Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think the notion was that Mormonism could be considered a different religion because they have a different book than most Christians. Is there any other religious sect (like Baptists, Catholics, whatever) that has its own book? There are too many sects of this religion to keep track of, so I could never remember the difference between them. Do Mormons believe in both the Bible AND the Book of Mormon?

At 10/8/11 06:40 PM, Ericho wrote: I think the notion was that Mormonism could be considered a different religion because they have a different book than most Christians.

this may be a decent point for argument; is it the theological or textual differences that are importance in defining a movement or is it how they define themselves?
possibly relevant: Rastafarians considered Haile Selassie I as the second coming of Jesus (as God incarnate), yet they, nor most people, consider Rastafarianism as Christian.

though i may be wrong, or it may be because most Rastafari don't define it as a religion

At 10/8/11 04:28 PM, Hybridization wrote: Christians did not take Roman religion, change it, and claim to be proponents of it. The definitions that we are using to define a cult do not relate Mormonism to Christianity.

I think the problem is that Cults get a bad rep due to the famous end of the world ones, as a matter of fact most cults are family friendly, they live like everyday normal people and people join them for a sense of belonging. They're not the "KILL THA PRESDENT" ones.

But I don't see why anyone would care if Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus came out at the same time or that there are multiple gods, that doesn't really matter. When you say Cult you're implying that they are a group of brainwashed individuals who'd die for their religion and kill many people will doing it, this is not the case for Mormonism and I don't see why anyone would want to stick that definition to it, or that say having different beliefs than what other people have is really worthy of calling it a "cult".

At 10/8/11 08:28 PM, Warforger wrote: having different beliefs than what other people have is really worthy of calling it a "cult".

Seems like this, and having someone not like you, are the two threshold requirements for being a cult nowadays...

No one here is saying regular Christians have to like Mormons, but calling them a cult does nothing but point the cult scrutiny back at yourselves.

At 10/8/11 04:45 PM, lapis wrote:

At 10/8/11 04:28 PM, Hybridization wrote: Christianity teaches that eternal life is achieved through acceptance of Jesus's divinity,

"Christianity" doesn't teach anything.

I can't even begin to respond to this.

What a modern-day born again Christian believes is radically, fundamentally, essentially different from what a 4th century Monophysite or a 3rd century libertine believed.

But the text - therefore, the teaching - is consistent. The religion is not shaped by its followers only the teachings. Again, this is why Mormons can say they are Christians when, if analyzed through Scripture, they clearly are not.

The only things they have in common is symbolism and an ambiguous piece of text.

Don't forget everything else in the Bible.

Protestants and Catholics can't even agree on whether it's just faith or a combination of faith and works that brings people salvation.

This isn't a contextual issue because the Bible does not teach that works matter. The Catholics came up with this idea of "doing something for the church" because they wanted money. The Reformation acknowledged this and sought to purge the secularism and return to the original beliefs and teachings. But, this is common knowledge; what is your argument exactly?

Agree with me on this: that Christianity has evolved drastically throughout the past two millennia. Only then we can move on to discussing why Christianity at its inception was like a cult, while modern Christianity isn't.

I agree 25%. Christianity hasn't evolved - Christians have; the religion and its teachings have remained consistent while the followers manipulate (or even ignore) certain parts to suit their needs (ie: the Catholic Church). This has nothing to do with whether Christianity is/was a cult, however. As I have said in just about every post, Christianity does not claim (and never claimed) to be a different religion with some twisted differences within the original teaching. It is it's own religion - not an outcasted manipulator of another one. I hope this is clarified once and for all. There is no discussion about whether or not it was a cult - it wasn't.

At 10/8/11 05:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/8/11 04:07 PM, Hybridization wrote: wouldn't it make logical sense that the orthodoxy of Christianity would be offended my the Mormons who disown many of the foundational teachings of it?

That's a crock of shit. EVERY sect of Christianity has something that another sect believes misrepresents them in a fundamental way (otherwise they wouldn't have split), so is every other sect that isn't yours a cult?

You are incorrect. NO denomination of Christianity has something that ANY other believes misrepresents them fundamentally. The structure of the denominations are adequate enough and the differences are in minor issues such as alcohol and drug-use. There are no Baptists who would claim that Lutherans or Methodists do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah (to simplify it) - and there are likewise NO denominations that reject the Divinity. A "sect" becomes a cult in this way if the Messiah teaching is either rejected or manipulated - all Christian denominations agree on this.

The "sort of people" who are most offended by the LDS are those whose beliefs have been twisted and labeled as their own.

Would you claim the Adventists as cultish with their twisted belief that it was Saturday not Sunday that's a Holy Day? Or the Catholics that you cannot speak to God directly?

Re-read above.

It is a huge insult to reject an opinion and speak on behalf of it. Moreover, it undermines the credibility of the belief (in this case, Christianity) because people who are on neither side will simply clump everybody together and point out an inconsistency - thereby "disproving" Christianity when, in reality, they are "disproving" the LDS.

I have never seen anybody do this. Where do people say "Christianity is at fault, because Mormons are"?

It was a hypothetical to explain why Christians are offended by the LDS claiming to be a part of them.

At 10/8/11 11:25 PM, Hybridization wrote: You are incorrect. NO denomination of Christianity has something that ANY other believes misrepresents them fundamentally. The structure of the denominations are adequate enough and the differences are in minor issues such as alcohol and drug-use.

Um, no? Really. Some Christian sect believe that the only way to truly be with God is to join a monastery. Others claim to allow people into heaven based merely off of a sincere repentance before death. In other words, some sect allow people to sin like nodoby's business so long as they repent. I would have to say that's really fundamental.

Also, some sects say that the way to contact is is through the Church and only through the church. others say contact with God is completely personal, and the Church is nothing other than a guide. That's pretty darn fundamental.

Re-read above.

So are you telling me that belief int he Bible and Jesus is all that is needed to be Christian? I fail to see how the Mormons would not fit within your larger definition of Christianity?

At 10/8/11 11:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: There is no discussion about whether or not [Christianity] was a cult - it wasn't.

You can't have it both ways there.

Either Mormonism is a cult, because it so deviates from Christianity, and Christianity was a cult because it so deviated from Judaism, or netiher is a cult.

At 10/8/11 08:28 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/8/11 04:28 PM, Hybridization wrote: Christians did not take Roman religion, change it, and claim to be proponents of it. The definitions that we are using to define a cult do not relate Mormonism to Christianity.

I think the problem is that Cults get a bad rep due to the famous end of the world ones, as a matter of fact most cults are family friendly, they live like everyday normal people and people join them for a sense of belonging. They're not the "KILL THA PRESDENT" ones.

I agree that theoretically a cult does not have to be harmful, but I have yet to find one that is not.

But I don't see why anyone would care if Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus came out at the same time or that there are multiple gods, that doesn't really matter.

By "anyone", I assume you mean within the Christian population. If so, the suggestion that there are multiple gods automatically rejects the entire Christian Bible - no questions asked. And the belief that Satan and Jesus arrived simultaneously is a logical inconsistency (how could a Savior be needed for nothing?). So, these points definitely matter when Mormons claim to be Christians.

When you say Cult you're implying that they are a group of brainwashed individuals who'd die for their religion and kill many people will doing it,

That may be the connotation, but that is neither my implication, nor the definition with which we are basing the discussion on.

I don't see why anyone would want to stick that definition to it, or that say having different beliefs than what other people have is really worthy of calling it a "cult".

This is not what we are saying. Simply having a different belief is understood and accepted (technically, it would be called "heresy"). A belief becomes cultish (in Christianity), when the fundamental teachings are manipulated and expanded upon - especially in the case of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

At 10/8/11 11:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/8/11 11:25 PM, Hybridization wrote: You are incorrect. NO denomination of Christianity has something that ANY other believes misrepresents them fundamentally. The structure of the denominations are adequate enough and the differences are in minor issues such as alcohol and drug-use.

Um, no? Really. Some Christian sect believe that the only way to truly be with God is to join a monastery. Others claim to allow people into heaven based merely off of a sincere repentance before death. In other words, some sect allow people to sin like nodoby's business so long as they repent. I would have to say that's really fundamental.

Um, yes. All believe that repentance is the only way to eternity. Again, the differences arise in minor, lifestyle issues.

Also, some sects say that the way to contact is is through the Church and only through the church. others say contact with God is completely personal, and the Church is nothing other than a guide. That's pretty darn fundamental.

It's not fundamental with regard to eternity; although I am toying with the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism. And, Catholicism is not a denomination of Protestantism - so, this argument is void.

So are you telling me that belief int he Bible and Jesus is all that is needed to be Christian? I fail to see how the Mormons would not fit within your larger definition of Christianity?

To be classified as a Christian denomination or otherwise, the text must clearly assert that:

A. Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected.
B. Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and the acceptance of Him is the only way to achieve eternal life.
C. There is an all powerful God (singular), Who created all things.
*D. The Holy Trinity consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - who are all One.

Mormons agree with A only.

(*unsure if the belief of this is required, but logically, the belief of D would follow B and C).

Either Mormonism is a cult, because it so deviates from Christianity, and Christianity was a cult because it so deviated from Judaism, or netiher is a cult.

*sigh* There's that horrendous "A = C" logic again. Christianity did not alter Judaism's Old Testament. If Mormonism simply added to the New Testament, this thread wouldn't exist.

At 10/8/11 11:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: The religion is not shaped by its followers only the teachings.

Constantine.

and enough with being by the book, modern Christianity mocks the Bible as much as Mormonism.

At 10/9/11 01:36 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/8/11 11:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: The religion is not shaped by its followers only the teachings.

Constantine.

and enough with being by the book, modern Christianity mocks the Bible as much as Mormonism.

Regardless - the religion should be the target of inspection. Otherwise we have nothing but total subjective opinion. Modern Christianity does not mock the Bible - [most] modernized Christians do. And, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with Constantine.

At 10/7/11 07:14 PM, Hybridization wrote: So yes, Mormonism and the LDS Church is a cult religion - an abomination of Christianity and its values.

This is the funniest thing I have ever read in my entire life!

At 10/8/11 11:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: But the text - therefore, the teaching - is consistent. The religion is not shaped by its followers only the teachings. Again, this is why Mormons can say they are Christians when, if analyzed through Scripture, they clearly are not.

Seriously, we're talking about a text that says "Thou shalt not kill" in Exodus 20:13 only to say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" some 60 or so verses later. Of course, interpretations of this text - and therefore, the teaching - are going to vary wildly. And that's just the old testament, a giant part of which was abrogated with the coming of Jesus according to modern Christians.

And this is clear from history: Thomas of Aquinas saw blasphemy as the worst possible sin (worse than murder) and the death penalty as its punishment no less than obvious. And don't blame this on Catholicism, Calvin also had non-trinitarian Christians hanged for the same crime. But today, some Christians contrast the death penalty for blasphemy in Muslim countries like Pakistan with Judeo-Christian freedom of ideas and criticism to argue that the latter is superior. Based on the same text! Either blasphemers should be put to death or Christians did it wrong for over 1500 years - in the latter case, that probably says more about the text than about the Christians

Protestants and Catholics can't even agree on whether it's just faith or a combination of faith and works that brings people salvation.

This isn't a contextual issue because the Bible does not teach that works matter. The Catholics came up with this idea of "doing something for the church" because they wanted money. The Reformation acknowledged this and sought to purge the secularism and return to the original beliefs and teachings. But, this is common knowledge; what is your argument exactly?

Oh, come on, we both know that there is textual support for both in the Bible.

"But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."

And don't bore me with your interpretation of it, the issue is that it's ambiguous.

I agree 25%. Christianity hasn't evolved - Christians have;

You're looking at it the wrong way: it's not that Christians are people who follow Christianity, but Christianity is what Christians believe. As these beliefs change, so does Christianity. Seriously, the common ground on which a Christian from 50 AD and you could agree on is marginal. Even his divinity was still widely disputed then.

As I have said in just about every post, Christianity does not claim (and never claimed) to be a different religion with some twisted differences within the original teaching. It is it's own religion - not an outcasted manipulator of another one. I hope this is clarified once and for all. There is no discussion about whether or not it was a cult - it wasn't.

I really have a hard time understanding your point here. First of all, Christians still claim Abraham and Moses as part of their heritage, yet the coming of Christ abrogated the better portion of, say, Leviticus. I mean, how many Christians do you now that do not eat pork or shellfish, that support the stoning of non-viriginal unmarried women and that do not cut the hair on the sides of their heads? How are these not "twisted differences within the original teaching"? You later say that Christianity did not alter the Old Testament, yet they interpret it in a way that's radically different from how rabbinical Jews interpret it. Twisted difference = twisted difference.

And don't even dare to bring up the "A = C logic". I mean, fuck me for expecting your arguments to make sense. If I can't apply your logic to other situations then why should I be convinced that it applies in this situation? Answer me that.

At 10/8/11 11:54 PM, Hybridization wrote: Um, yes. All believe that repentance is the only way to eternity. Again, the differences arise in minor, lifestyle issues.

Really? The requirement of a monastic life versus a free ticket with redemption is a minor lfestyle issue? WTF?

And, Catholicism is not a denomination of Protestantism - so, this argument is void.

What? Are you trying to burn every bridge here just to make your zealot point of calling the Mormons a cult?

To be classified as a Christian denomination or otherwise, the text must clearly assert that:
Mormons agree with A only.

You've got to source me up on BOTH of these assertions.

*sigh* There's that horrendous "A = C" logic again. Christianity did not alter Judaism's Old Testament. If Mormonism simply added to the New Testament, this thread wouldn't exist.

Actually no. You're claiming that Mormons are a cult because they're significantly different from Christianity while still claiming to have the same roots. That sounds EXACTLY like Christianity was. The A=C arguyment is exactly spot on. The fact you avoid it like the plague shows your true colors. You have no real basis for Mormonism to be a cult, save the fact that you, with all of your being, WANT it to be a cult.

At 10/8/11 11:38 PM, Hybridization wrote: I agree that theoretically a cult does not have to be harmful, but I have yet to find one that is not.

Statistically most aren't

By "anyone", I assume you mean within the Christian population. If so, the suggestion that there are multiple gods automatically rejects the entire Christian Bible - no questions asked.

Not necessarily, the Bible doesn't really say that there aren't multiple Gods and recent archeological findings have found some proof that the Hebrews believed in multiple gods.

; And the belief that Satan and Jesus arrived simultaneously is a logical inconsistency (how could a Savior be needed for nothing?).

How could Jesus walk on water how could Jesus cure blind people by spitting on their eyes? Because God said so.

That may be the connotation, but that is neither my implication, nor the definition with which we are basing the discussion on.

Then why not just call it a different sect?

This is not what we are saying. Simply having a different belief is understood and accepted (technically, it would be called "heresy"). A belief becomes cultish (in Christianity), when the fundamental teachings are manipulated and expanded upon - especially in the case of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

So by using this logic, all Protestant sects are cults because they take away from the teachings of the traditional Roman Catholic Church.

All religions are cults.

At 10/9/11 12:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/8/11 11:54 PM, Hybridization wrote: Um, yes. All believe that repentance is the only way to eternity. Again, the differences arise in minor, lifestyle issues.

Really? The requirement of a monastic life versus a free ticket with redemption is a minor lfestyle issue? WTF?

Monasticism is a choice - not a requirement for eternal life. Yes, it's a minor lifestyle issue in respect to the religion's belief.

And, Catholicism is not a denomination of Protestantism - so, this argument is void.

What? Are you trying to burn every bridge here just to make your zealot point of calling the Mormons a cult?

No, I'm burning every stupid bridge here because most simply reveal ignorance of either religion. I gave thirteen clear points or why I, and most Christian scholars, call Mormonism a cult. If you didn't bother to read them, you are ranting - thus, I can't take most of what you say seriously.

To be classified as a Christian denomination or otherwise, the text must clearly assert that:
Mormons agree with A only.

You've got to source me up on BOTH of these assertions.

Read my introduction to the thread!

*sigh* There's that horrendous "A = C" logic again. Christianity did not alter Judaism's Old Testament. If Mormonism simply added to the New Testament, this thread wouldn't exist.

Actually no. You're claiming that Mormons are a cult because they're significantly different from Christianity while still claiming to have the same roots. That sounds EXACTLY like Christianity was.

Wow, I can't believe I'm about to say this again: Mormonism is a cult because they took Christianity - completely altered most of the teachings (READ MY POST), and yet claim to be Christian. Christianity DID NOT take Judaism, twist the core teachings, and claim to be Jewish (religion). THAT is why the LDS is a cult! I'm not pulling the "They're just different" card. Unless you're getting me confused with someone else, I've been saying this whole time that simply having a different religion (however strange) is simply heretical not cultish.

The A=C arguyment is exactly spot on.

Okay, so you are defending bad deductive logic? If Cats are animals, and Dogs are animals, then Cats are Dogs. That's a parallel of what you are defending.

The fact you avoid it like the plague shows your true colors.

How am I avoiding it?

You have no real basis for Mormonism to be a cult, save the fact that you, with all of your being, WANT it to be a cult.

READ MY ORIGINAL POST!! You might actually be able to engage in the conversation! I could care less whether Mormonism is a cult or not - the fact of the matter is, the way it currently is, it must be defined as one.

At 10/9/11 01:14 PM, Warforger wrote:

By "anyone", I assume you mean within the Christian population. If so, the suggestion that there are multiple gods automatically rejects the entire Christian Bible - no questions asked.

Not necessarily, the Bible doesn't really say that there aren't multiple Gods and recent archeological findings have found some proof that the Hebrews believed in multiple gods.

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men." (1 Timothy 2:5)

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God beside Me." (Isaiah 45:5) [Old Testament]

"There is one God; and there is no other but He." (Mark 12:32)

There are many other verses, but I feel that this suffices.

; And the belief that Satan and Jesus arrived simultaneously is a logical inconsistency (how could a Savior be needed for nothing?).

How could Jesus walk on water how could Jesus cure blind people by spitting on their eyes? Because God said so.

Although Divine miracles are difficult to believe (I understand this), they are not logical inconsistencies. If an All-Powerful Being created the laws of nature by which we follow and understand, He would logically be unbound to it. It is NOT logical to assume that a Cure is needed for a disease that does not exist.

That may be the connotation, but that is neither my implication, nor the definition with which we are basing the discussion on.

Then why not just call it a different sect?

Because that implies that they believe in the core foundations of Christianity (ie: in Catholicism and Protestantism). The only big similarities Mormons really have with Christians are their stance on (some) moral issues, and their acknowledgement that Jesus died.

This is not what we are saying. Simply having a different belief is understood and accepted (technically, it would be called "heresy"). A belief becomes cultish (in Christianity), when the fundamental teachings are manipulated and expanded upon - especially in the case of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

So by using this logic, all Protestant sects are cults because they take away from the teachings of the traditional Roman Catholic Church.

No. The teachings of the RCC deviated from the original teachings of the Bible. The Reformation restored the original teachings. You could (sort of) say that Catholicism is a light cult of Protestantism, but I would not call it as such (because of the fundamentals). However, in the middle ages, their behavior more resembled that of a cult.

The idea of Protestantism was technically the original Christian belief, and Catholics altered it in some way - a way big enough for the two ideologies to be distinguished, but not quite cultish.

At 10/9/11 02:38 PM, Hybridization wrote: Although Divine miracles are difficult to believe (I understand this), they are not logical inconsistencies. If an All-Powerful Being created the laws of nature by which we follow and understand, He would logically be unbound to it. It is NOT logical to assume that a Cure is needed for a disease that does not exist.

Erm yah. Jesus died for out sins, those existed, Satan didn't need to do anything. People argue that the serpent in the Garden of Eve isn't Satan, but then again the Bible doesn't really talk about Hell too often and as such doesn't talk about Satan too often so anything beyond the snake is pure fan-fiction or expanded universe novels.

Because that implies that they believe in the core foundations of Christianity (ie: in Catholicism and Protestantism). The only big similarities Mormons really have with Christians are their stance on (some) moral issues, and their acknowledgement that Jesus died.

And their stance on Jesus's purpose, which is all Christanity is about

No. The teachings of the RCC deviated from the original teachings of the Bible. The Reformation restored the original teachings.

No. That wasn't why the reformation happened, in fact if anything the reformation detracted even further. The reformation happened because the church had become corrupt, priests were selling forgiveness for their sins to the rich to fund the church, which was still funded by the state, among other complaints, like bringing it back to the original simple practices. The other major one Calvin thought up his own belief about God entirely that only a few people were destined to go to heaven and the rest go to hell since God has a plan for everyone right? This has nothing to do with the Bible or any of its core teachings. At best it wasn't until literacy had become widespread that people began reading the Bible on their own and making their own interpretations.

You could (sort of) say that Catholicism is a light cult of Protestantism, but I would not call it as such (because of the fundamentals). However, in the middle ages, their behavior more resembled that of a cult.

Although according to you the only thing that separates cults is teachings, and the Catholic church had dictated how to practice it.

The idea of Protestantism was technically the original Christian belief, and Catholics altered it in some way - a way big enough for the two ideologies to be distinguished, but not quite cultish.

No it wasn't. Protestantism isn't a united belief, it's just a blanket term for a whole bunch of Christian sects with loads of disagreements and varying practices, with sects constantly splitting, so it's not an original Christian belief.

At 10/9/11 05:30 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/9/11 02:38 PM, Hybridization wrote: Although Divine miracles are difficult to believe (I understand this), they are not logical inconsistencies. If an All-Powerful Being created the laws of nature by which we follow and understand, He would logically be unbound to it. It is NOT logical to assume that a Cure is needed for a disease that does not exist.

Erm yah. Jesus died for out sins, those existed, Satan didn't need to do anything. People argue that the serpent in the Garden of Eve isn't Satan, but then again the Bible doesn't really talk about Hell too often and as such doesn't talk about Satan too often so anything beyond the snake is pure fan-fiction or expanded universe novels.

Do you know what you're talking about? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue.

Because that implies that they believe in the core foundations of Christianity (ie: in Catholicism and Protestantism). The only big similarities Mormons really have with Christians are their stance on (some) moral issues, and their acknowledgement that Jesus died.

And their stance on Jesus's purpose, which is all Christanity is about

Christianity is not about becoming a god after you die, accepting anyone other the Jesus as Savior, and denying His divinity. Their stance is NOT what all Christianity is about at all.

No. The teachings of the RCC deviated from the original teachings of the Bible. The Reformation restored the original teachings.

No. That wasn't why the reformation happened, in fact if anything the reformation detracted even further. The reformation happened because the church had become corrupt, priests were selling forgiveness for their sins to the rich to fund the church, which was still funded by the state, among other complaints, like bringing it back to the original simple practices.

You said, "no" yet you defended my argument.

The other major one Calvin thought up his own belief about God entirely that only a few people were destined to go to heaven and the rest go to hell since God has a plan for everyone right? This has nothing to do with the Bible or any of its core teachings. At best it wasn't until literacy had become widespread that people began reading the Bible on their own and making their own interpretations.

We are not discussing Calvinism - although we could; it would be a similar argument. But, how does this defend or refute the fact that Mormonism is a cult?

Although according to you the only thing that separates cults is teachings, and the Catholic church had dictated how to practice it.

You are not reading the thread in its entirety. Instead, you are generalizing one point I made - a point that I have explained, explained, and explained again. The teachings of Mormonism is a manipulation and addition to the Christian Bible and still claims to be Christian. Although by definition, the Catholic church would be a cult if it called itself Protestant, I believe they are different enough to be separate religions. The teachings matter, but not in the way you are insinuating.

The idea of Protestantism was technically the original Christian belief, and Catholics altered it in some way - a way big enough for the two ideologies to be distinguished, but not quite cultish.

No it wasn't. Protestantism isn't a united belief, it's just a blanket term for a whole bunch of Christian sects with loads of disagreements and varying practices, with sects constantly splitting, so it's not an original Christian belief.

The collective believes more Biblical teachings than the Catholics. In this way, they are a united classification with minimal lifestyle differences. They ALL are closer to the original teachings of Christ. It is the collective that is nearer to the original teaching.

By the way, I think the people of the middle ages who underwent the Inquisition would beg to differ.

At 10/9/11 08:14 PM, Hybridization wrote:

At 10/9/11 05:30 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/9/11 02:38 PM, Hybridization wrote: Although Divine miracles are difficult to believe (I understand this), they are not logical inconsistencies. If an All-Powerful Being created the laws of nature by which we follow and understand, He would logically be unbound to it. It is NOT logical to assume that a Cure is needed for a disease that does not exist.

Erm yah. Jesus died for out sins, those existed, Satan didn't need to do anything. People argue that the serpent in the Garden of Eve isn't Satan, but then again the Bible doesn't really talk about Hell too often and as such doesn't talk about Satan too often so anything beyond the snake is pure fan-fiction or expanded universe novels.

Do you know what you're talking about? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue.

Erm the original "sin" was when Eve ate an apple from the tree of knowledge, that's why Jews cut off their foreskin to remove themselves of this sin. The idea is that the serpent, which is what tempted Eve to eat the apple in the first place, is Satan but nowhere it is explicitly said that the serpent is Satan.

That's where the argument comes up.

Christianity is not about becoming a god after you die, accepting anyone other the Jesus as Savior, and denying His divinity. Their stance is NOT what all Christianity is about at all.

It's about Jesus cleanse your sins. Of course

No. The teachings of the RCC deviated from the original teachings of the Bible. The Reformation restored the original teachings.

No. That wasn't why the reformation happened, in fact if anything the reformation detracted even further. The reformation happened because the church had become corrupt, priests were selling forgiveness for their sins to the rich to fund the church, which was still funded by the state, among other complaints, like bringing it back to the original simple practices.

You said, "no" yet you defended my argument.

"Simple practices" isn't the same thing as "change the practices to the original". Protestantism ISN'T true Christianity in fact scholars say that true Christianity hasn't been practiced ever since it was a cult. What it's saying is to get rid of the preference to the rich. The main problem however, is that if it was "true" Christianity then most of what people believe wouldn't really be there.

We are not discussing Calvinism - although we could; it would be a similar argument. But, how does this defend or refute the fact that Mormonism is a cult?

We are however talking about the Protestant reformation, and Calvinism has nothing to do with the Bible which is my point.

You are not reading the thread in its entirety. Instead, you are generalizing one point I made - a point that I have explained, explained, and explained again. The teachings of Mormonism is a manipulation and addition to the Christian Bible and still claims to be Christian.

Let them. I don't see anything wrong with that because the only man that has had any authority in saying what is the right way to practice and what is the wrong way to practice is the Pope.

Although by definition, the Catholic church would be a cult if it called itself Protestant, I believe they are different enough to be separate religions. The teachings matter, but not in the way you are insinuating.

Again there you go acting like Protestantism is a unified belief again.

The collective believes more Biblical teachings than the Catholics. In this way, they are a united classification with minimal lifestyle differences. They ALL are closer to the original teachings of Christ. It is the collective that is nearer to the original teaching.

No, they're not. Most are just new ideas applied to Christianity, like say Baptism, the Calvinists believed that you only have to dip their foot into the water, the Baptists believe you dunk the whole thing. In fact much of Christanity, from Satan to Hell is just European inspired mythology.

By the way, I think the people of the middle ages who underwent the Inquisition would beg to differ.

Beg to differ what? That the Catholic church isn't a cult?

At 10/9/11 08:28 PM, Warforger wrote: Erm the original "sin" was when Eve ate an apple from the tree of knowledge, that's why Jews cut off their foreskin to remove themselves of this sin. The idea is that the serpent, which is what tempted Eve to eat the apple in the first place, is Satan but nowhere it is explicitly said that the serpent is Satan.

That's where the argument comes up.

Later, in Revelations, there is implication of this. But, again, what point are you trying to make?

Christianity is not about becoming a god after you die, accepting anyone other the Jesus as Savior, and denying His divinity. Their stance is NOT what all Christianity is about at all.

It's about Jesus cleanse your sins. Of course

You're point? As I said before, we aren't here (I hope) to discuss whether a religion makes sense subjectively or not. There is no winner in an argument such as this.

No. The teachings of the RCC deviated from the original teachings of the Bible. The Reformation restored the original teachings.

"Simple practices" isn't the same thing as "change the practices to the original". Protestantism ISN'T true Christianity in fact scholars say that true Christianity hasn't been practiced ever since it was a cult. What it's saying is to get rid of the preference to the rich. The main problem however, is that if it was "true" Christianity then most of what people believe wouldn't really be there.

Do you know anything about the Reformation?

We are not discussing Calvinism - although we could; it would be a similar argument. But, how does this defend or refute the fact that Mormonism is a cult?

We are however talking about the Protestant reformation, and Calvinism has nothing to do with the Bible which is my point.

Then what is your argument?

You are not reading the thread in its entirety. Instead, you are generalizing one point I made - a point that I have explained, explained, and explained again. The teachings of Mormonism is a manipulation and addition to the Christian Bible and still claims to be Christian.

Let them. I don't see anything wrong with that because the only man that has had any authority in saying what is the right way to practice and what is the wrong way to practice is the Pope.

?

Although by definition, the Catholic church would be a cult if it called itself Protestant, I believe they are different enough to be separate religions. The teachings matter, but not in the way you are insinuating.

Again there you go acting like Protestantism is a unified belief again.

I've clarified this.

The collective believes more Biblical teachings than the Catholics. In this way, they are a united classification with minimal lifestyle differences. They ALL are closer to the original teachings of Christ. It is the collective that is nearer to the original teaching.

No, they're not. Most are just new ideas applied to Christianity, like say Baptism, the Calvinists believed that you only have to dip their foot into the water, the Baptists believe you dunk the whole thing. In fact much of Christanity, from Satan to Hell is just European inspired mythology.

That was such a leap - from the insignificant technique of baptism to the critical parts of the religion. You are only defending my arguments here.

By the way, I think the people of the middle ages who underwent the Inquisition would beg to differ.

Beg to differ what? That the Catholic church isn't a cult?

No because I've already said that Catholicism could be. The people who underwent the inquisition called themselves "Protestant" - therefore, "unified"

And pay attention more, you're doing a lot of irrelevant ranting.

At 10/7/11 11:20 PM, djack wrote: All of the groups that fit within the LDS Church (which isn't just Mormons although they are one of the largest and best known of the groups) follow Joseph Smith so that part of my post is still completely valid.

It is, but that's not the bit I'm disagreeing with and you know very well it isn't. I'm disagreeing with you clearly not drawing a line between fundamentalists in the Mormon faith and the larger community.

And if being able to understand why someone would call Mormonism a cult means that I don't know the difference between that group and the larger denomination that they are a part of then clearly I don't understand parallelograms or triangles either because those are larger groups that encompass other things such as squares and equilateral triangles.

So because lines can be part of a triangles and parallelograms the line must have identical properties and pointing out any contrasting properties as well as similarities is a waste of time?

I never claimed they weren't Christian, I simply said that some of their behavior fits the definition of a cult.

Same with every other religion in ever. If we're going to play, let's play fair is all I'm saying.

At 10/8/11 06:40 PM, Ericho wrote: I think the notion was that Mormonism could be considered a different religion because they have a different book than most Christians.

Nah, I think end of the day it's a political ploy to try and slam the breaks on Mitt Romney and give a candidate evangelicals and Tea Party Republicans will like better a chance to show up. Hybridization decided to springboard to his own personal dislike of Mormonism. But for fucks sake, they believe the same fundamental shit as Christians, that's proven. As I said, they feel they just have a "newer" New Testament and what not. It's still Christianity, whether other Christians enjoy it or not.

Is there any other religious sect (like Baptists, Catholics, whatever) that has its own book?

Quite a few in fact. Nobody last I checked is saying somebody isn't a Christian if they read and believe the King James vs. The Holy Bible or what not. It's a nonsense tact.

There are too many sects of this religion to keep track of, so I could never remember the difference between them. Do Mormons believe in both the Bible AND the Book of Mormon?

Again, the Book of Mormon is like a newer New Testament in their faith. It's like how you can't have Christianity without Judaism and the Torah as the base. So Mormons cannot get their faith and the Book of Mormon without saying that the Bible is also a true thing. Just that like the New Testament was Christianity breaking from the main school of Judaism, The Book of Mormon purports to be yet another revelation from God.

At 10/10/11 12:59 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: The Book of Mormon purports to be yet another revelation from God.

You say Mormonism should not be treated as a separate religion and then seem to analogize it with Christianity to Judiasm, two things we consider wholly separate. If, like Christianity, Mormonism adopted a newer testament, how does it stay Christianity when Christianity is distinguished from Judaism in the same manner?

Under the logic you put forth the follow should be the case:
Old Testament = Judaism
Judaism + New Testament = Chrstianity
Chrsitianity + Book of Mormon = Mormonism (as entirely separate religion)

If this doesn't fit what you meant, please distinguish.

At 10/8/11 11:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: But the text - therefore, the teaching - is consistent.

What text are you reading? The Gospels agree on many points...but then dramatically differ on others. This is "consistency" in your world?

The religion is not shaped by its followers only the teachings.

Catholics. Catholics. Catholics. Oh, also every other sect. If the religion was just the text, there wouldn't be all the different Christian faiths out there disagreeing with each other and believing that their beliefs and additions or subtractions from the faith are more correct. This is just silliness on your part.

Again, this is why Mormons can say they are Christians when, if analyzed through Scripture, they clearly are not.

Except that, once again, the scripture is not essential to identification as being Christian, as the term is defined. As I pointed out. You're taking a piece of the overall faith, inflating it to say "it's the only bit that matters" and then using it to disqualify someone else. It's the religious equivalent of a No True Scotsman, and I've seen it so often it's frankly become boringly predictable.

Don't forget everything else in the Bible.

I believe that was the "ambiguous piece of text" he was referring to :)

This isn't a contextual issue because the Bible does not teach that works matter.

So what? The Bible isn't the be all end all. This line of crap gets trotted out and shot down every single time this sort of subject comes up. Especially when we remember that there isn't just one Bible.

The Catholics came up with this idea of "doing something for the church" because they wanted money.

Power too. Let's not forget the power part of the equation. Money is great...but when you get power too? Oh, that's the ultimate.

I agree 25%. Christianity hasn't evolved - Christians have; the religion and its teachings have remained consistent while the followers manipulate (or even ignore) certain parts to suit their needs (ie: the Catholic Church).

And that isn't evolution? Religions die an are useless without followers. If they don't evolve, and their followers adapt it to fit their lives and needs...then it dies and gets relegated to the dust bin of history. But I understand it's easier for an "outsider looking in" to see that then an adherent.

This has nothing to do with whether Christianity is/was a cult, however.

It sort of does when you declare and established religion, which is an offshoot of Christianity, a cult. Then we have to turn the lens back on the parent faith, and all other faiths and say "well, if this one is a cult...why isn't it's parent faiths a cult as well?" We have to look at it in terms of all other like minded situations, compare and contrast to reach a conclusion. Called Critical Thinking.

As I have said in just about every post, Christianity does not claim (and never claimed) to be a different religion with some twisted differences within the original teaching.

Yeah they do. They totally, and clearly claimed to be separate from their parent Jewish faith.

It is it's own religion - not an outcasted manipulator of another one.

Outcasted, oh yes. Manipulator? You know, I think I'll give you that with a but. That the religion itself I don't think seeks to manipulate per se...but certainly adherents have done so.

I hope this is clarified once and for all. There is no discussion about whether or not it was a cult - it wasn't.

Yeah, it absolutely was a cult at the beginning of it's history. Now it isn't, things change. That's the nature of any successful system. Systems that are static, tend to die out. Plus it helps when the most powerful man in the Western World tells his empire "we're with these guys now" :)

At 10/10/11 01:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You say Mormonism should not be treated as a separate religion and then seem to analogize it with Christianity to Judiasm, two things we consider wholly separate. If, like Christianity, Mormonism adopted a newer testament, how does it stay Christianity when Christianity is distinguished from Judaism in the same manner?

You raise a good point. But I'm going with my understanding of the dictionary definition of Christianity, which says that if you believe in the divinity of Jesus, and the Christian conception of Jesus, you are at your core a Christian. Also I've always had a hard time considering Judaism and Christianity to be entirely seperate, since you can't have one without the other...I guess the way I look at it I guess is more like Judaism is the parent, Christianity is the child. They are not the same thing obviously, but they are inextricably related. Still, I totally see your point, since I'm starting from a basis of what I understand to be factually correct, but then it also veers into my personal opinions and conclusions given those facts.

At 10/10/11 01:13 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/8/11 11:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: But the text - therefore, the teaching - is consistent.

What text are you reading? The Gospels agree on many points...but then dramatically differ on others. This is "consistency" in your world?

The Bible. What world of inconsistency have you been living in?

The religion is not shaped by its followers only the teachings.

Catholics. Catholics. Catholics. Oh, also every other sect. If the religion was just the text, there wouldn't be all the different Christian faiths out there disagreeing with each other and believing that their beliefs and additions or subtractions from the faith are more correct. This is just silliness on your part.

The religion is defined by the teachings regardless. I fail to see how this is silly.

Again, this is why Mormons can say they are Christians when, if analyzed through Scripture, they clearly are not.

Except that, once again, the scripture is not essential to identification as being Christian

Then tell me, what could POSSIBLY be used to define Christianity?

This isn't a contextual issue because the Bible does not teach that works matter.

So what? The Bible isn't the be all end all. This line of crap gets trotted out and shot down every single time this sort of subject comes up. Especially when we remember that there isn't just one Bible.

Complete nonsense.

The Catholics came up with this idea of "doing something for the church" because they wanted money.

Power too. Let's not forget the power part of the equation. Money is great...but when you get power too? Oh, that's the ultimate.

Of course.

I agree 25%. Christianity hasn't evolved - Christians have; the religion and its teachings have remained consistent while the followers manipulate (or even ignore) certain parts to suit their needs (ie: the Catholic Church).

And that isn't evolution?

No. The origins are consistent. Anyone today can follow the very roots of Christianity.

This has nothing to do with whether Christianity is/was a cult, however.

It sort of does when you declare and established religion, which is an offshoot of Christianity, a cult. Then we have to turn the lens back on the parent faith, and all other faiths and say "well, if this one is a cult...why isn't it's parent faiths a cult as well?" We have to look at it in terms of all other like minded situations, compare and contrast to reach a conclusion. Called Critical Thinking.

If you admit that the LDS is a different religion, we are not arguing. The cult part comes in when people claim it is the same religion as Christianity. Do you understand what the discussion is about? By the way, the second part of your post seems very much like you simply wanted to use the phrase "Critical thinking" to sound educated.

As I have said in just about every post, Christianity does not claim (and never claimed) to be a different religion with some twisted differences within the original teaching.

Yeah they do. They totally, and clearly claimed to be separate from their parent Jewish faith.

Sorry, I meant to say a different sect of the same religion - which would make it a cult. We are on the same page.

It is it's own religion - not an outcasted manipulator of another one.

Outcasted, oh yes. Manipulator? You know, I think I'll give you that with a but. That the religion itself I don't think seeks to manipulate per se...but certainly adherents have done so.

Show me where Protestant (even Catholic) Christianity has altered verses of the Old Testament, and you will have an argument.

Yeah, it absolutely was a cult at the beginning of it's history.

It did not claim to be a religion within Judaism etc etc etc (every previous post I've made). People obviously cannot understand the difference between the connotation of "cult" and the actual definition. Christianity was a hated and heretical minority - but it was not a cult because it did not change and expand upon the Old Testament (it only added to it, but the addition was completely in line with the prophets).

Explain to me how Christianity was a cult.

At 10/10/11 02:20 AM, Hybridization wrote: The Bible. What world of inconsistency have you been living in?

Which one of the many versions of the bible are you reading?

See what I did there

The religion is defined by the teachings regardless. I fail to see how this is silly.

Because religious text is not stone cold logical parameters with zero room for interpretation, so what you call "The Bible" (let's just say King James' version because it probably is) could be called "Heretical Garbage Book" by other people of the same religious background.

Text is but a small part of religious systems. An incredibly small part at that. The past two-thousand eleven years of human history has shown that pretty well, don't you think?

Then tell me, what could POSSIBLY be used to define Christianity?

Not the text alone because as I have already pointed out, your bible is not THE bible but A bible. One of several. And unless you want to play Knights Templar and start a campaign throughout the holy land, good luck getting anybody to give a shit what version of the book you think is the right one.

Complete nonsense.

"Here is my lame retort to your valid point."

That's your sentence translated into the holy tongue.

No. The origins are consistent. Anyone today can follow the very roots of Christianity.

Except you can't, because the text and information you've acquired regarding Christianity is akin to playing a bi-millennial version of "Telephone". And just like Telephone, I'm sure somebody down the line slipped in the word 'titty' because they thought it was funny.

The cult part comes in when people claim it is the same religion as Christianity.

They're both Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions aimed towards praising Jesus that both result in the lamest media this planet has ever bore witness to.

Am I missing something here or are you trying to distinguish between the DNA of identical twins because one has a birthmark on it's left asscheek?

By the way, the second part of your post seems very much like you simply wanted to use the phrase "Critical thinking" to sound educated.

You get apprehensive and throw out unsubstantiated insults like this every time your reasoning is called into question. That is the exact opposite of critical thinking. So essentially you're emboldening aviewaskewed's point.

Sorry, I meant to say a different sect of the same religion - which would make it a cult. We are on the same page.

What about the fact that your translation of the bible, your religious affiliation and your church if you attend one are all established as separate identities from the original cult of Christianity that was originally formed? Your beliefs, text and religious identity have practically nothing in common with a Christian man or woman from 5 AD.

Show me where Protestant (even Catholic) Christianity has altered verses of the Old Testament, and you will have an argument.

Does omitting entire books from the Old Testament count as altering?

It did not claim to be a religion within Judaism etc etc etc (every previous post I've made). People obviously cannot understand the difference between the connotation of "cult" and the actual definition. Christianity was a hated and heretical minority - but it was not a cult because it did not change and expand upon the Old Testament (it only added to it, but the addition was completely in line with the prophets).

Uh, that's not the definition of a cult either. Christians were a cult in all senses of the word; the academic definition of an uprising idea system spawned from then current socioeconomic/political/religious beliefs, as well as the more offhand slang term meaning "group of new-age weirdos spouting flavor of the month religious jargon".

Christians proclaimed that while the old laws from the old testament were still in effect, Christ had rendered power over them with a set of new laws that took a higher precedence, effectively changing the entire old testament to be less about a book of laws and codes and more a book with a bunch of stories about giant fish and cyclops giants. Christians retconned God from a person who will murder you for eating a hamburger on the wrong day of the week to a deity that is apparently all about forgiveness and absolving sins. So yes, they absolutely did change the old testament. This was continued hundreds of years later when Christians began actively omitting Jewish texts when they began compiling the bible.

As far as the more modern use of the word is concerned, well, Christians were a bunch of guys following around a hippie who claimed he could get you drunk off of stale creek water and really liked sandals and making shitty furniture. People saw that as kind of weird at the time. You know, the way you see Jehova's Witness guys when they ride past your house.

Explain to me how Christianity was a cult.

Refer to the above wall of text

At 10/10/11 12:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/7/11 11:20 PM, djack wrote: All of the groups that fit within the LDS Church (which isn't just Mormons although they are one of the largest and best known of the groups) follow Joseph Smith so that part of my post is still completely valid.

It is, but that's not the bit I'm disagreeing with and you know very well it isn't. I'm disagreeing with you clearly not drawing a line between fundamentalists in the Mormon faith and the larger community.

The larger community? The vast majority of the population of Utah is Mormon, and relatively few Mormons live in other parts of the country because they practice polygamy and very few states allow it (I don't know the marriage laws of every state so Utah may be the only one). You can't claim that other LDS Churches are different simply because I didn't mention them in my post. Besides, the founder of a group and his motives for doing so are a big part of what makes a cult what it is.

And if being able to understand why someone would call Mormonism a cult means that I don't know the difference between that group and the larger denomination that they are a part of then clearly I don't understand parallelograms or triangles either because those are larger groups that encompass other things such as squares and equilateral triangles.

So because lines can be part of a triangles and parallelograms the line must have identical properties and pointing out any contrasting properties as well as similarities is a waste of time?

You didn't point out contrasting properties, you said that because I could understand why someone would call Mormonism a cult I didn't understand the differences between Mormons and other branches of the LDS Church. Immediately attacking me for being able to see something from someone else's perspective and understand why they said what they did (can you say irony). Of course the different subgroups and even different members of those subgroups will have some differences but that isn't the group as a whole. When you think of Mormonism you probably think of the same thing as everyone else which is the large communities of Mormons in Utah and the story of Joseph Smith.

I never claimed they weren't Christian, I simply said that some of their behavior fits the definition of a cult.

Same with every other religion in ever. If we're going to play, let's play fair is all I'm saying.

If you're going to play with semantics then get out of the argument. Of course other religions have "cult" traits because cult is a broad term with multiple definitions (obviously the term cult classic isn't referring to the use of poisoned Kool-Aid for mass suicides) and there are individuals who will use the power of a religion to form a cult but that isn't the majority. The majority of Mormons on the other hand can be found in their compounds in Utah and at one time went to war with the government they lived under. If you can point to a time when Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism had the majority of it's members isolated from society based on the words of someone whose story is so inconsistent that anyone can see that he's lying (don't just say there are inconsistencies in the Bible either, you have to actually show verses that indicate that the person who wrote that book of the Bible was lying) and then went to war with their own government because of it then I will admit that you're right.