Glenn Beck and Religion [Michael Voris video]

They didn't card or otherwise check credentials to be sure you were an "Orthodox Christian." Did they do it at the big event on the mall?

No, because they called all sinner and followers of false gods to repentance.

I've heard of the Christian Orthodox faith, but I've never heard of an Orthodox Christian.

well viggie, pay attention to spelling and capitolization. I used an 'o' not an "O". By orthodox it means following the core traditional beliefs of historical Christianity and is inclusive of most all denominations, except cults like mormonism, JWs, etc.

Nonetheless, if you are saying Mormons are Unorthodox Christians in the sense that they have some beliefs quite different from a majority of the Christian denominations, then I'd have to agree with you.

Sorry, they don't even make the level of a Christian faith. Since they deny the core beliefs of Christianity they are not even unorthodox, but cult.

You've made at least as much progress as someone who stops using the N-word and calls black people Negros or something else less insulting, even if it is not what they prefer to be called.

Mormons are mormons - Christians are Christians, no need to try to incorporate any racially motivated speech into the mix. They went for decades being proud of not being called Christian but mormon. I'm easy with that.

And to answer your question, if a Muslim wants to fight on our side, I'd welcome them, just as I honor the Muslim hero on my home page who very well may have prevented 9-11 if Clinton's administration would have had the brains to utilize his services better,

apples to oranges viggie. I am not being asked to condone the religious beliefs of islam as a condition of 'fighting' at his side. But I am taught in the bible not to yoke my self with unbelievers in this manner (spiritual-political) when calling out to God for the return of His favor onto this country.

Its the same reason that Christians across the theological spectrum got behind Glenn Beck's rally, even if they don't share everything in common with Glenn's specific brand.

If that is the reason Christians watered down their faith in the Trinity to accept the spiritual lead of a believer in multitudes of gods, then the Christians were pretty messed up. The fault is had this been declared to be a political rally - hey, no problem. But when it is proclaimed to be a 'spiritual' event - NOT political, yet then sturr the political in with the lead of a non-Christian, I do have the right and responsibility to discern if that is valid or not. And as this is a free country, my opinion should not be equated to the n word.

Here I thought the fundamentals of Christianity were only two points:

Acceptance of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice for sin as the path to salvation.
Living a your life in such a way as to prove such acceptance is sincere and not just words.

That's it. Anyone who can accept these fundamentals is welcome to call themselves a Christian. I would even be so gracious as to include those who can only accept the first statement, because many of them in Protestant land can not accept the second statement as a belief, even though the way they live their lives show they actually do.

Everything else is a dogma. I'm not saying all dogmas are bad. Some of them lead to very good things and support the two fundamentals above.

Mother Theresa's dogma on helping the poor led to incalculable good in advancing the cause of Christianity. So did William Booth's dogma on charity and rehabilitating drunks. The Salvation Army continues to be a wonderful organization of Christian service more than a century after his death.

Scores of other examples abound in the hundreds of brands which make up the world of Christianity.

So my question is what, exactly, do you want to add to my simple list of these two principles as additional dogmas which people have to follow to be accepted as Christians in your worldview? Since you mention the majority view of the Trinity, then I also have to conclude that you want to cast Quakers, Amish, Mennonites and scores of other minority Christian brands into your definition of cults and would rather spend your energies casting stones at them rather than fighting the real enemy who would force you to convert to their point of view or forfeit your life.

Acceptance of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice for sin as the path to salvation.

This is linked completely to the nature of God Vigilanteman. The Bible is very outspoken that there is only One TRUE God in all existance. To simply make Jesus another 'god' outside of that overarching teaching of the Bible voids biblical acceptance of your point number one.

Living a your life in such a way as to prove such acceptance is sincere and not just words.

those are good words, but once again what are they founded upon? The Person, Nature and Work of Jesus Christ. Is that life being lived in such a way to earn God's favor, or is it an outgrowth of love for God following salvation by grace without works.

You have posted two nice examples, but lacking the necessary details.

I think that the word "dogma" is misapplied here. Within the overall context of this discussion a dogma is an authoratative belief or doctrine by an organization. These cited are personal convictions and beliefs that do not conflict with respective church dogmas.

So my question is what, exactly, do you want to add to my simple list of these two principles as additional dogmas which people have to follow to be accepted as Christians in your worldview?

Christian churchs across the board can hold to the truths of the Nicean creed as the fundamental core requirements of the definition of Christianity. Thus the doctrines on the Trinitarian nature of God; Person, Nature and Work of Jesus as God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, etc are all key components.

Since you mention the majority view of the Trinity, then I also have to conclude that you want to cast Quakers, Amish, Mennonites and scores of other minority Christian brands into your definition of cults and would rather spend your energies casting stones at them rather than fighting the real enemy who would force you to convert to their point of view or forfeit your life.

There are many 'real' enemies in life Vig. Quakers today define themselves more and more as universalist, agnostic, atheist, secular humanist, postchristian, or Nontheist Friend, or do not accept any religious labels. Since they are not trying to claim to be the only "true" Christian church, nor are they trying to prosletize on the internet and scale as the mormon church, they will not receive the same level of attention. Amish and mennonites hold to a traditional Trinitarian view of God as well as the others I noted above. So I have no issue with them and had you done a little research would have known as well. The "scores' of other Christian brands would need to be evaluated individually. But given that 2 out of your three examples fall within the orthodox understanding of the fundamental teachings of Christianity, these may be more outliers than true cults.

So why do I spend energy comparing and contrasting mormonism to biblical Christianity? Because it is out there daily pounding on doors claiming to be the one, true Christian church and all the others are apostate. Hmmm, so how is casting stones at whom vigilante? As long as they, and their internet cohorts cast stones at traditional Christianity, I have every reason and right to challenge them and their doctrines and point out the errors of mormonism. BTW, I'm an equal opportunity 'offender', I challenge other cults such as JWs, christian identity, replacmentarians and others here and in other forums.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.