A case could be made that Catholics are pope- or church-centered, rather than Christ-centered, since they mediate their relationship with God through the church bureaucracy. But the same could not be said about Lutherans, Methodists, and various Calvinists. The founders of those strands of Christian thought put the emphasis (to varying degrees) on Christ himself.
I myself wouldn’t call Catholics non-Christians, by the way.
I myself wouldn’t call Catholics non-Christians, by the way.
“A case could be made that Catholics are pope- or church-centered, rather than Christ-centered, since they mediate their relationship with God through the church bureaucracy. But the same could not be said about Lutherans, Methodists, and various Calvinists. The founders of those strands of Christian thought put the emphasis (to varying degrees) on Christ himself.
I myself wouldn’t call Catholics non-Christians, by the way.”
You better not. Which Christian Church came first in history, Catholicism which was and is the original Church of Jesus Christ from the very beginning or the various offshoots that broke off (considered heretical in its day) from that original Catholic Church. So how could you say the various religious offshoots have any more credibility than the Catholic Church in belief? As far as I can tell, what the Catholic Church believes and teaches is the authentic Church, and everything that came after is a reinterpretation of the original faith, or a bastardization of it, depending on the religious sect that broke off from the Mother Church. As Martin Luther himself said upon his deathbed, and I paraphrase, any milkmaid can now start a religion. So, who has the real truth when it comes to Christianity, the original religion contemporaneous to Christ’s life, or the various offshoots that sprung from it much later in history? This ought to get your juices flowing.
I think labeling C.S. Lewis “embarrassing drivel” says more about you, than Lewis.
I recall the first time, as a teen, when I read Mere Christianity, and I didn’t understand his arguments. When I went back and read it as an adult, it snapped into place. Someone above said it right, it’s an academic’s, or more specifically I’ll add, a literary academic’s argument—and tens of thousands of intellectuals have responded to it.
If you don’t appreciate Lewis, fine, but recognize taste in literature is taste, and as taste, one should not objectivize one’s opinions.
As to the topic of hand, on the surface, the LDS folk follow “Christ” and say the right things, etc. Of course Moslems too, say they follow Isa (Jesus) who after all they tell us, was the greatest Moslem before Mohammed. The problem is, of course, as in most arguments, the terms.
Jesus is a spirit brother to Lucifer, and to you and I—according to LDS doctrine. So is he is also a (spirit) brother to everyone, angels too, and everyone is a child of God, with an eternal spirit born from God. Jesus is not, as the bible teaches, all the old creeds repeat, the ONLY BEGOTTEN son of God, AND fully God Himself, at one with the Father. And just who is God? The one creator of everthing that is? Um, no, says LDS doctrine.
OK, OK, one has a right to believe whatever absurd things one wants, even on the basis of a feeling inside—(LDS doctrine again). But when one REDEFINES all the key terms that make up a religion, as the Mormons do...in a way nearly entirely at odds with every single other Christian denomonation—in areas all those denominations agree on (the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, the nature of creation, etc.-—we’re not talking denominational distinctives here) one has a different religion.
Mormons claim it is the true Christianity—with the true basic definitions of God, Jesus, Creation, etc.. OK, if so, they need to GUTS to say to the rest of us, we are all apostates—with entirely wrong beliefs accross the board.
What upsets me is this LYING DECEPTIVE thing of saying, “oh we’re Christians just like you!” PR campaign the LDS church has been doing for over 30 years now.
They may be nice people, have nice families, worship regularly, honest, hygenic, etc. etc. (and so are a lot of Jews and Moslems!) but if you want to redefine ANCIENT terms, it’s a free country, but, you’re engaging in deception, and that, is by definition, a cult.
The main reason I cannot and will not support Mitt, has nothing to do with him as a man, or a politician. I simply fear the RELIGIOUS power of the LDS as an organization, MORE than I do the POLITICAL power of the Democrats.
Elect Romney, and and even if he’s as straight a straight arrow as can be, and never mentions his Mormon faith one iota in office, and this will be the biggest opportunity ever, for the PR machine that is the LDS “church” to deceptively push their religion, one that I sincerely believe doesn’t lead to heaven, rather the other place. That is something I cannot abide.
If you’re a Christian tell me. Jew or Moslem, say so, but if you are a Mormon, don’t lie to me by saying you are a Christian just like me—when by basic definitions of the words, you are not.