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.

It is if you define christianity as being exactly what it was when it first originated. On a doctrinal level.

Catholics have made many changes to the base Doctrine over the years.


Of course this is what caused the Protestant Reformation in the first place so there will never be agreement.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
In a sense, the saying that Catholic Doctrine is no longer true christianity is correct.

No it is not unless you mean in a delusional sense.

Are any of the current churches really "Christian" any more given how various books have been chopped, changed or even dropped entirely by different churches, conventions of churches, etc?

Non-denominational Evangelical churchs are the closest to the original doctrine.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is if you define christianity as being exactly what it was when it first originated. On a doctrinal level.

Catholics have made many changes to the base Doctrine over the years.


Of course this is what caused the Protestant Reformation in the first place so there will never be agreement.

First, you're going to have a lot of trouble finding out about Christianity as "exactly what it was when it first originated." Second, you should ask yourself why that even matters. Third, what precisely do you mean by the word "doctrine"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Non-denominational Evangelical churchs are the closest to the original doctrine.

LOL, not even close. What those congregations are closest to is what contemporary people imagine the communities of two thousand years ago to be like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
In a sense, the saying that Catholic Doctrine is no longer true christianity is correct.

No it is not unless you mean in a delusional sense.

Are any of the current churches really "Christian" any more given how various books have been chopped, changed or even dropped entirely by different churches, conventions of churches, etc?

You're assuming a kind of Amish mentality, where there is some point of authenticity and after that everything is just becoming less and less "real." Christianity isn't really a table of laws and opinions. At the center of the Christian faith is the ongoing life of a human being who is also God rather than a book or a philosophy.

They are closest as far as anyone can tell. Plenty of direct doctrinal evidence(directly interperting the bible) and no evidence they are any different.

The Catholic Church certaintly can't claim to be like the original.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is if you define christianity as being exactly what it was when it first originated. On a doctrinal level.

Catholics have made many changes to the base Doctrine over the years.


Of course this is what caused the Protestant Reformation in the first place so there will never be agreement.

Break out the muskets and pikes! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

oh wait, we already did that. Time for barbeque.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is if you define christianity as being exactly what it was when it first originated. On a doctrinal level.

Catholics have made many changes to the base Doctrine over the years.


Of course this is what caused the Protestant Reformation in the first place so there will never be agreement.

Break out the muskets and pikes! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

oh wait, we already did that. Time for barbeque.

Do we get to burn a witch?

 Grey Templar wrote:
They are closest as far as anyone can tell.

No, they're the closest as far as they imagine. Catholicism does not invest any significance in pretending we live 2000 years ago. (Although some of us like to pretend we live 50 - 200 years ago.)

That angus cow does look a bit heretical....witchy looking...see....it has evil eyes looking at you...I say burn this witch..eerrr slow roasted...burned..med rare...taste test to ensure the cow was pure of heart and we made a mistake...so eat the evidence of our wrong doing

Its not how you live, its what you believe and how you practice it. But its not really important here so I guess I'll stop before someone gets insulted.

Majority of males become a God in front of a charcoal grill.....

It's a good thing everyone knows they're right already.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is if you define christianity as being exactly what it was when it first originated. On a doctrinal level.

Catholics have made many changes to the base Doctrine over the years.


Of course this is what caused the Protestant Reformation in the first place so there will never be agreement.

Break out the muskets and pikes! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

oh wait, we already did that. Time for barbeque.

Do we get to burn a witch?

It depends if she floats or not.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is if you define christianity as being exactly what it was when it first originated. On a doctrinal level.

Catholics have made many changes to the base Doctrine over the years.


Of course this is what caused the Protestant Reformation in the first place so there will never be agreement.

Break out the muskets and pikes! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

oh wait, we already did that. Time for barbeque.

Do we get to burn a witch?

It depends if she floats or not.

I have a couple ducks.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Non-denominational Evangelical churchs are the closest to the original doctrine.

I don't think there's much evidence to support that. I'd actually propose the Unitarians are the closest to the first Christians, but then we don't really know anything about what the first Christians thought on any issues except what the earliest Catholics wrote about what they thought.

The Catholics are the 'first' church. I think its silly to argue they're somehow less Christians than the others.

I disagree with the notion that Roman Catholics are "less Christian" than other Christians. In fact I disagree with the whole concept of being a "lesser Christian". Either you are a Christian or you are not a Christian.

I believe,as many others do, that the Universal (which is what catholic means) Church, is made up of members from many if not all orthodox denominations. So this means that representative Christians are made up of Roman Catholic's, Lutheran's, Baptist's, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, and many others I'm forgetting.

The point is that there is no one perfect denomination, some are further removed IMO from following perfect doctrine(and I confess to not know what exactly perfect doctrine is) than others. But my point is perfect doctrine would not make someone more or less Christian.

Can a person be a Christian and be mistaken about certain doctrines..and my answer is unequivocally yes.

Can a person be a Christian and teach a slew of errant unorthodox doctrines..and my answer would have to be a carefully studied no.

GG

 Manchu wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I would suggest checking this link instead, if you want to see what LDS members believe.

Growing up in and out of the Mormon scene (one side of my family is Mormon), I'm fully aware of what Mormons hold and believe. I also know what Nicene Christians hold and believe. They are far, far, far from the same thing. The Mormon PR machine can spin it out however they want but unless they're willing to (further) renounce their actual theology, they cannot be considered Christians in the Nicene tradition.

We don't claim to believe entirely the same as other denominations. We do subscribe to the following articles of faith:


"One of the first things we’re taught as children are the Articles of Faith — 13 statements that summarize our fundamental beliefs.
Two years before he died, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote them in a letter to a newspaper editor, John Wentworth, who had asked for information about the Church.

Ever since the Articles of Faith were written, they’ve inspired and directed us in the basic principles of our gospel. They enhance our understanding of certain doctrines and help us commit to living them. They invite further thought. And they’re a good tool for explaining our beliefs to people unfamiliar with them."

13 Articles of Faith
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

 generalgrog wrote:


The point is that there is no one perfect denomination, some are further removed IMO from following perfect doctrine(and I confess to not know what exactly perfect doctrine is) than others. But my point is perfect doctrine would not make someone more or less Christian.

Well I suppose no-one can really know what the perfect doctrine is, considering that much of it was written many hundreds of years after the event, by a collection of different people - erase bits, change some around and contradict others, then translate it a couple of times, mix well and add some yeast and then fast forward 16-1700 years. Ultimately, I don't understand how anyone can say their interpretation is the most 'accurate' when the original conception of the Bible (whether you think it immaculate or not - and itself a collection of many different texts and accounts) has been crushed and distorted by the weight of ages.

And it continues:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/18/billy-graham-buys-election-ads-after-romney-meeting/

It would seem that his ads are not geared specifically to help or hurt Romney, or Obama.. though, ultimately I wonder what affect they will have, if any on the voters.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
It would seem that his ads are not geared specifically to help or hurt Romney, or Obama.. though, ultimately I wonder what affect they will have, if any on the voters.

Teach for years that Mormons are a cult.
Meet Romney.
Remove any reference from his "cult" from your website.
Take out first ever ad to vote for the "Godly" candidate that is anti-abortion and anti-same-sex-marriage.

You are always free to make your own conclusions of course, but the writing is on the wall.

 Pacific wrote:

.. considering that much of it was written many hundreds of years after the event, by a collection of different people - erase bits, change some around and contradict others, then translate it a couple of times, mix well and add some yeast and then fast forward 16-1700 years....

The entire new testament was written before 70AD..so where do you get "many hundreds of years" (unless you are referring to the Old testament, or copies)

 Pacific wrote:

Collection of different people...

so what?

 Pacific wrote:

erase bits?......

what bits? where is your proof of this? and what significance if true?

 Pacific wrote:

change some around and contradict others?

which some are you referring to? and which contradictions?(I know there are many internet lists of so called contradictions...but I could show just as many internet sites with answers/explanations to those contradictions)

 Pacific wrote:

Translate it a couple of times?....

But still have copies that go back to 2nd century AD? so we can compare what we have now to what was actually there 1800 years ago?..and except in very few instances most of the variants are scribal errors. Even Bart Ehrman admits that out of the many thousands of ancient manuscripts the VAST MAJORITY of the variances don't matter. And the ones that do matter are noted in the footnotes in modern translations.

Every time I see someone post something like this it's very frustrating because it's quite obvious that they haven't really taken the time to study the issue. If someone actually studies the science of textual criticism and not read internet blurbs or rely on recycled talking points they might learn how reliable the Bible really is.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

what bits? where is your proof of this? and what significance if true?

Canonization, while not viewed as the removal of Biblical text by orthodox Christians, can legitimately referred to "erasing", "censoring", or more properly "excluding" bits.

 generalgrog wrote:

Every time I see someone post something like this it's very frustrating because it's quite obvious that they haven't really taken the time to study the issue. If someone actually studies the science of textual criticism and not read internet blurbs or rely on recycled talking points they might learn how reliable the Bible really is.

Its reliable to the extent that we can consistently translate from Aramaic to Latin, usually via Syriac. And yes, there is consistency there, but the degree of abstraction required is significant reason for doubt. Even today translating something from Spanish, to French, to German, to English is a messy proposition.

 generalgrog wrote:
I disagree with the notion that Roman Catholics are "less Christian" than other Christians. In fact I disagree with the whole concept of being a "lesser Christian". Either you are a Christian or you are not a Christian.

I believe,as many others do, that the Universal (which is what catholic means) Church, is made up of members from many if not all orthodox denominations. So this means that representative Christians are made up of Roman Catholic's, Lutheran's, Baptist's, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, and many others I'm forgetting.

The point is that there is no one perfect denomination, some are further removed IMO from following perfect doctrine(and I confess to not know what exactly perfect doctrine is) than others. But my point is perfect doctrine would not make someone more or less Christian.

Can a person be a Christian and be mistaken about certain doctrines..and my answer is unequivocally yes.

Can a person be a Christian and teach a slew of errant unorthodox doctrines..and my answer would have to be a carefully studied no.

GG

+1 I hate the term "True Christian".

It also gives a standard to uphold the candidate too, one they have, presumably, chosen for themselves. So we can have a pretty good idea of how the candidate will act in a given situation.

If only...