Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[No-name]

Peanut butter and jelly. Before WWII, it was less popular than Peanut butter and bacon.

Dr. Kellog was a SDA. His brother William put sugar in the flakes. (Thank god.)

 

[Mycernius]

Islam, too follows (some of?) the teachings of Christ-- but Islam is not Christianity. Christians keep the entire "Old Testament" Jewish writings as sacred and holy, but Chritians are not Jewish.

Islams main prophet is Mohammad. Out of all the prophets his is said to be the final word from Allah as prophets go. That is why Islam don't like the Ba'hai faith. They follow another prophet who they believe came after Mohammad. To Muslims it is heresy.

I believe it is because the Mormon Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses have atered some of the basic tennents of the faith, that mainstream denominations consider them to be a different religion entirely. Certain doctrines common to both Protestants and Catholics are absent in both of these other churches. (Trinity, divinity of Christ, Salvation by grace through faith...)

Let me ask around a bit and see if I can't be a little more specific.

You could argue that the Catholic church could say the same about protestants. After all during the reformation several passages where removed from the catholic Bible as the reformist considered them non-canonical works. Early protestant Bibles did include the apocrapha, but many modern Bibles do not have it included. Original sin is not found in many denominations, nor the idea of purgatory. To catholics this is altering the basic tennents of the faith. Yet you consider yourself Christian. A mormon and a JW still consider themselves Christian

I think you covered it well, Sabro. They wish to be perceived as a Christian denomination, but they are cults.

How do you define "cult"? Don't all religions start off as a cult of some sorts. Sikhs could be considered a cult. Their religion is only 300 years old. Buddhism could be said to be a cult of Hinduism, as similar ideas are common to both religions. Christianity and Islam could be a cult of Judaism. They both share common ancestry with the Jews. When does a cult become a religion?
Try looking at This link especially this quote:

Perhaps the most confusing and dangerous religious term is "Cult". The word is derived from the French word "culte" which came from Latin noun "cultus." The latter is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists or Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics, Hindus or Muslims. However, the term has since been assigned at least 7 new and very different meanings. The original meaning of "cult" remains positive; more recent definitions are neutral, negative, or extremely negative:

Not being awkward just need clarification

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Mainstream evangelicals don't consider either church a branch of Christianity. There are several items of doctrine in both religions that make them significantly different to mainstream Christianity.

Mormons and JWs are still Christians, IMO. They may not share all the beliefs of mainstream Christianity, but they still believe in Jesus as the Messiah, which is what makes someone a Christian (in the sense of a follower of the Christian religion). Many people think that JWs are not Christian because they don't celebrate the Christian festivals. But it is precisely because they are fundamentalist Christians that they don't celebrate these festivals - Jesus was specific about what his followers should commemorate, and JWs follow this to the letter.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

They wish to be perceived as a Christian denomination, but they are cults.

I don't think these categories are mutually exclusive. But I do agree that Mormonism and JW-ism are cults - I would probably class them as Christian cults. What defines a cult is open to debate. Good old religioustolerance.org has a good investigation of the different definitions here. The definition I favour is: "A relatively small religious group that exists in a state of tension with predominant thought". But as it says in the link, it is inherent in any definition of 'cult' that what I consider a cult, you might not. I consider Fundamentalism (with the capital 'F') a cult, for example.

Edit: Mycernius linked to the same site while I was typing this. Great minds think alike!

 

[Mycernius]

I find religioustolerance.org a great site to use. It is balanced and fair to any religion and one of the better sources on the net for religious information. Cheers Tsuyoiko

 

[No-name]

Mormons and JW's may consider themselves Christians, but most mainstream Christian churches do not. I wasn't giving my personal belief, just my observation about what most evangelical churches believe about these two "cults." I don't think it has anything to do with what celebrations they keep, but rather some key doctrinal issues. The Catholicism analogy was entirely accurate as the Catholic church throughout the protestant reformation considered all those outside the Church to be heretical, non Christian cults. Today, it think there are about four or five key beliefs common among all Christian denominations that both the JW's and Mormon doctrines deny. I do think this is a good issue to discuss-- as I really don't recall what these key differences are or why they are so important.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I don't think it has anything to do with what celebrations they keep, but rather some key doctrinal issues

Hi Sabro :wave: I think most ordinary people (at least that I have spoken to) think JWs aren't Christian because of the festivals. I have heard so many times "JWs aren't Christians because they don't celebrate Christmas". This is the most common misconception I have come across.

IMO we need an objective view of what constitutes a Christian. Anyone in the mainstream of Christianity obviously isn't going to have an objective view. At its most basic, Christianity is just "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." Mormons and JWs fit this definition. As Mycernius has said, protestantism used to be heretical. Mainstream Christians who claim that those on the fringes aren't Christians are making the same mistake, IMHO.

Here are what I found as the essential doctrines of Christianity:
1)The divinity of Christ
2)Salvation by grace
3)The resurrection of Christ
4)The Gospel

As the first three are contained in the Gospel, I suppose you could say that the only essential doctrine is a belief in the Gospel. Isn't this how all the differences arise - everyone who calls themselves a Christian believes in the truth of the Gospel, but each denomination, sect or cult (whatever you want to call them) interprets the Gospel differently. Mormons and JWs, for example, deny doctrine 1, presumably because they interpret John 1:14 differently. IMO, it is open to interpretation, and their interpretation is equally valid.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" Maybe I'm being obtuse, but the meaning of that is far from clear to me.

 

[No-name]

Thanks Tsuyoiko,
Outstanding work. I think others might tell you that doctrines 2 and 4 are questionable in those two churches also. I can't speak for either the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses-- although I have had long discussions with friends from both churches on our differences.

What mainstream or evangelical churches believe (and by saying this I am of course being extremely broad) is definitely not objective. By definition, they believe what they believe and some sects want to exclude everyone who doesn't belong to their own doctrinally correct branch. Most would exclude those two as separate religions or even cults. The also exclude Christian Scientists-- (Not to be confused with the "non-Christian" Scientologists) and I really don't know why. Lots of non-Christians like Jesus and a lot of His teachings. But there is a certain orthodoxy to churches classified as mainstream Christian.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Hi Sabro, I hope you're having a good day.

I just found this too - Christian Denominations.

It has a link to this list of denominations by number of members:
Roman Catholicism - 1 billon
Eastern Orthodox - 230 million
Protestantism - 500 million
Pentecostalism - 105 million
Assemblies of God - 50 million
Calvinist/Reformed- 75 million
Anglican Communion/Episcopal - 73 million
Methodist - 70 million
Baptist - 70 million
Lutheran - 64 million
Quakers - 0.3 million
Seventh-day Adventists - 13 million
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) - 12 million
Restoration Movement (The Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ) - 4 million
Jehovah's Witnesses - 6 million

Religioustolerance.org also has a list of numbers in the US
The interesting thing I find is that all the denominations listed (except Quakers) have a lot of members! As most definitions of 'cult' say cults are 'small', how many of these would count as cults?

What point am I trying to make here? I'm just questioning what counts as 'mainstream'. Looking at numbers alone, 45% of all Christians in the list above are Catholics (it's actually higher than that, as some denominations are counted twice - Lutherans are Protestants, for example). There's an argument there that Catholicism is the mainstream and everyone else is on the fringes.

My solution would be to pare down the definition of Christian as I suggested above, then everyone who calls themselves a Christian can be recognised as such.

 

[No-name]

I think some Catholics would agree with you-- that they are the one true Christian church, but so would some Methodists, Baptists, pentacostals, Anglicans...

I think your definition is nice, but most Christians from any of those large denominations wouldn't accept it. I'm not certain that Mormons and JW's regard each other as Christians.

Perhaps it would be nice to hear from one of them?

 

[Mars Man]

I really shouldn't be here at this moment, but just couldn't stand to be away so long--still got a lot of school work to do here. . .

Some points have been highlighted very well, and perhaps nothing could be added to them really. A few matters could stand some more consideration and thought.

I wouldn't call the The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (Brooklyn, NY) [Jehovah's Witnesses] a cult, in the sense of 'Jone's town' or 'Waco, Texas'--as Tsuyoiko and Mycernius have pointed out--but the format of study and education that goes on within that VERY closed society, is fearfully close to that. (Although I would also say that the education and teaching that goes on in many--esp. rual USA--mainstream Christian churches is almost right there with them.)

One Charles Taze Russell, an active member in the Congregationlist church back in the early later half of the 19th century, teamed up with George W. Stetson, an Advent Christian Church member, George Storrs, and Nelson Barbour to start a bible study group in Alleghany, Pennsylvania in 1870. He started a publication entitled 'Zion's Watch Tower' and started preaching tours. It was from the (Seventh Day) Adventist body that Russell claims to have gotten his imputus, but his activity seems to have remained different to some extent. They became known as '(Earnest/International) Bible Students'. There were at least two splits, as far as I have learned, one leading to the Armstrong's Church of God, and one to the 'Friends' group (mostly in Europe, I believe). In 1931 they adopted the name 'Jehovah's Witnesses'.

They started off in a misconception, regarding the Bible--as most of you can follow--but seemingly made a strenious effort to adhere to the original teachings that can be gleaned from those writings in the first place, so Tsuyoiko's #4 is very strictly adhered to. 2 and 3 are also accepted, though the way of presenting number 2 may be slightly different. They do not accept number 1 because of number 4--as Tsuyoiko was thinking there, the best that can be gotten out of the best recension of the NT writings, is some sort of duality, but not Jesus' being "God" himself.

I would argue that the holiday thing is kind of a scapegoat thing of late invention. The Bibles Students did celebrate Christmas and birthdays at one time--until the Governing Body (under due pressure from the President, Rutherford) did away with it based on their not being 'scriptural'. Of course the Puritans also outlawed Christmas in England for a season.

The trinity dogma was not to be found in the early church nor in the early church fathers, and slowly crept out until it got 'hankoed' (borrowing a Japanese term and idea here--HANKO means chop or stamp for those who don't know) at the council of Niciea (sp?)

I would guess that the real problem between the JW and the mainstream churches started off with the early BS (Bible Students) leaders--esp. Russell--condeming the mainstream churches for their involvment in government and war, as well as some 'unscriptural teachings', in their understanding. Most of the points along that 'unscriptural' line of thinking, appear to be more fairly sound that what mainstream offers. Especially, it has historically been against the Roman Catholic Church that the brunt of condemnation has gone, according to what I have seen.

I mentioned it before back on the 'Missonary' thread, but I spent some three years in attempted and simi-successful dialog with the main office in Brooklyn. It is a very, very closed society which teaches those poor souls, who have no other means of checking things out, in an awfully close methodology to brain washing--IMHO. Those taking the lead would not admit that any Christian group other than JW could be termed 'true Christians' and that YHWH is using only that WS (Watch Tower...Society) to fulfill YHWH's purspose for mankind.

The New World Translation which the WS actually translated itself and published (there were some bonifide scholars within that old group--Scholarly religious type, that is) is a very good translation. Simply because it did not adhere to some King James Family translation tools and tradition, and because animosity had already been built up (the work came out in the early '80s) it was critized mostly unfairly, by the mainstream churches--recall Overcomer's post #26 near end) I have a copy of that work along with several others.

Now, if I could have put all this information into your heads without having to written it out in these so many words, I would have. You all know I can be wordy. I aplogize, but just want to be precise, and give as much info as I can; w/o having to make 3-4 posts in a row. Please understand my predicament. Now, until this afternoon on the other thread, it's school work. See you !! :wave:

 

[No-name]

Thanks Mars Man. I know that Joseph Smith also has a seventh day adventist connection too. I would much rather have a mormon discuss the history than give you my distorted knowledge.

 

[Mars Man]

I'd be interested in seeing what you do have--the portion that you feel you can pretty much vouch for, at least.

 

[WindCatcher]

Some Christians know the fact that the walls between denominations are breaking down rapidly. More churches or Christians recognize the move of the Holy Spirit. More Christians are spiritually "alive" now. They no longer are just religious folks doing some religious stuff here and there with no deep understanding of what they do.

This link may help you understand what cults are
http://www.rbc.org/questions/answer...folder=cults&topic=Cults&file=legitchurch.xml

 

[lexico]

Some Christians know the fact that the walls between denominations are breaking down rapidly. More churches or Christians recognize the move of the Holy Spirit. More Christians are spiritually "alive" now. They no longer are just religious folks doing some religious stuff here and there with no deep understanding of what they do.

This link may help you understand what cults are
http://www.rbc.org/questions/answer...folder=cults&topic=Cults&file=legitchurch.xml

I agree there are great changes going on in the Catholic churches, the kind of reform they have been showing often exceeds some protestant churches. It has been a while since the Catholic chruch stopped condemning protestant denominations, and the wall have been breaking down faster than one might imagine. Anyone interested should spend some time actually walking to some gatherings to see what they actually do, and how they interact with each other. Fundamentalism is really NOT the mainstream. Sadly, they appear to be one of the most outspoken in the US like clamouring gongs, BUT they are an absolute minority imo. I only feel pity in any religious groups that engage in bashing the others; it is a clear sign that the holy spirit is not among them, or if it is, then they are awaiting some serious spritual overhaul. Devil-worshipper-bashing, which is a total fabrication, was one conspiracy of the some mislead churches who had nothing good to do. Hence the distractor called the "devil-excorcism-multiple personality syndrome" was employed to cover up the barren spiritual state.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I just remembered something Pararousia said a while ago - that a Christian is someone who has a personal relationship with Jesus. That would include a lot (if not most) of JWs and Mormons.

 

[No-name]

I think the basic problem with that is that JW and Mormons define who Jesus is quite differently. These core doctrinal differences change the interpretation of salvation, grace and "Christianity" (BUT...Let me see what I can come up with rather than give you my slant off the top of my flat head.)

 

[TwistedMac]

I can't believe you guys can actually have an intelligent conversation where you mutually respect eachother about a subject like religion.

To me it's like having a rational and sensible discussion on where abouts santa lives and at what speed his sled travels.

Sorry, I realise this is breaking up a good thing for you guys, but jesus christ... I just wanna roll up one of those pamphlets the JW keeps preassuring me to take and beat you with it like a naughty puppy.

Now I'll take my Darwinian facts and proof and be in that corner over there.. you guys keep doing that bible stuff, which clearly must be true, because ...well.. it's the bible, right?

 

[Mars Man]

Hi there TwistedMac san !! Haven't heard from you recently (from around the other areas of the forum) and it was nice to here your voice and see that smiling face again !! Hope all's well.

I appreciate your comments there, although I might add, that our convesation, if one were to look at it really closely, would mostly be more like a discussion of the several Santa Claus traditions that are abound in old history and culture, as well as the original story of that 'saint' (Roman Catholic) who was said to have given money to those sisters, he had felt pity on back in the later Roman era, and thus start it all off. It could also largely be alikened to a discussion of the various local religious traditions and customs which came to play a part in the modern Santa Claus idea and 'Christmas' idea of today--in more of an academical manner than not (most of the time).

Can you see what I mean? Thanks for dropping by, and feel free to do so again !! If you start up a Darwin corner or a Naturalism thread, I'll stop by to check it out and add anything that I may.

 

[No-name]

I wonder what would happen if every college freshman studying a biological science or anthropology was forced to get out a clean white shirt, black tie and name tag, hop on a bike and spread the saving truth of Darwin door to door, throughout the immediate world.