the fundamentalist a safe haven from critique.

And I don't think Catholicism is watered-down. I think Catholicism is a little more idiotic than Christianity.

[_JAK]

If a Christian moderate is going to claim that they don't literally believe in the global flood, then I am glad to be in agreement with them. But their doctrine does teach it.

You might want to check that. I don't believe all mainstream Christian religions teach a global flood. You might find some that do, but certainly not all.

The Bible teaches it.

Regarding moderation, it should be noted that there wasn't a single Christian religion that didn't teach its congregation about the global flood until it was proven by science to be false. Same with Adam and Eve. The decision for certain Christian sects to stop teaching a select few blatant falsehoods in the wake of scientific fact is hardly admirable.

Christianity has always been at battle with science and real knowledge, and it has been a fight were Christianity is constantly being forced to make concessions and revisions.

GoodK,

Your analysis here is correct. It is religion which adapts to scientific discovery. It is not the other way around. That is the case as a result of methodology.

Religion declares: truth by assertion.

Science searches for evidence. Only upon discovery of evidence for a conclusion does science state that conclusion.

Truth by assertion fails in the composite of assertions.

Science succeeds in the composite of evidence.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

This coupled with your statement that the Church tried to teach that the Earth was flat make me question if you've learned much history beyond what is in a High School textbook.

As tedious as it might be, Nehor, you might want to go back and reread the thread.

Nowhere did GoodK suggest that the Church tried to teach that the earth was flat.

Any mention of a flat earth was made by me, and I did not suggest, or state, that the church taught that.

I'm referring to his saying this in another thread.

[_GoodK]

GoodK responds:
You seem certain, however I feel this is a moot point.

JAK:

Wrong, You attempted to contrast “Christianity vs Mormonism”

It’s an incorrect analysis. Some in the Protestant movement like to characterize “Christianity vs. Roman Catholicism.”

That is as incorrect as your topic beginning this thread. The point is that the Mormon organization is a Christian organization . The Roman Catholic Church organization is also a Christian organization.

You have made no refutation of the analysis.

The religion at issue is Christianity and its more than 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults.

Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. They total about 75% of the North American adult population.

Largest Branches of Christianity in US

Christian Groups by Size

The point is that your topic is flawed as you regard “Christian” as other than “Mormon.”

As I stated, Mormonism is a part of and an evolution of the Protestant Reformation (1517).

JAK

Ok. Here is your "refutation":


Wikipedia:
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
In the frame of European religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life".

wordnet.princeton.edu:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"


phmc.state.pa.us:

an organized system of faith and worship


Carm.org:

Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief.


nmhschool.org:

Latin: religio, ligo, "to bind together") A way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: ie Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering? ...


So, dear sir, again I will say it is a moot point.

And lest there be any more confusion:

wordnet.princeton.edu:

moot: arguable: open to argument or debate; "that is a moot question"

ncbuy.com:

Moot:
(1) of little or no practical value, meaning, or consequence. (2) subject to discussion or argument. (3) doubtful, theoretical, or hypothetical.

How's that?

[_the road to hana]

And I don't think Catholicism is watered-down. I think Catholicism is a little more idiotic than Christianity.

So why are you lumping them in with the watered-down moderates?

It's really difficult to follow your line of reasoning here.

[_the road to hana]

It is religion which adapts to scientific discovery. It is not the other way around.

Fortunately.

[_the road to hana]

It's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here. It appears by "Christianity" you are imagining a subset of Christianity and applying it to the whole, which seems to be uninformed. I wonder if you haven't always been LDS, or atheist, and not particularly well versed in other religions or denominational differences, even from a cultural point of view.

Maybe I am uninformed.

Or, I may just be refusing to give a special pass to those that choose to be vague about what they believe.

Again, I'm not following your line of reasoning here.

Who's being vague about what they believe? The watered-down moderates? The fundamentalists?

[_GoodK]

So why are you lumping them in with the watered-down moderates?

It's really difficult to follow your line of reasoning here.

When did I do this? You brought up the Catholics, not me. I never specified a specific brand of Christianity.

I think you are getting tripped up over semantics.

I'll try and make this much more simple:

Anyone that believes, literally, that there is indeed a man named Jesus Christ, and his father (or maybe even himself) helped author a piece of literature, then that person is a Christian.

They can believe everything in the Bible, or just those verses that appear in inspirational calendars -- it doesn't lend a spec of credibility to Christianity.

[_JAK]

Even if more moderate Christians no longer defend the global flood does not mean that they are open to the scientific method being applied to their beliefs. I have yet to meet a Christian that doesn't rely on faith, and using faith is, well, below the curve. (or is it behind the curve?)

We use faith in all sorts of activities in life. Faith in the metaphysical aspects of spiritual life is proper and good. Why do you think faith is behind the curve?

Flawed analysis, JB.

No transparent, tested evidence has been established for “…the metaphysical aspects of spiritual life…” It’s a euphemism for emotions and emotional responses.

“Faith is below the curve” (GoodK) because it is religious dogma which must be revised in the face of discoveries of science. Hence, “faith” must adjust to information.

First, religion attempts to deny scientific evidence__i.e. biblical creation stories.
Second, it attempts to re-interpret its doctrines to accommodate science.
Third, religious doctrines are abandoned as reflection of reliable conclusion.

JAK