kill fire
Enormous Midget
It's quite easy for me to follow the scripture of my religion close to word for word, seeing as I wrote it myself.
What are the Borders of a Religion?
- Thread starter Lone Wolf
- Start date
Moderator Action: Spam posted deleted. Stay on topic. This is a discussion board, not a chat room
No, we use the KJV like a lot of people. (We don't consider the KJV to be perfect, by any stretch, it should be noted).
It's a decent analogy, although Miles' comment fits as well.
Yeah, that's about it. Whether this is true is irrelevant, this is how we see it, and thus the Book of Mormon isn't in any way an "addition" to the Bible. Any more than the New Testament adds verses to the Old, it is a separate work.
(Incidentally, the "other work" besides the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price is the Doctrine and Covenants. A full explanation of what each book is probably exceeds the scope of this thread.)
GhostWriter16
Deity
In one of the books (I think its the book of Mormon) It says something like, I remember reading "They were white and delightsome, and they were cursed and a skin of blackness did fall upon them so they would not be a snare."
Is there an explanation of how this isn't racist?
Not in this thread, no. You want to ask me about Mormon doctrine, go to the thread linked in my sig.
Christian Science uses Science & Health, with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, as a secondary text to support and illuminate the King James Version of the Bible. We certainly don't believe that the Bible is infallible or meant to be taken literally.
For a Gnostic Christian the Bible is not considered as infallible or meant to be taken literally. Gnostic Christians also believe that its more of a personal thing, so whether someone else believes differently then you, or agrees, doesn't matter. It's how you personally interpret the Scriptures. The Gnostic Christiams also accept other scriptures outside of the Bible, for instance those from the Nag Hammadi library. Note, two Gnostic Christians can follow different scriptures.
Since the Bible was written in ancient times by people from a different culture, Christians have to find a way to adjust that to their own times and culture. For europeans and americans animal sacrifice, stoning people to death, etc. don't fit our culture and the times in which we live. Likewise, Christians in Africa and Asia may adjust things to fit their cultures and not practice the same way that we do.
The problem is when some people will pick certain things, like discrimination of gays, to focus on but then ignore things like what the bible says about divorce. If a woman has been divorced and re-married several times and then talks about homosexuality is immoral, well she'd better look in the mirror. But there are many parts of the bible, especially the old testament, that just aren't applicable to modern western culture anymore.
The problem is when some people will pick certain things, like discrimination of gays, to focus on but then ignore things like what the bible says about divorce. If a woman has been divorced and re-married several times and then talks about homosexuality is immoral, well she'd better look in the mirror. But there are many parts of the bible, especially the old testament, that just aren't applicable to modern western culture anymore.
kill fire
Enormous Midget
THIS. You have to remember that all of this was written A LONG ASS TIME AGO. Some of it doesn't apply anymore. I feel the same way about the constitution in many ways.
Quillur
Chieftain
It's like the Constitution.
While it's only one document, each judge will interpret it differently, using tradition and the moral evolution of the country/state/county where s/he operates.
The easier path to take is consensus. If 90% of all Xanbitlans agree that P is true and Q is false, while only 30% agree that M is true and N is false, then I'd consider P canon, Q non-canon and hold judgment on M and N.
You could be more specific and define canons only for limited areas, so what is canon among Xanbitlans in Maraji is not canon among the Xanblitans in Omengu.
While it's only one document, each judge will interpret it differently, using tradition and the moral evolution of the country/state/county where s/he operates.
The easier path to take is consensus. If 90% of all Xanbitlans agree that P is true and Q is false, while only 30% agree that M is true and N is false, then I'd consider P canon, Q non-canon and hold judgment on M and N.
You could be more specific and define canons only for limited areas, so what is canon among Xanbitlans in Maraji is not canon among the Xanblitans in Omengu.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
There's also the question of how insistent the holy text in question on its complete 100% historical and moral veracity. It's a murky topic in general and clearly, personal
Still, I do think that every religion has a point beyond which calling oneself an adept of the religion in question is hypocritical.
Still, I do think that every religion has a point beyond which calling oneself an adept of the religion in question is hypocritical.
Basically my view on the Bible as well.
Drake L. Dragon
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 128
Well, what everyone should remember on a nonpartisan basis is that the Bible, in and of itself, is a book. Just like the Odyssey, the Constitution, or Atlas Shrugged, there is no standard interpretation of those books or documents. People should have the freedom to find their own truths in the books they read, but, whether your interpretation not only stays true to the objective text of the book but also has good and right moral concepts and themes outside of that piece of literature is something that someone must use rhetoric in order to persuade other people. However, saying that there is one, standard, and true interpretation of a book or an idea is not something I would argue, because it has the No True Scotsman Fallacy welded into it, and it enforces group mentality.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Finally you admit that Mormonism isn't Christianity!
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Out of interest, do you have any idea (or could make a guess) as to where where most Christians stand on Messianic Jews, which is to say Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah- in the manner detailed above- but retain Jewish custom and law? They see themselves as both Jewish and Christian, but apparently other Jews tend to see them as Christians.
Drake L. Dragon
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 128
I think the opinions of this man on whether or not Buddhism is a religion should have some parallels to this discussion at present.
"The question has often been asked: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It does not matter what you call it. Buddhism remains what it is whatever label you may put on it. The label is immaterial. Even the label 'Buddhism' which we give to the teaching of Buddha is of little importance. The name one gives it is inessential." ~Dr. W. Rahula
We spend so much time trying to label people as whether a person is a Christian or not, as to whether someone is a big businessman or not, as to whether someone is religious or not, that we forget to argue with someone over whether their individual, personal perception of reality is right or not. It's just like how the Party system in the United States has hindered the intellectualism of the United States.
"The question has often been asked: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It does not matter what you call it. Buddhism remains what it is whatever label you may put on it. The label is immaterial. Even the label 'Buddhism' which we give to the teaching of Buddha is of little importance. The name one gives it is inessential." ~Dr. W. Rahula
We spend so much time trying to label people as whether a person is a Christian or not, as to whether someone is a big businessman or not, as to whether someone is religious or not, that we forget to argue with someone over whether their individual, personal perception of reality is right or not. It's just like how the Party system in the United States has hindered the intellectualism of the United States.
rollo1066
Warlord
Interesting question. I take a broad view of the borders of religion but I know not everyone would agree. Certainly I know more about the Christian religion than others. Since I was baptised as an infant and have attended Christian church services to a greater or lesser extent for all 55 years of my life.
I would tend to view anyone who identifies themselves as Christian and who has as one of their goals in life to follow teachings of Jesus, as being a Christian. I myself would meet these criteria.
Certainly if one has to believe in the litteral truth of the Bible, all parts of the Apostel's creed or all the teachings of Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) I wouldn't qualify.
I would tend to view anyone who identifies themselves as Christian and who has as one of their goals in life to follow teachings of Jesus, as being a Christian. I myself would meet these criteria.
Certainly if one has to believe in the litteral truth of the Bible, all parts of the Apostel's creed or all the teachings of Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) I wouldn't qualify.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
So you are saying that any syncretistic religious movements of antiquity like Gnosticism is Christianity as well? As well as Christianity was once a reforming Judaic cult?
What about Islam?Similar threads
