PBS Special on Mormon Church

[kinch]

Christ's teachings don't leave room for polytheism.

I may catch heat for this post, though I mean no ill-will, but I am not sure that Christianity is so very different from past polytheistic religions. It may be that it has merely benefitted from better advertising than other religions, and has successfully managed to paint and sell itself as monotheistic (much like Judaism before it). Granted, Christianity has a much more powerful, indeed omnipotent, top God, but the lower figures in Christianity are no less powerful than the simple gods of old polytheistic religions who, often, had little more power than the ability to influence the happy ironworking of a forge or two.

I will use the understandings of Catholicism as an example of the existence of these lower gods or demi-gods of Christianity, as Catholicism is the largest denomination that is nearly universally accepted as Christian.

In Catholicism there are, to begin with, four Choirs of Angelic Hosts, arranged in nine orders. All of these angels have characteristics congruent to the gods of many polytheistic religions, and as much power and influence over human affairs. But even if this comparison is obvious, there are more than angels, of course. At last count, there were 5,120 saints. To quote Richard Dawkins, in his discussion of the survival of Pope John Paul II of an assassination attempt in 1981:

[Pope John Paul II] attributed his survival to intervention by Our Lady of Fantina; 'a maternal hand guided the bullet.' One cannot help wondering why she didn't guide it to miss him altogether. . . The relevant point is that it wasn't just Our Lady who, in the Pope's opinion, guided the bullet, but specifically Our Lady of Fatima. Presumably Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Medjugorje, Our Lady of Akita, Our Lady of Zeitoun, Our Lady of Garabandal and Our Lady of Knock were busy on other errands at the time.

These saints appear to be easily as capable of miraculous feats as the demigods of Greece, to pick out a particular polytheistic bunch.

Finally, the trinity itself, or at least the existence of God and Jesus, even if they are considered to be the same being in a Christian interpretation, would be considered polytheistic to all but the most discerning non-Christians.

I guess what I am asking, if anything, is does the elevation of the top god of a religion necessarily transform all the other superior-to-human individuals into something less than gods? Can the elevation of one really redefine others and, if so, is this redefinition really the consideration of the terms "monotheism" and "polytheism?"

 

[buckeyegrad]

Wow! I wish I would have seen this thread earlier as there is so much on which to comment, but I guess I will add my two cents into the debate of whether or not Mormonism falls within Christianity.

To be completely honest, I don't know enough about Mormon beliefs to answer it with 100% confidence, but I would say at this point no.

However, there is a distinction I would like to raise that I think is very important: while a doctrine of beliefs may by Christian, it does not follow that the people who claim to follow them are Christian; likewise, although a doctrine of beliefs may not be Christian, there may be Christians who claim to follow them.

What I am getting at here is that I think all who are Christian can agree that not all who attend our churches are Christian. There are Methodists, Anglicans, Serbian Orthodox, Presbyterians, Messianic Jews, Pentacostals, etc who all rightfully claim these label because of there church membership, but who are not Christian because they do not accept what t BuckeyeScot provided as a very nice statement of the defining issue of our identity:

Jesus Christ, the one and only, God became a man and died on the cross atoning for the sins of all that whomever shall believe in him shall not parish but have everlasting life.

Nevertheless, I can also speak from experience that in churches that have gone astray from the faith there are Christians. Take Catholicism in which I was raised. While I don't believe the Pope is antichrist or the Catholic Church is the Beast like some try to argue, I will state that it is one of the most polluted forms of Christianity in existence to the point where it is on the edge of losing its right to claim the title (official acceptance of Mary as co-reedemer, which is being considered, will be the final tipping point). However, I became a Christian within Catholicism and remained as such for 7 years before leaving it. I know many people who remain practicing Catholics whom if you speak with them about their faith, it becomes obvious they are Christians.

My current understanding of Mormonism is that as an official church it is not Christian for many of the reasons already given in this thread. Despite this, I do believe there are individuals within the Mormon faith who are Christians because their faith is defined by the quote from above.

Of course, the truly sad commentary about all of this is that there are so many denominations. Christianity was never meant to be so divided and it is testimony to 2000 years of man's traditions and teachings entering into those given to us by God. The profane has been mixed with the holy, and the result has become the sad history of Christians fighting are arguing against other Christians.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I may catch heat for this post, though I mean no ill-will, but I am not sure that Christianity is so very different from past polytheistic religions. It may be that it has merely benefitted from better advertising than other religions, and has successfully managed to paint and sell itself as monotheistic (much like Judaism before it). Granted, Christianity has a much more powerful, indeed omnipotent, top God, but the lower figures in Christianity are no less powerful than the simple gods of old polytheistic religions who, often, had little more power than the ability to influence the happy ironworking of a forge or two.

I will use the understandings of Catholicism as an example of the existence of these lower gods or demi-gods of Christianity, as Catholicism is the largest denomination that is nearly universally accepted as Christian.

In Catholicism there are, to begin with, four Choirs of Angelic Hosts, arranged in nine orders. All of these angels have characteristics congruent to the gods of many polytheistic religions, and as much power and influence over human affairs. But even if this comparison is obvious, there are more than angels, of course. At last count, there were 5,120 saints. To quote Richard Dawkins, in his discussion of the survival of Pope John Paul II of an assassination attempt in 1981:
These saints appear to be easily as capable of miraculous feats as the demigods of Greece, to pick out a particular polytheistic bunch.

Finally, the trinity itself, or at least the existence of God and Jesus, even if they are considered to be the same being in a Christian interpretation, would be considered polytheistic to all but the most discerning non-Christians.

I guess what I am asking, if anything, is does the elevation of the top god of a religion necessarily transform all the other superior-to-human individuals into something less than gods? Can the elevation of one really redefine others and, if so, is this redefinition really the consideration of the terms "monotheism" and "polytheism?"

I understand your reasoning for selecting Catholicism, but it really is a bad example for Christianity. It can easily be demonstrated how polytheism and other pagan beliefs have slowly been added to Catholicism over the centuries making it something very different than what it began as. If In other words, it is not a process of one divine entity being elevated above all others, but rather lower ones being added under the One.

 

[Bleed S & G]

So are you arguing that Jesus could not turn water into fresh wine?

Are you telling me Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

 

[Flocka]

Are you telling me Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

Jesus Cruise can.

 

[AKAK]

Water in that time was not really healthy to drink as thier as no way to purify the water effectively so a common substitute was juice -- due to the limit ways to keep it fresh it would ferment naturally, but the Wine of his time is not the same as wine of our time

Quick point of order. I'm not gonna say that Jesus turned water into Cabernet Sauvignon. But... the fact remains that once you squeeze grapes you immediately have all the necessary ingredients for winemaking... meaning sugar and yeast. A certain percentage of natural yeast (that forms on the grapes as they grow) is going to be able to ferment the juice past 3 or 4 percent alcohol... and... if you have even a small number-- say a thousand or so-- berries, you are likely to have an innoculant to pull that off. Considering that people had been making wine from grapes (if mixed with other stuff) for a couple thousand years... winemaking was... if different... a known commodity by then.... even if the role of the yeast was not understood.

Back to your regularly scheduled ridiculing of Jesus Cruise.

 

[kinch]

I understand your reasoning for selecting Catholicism, but it really is a bad example for Christianity. It can easily be demonstrated how polytheism and other pagan beliefs have slowly been added to Catholicism over the centuries making it something very different than what it began as. If In other words, it is not a process of one divine entity being elevated above all others, but rather lower ones being added under the One.

Right. I guess for most of us who aren't very religious, our view of Christianity is typically influenced mostly by Catholicism. I can't remember, for instance, ever seeing a religious thriller movie that didn't use Catholicism, though maybe this denomination is chosen because it gives juicy material. For the discussion of what is, or is not, polytheism, I can certainly see how Catholicism would not be a representative choice.

So in trying to discuss Christianity in a more representative way, what if we focus on angels? I believe that they exist in all understandings of Christianity and I think that they could certainly give many gods of polytheistic religions a go for god-like powers. Satan, of course, would be an extremely powerful god in ancient Greek mythology (moreso than Hades, perhaps, or at least on par), and would therfore seem to be a god per past understandings of the word.

Perhaps our understanding of monotheism merely requires the existence of one all-powerful being, rather than the existence of only one powerful being at all? If this is so, I am not sure why (yet).

I just think it is an interesting subject. . .

 

[Bleed S & G]

I may have been rude to a BP poster who argues that LDS members are "Christians" I think not, although maybe I have not been articulate enough on that thread to express it better. Quick question so not to interrupt too much, but do y'all think LDS is a "Christian" church? Feel free to pm me if responding here detracts from the thread. thanks

If you try to understand and follow Jesus' teachings, you're a chrisitan in my book.. I would go as far to say if you live a good life trying to emulate Christ, you would be considered a christian.

Im keeping this out of the other thread unless everyone else wants to debate what being "christian" is.. i personally don't think it matters and it's just a label.. im not a subscriber to 'your saved because you got an imaginary title' bullshit. its how you live life.. same thing with being defined a "christian."

Oh, and for the record.. you're rude to more than just one BP poster.. you remind me of a little of jabba da weis with you're self proclaimed brilliance and smug ass attitude

 

[Bleed S & G]

Here GUB.. its really not that hard

Chris?tian (kr

s

ch

n) [SIZE=-2]KEY [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]ADJECTIVE: [/SIZE]

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

[SIZE=-1]NOUN: [/SIZE]

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

 

[afgolfer]

how bout another verse, John 3:16 - For god so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB 3:16 "God, being prone to ridiculous error, decided he really screwed the pooch for the second time in human existence (the first time being remedied by the flood) and figured he'd send his son down to earth to be nailed to a piece of wood and otherwise tortured by the absolute failure that is his human creation. Despite being God and all, he simply couldn't figure out any other way to save man."

 

[Muck]

how bout another verse, John 3:16 - For god so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Not to throw a stick at a hornet's nest by getting the "KJV Only" folks in an uproar but John 3:16 is generally considered to be a bit of a mistranslation.

The Greek word "monogeneis" does not really translate as "only begotten", most modern translations use the term "one and only" instead but that isn't really accurate either.

A closer approximation "special one" or "unique one".

So John 3:16 should read something more like "For He so loved the world that he sent his super duper one of a kind Kid."

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not to throw a stick at a hornet's nest by getting the "KJV Only" folks in an uproar but John 3:16 is a mistranslation.

The Greek word "monogeneis" does not really translate as "only begotten", most modern translations use the term "one and only" instead but that isn't really accurate either.

A closer approximation "special one" or "unique one".

So John 3:16 should read something more like "For He so loved the world that he sent his super duper one of a kind kid."

That would make a lot more sense. But, as I less than artfully was getting at above...... Doesn't solve the problem with God being demonstrated at least twice in the Bible as having to intervene to make up for the utter disaster man had become. First came the flood when God seemed to realize he made made to be completely wicked or some shit... so much for all powerful... or he didn't see that coming (so long "all knowing").

For an all knowing being, he either saw that come 2000 years later less than half of his own creation would accept this sending of his son as meaningful in any way whatever, or he doesn't care - begging the question - why? Why is this god in the Bible unable to do anything "all the way?" If this god loves man so much, we can reasonably assume he would like it if we all we "saved" And still, he made us the larger part of us to be damned.

You can have this god. I don't want him.

 

[Muck]

That would make a lot more sense. But, as I less than artfully was getting at above......Doesn't solve the problem with God being demonstrated at least twice in the Bible as having to intervene to make up for the utter disaster man had become.

Doesn't solve the problem with God being demonstrated at least twice in the Bible as having to intervene to make up for the utter disaster man had become. First came the flood when God seemed to realize he made made to be completely wicked or some shit... so much for all powerful... or he didn't see that coming (so long "all knowing").

For an all knowing being, he either saw that come 2000 years later less than half of his own creation would accept this sending of his son as meaningful in any way whatever, or he doesn't care - begging the question - why? Why is this god in the Bible unable to do anything "all the way?" If this god loves man so much, we can reasonably assume he would like it if we all we "saved" And still, he made us the larger part of us to be damned.

You can have this god. I don't want him.[/i]

Well I was responding to golfer's post, and wasn't intended to "solve" something in yours. :p

 

[lvbuckeye]

who is to say that the term wine is not refering to juice (I know many will disagree with this, but think about it)

i will. go back and read the story again. the head waiter even commented that the host had broken tradition by saving the best for last. i.e. usually, the best wine was served first, and then after the guests were all banged up, they served them the cheap stuff, because no one would either know or care by then.