Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Relapse wrote:As far as what you believe, you are free to think I'm not Christian with no hard feelings on my part.

I think you misunderstand his point. As I am reading it, he isn't saying you aren't, or tell you what you believe, but pointing out the fact that many people do not consider them Christian, and why they might come to that. It isn't that personal. Recognizing that some people don't regard LDS as Christian isn't the same as saying that LDS isn't Christian. I also don't think there was a question as to whether members of LDS considered themselves as Christian. Similiarly, Nation of Islam considers itself Islam, but there are many Muslims that wouldn't consider it Islamic for several reasons.

Of course I could be reading it wrong.

**Relapse**

One of the things that attracted me to the religion was the LDS concept of why we are here on this planet. When as a child and going to a different church, I asked why we were created. The I was given was so that God could have company.
It struck me as odd that a being that was supposed to be all loving and kind would create a species that would go through such suffering as humans can go through, and in the end, if they don't live the way he wants them to be burned for eternity, just so he could have company.

I have been taught, as an LDS member, that we are all the literal sons and daughters of God. We have come down to this mortal existence to learn, and grow. An analogy I guess would be a parent helping their child grow and learn to be able to make their way in society.
At the same time we don't believe people will be condemed to a fiery Hell if they don't get everything right. Only those with perfect knowledge that then turn from God will be condemned by being barred by their own actions from being able to be stand any degree of glory. It wiil be thoughts of what could have been, along with not being able to be in God's precense that will torment them, not being immersed in flames. In all my life, I've never met anyone with perfect knowledge.
Even the Apostles, when they walked with Christ, didn't have perfect knowledge.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:The Doctrine and Covenents are in fact one of the standard works along with the Bible and Book of Mormon.

I know they're a standard work, but I also know that the standard works aren't all equally revered. For example, there are a number of reasons that the Book of Mormon can't be regarded as equivalent to the Bible.

Relapse wrote:
As far as what you believe, you are free to think I'm not Christian with no hard feelings on my part.

Ahtman basically has the right of my stance on this. For example, I've certainly argued that Mormons are Christian with as much frequency as I've argued that they aren't.

I suspect, however, that given the prevalence of Christians that believe Mormons are not Christian, that it will eventually become the de facto opinion both within and without LDS.

**Relapse**

The Bible tells us how things happened, the Book of Mormon tells us why.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:
Mormons believe Jesus was the son of God and the Messiah, and that his crucifixion was for our sins. They believe he rose from the dead and travelled to the Kingdom of Heaven. I'm intrigued as to where you heard otherwise.

I suppose I should have been more specific, they believe he is the messiah, but not in a sense that is consistent with the view of most Christians given the established understanding of Christianity. The vast majority of Christian theological traditions require that the messiah be the embodiment of God, and they have a solid argument.

sebster wrote:
Why would you assume that? Why would you assume anything other than the common meaning given to those words every time it is spoken by Christians - to believe in Jesus is to believe he is the son of God, put on Earth to show the way, and that is only through his forgiveness that a person might join God in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Because that view has its own, well established interpretive problems; again reflected by the concept of the Trinity.

sebster wrote:
Of course, it is perfectly sensible to consider them fundamentally seperate, without considering them 'not Christian'. It's exactly how the Western faiths saw Eastern Orthodox for centuries.

Many of them still do, but the differences are less significant.

**Relapse**

@Dogma,

To fialize what I was saying about how we regard the book of Mormon,
We believe that almost all of the doctrines of the gospel are taught with much greater perfection and clarity in the Book of Mormon than those same doctrines in the bible

**biccat**

dogma wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.

To be fair, very few people consider LDS to be Christian.

This is one of the silliest comments in this thread.

Of course the LDS is Christian. So are Amish, Menonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Catholics and Christian Scientists. They may not follow the mainstream version of US protestantism, but they're certainly Christian.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
This is one of the silliest comments in this thread.

Of course the LDS is Christian. So are Amish, Menonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Catholics and Christian Scientists. They may not follow the mainstream version of US protestantism, but they're certainly Christian.

Ah, good to hear from the guy that claimed many people (presumably in the US) would be offended by the claim that Jesus was God.

To be clear, when you say "Of course the X is Christian." where X is a group of religious people whose Christianity is up for significant debate you clearly illustrate a particular ignorance of the issues at hand.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:Ah, good to hear from the guy that claimed many people (presumably in the US) would be offended by the claim that Jesus was God.

Given that a lot of religious Americans dispute that "fact", yes, I think they would. Muslims in particular have a major problem with that part of Christian theology.

However, you're confusing opinion with facts.

dogma wrote:To be clear, when you say "Of course the X is Christian." where X is a group of religious people whose Christianity is up for significant debate you clearly illustrate a particular ignorance of the issues at hand.

Well, if you want to give a definition of Christianity that includes Baptists but excludes Mormons, I'd love to hear it. You do, of course, tend to be the expert on definitions.

FWIW: A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since this is an integral part of Mormonism, I think they qualify.

A decent argument could be made that only Catholics are Christians, but I think that's a hard sell, especially to most protestants.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Noticed something odd back there, incidentally.
The quote about a woman calling Barack Obama a "muslim."
Although he isn't, why would it matter if he was?

**Melissia**

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Noticed something odd back there, incidentally.
The quote about a woman calling Barack Obama a "muslim."
Although he isn't, why would it matter if he was?

Because muslims are terrorists

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Given that a lot of religious Americans dispute that "fact", yes, I think they would. Muslims in particular have a major problem with that part of Christian theology.

However, you're confusing opinion with facts.

Disagreement does not imply being offended. Mormons also have a problem with that idea, but one would imagine that, seeing as the Trinity is the dominant position in the US, they and everyone else would be used to it. And, even if they aren't, who cares, politically?

biccat wrote:
Well, if you want to give a definition of Christianity that includes Baptists but excludes Mormons, I'd love to hear it. You do, of course, tend to be the expert on definitions.

Not hard at all: someone who believes in the Trinity, and more broadly, the Nicene Creed.

biccat wrote:
FWIW: A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since this is an integral part of Mormonism, I think they qualify.

So, not JWs, or Christian Scientists?

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Melissia wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Noticed something odd back there, incidentally.
The quote about a woman calling Barack Obama a "muslim."
Although he isn't, why would it matter if he was?
Because muslims are terrorists

Ah, of course. Given the actions of the EDL over here, I should have guessed that was the rationale.

**Mannahnin**

biccat wrote:FWIW: A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since this is an integral part of Mormonism, I think they qualify.

My understanding is that Christians generally put the dividing line at the Nicene Creed, including the concept (rejecting Arianism) that Jesus IS god, not a separate being. And that Mormons become excluded from this group because they believe Jesus is a separate being.

FWIW in general practice I usually use the same definition that you and Sebster are using; that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus' divinity and that they need to be saved/redeemed by him. But I recognize that Christians may want to (and do) define it a bit more specifically.

**Melissia**

There's also more specific definitions, like "if you support gay marriage you're not a Christian", or "if you don't want to bomb an abortion clinic you're not a Christian", and so on.

**Mannahnin**

Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.

**alarmingrick**

Mannahnin wrote:Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.

Not the first part of her statement.

**dogma**

Mannahnin wrote:
FWIW in general practice I usually use the same definition that you and Sebster are using; that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus' divinity and that they need to be saved/redeemed by him. But I recognize that Christians may want to (and do) define it a bit more specifically.

Yeah, but divinity is such a fuzzy concept to begin with.

I said this before, but I think that the introduction of a new holy book marks any faith as distinct from that faith which spawned it, at least in the Abrahamic tradition. Relapse even spoke to The Book of Mormon being the most authentic revelation, which is a common bit of Christian argument against all sorts of OT content.

**Huffy**

Mannahnin wrote:Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.

Most aren't yes, but the most vocal christians are, which is why they have really bad rep.

**Mannahnin**

deathholydeath wrote:As for the Christian candidates? By what criteria do we define Christians? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? Mormon?
All of these (thousands of) groups have significantly different ideas of what constitutes Christian identity, doctrine, and dogma.
Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.
Textually speaking, plenty of basis exists for the statements of the candidates e.g. for homosexuality, reference LEV 20:13 (all historio-critical and etymological debates aside, the Hebrew translation for this passage is very clear). One could also reference Paul's letters for this debate, but the context is less clear due to Paul's propensity for coining new Greek words.
As for misogyny? 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11 as well as the entire last chapter of Judges and many of the mitzvah.
Murder? Reference Leviticus, the Revelation of John, or well, any and most, of the Hebrew Bible. Plenty of situations occur in which murder is sanctioned.
All this to the point that: Christianity is not a religion based solely upon the words of the Jesus Christ (what little we have). Further, interpretation plays a pivotal role in how doctrine develops. For example, Augustine's interpretations of scripture (like the doctrine of original sin) were widely viewed as heresy by the church at large, but accepted later by Imperial decree and so became doctrine (reference Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief).
In the postmodern world, one cannot say interpretations are 'right' or 'wrong,' only whether one agrees or disagrees. Because the candidates are both Americans and Protestant, they have free reign to interpret the scriptures in whatever way they wish. Whether these interpretations are correct or incorrect, again depends on what analytical lens one uses to evaluate their statements. Christianity is not a single monolithic organization with a definition of identity set in stone; the communion is, and has been since its inception, a sectarian milieu. Generally speaking, the only criteria for claiming Christian identity have been a profession of faith in Christ as savior and possibly belief in the trinity-- but again, even this rule has its exceptions. Ergo, no single clean definition for Christian identity exists, only a myriad of possible and equally correct definitions.
My point being that one cannot say whether someone is a real Christian (since no absolute definition exists) or not; only whether one agrees or disagrees with them.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that many of the "religious right" interpret the scriptures isogetically and without regard to literary or historical context and they are therefore wrong. But that is my opinion, and it cannot be empirically proven any more than theirs. For the record, I don't agree with them, and it is my interpretation of events that, yes, they are bigoted (or at least pretend to be... I'm really not sure what Romney actually believes) idiotic, and counterproductive to the American good.
So yeah, there you have it. I hope that all made sense, it's rather late and I'm not entirely certain this is all coming out lucidly.

It is a good post. One issue I find confusing about some self-identified Christians is what seems to be a conflict between their expressed beliefs/opinions and Jesus' teachings. You're absolutely correct that Leviticus is the core doctrinal source of Christian intolerance toward homosexuals/homosexuality, but to my understanding the Old Testanment is supposed to be supplanted by the new covenant Jesus embodies. The old laws and strictures are replaced with a simpler set of directives, most specifically to accept Jesus as your savior and to love thy neighbor as thyself. The latter of which seems fundamentally imcompatible with hating or mistreating gay people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Huffy wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.

Most aren't yes, but the most vocal christians are, which is why they have really bad rep.

I think the most offensive/controversial people are always the ones who get the most airtime. Yes, the Westboro Baptists get a bunch of press; that doesn't mind that I think they're representative of most Christians.

**alarmingrick**

But you don't have to get as extreme as WBC to find such intolerance towards the LGBT community.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:I said this before, but I think that the introduction of a new holy book marks any faith as distinct from that faith which spawned it, at least in the Abrahamic tradition. Relapse even spoke to The Book of Mormon being the most authentic revelation, which is a common bit of Christian argument against all sorts of OT content.

I suppose that's something I could agree with.

After all, Christians don't consider themselves Jewish, despite incorporating the Torah into their holy book. And Muslims consider the Torah the word of God, but certainly aren't Jewish themselves.

Then what counts as a "holy book." Are Syrian Christians not really Christians because they traditionally omitted Revalations? Do new translations count as different books? Are churches who use the King James Bible of a different religion than those who use the New International? What about some of the more bizarre translations, like the New Living Bible?

**Melissia**

Mannahnin wrote:Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.

Sure, but the ones in power-- the ones representing Christianity in the political field-- seem to be. So are the biggest Christian organizations in terms of politics.

So the end result is the same as far as government policy goes.

**Mannahnin**

While most Christians in government are against gay marriage, I don't think most of them are for bombing clinics. Let's leave that kind of thing out, okay?

**Melissia**

Mannahnin wrote:While most Christians in government are against gay marriage, I don't think most of them are for bombing clinics. Let's leave that kind of thing out, okay?

Given the number of quotes I've read in the teapartyjesus tumbler thread where they have in fact advocated violence on the topic of abortion, I'm not convinced.

Example given:

**alarmingrick**

Mannahnin wrote:While most Christians in government are against gay marriage,

Until they get caught being Gay themselves.

**Easy E**

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Noticed something odd back there, incidentally.
The quote about a woman calling Barack Obama a "muslim."
Although he isn't, why would it matter if he was?

I thought McCain set the bar on how to answer that last time around?
Oh wait, he lost, so I guess Santorum is trying a different tactic to answer the same question?

**CT GAMER**

Huffy wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.

Most aren't yes, but the most vocal christians are, which is why they have really bad rep.

And when you have politicians and public figures alluding to this sort of thing then it would behoove the majority to call these people out rather then silently endorse them...

**Frazzled**

CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.

Low and behold I found this:

The above image taken from this site:

http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/

(Click on each picture to see who said it, etc.)

A collection of true quotes from some of our geatest modern "Christian" thinkers...

Sometimes one can see why fatwas are issued.

**alarmingrick**

Frazzled wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.

Low and behold I found this:

Spoiler:

The above image taken from this site:

http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/

(Click on each picture to see who said it, etc.)

A collection of true quotes from some of our geatest modern "Christian" thinkers...

Sometimes one can see why fatwas are issued.

Christians don't have fatwas. We're to turn the other cheek and say "thank you sir, may I have another".