Mormons = Aliens

[Sigurd]

I came over this site (http://business.gorge.net/zdkf/kufol/kol-ran.html)when searching for info on the word Kolob.
I thought... Man, I gotta share this with the orgas. I bet this will result in some interesting discussion.

The topic is religion related with the added spice of Extra terrestrial worlds and people.

Sooo, what do you all think? Is this the reason Judeo-Christians hate Mormons? They think they are aliens?

[rory_20_uk]

Judging the gusto that Christians until extremely recently would kill each other, Jews, Muslims and basically everyone that didn't follow the Good Book in the right way I'm not surprised Mormons are villified.

Unlike most ofther groups there is no large country that examplifies them, so they are still fair game for everyone.

But aliens? How many soldiers would need to go back to win a defensive engagement against pre-medieval japan? 50? Even in shifts the amount of firepower that could be brought to bear would mean that even human wave tactics would fail. And yet ET didn't win.

~:smoking:

[macsen rufus]

Meh! Yet more proof that the World (ie the Internet) has been invaded by Aliens (ie escapees from a less than secure mental health institution).

[naut]

Bah! What a laugh.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I bet you anything that they are secretly allied with our future octosquid overlords.

This is much more serious than we thought. :hide:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Judging the gusto that Christians until extremely recently would kill each other, Jews, Muslims and basically everyone that didn't follow the Good Book in the right way I'm not surprised Mormons are villified.

That's a despicable smear.

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

That's a despicable smear.

Crazed Rabbit

No? The inquisition lasted until the 19th century... And sjia's and sunni's do have a religious element in their war against each other in Iraq.

[Mikeus Caesar]

As you read that article the black helicopters are coming for you, and numerous black unmarked SUV's are pulling up outside your house.

[Bijo]

At first sight that article looks so terribly disorganized and written in an ugly way I find it difficult to raise the interest in seriously reading it.

[HoreTore]

After reading through some more on that site, I have but one thing to say:

IT'S GREAT!!!

I never thought I'd find anything so extremely far-fetched in my life. The people writing it are christian fundamentalists, ie. they believe in the bible to the letter, however, they have been thinking of all the things the bible does not mention... So, they filled the gaps with nothing less than an alien migration story! Quite a feat in my opinion!

There are numerous examples where they produce a completely ridiculous theory, and then look in the bible to see what it says on the issue... and every time, "the bible is strangely silent on the issue...."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No? The inquisition lasted until the 19th century... And sjia's and sunni's do have a religious element in their war against each other in Iraq.

You might want to look up the function of the Inquisition, it wasn't like MTW. In any case, reffering to people who massacred other peoples as "Christian" is possibly offensive in itself. A little restraint costs you nothing.

OT: The sight is nuts, I actually couldn't bring myself to read more than five lines.

[Bijo]

I followed some links on the site and read part of an article. Its writing style is terrible. I even detected misplaced or redundant commas and other faulty phrase constructs that prevent facilitation of clarity. After only a few phrases I ceased reading it and skimmed quickly.

Is there any link on that site that deserves more attention than some?

[Navaros]

this the reason Judeo-Christians hate Mormons? They think they are aliens?

No, it's because Mormonism was "founded" by an indisputable polygamist who thought that polygamy was the will of God. That right there was enough to throw all credibility out the window. That said polygamist went on to attribute other things to Jesus and God that in actuality have nothing to do with Jesus and God, just added to the absurdity.

[HoreTore]

You might want to look up the function of the Inquisition, it wasn't like MTW. In any case, reffering to people who massacred other peoples as "Christian" is possibly offensive in itself. A little restraint costs you nothing.

OT: The sight is nuts, I actually couldn't bring myself to read more than five lines.

Uhm... rory stated that christians happily killed those who "did not follow the book correctly". Crazed rabbit said that it was a smear. But, during the inquisition, christians killed other christians who did not follow the book as they did. I never said anything at all about the scale of the killings, the point was that they killed each other off, right up until the 1850's(ish).

And if someone who kills other people calls himself christian, I'll certainly call him christian too. I'm a commie, but I don't say that Stalin wasn't a commie, just because he massacred x number of people. He saw things one way, I see things very differently. However, we're still both socialists.


I followed some links on the site and read part of an article. Its writing style is terrible. I even detected misplaced or redundant commas and other faulty phrase constructs that prevent facilitation of clarity. After only a few phrases I ceased reading it and skimmed quickly.

Is there any link on that site that deserves more attention than some?

I found the articles on alien origins particularly funny. And the idiotic writing style just adds to the fun IMO.

[Sigurd]

No, it's because Mormonism was "founded" by an indisputable polygamist who thought that polygamy was the will of God. That right there was enough to throw all credibility out the window. That said polygamist went on to attribute other things to Jesus and God that in actuality have nothing to do with Jesus and God, just added to the absurdity.

I personally can’t see teaching that Polygamy was the will of God is a damning offence or a clear point of false teaching.
Didn’t the prophets of old practise polygamy? Was this not God’s will?

In fact I can’t see that it was ever abolished in Judaism. Didn’t Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and Solomon have multiple wives? Wasn’t there a law of levirate marriage in Jesus’ times; the practice of marrying your brother’s spouse if she became a widow?
The Bible is in fact full of plural marriage consent. Exodus 21:10, Leviticus 18:18 Deut 21:15-17 are examples.

Are these verses not God’s will found in an infallible book?

I could quote Agustin the beloved father of modern Christianity:
“It was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful."
So he basically says that if there is a necessity, God will allow it as he has done in the past.

If I am not mistaken there was a serious shortage of Mormon men after the persecutions in the east of US and the war with Mexico. Widows were abundant and there was a need to rise a new generation of faithful followers. It was not illegal in the US until the persecutors trumped through a new law making it a crime living in a polygynyious relationship where upon the Mormon leaders issued a commandment to cease practising polygyny.

I can’t see that Polygamy = Devilish practice.
On the contrary, there is ample evidence that it is a Godly practice.
God created man and woman, where the man if having several partners, quickly can raise progeny.
If we should believe the Creation story of one man and one woman, God allowed far worse things than plural marriage to ensure that man became many.
Every scholar and scripture reader up through the times would have realized this.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As you read that article the black helicopters are coming for you, and numerous black unmarked SUV's are pulling up outside your house.

Yeah, but at least the SUV's are hybrids now. Things are looking up! :devilish:

[Don Corleone]

If we should believe the Creation story of one man and one woman, God allowed far worse things than plural marriage to ensure that man became many.

Excellent post, Sigurd, through and through, but this line in particular struck me (and the idea behind it always has). It is this right here, the requisite incest, that has been the first (of many) roadblocks to me ever becoming a biblical literalist.

As to Hore Tore's point about who is and is not a Christian... I agree that Rory had a point that Christians did a lot of very un-Christian things, in the name of Christianity. But I dispute your supportive rebuttal of CR's post, employing the Stalin metaphor. You may choose to accept classification with a misbehaving individual that does not act in accordiance with his stated principles, but not all of us should be required to meet such a standard.

I could choose to call myself a farmer. However, if I never grow any crops, I routinely destroy arable land and render it unusable for food production and abolish the practice of animal husbandry, would all farmers have to answer the charges leveled against me, simply because of a linguistic choice I myself made?

[macsen rufus]

However, if I never grow any crops, I routinely destroy arable land and render it unusable for food production and abolish the practice of animal husbandry, would all farmers have to answer the charges leveled against me, simply because of a linguistic choice I myself made?

Errrm, so you HAVE heard of the European Union's "Common Agricultural Policy" then, Don? :laugh4: (Sorry, totally off topic, but I couldn't resist the opportunity.)

More seriously, what criterion other than self-description can we use, especially when dealing with issues of the "correct" interpretation of revealed mystical texts? The inherent problem with these texts is that they offer pretexts for claiming the "moral high ground" and an arsenal of irrational defence against any nay-sayers that might challenge that. I don't see any sound grounds for rejecting the Book of Mormon that can't also be levelled at the New Testamant, the Old Testament, the Quran or the Upanishads for that matter - except of course, partisan adherence to one of the competing texts.

[HoreTore]

would all farmers have to answer the charges leveled against me, simply because of a linguistic choice I myself made?

Of course not. I won't ever answer for Stalin's crimes either. I have little more in common with him than I have with Mussolini(I don't even agree with his economics). And I surely don't expect you(or any other christian) to answer for the crimes of for example Joseph Kony or even Mr. Bush.

But I will still call all three of you christians. And I'll call Bin Laden a muslim, but I won't hold the muslims I know responsible for his actions. That you share the same the same faith does not imply that you hold the same views.

[Don Corleone]

Of course not. I won't ever answer for Stalin's crimes either. I have little more in common with him than I have with Mussolini(I don't even agree with his economics). And I surely don't expect you(or any other christian) to answer for the crimes of for example Joseph Kony or even Mr. Bush.

But I will still call all three of you christians. And I'll call Bin Laden a muslim, but I won't hold the muslims I know responsible for his actions. That you share the same the same faith does not imply that you hold the same views.

Okay, well, interetsing point. You and Mascen seem to use the criteria of self-annointment for membership to a group. I would prefer to establish membership by fulfillment of a pronounced defintion.... An X-ian would have most or all the qualities of X.... But I guess at the end of the day, the point is the same. You can call Jim Baker a Christian just because he calls himself one, but I don't recgonize him as such.

[HoreTore]

Okay, well, interetsing point. You and Mascen seem to use the criteria of self-annointment for membership to a group. I would prefer to establish membership by fulfillment of a pronounced defintion.... An X-ian would have most or all the qualities of X.... But I guess at the end of the day, the point is the same. You can call Jim Baker a Christian just because he calls himself one, but I don't recgonize him as such.

Well, I won't make myself the judge of what is "the correct" christianity. And as there are a zillion definitions of what is "ze correct", I'm force to take their word for it. But having said that, I still won't put every christian in the same bucket. I do, of course, realize that just because two people are christians, it doesn't imply that they have anything in common at all, just like I have nothing in common with Stalin just because we're both socialists.

BTW, would you call Stalin a socialist?

[Don Corleone]

BTW, would you call Stalin a socialist?

No. Stalin wasn't a Leftist or a Righist in my book. Like all absolutist autocrats, he was a Stalinist, just as Pol Pot was a Pol-Pot-ist.

[Don Corleone]

On topic, I've always felt that Mormons have been mistreated in this country. I may not agree with them theologically (and unfortuanately, there's not a lot of middle ground, either you believe the 3rd Testament to be divine revelation, or you don't, and I don't), but there's no excuse for the way they were treated, especially out in Missouri. Killing others for not following Christ properly is about the most un-Christlike thing one can do. And I've never seen a strong argument against polygamy based on scripture. It always stems from "we just don't it anymore". I don't like polygamy, and it's not for me (God knows, one Mrs. Corleone angry at me or giving me Honey-Do lists is plenty :rolleyes4:), but I don't know that I can condemn it on moral grounds.

[macsen rufus]

:laugh4: Yes, Don, two or more "to-do" lists would be a nightmare! Likewise, I don't honestly see any real "moral" case in the polygamy/monogamy debate - human cultures have and do incorporate all sorts of variations on a theme, and even within a given culture practices naturally vary over time.

I also don't really, at the heart of it, hold with the concept of collective responsibility either. Just because "X-ist #1" did something bad (or good) is no reason to heap blame (or praise) on "X-ists #2 through 2 billion". But what I cannot abide is claims along the lines of "I am an X-ist, therefore I'm blameless and above reproach". I'm sure anyone with any sense of self-awareness will recognise they have faults and failings, which are individual and personal, unrelated to - and unredeemed by - any group membership.

The fact is that it is part of human nature to see groups in a worse light than individuals. Or as someone put it, "Folks in the lump is bad." Which makes it easier to vilify groups, whether they be religious, ethnic, political or cultural.

[HoreTore]

The fact is that it is part of human nature to see groups in a worse light than individuals.

Screw human nature! It's still unacceptable, whether it's "in our nature" or not is irrelevant. You can argue that it's completely in our nature to rape women, but it's still despicable.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Screw human nature! It's still unacceptable, whether it's "in our nature" or not is irrelevant. You can argue that it's completely in our nature to rape women, but it's still despicable.

I suspect that Macsen was noting the tendency as a descriptive. I suspect he believes we should strive to "rise above" that norm.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think group membership has to be decided by the group. The problem with that is that if you pick the wrong group you could be in trouble.

Christianity here is a good example. Whatever any real Christian says at the end of the day they want you to be part of their sect becuase that group holds their beliefs. That's why there are sects.

With this in mind it's worth pointing out that Mormanism departs from mainstream Christianity in a massive way. Although the mainstram Morman Church no longer allows Polytheism I know there's at least one breakaway sect.

The big question is; "Are Mormans Christians"

HoreTore says they are because they say they are. Any mainstream Christian would be bound to say "No."

Whoever wrote the webpage feels they are so far divorced from Christianity they must be Aliens. That shows a very narrow world view, to say the least.

[Tuuvi]

Kinda OT but kolob is a hebrew word for the place where God lives, just in case you never found the answer.

[Lemur]

The big question is; "Are Mormans Christians"

HoreTore says they are because they say they are. Any mainstream Christian would be bound to say "No."
I would call them Christians who do not subscribe to the Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed). They venerate Christ as savior, which makes it hard to put them into any other category. Admittedly, they also believe a lot of other oddball stuff, but that's neither here nor there. The foundation of their belief is Jesus Christ.

[HoreTore]

The big question is; "Are Mormans Christians"

HoreTore says they are because they say they are. Any mainstream Christian would be bound to say "No."

Why do you think that you are capable of judging who is to be called a christian or not? Isn't that something you should, well I don't know, leave to your God?

[Sigurd]

Kinda OT but kolob is a hebrew word for the place where God lives, just in case you never found the answer.
So... you are saying God is an Alien?

:laugh4:

Alright, I am pulling your leg here.

Yes I found much information on Kolob and there is a consensus that it could have been derived from the Semitic word QLB (yes they use no vowels) which means heart, middle or centre.

I have read the book of Abraham found in the Mormon (not Mor[e]man) Pearl of great price, and Kolob should be the Star or first creation closest to where God is. It is a governing body and is the first in a hierarchy of governing bodies (I interpret that as stars). Its revolution is that of 1000 years and apparently is the slowest in the hierarchy of stars. Somewhere in this hierarchy we find our solar system and our world. Kolob governs all, but there are at least 15 stars mentioned with a higher governing status than our Sun.

I could speculate what the writer is trying to tell us here, but it is hard not to think of other creations like our world. If you read the Pearl there is also a book of Moses which is quite interesting. In contrary to Genesis it has a prologue which describes Moses’ encounter with God before the: “In the beginning …” There are clearly references to other worlds populated with creations created in the image of God; worlds without numbers, worlds that was destroyed because of unbelief. Moses learns that he is a son of God, which further explained means he was created in the form, image and likeness of God.

The LDS (lds.org) site has all its scripture online and if any of you have interests in these things it is worth a read.

[macsen rufus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Screw human nature! It's still unacceptable, whether it's "in our nature" or not is irrelevant. You can argue that it's completely in our nature to rape women, but it's still despicable.


I suspect that Macsen was noting the tendency as a descriptive. I suspect he believes we should strive to "rise above" that norm.

Thank you, Seamus :bow: this was indeed my point, as should be pretty clear from what preceded it, ie


I'm sure anyone with any sense of self-awareness will recognise they have faults and failings, which are individual and personal, unrelated to - and unredeemed by - any group membership.



It is this actual tendency to demonise groups which is at the core of fascist/nationalist/fundamentalist movements which label "the other" as somehow lesser than the "in group", whether that is "blacks are sub-human", "Jews are parasites" or "Mormons are aliens". All I'm saying is that it happens, not that it is right. As far as I'm concerned, we are all individuals.


CROWD: "YES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" :clown:

[HoreTore]

Thank you, Seamus :bow: this was indeed my point, as should be pretty clear from what preceded it, ie

Yes yes, I kinda figured that was your intention, consider my reply as backup ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do you think that you are capable of judging who is to be called a christian or not? Isn't that something you should, well I don't know, leave to your God?

You're assuming I'm a mainstream Christian.

In any case I would have said the same thing when I was an avowed atheist.

Mormans venerate Jesus Christ but they also venerate Joseph Smith as a new prophet, and they add a third testemant which is the direct word of God via gold tablets. If they're Christians then maybe Muslims are as well.

Kukri, by mainstream I mean those christians that accept the creed. As the wiki notes, those and the Mormans are having spats over the pond.

[Sigurd]

You're assuming I'm a mainstream Christian.

In any case I would have said the same thing when I was an avowed atheist.

Mormans venerate Jesus Christ but they also venerate Joseph Smith as a new prophet, and they add a third testemant which is the direct word of God via gold tablets. If they're Christians then maybe Muslims are as well.

Kukri, by mainstream I mean those christians that accept the creed. As the wiki notes, those and the Mormans are having spats over the pond.

So.. you are saying both mainstream Christians and non mainstream Christians would
disregard Mormons as Christians.

This is troublesome at best for someone that looks at the concept of Christian from the outside.

I agree with H.Tore that it should not be up to the different denominations to denounce anyone. It is a well known verse that states; Judge ye not, lest ye be judged.
You should not judge what you cannot judge.
In every dictionary the definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ; someone following the teachings of Christ and one who exemplifies Christ’s teachings in his/her way of living.
In this H.Tore is right, only Jesus Christ can judge whether someone is following his teachings or not. According to Christian lore this will happen at judgement day…

Let’s see,
Mormons is a nickname and was never the official name of neither the church nor its followers.
The original name of the Church is; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints.
They baptise in the name of Christ.
All prayers end with; in the name of Jesus Christ.
They believe in salvation because of the atonement of Christ and his mercy, also called grace.
They have another testament of Jesus Christ.
They believe Jehovah was Jesus Christ.

There is a whole lot of Christ in there to not make the obvious connection.

And if you make adopting the Nicene Creed a prerequisite to be named Christian, then you got to disregard an awful lot of early disciples as Christians, including st.Peter, st.James, st.John and st.Paul.

And don't the mainstream Christians venerate the Pope? Don't tell me that Catholics are not mainstream.

[Don Corleone]

And don't the mainstream Christians venerate the Pope? Don't tell me that Catholics are not mainstream.

Most evangelical Protestants and many mainstream ones don't consider Catholics to be Christian at all, not just not mainstream. At least not in America. Read the Bob Jones University website or any of the 6 Chick Tracts published on the matter.

[Xiahou]

And don't the mainstream Christians venerate the Pope? Don't tell me that Catholics are not mainstream.
Revere and respect? Yes. Venerate? I would say no. We don't worship the pope.

[Husar]

Most evangelical Protestants and many mainstream ones don't consider Catholics to be Christian at all, not just not mainstream. At least not in America. Read the Bob Jones University website or any of the 6 Chick Tracts published on the matter.
Well, the bible clearly says you shall have no gods besides God and catholics pray to a lot of saints who were declared such by the pope who is a human.
And there are a lot more things that make some christians like me think that catholics aren't really following the bible. That doesn't mean they're all bad people, it just means that the vatican is apparently full of bad people.:sweatdrop:

[Don Corleone]

Well, the bible clearly says you shall have no gods besides God and catholics pray to a lot of saints who were declared such by the pope who is a human.
And there are a lot more things that make some christians like me think that catholics aren't really following the bible. That doesn't mean they're all bad people, it just means that the vatican is apparently full of bad people.:sweatdrop:

Catholics don't pray to saints in the sense that they worship saints or treat saints as divinity. If you say the Nicene creed, you utter the words "I believe in the communion of Saints". What does that phrase mean to you? And I challenge you to explain to me the theological or dogmatic differences between the Vatican and the Church of England (an entity most Protestants don't seem to have a problem with).

Before answering you further, and I would really like to, I'm going to ask Sigurd's permission. This is his thread about bias against the Latter Day Saints. If he wants to expand it to a discussion of 'What constitutes a Christian" then we can go that route. But if he'd rather, I'll start another thread to answer your charges.

[Sigurd]

Before answering you further, and I would really like to, I'm going to ask Sigurd's permission. This is his thread about bias against the Latter Day Saints. If he wants to expand it to a discussion of 'What constitutes a Christian" then we can go that route. But if he'd rather, I'll start another thread to answer your charges.
I don't see a problem with this. This thread is about bias within Christianity or should I say; Those who claims to follow Christ's teachings?

[Innocentius]

Just to alert all of you:

https://img509.imageshack.us/img509/3875/1187369271207kw5.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

It might save your life!

I know this post isn't contributing to the thread in any way, but I couldn't resist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Catholics don't pray to saints in the sense that they worship saints or treat saints as divinity. If you say the Nicene creed, you utter the words "I believe in the communion of Saints". What does that phrase mean to you? And I challenge you to explain to me the theological or dogmatic differences between the Vatican and the Church of England (an entity most Protestants don't seem to have a problem with).

Before answering you further, and I would really like to, I'm going to ask Sigurd's permission. This is his thread about bias against the Latter Day Saints. If he wants to expand it to a discussion of 'What constitutes a Christian" then we can go that route. But if he'd rather, I'll start another thread to answer your charges.

I would suggest that the Church of England's primary theological difference with the Roman Church is that Anglicans do not recognise Papal Primacy.

That's a pretty big difference.

I found this, it's all the various creeds etc. in English. From the CoE website, which is based on the litteral Catholic translations of the original Latin.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/word/creeds.html

[Don Corleone]

The primacy of the Pope versus the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a theocratic (belief) or dogmatic (practice) difference, it is a political difference. The idea that there is one guy at the apex of the pyramid is a structure shared between both. It's simply a question of who inherited the mantle of Peter.

Theological matters: One God in three persons (a trinity); a redemptive messiah; the hypostatic union (Jesus was completely human and completely God); a balance of scripture and tradition; the communion of the saints; all these are common to both the Roman and the Anglican church.

Dogmatic matters: There actually are some differences here, but not usually the ones that get cited by Evangelical protestants when they call Catholics Satanists. 1) Catholic priests must be celibate males; 2) Anglican priests must be chaste males or females (and I think they've removed the 'chaste' requirement on priests in the American branch, the Episcopal Church); confession and annointing of the sick are 'suggested' sacraments in the Anglican tradition, they are required in the Roman tradition.

But the dogmatic matters that Catholics usually get denounced by evangelicals are common to both churches: serious sin can place the soul in mortal jeoprady; the role of the Eucharist, Baptism, and other sacraments as necessary for a full spiritual life; NOT sola-scriptura; the role of saints... all are common to both churches.

As for worshiping Mary or other saints, Catholics don't. Catholics take the term 'communion of saints' to mean a physical death does not prevent communication. A 'saint' is not a new god, it's the English word fpr sanctus. All the title 'saint' means is that its somebody we can be certain made it to heaven (as opposed to purgatory or... :devil: ). When Catholics pray to saints, its not worship. It's more akin to having an older sibling that's been admitted to a club, and you asking them to put in a good word for you when you go before the membership admission committee. Yes, Mary holds a special and revered role, and is the most sinless HUMAN that ever existed. But she's not divine.

Put down the Chick Tracts and actually talk to somebody who knows. I myself am more ignorant on the ins and outs of dogma and theology then I probably should be, but I'm certain Seamus can answer any questions I'm unable to. I got a hoot out of the Chick Tract that claimed the Catholic Church was the modern day incarnation of the ancient Babylonian cult of Molech, and used the requirement of priestly celibacy as a proof! :laugh4: Priestly celibacy, as a hard and fast requirement, dates to the counter-reformation. One of the biggest (and correct) criticisms of the Church was that it had in fact become an aristocracy: bishoprics and parishes were handed from father to son. The needs of the congregation were overlooked while pastors, bishops et. al. looked to the welfare of their own families. And question for that... if Catholics are the modern day version of Molech worshippers, a cult famous for infanticide, why are they the most stridently anti-abortion, pro-life force on the planet?

[ajaxfetish]

I seem to recall a thread not too long ago on the topic of what defines a Christian. The most succinct definition came from Pindar, and it seemed to me to be the most generally accepted as well. A Christian is a person who accepts Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. In that case Catholics and Mormons both fit the bill, though Muslims do not, for all they respect Christ in their doctrine.

Ajax

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don:

Well said.

Ajax:

Succinct point. Our Pindar too is a pithy fellow.

[Sigurd]

Revere and respect? Yes. Venerate? I would say no. We don't worship the pope.
But you [you said we] do respect him as your suprime leader. A spokesperson for God so to speak.

I have not asked a Chatholic this before, but IF God were to speak or reveal his will to man. IF God decided that Deism is no longer His ways [then again Catholics never was Deists] and made a visit. Who would be the first He would make contact with?

Oh... and if venerate means worship, then I guess the Mormons don't venerate Joseph Smith either. I hardly doubt they are praying to Joseph or in his name.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The primacy of the Pope versus the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a theocratic (belief) or dogmatic (practice) difference, it is a political difference. The idea that there is one guy at the apex of the pyramid is a structure shared between both. It's simply a question of who inherited the mantle of Peter.

The Pope is God's supreme representative on Earth, not just the Bishop of Rome. He can speak Ex Cathedra "From his Chair" which makes his teaching infallable and a direct message from God. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no such power as evidenced by the problems he has with the American Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is only primus inter pares "First Among Equals" he has no actual authoriety, which is not to say that Anglicans the world over do not respect him.

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/role/index.html

[Husar]

I have not asked a Chatholic this before, but IF God were to speak or reveal his will to man. IF God decided that Deism is no longer His ways [then again Catholics never was Deists] and made a visit. Who would be the first He would make contact with?
I know I'm not a catholic but judging by the old and new testament most likely not the pope or anyone else but the cleaning staff in the vatican.:beam:

[Lemur]

Going back to Mormonism for a moment, I think they're selling themselves short. Instead of concealing the weird stuff, they should market it. Imagine how well "It's Christianity -- with aliens!" would go down with the college set. Very pomo. Very hip.

Innocentius, thank you for the guide to distinguishing Mormons from Ninjas. Useful stff.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Going back to Mormonism for a moment, I think they're selling themselves short. Instead of concealing the weird stuff, they should market it. Imagine how well "It's Christianity -- with aliens!" would go down with the college set. Very pomo. Very hip.

Haven't the Scientologists cornered that market?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Haven't the Scientologists cornered that market?

They remind me more of one of those infomercials on some great new product/diet/excercise machine/kitchen utility that will make your life a billion times better through science, and then when you're in they tell you the science is really tiny alien men inside your orange juicer.

Crazed Rabbit