PDA

View Full Version : Not every group that uses the name "Church" is Christian.



Grace Seeker
11-25-2006, 02:31 AM
I haven't been on these boards very long, but I would like to clear up what seems to me to be an obvious misconception -- namely not every group that uses the name "Church" in their title is Christian.

The most recent one I read was a thread asking about Scientology, and another person responded that he thought it was a sect of Christianity. Scientology is not Christian, and no Scientologist would claim that it is.

LIkewise Jehovah's Witnesses are not a sect within Christianity.


Some other groups that you may mistakenly think are Christian because of their name, but which would disagree with any of the teachings of the rest of Christians include:

The Christian Science Church -- they do not think that there even is a real physical world, that the only thing that is real is truth and everything else is error. So, people don't even really get sick, and if you focus on the truth you won't ever get sick.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (usually known as the Mormons) -- they call themselves Christians, but they deny that anyone else is a Christians, so they are basically saying that no other church believes the same as them. Thus, if you think that other groups are Christians, then you are saying that they are wrong and they are not Christians, for they refused to be grouped with any other Christian Churches. They God is a corpreal being living in heaven where he and his wives have given birth to many spirit children. It is important for Mormons to have as many children on this earth as possible, because that is how these spirit children are born into this world. Then if you go through all of the ceremonies of the Mormons and do good things you will go to the hightest of many levels of heaven where you too will become a God of your own planet and have many spirit children and the whole process repeats itself over again.

The Unification Church -- This group believes that Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his wife are a divine couple and have gotten the nickname "Moonies". They teach somethig they call the eternal principle which is a mix of a little bit of several different religions.

There are many others groups. Of course, it is true that there are also many denominations within Christiandom. This no doubt makes it hard for those who know little about Christianity. I just ask that you not consider everything that uses the term "Church" in its name to be Christian. Even among those groups that are truly Christian you will find there are many different beliefs on minor issues. But on major issues, such as who is Jesus Christ, all Christian groups agree.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
lolwatever
11-25-2006, 02:45 AM
Heya grace seeker,

cool but one question... do christians have an analytical method for judging whether people's creed is 'true christianity' or not?

thanks in advance :)
Reply

snakelegs
11-25-2006, 03:10 AM
like lolwatever, i am wondering if there is any "objective" criteria as to who is christian and who is not? i mean some muslims will consider others as kufr because they disapprove of certain practices.
i have always considered a person christian if they believe that jesus died for their sins, that jesus is divine, that baptism is necessary to go to heaven and that have the holy communion ritual.
i don't think mormons would agree at all that they are not christian. i mention them because i have a mormon friend, so i know more about them.
you wrote " But on major issues, such as who is Jesus Christ, all Christian groups agree." don't the mormons believe in the things i mentioned above?
Reply

YusufNoor
11-25-2006, 12:56 PM
:sl:

Salaam,

i found, imho, Jehovah Witness's to at least be some of the most sincere and dedicated "Christians" that i ever met, although we can leave out the "Jackson family" :okay:

i was raised Irish Roman Catholic, but simply felt that most of what they teached was in direct conflict with what the Bible says. i was forced to attend until my confirmation, but after that free to choose. according to what i see "Christians" doing, i could NOT call myself a 'Christian".

imho, ALL Christians should observe the Sabbath and all of the ancient Israeli Holy Days. NOT believe that Jesus (as) was the son of G-d. and NOT pretend that they were owners of a get out of "Jail" free card.

imho, Christmas and Easter should not be observed AT ALL, pork should NOT be eaten and ALL Jewish dietary laws should be followed.

imho, "Christians" need to take a serious look at the councils of Nicea in 325 CE and 350 CE. the emporers of Rome/Byzantium hijacked the religion.

imho, ALL of those who followed the practices of Jesus (as) were eventualy killed by "Pagan" Rome as well as "Christian" Rome.

that's based on roughly 20 to 30 years of my own research.

peace

:w:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
FBI
11-25-2006, 01:01 PM
:sl:

Yep, good post, for example the "Church of Scientology" also I'd like to add that not every group who use islam in their name are muslims for example the "Nation of Islam".
Reply

stannis
11-25-2006, 01:34 PM
Grace Seeker forgot to include the Catholic Church. How remiss of him.

YusufNoor, I am Irish Catholic too and I failed to be offended by the things you listed. When did you convert?
Reply

Zulkiflim
11-25-2006, 01:35 PM
Salaam,

But the question is this..

If they refer to themselves as christians.....who are we to say they are not?

I mean if i were to have a debate with a chritian of different sect,as you pointed out,anglican,catholics,mormon and so on...and each say they are the rightly guided ones,,,,who are we to say they are wrong?

Each believe that each is right.

But at the core i would say is if the group uses the bible then can they be termed christians.
But then again,every sect have their own bible...

So again,it is awfully easy to be misled..

It is same as in Islam,,,sunni shia and so on,we have different schools of thinking but at the core is the Quran,Allah and Propeht Muhammad saw...

We are all muslim,but you encounter some Saudi sunni who follow their brand of Islam claiming other as not Islam and so on...
Reply

YusufNoor
11-25-2006, 02:21 PM
Originally Posted by stannis
Grace Seeker forgot to include the Catholic Church. How remiss of him.

YusufNoor, I am Irish Catholic too and I failed to be offended by the things you listed. When did you convert?
:sl:

Salaam,

8 months ago. oopsie, i "reverted" 8 months ago! but i figure since i started keeping the Sabbath back in the 80's, that i was "de facto" excommunicated!

oh, and i wasn't trying to offend anyone. meh, i usually put that in there...

peace,

:w:
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-25-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
:sl:

Salaam,

i found, imho, Jehovah Witness's to at least be some of the most sincere and dedicated "Christians" that i ever met, although we can leave out the "Jackson family" :okay:

i was raised Irish Roman Catholic, but simply felt that most of what they teached was in direct conflict with what the Bible says. i was forced to attend until my confirmation, but after that free to choose. according to what i see "Christians" doing, i could NOT call myself a 'Christian".

imho, ALL Christians should observe the Sabbath and all of the ancient Israeli Holy Days. NOT believe that Jesus (as) was the son of G-d. and NOT pretend that they were owners of a get out of "Jail" free card.

imho, Christmas and Easter should not be observed AT ALL, pork should NOT be eaten and ALL Jewish dietary laws should be followed.

imho, "Christians" need to take a serious look at the councils of Nicea in 325 CE and 350 CE. the emporers of Rome/Byzantium hijacked the religion.

imho, ALL of those who followed the practices of Jesus (as) were eventualy killed by "Pagan" Rome as well as "Christian" Rome.

that's based on roughly 20 to 30 years of my own research.

peace

:w:
My point was not to disrespect anyone's personal sincerity. I think there are many sincere individuals of many different belief systems in this world. But in line with the point that FBI made that not every group that uses the name "Islam" is truly Islam (i.e., the Nation of Islam), so too I think it is important that people be aware that not every group that uses the name "Church" or "Christian" is truly Christian.

My great-grandfather was a Jehovah's Witness, but even he would agree with me that his beliefs are NOT the same as those of Christianity.
Reply

Skillganon
11-25-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
:sl:
that's based on roughly 20 to 30 years of my own research.

peace

:w:
Assalamu alaikum brother

Interesting, I am doing my own research of early christian History mainly over the net, trying to get an idea of different mode of belief that existed until the council of Nicea. My slow research is mainly based on the scripture's available and I have access to.
At the moment I am using three main web-site the "earlychristianwiting", Nahammadi Library and Biblegateway.

Any tips?
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-25-2006, 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
like lolwatever, i am wondering if there is any "objective" criteria as to who is christian and who is not? i mean some muslims will consider others as kufr because they disapprove of certain practices.
i have always considered a person christian if they believe that jesus died for their sins, that jesus is divine, that baptism is necessary to go to heaven and that have the holy communion ritual.
i don't think mormons would agree at all that they are not christian. i mention them because i have a mormon friend, so i know more about them.
you wrote " But on major issues, such as who is Jesus Christ, all Christian groups agree." don't the mormons believe in the things i mentioned above?
Mormons do call themselves Christian. And probably there are many non-Mormons who would consider them such, for they talk about Jesus using many of the same words that other Christian groups do. But having spent time among them, I learned that they meant quite different things from what I meant by certain phrases, though we used the very same words.

There are dozens of other similar examples where Mormons differ from all other groups that use the term Christian. In response to this, what Mormons say is that it is because they are the only true Christian group. And no one else is. While Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and the many different protestant denominations may all have different some beliefs, they do recognize each other as being Christian. Mormons say that none of these groups are truly Christian, that they are they alone are the true keepers of the faith. They are of the opinion, just like Islam, that the teachings of Christians became corrupt. However, there answer is a different prophet, a man named Joseph Smith, who had other books reveale to him. The most famous is the Book of Mormon, hence their name. But the books that contain teachings which make them so different are found in The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants. They claim they also accept the Bible, but they get their teachings from these other books that no other Christian groups accept. That is why I, and most other persons who study theology put Mormons in a different group from other Christians.


Let me just give a few examples: There are over 1000 groups that use the name Christian. Of them, Mormons are the only ones that think that God is not a spirit but possesses a physical body. Mormons also believe that a living believer can be baptized and change the eternal destiny of a person who has previously died even if they believed wrongly. While Mormons claim to believe in the Trinity, what they mean by it is 3 distinctly separate Gods. No other Christian group believes such things.

So, while Mormons may say that they believe in Jesus just like other Christians, what they really mean something completely different than what other Christians mean.

While it is hard to have an objective standard for something as subjective as faith, I think that you will generally be ok if you use the following criteria to define Christian: "A faith group, or member thereof, who accepts the Bible as both an inspired work and a sufficient record of all that is necessary for salvation, accepts the God of the Bible as the one and only true God, and who views Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind."

Mormons accept as sacred texts that Christians do not.
Mormons have a different view of the nature and character of God.
And Mormons believe that in addition to belief in Jesus there are certain ritual acts one must perform to be saved -- that Jesus does not save us, but is only a model and that we save ourselves.

If you call Mormons Christians, it would really be inappropriate to call any other groups as Christians and identify them as being like Mormons in anyway, for they do not believe the same.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-25-2006, 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Assalamu alaikum brother

Interesting, I am doing my own research of early christian History mainly over the net, trying to get an idea of different mode of belief that existed until the council of Nicea. My slow research is mainly based on the scripture's available and I have access to.
At the moment I am using three main web-site the "earlychristianwiting", Nahammadi Library and Biblegateway.

Any tips?
Hey, that's great. May I make a few recommendations?

First, two text books:
A History of Christianity in the World: From Persecution to Uncertainty, edited by Clyde Manschreck, Prentice Hall publishers.

A History of Christianity: Readings in the History of the Church (Vol. 1, The Early and Medieval Church), edit by Ray Petry, Baker Books.

An excellent online magazine with many articles that you would probably find of interest is: Christian History and Biography

And a couple of internet sites with access to many good documents are Internet Christian Library and Christian Classics Ethereal Libarary -- Early Church Fathers

This internet site may be more academic than you are interested in XTalk -- The Historical Jesus and Early Christian Origins (Crosstalk2). Here is how they describe themselves --> "This moderated list is intended primarily for professional scholars engaged in Historical Jesus research. But graduate students, members of the clergy, and others interested in the serious academic study of the Historical Jesus and early Christian origins are also welcome to participate, as long as they respect the academic focus of the List. Contributors who are not professional scholars are expected to be, or to become, familiar and conversant not only with the sources, tools, and methods used in the critical study and exegesis of the New Testament and other ancient writings but also with the history and contours of Historical Jesus studies, both classical and recent." Even if you decide you're not interested in this academic of a discussion, they do have a list of many online resources you can check out.


At a more popular level, is this material form the PBS TV show "Frontline", From Jesus To Christ. One part that I am sure to interest you is the discussion of the Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi .


And lastly, another book, in the interest of full disclosure this one is by a friend and former classmate of mine, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church, by Craig G. Hill, Fortress Press.

I hope they help you some.
Reply

Skillganon
11-25-2006, 06:37 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Hey, that's great. May I make a few recommendations?

First, two text books:
A History of Christianity in the World: From Persecution to Uncertainty, edited by Clyde Manschreck, Prentice Hall publishers.

A History of Christianity: Readings in the History of the Church (Vol. 1, The Early and Medieval Church), edit by Ray Petry, Baker Books.

An excellent online magazine with many articles that you would probably find of interest is: Christian History and Biography

And an internet site with access to many good documents is Internet Christian Library

Another book, in the interest of full disclosure this one is by a friend and former classmate of mine, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church, by Craig G. Hill, Fortress Press.

I hope they help you some.
Thank's.
Reply

YusufNoor
11-25-2006, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Assalamu alaikum brother

Interesting, I am doing my own research of early christian History mainly over the net, trying to get an idea of different mode of belief that existed until the council of Nicea. My slow research is mainly based on the scripture's available and I have access to.
At the moment I am using three main web-site the "earlychristianwiting", Nahammadi Library and Biblegateway.

Any tips?
:sl:

Asalaamu Alaykum,

i did all of this before i had internet...though once you get to the end of the 1st century, the beliefs started to change.

i DO recomend the Farah Fenton translation of scripture; he DOESN'T change the words based uopn his beliefs, as do ALL other translations. the Sabbath, he doesn't change to Sunday, for instance...

i did have a book that the title was Pre-Nicean Fathers, but almost anything that you find, once you get a third of the way into it, you'll find the message fully corrupted.

i think PBS still has the transcipts for From Jesus To Christ the first Christians online. they discuss how the first Christians actually kept the Sabbath WITH the Jews!

also do a little research on the 2 main Pharasitical schools of Shimei and Hillel. you'll find that the message of Jesus/Isa(as) is nearly identical to Hillel.

when i have time, i'll check some of those links provided. (Insha'Allah)

:w:

Wasalaam
Reply

snakelegs
11-27-2006, 03:50 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Mormons do call themselves Christian. And probably there are many non-Mormons who would consider them such, for they talk about Jesus using many of the same words that other Christian groups do. But having spent time among them, I learned that they meant quite different things from what I meant by certain phrases, though we used the very same words.

There are dozens of other similar examples where Mormons differ from all other groups that use the term Christian. In response to this, what Mormons say is that it is because they are the only true Christian group. And no one else is. While Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and the many different protestant denominations may all have different some beliefs, they do recognize each other as being Christian. Mormons say that none of these groups are truly Christian, that they are they alone are the true keepers of the faith. They are of the opinion, just like Islam, that the teachings of Christians became corrupt. However, there answer is a different prophet, a man named Joseph Smith, who had other books reveale to him. The most famous is the Book of Mormon, hence their name. But the books that contain teachings which make them so different are found in The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants. They claim they also accept the Bible, but they get their teachings from these other books that no other Christian groups accept. That is why I, and most other persons who study theology put Mormons in a different group from other Christians.


Let me just give a few examples: There are over 1000 groups that use the name Christian. Of them, Mormons are the only ones that think that God is not a spirit but possesses a physical body. Mormons also believe that a living believer can be baptized and change the eternal destiny of a person who has previously died even if they believed wrongly. While Mormons claim to believe in the Trinity, what they mean by it is 3 distinctly separate Gods. No other Christian group believes such things.

So, while Mormons may say that they believe in Jesus just like other Christians, what they really mean something completely different than what other Christians mean.

While it is hard to have an objective standard for something as subjective as faith, I think that you will generally be ok if you use the following criteria to define Christian: "A faith group, or member thereof, who accepts the Bible as both an inspired work and a sufficient record of all that is necessary for salvation, accepts the God of the Bible as the one and only true God, and who views Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind."

Mormons accept as sacred texts that Christians do not.
Mormons have a different view of the nature and character of God.
And Mormons believe that in addition to belief in Jesus there are certain ritual acts one must perform to be saved -- that Jesus does not save us, but is only a model and that we save ourselves.

If you call Mormons Christians, it would really be inappropriate to call any other groups as Christians and identify them as being like Mormons in anyway, for they do not believe the same.
thanks for your reply - interesting info about mormons.
you and i have different criteria for defining a christian. in addition to the ones i mentioned earlier, i think if someone calls himself a christian - then he's a christian. i don't really see how being very different from all other christians makes you a non-christian as long as your sect believes that jesus died for your sins, that jesus is divine, that baptism is necessary to go to heaven and that have the holy communion ritual - which mormons do.
but then, you can't expect an agnostic to use the same criteria as a pastor!
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-27-2006, 04:16 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
thanks for your reply - interesting info about mormons.
you and i have different criteria for defining a christian. in addition to the ones i mentioned earlier, i think if someone calls himself a christian - then he's a christian. i don't really see how being very different from all other christians makes you a non-christian as long as your sect believes that jesus died for your sins, that jesus is divine, that baptism is necessary to go to heaven and that have the holy communion ritual - which mormons do.
but then, you can't expect an agnostic to use the same criteria as a pastor!

How about this? I have decided that if you were born in the Americas, then you are a native American. That's my definition. Thus Mexican nationals illegally immigrating into California have as much right to be there as anyone else, because they were born on the American continent and are native Americans by my definition. It doesn't matter what the government or the citizenry of the United States of America says.

It's ok that you and I have different definitions. I understand where you are coming from. I hope you also understand that Mormons are excluding me from their group every bit as much as I am saying they don't fit accroding to my definition. The term they use for everyone who claims to be a Christian but is not a Mormon is apostate.
Reply

Keltoi
11-27-2006, 04:23 AM
In my experience with the Mormon people, those who are not part of the their church are called Lamanites. However, I think that is akin to apostate.
Reply

dougmusr
11-27-2006, 04:43 AM
as long as your sect believes that jesus died for your sins, that jesus is divine, that baptism is necessary to go to heaven and that have the holy communion ritual
Southern Baptists don't believe that baptism is necessary for heaven. It is a step of obedience to Christ and symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is entirely possible for a person to accept Christ and die in an accident on the way to be baptised.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-27-2006, 05:25 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
Southern Baptists don't believe that baptism is necessary for heaven. It is a step of obedience to Christ and symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is entirely possible for a person to accept Christ and die in an accident on the way to be baptised.

Good point! Actually I don't believe that baptism is necessary for heaven, nor do we teach it in the United Methodist Church. And what I know of Lutherans, Presbyterians, and probably 60-80% of other Christian groups, they also do not think it is necessary for heaven. Nor does it guarantee heaven. It is like dougmusr said, a step of obedience and a form of identifying one's self with Christ.
Reply

snakelegs
11-27-2006, 05:35 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
How about this? I have decided that if you were born in the Americas, then you are a native American. That's my definition. Thus Mexican nationals illegally immigrating into California have as much right to be there as anyone else, because they were born on the American continent and are native Americans by my definition. It doesn't matter what the government or the citizenry of the United States of America says.

It's ok that you and I have different definitions. I understand where you are coming from. I hope you also understand that Mormons are excluding me from their group every bit as much as I am saying they don't fit accroding to my definition. The term they use for everyone who claims to be a Christian but is not a Mormon is apostate.
i was told that they used "gentile" to apply to non-mormons, including other christians ;D
but yes, i do understand what you're saying. thanks
Reply

snakelegs
11-27-2006, 05:36 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
Southern Baptists don't believe that baptism is necessary for heaven. It is a step of obedience to Christ and symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is entirely possible for a person to accept Christ and die in an accident on the way to be baptised.
interesting... i never knew that!
this crossed with grace seekers post. guess there is more diversity than i thought.
Reply

dougmusr
11-27-2006, 06:21 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
interesting... i never knew that!
this crossed with grace seekers post. guess there is more diversity than i thought.
We use "Faith" as an acrostic to explain what we believe it takes to do to heaven.

'F' - Forgiveness
We must be forgiven by God, and this forgiveness is through Christ.
Eph 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace."
'A' - Available but not automatic
forgiveness is available to everybody
Jn 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." and Mt
forgiveness is not Automatic
7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."
'I' - Impossible
It is impossible for a Holy God to allow sin into heaven, and all of us have sinned.
Rom 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
'T' - we must Turn (Repent)
Lk 13:3 "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
Rom 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
1 Cor 15:3 "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"
'H' - Heaven
We are given the gift of eternal life in Heaven.
Jn 10:10 "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly."
Jn 14:3 "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also."
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-27-2006, 06:26 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
i was told that they used "gentile" to apply to non-mormons, including other christians ;D
but yes, i do understand what you're saying. thanks
Mormons use many terms to refer to non-Mormons. So of it is cultural, just like "valley girls" talk different than do "Kentucky hillbillies", some of it depends if they are talking to other Mormons or non-Mormons, and some of it depends on if the refernce to non-Mormons is as an individual, as a group of individuals, or to as an organized religion.

The term "apostate" is the technical way that Mormons speak of non-Mormon Christian denominations in events where they know that there are going to be plenty of both Mormons and non-Mormons present. The term "gentiles" is also used by Mormons to refer to non-Mormons, but in a much more general sense talking of the non-Mormon world as a whole. I have only a few times heard the term Lamanites, almost always amon Mormons talking to one another or in reading older Mormon writings from the 19th and early 20th century. In those few instances in which I was aware of it, it was among the most disparaging of terms. (Doesn't mean they don't use the term today, I just haven't run across it much.)
Reply

snakelegs
11-27-2006, 07:22 AM
doug,
is that acrostic specifically southern baptist, or more general?
Reply

snakelegs
11-27-2006, 07:27 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Mormons use many terms to refer to non-Mormons. So of it is cultural, just like "valley girls" talk different than do "Kentucky hillbillies", some of it depends if they are talking to other Mormons or non-Mormons, and some of it depends on if the refernce to non-Mormons is as an individual, as a group of individuals, or to as an organized religion.

The term "apostate" is the technical way that Mormons speak of non-Mormon Christian denominations in events where they know that there are going to be plenty of both Mormons and non-Mormons present. The term "gentiles" is also used by Mormons to refer to non-Mormons, but in a much more general sense talking of the non-Mormon world as a whole. I have only a few times heard the term Lamanites, almost always amon Mormons talking to one another or in reading older Mormon writings from the 19th and early 20th century. In those few instances in which I was aware of it, it was among the most disparaging of terms. (Doesn't mean they don't use the term today, I just haven't run across it much.)
well, if i were a christian i would not take too kindly to being called an "apostate" by mormons.
it shows ignorance - only someone who denounces or leaves their religion can be an apostate!
i've learned tonite that not all christians believe you must be baptised, but now i have another question - do all christians believe in the concept of original sin?
Reply

lolwatever
11-27-2006, 10:57 AM
lol maybe here's a simpler way to put it....

do ne of ur priests have books on creed which detail criteria to differentiate between believer from disbeliever based on evidence directly from bible only.:?

just wondering whether u guys hav an objectiv way of analysing these things... coz its easy for ppl to throw names at each other.

thanks..........
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-27-2006, 08:13 PM
Here are The Doctrinal Standards and General Rules of the United Methodist Church. But I fear that without some background you may misunderstand more than you understand by what is written there. These are old documents that date back to the 1700s and there was a definite anti-catholic bent among nearly all protestant groups back then. That is gone now, but it still appears in these older writings of from our denomination.

And here are some more comments as to how we see ourselves and how we understand ourselves to be in connection with other Christian groups: Basic Christian Affirmations.

But these are not truly objective standards that one can find in a checklist in the Bible. They require understanding and familiarity with the language to know what it meant by terms such as "God's redemptive love" or how a phrase like "the mystery of salvation in and through Jesus Christ" would different from someone else who might say, "from Jesus Christ". For our discussion here, an especially important phrase is the term "Christ's universal church". Because at first gland it would seem that this would then include Mormons. After all it says:
We are initiated and incorporated into this community of faith by Baptism, receiving the promise of the Spirit that re-creates and transforms us.
And Mormonism would say something similar to this too. But what Mormons and what United Methodists mean by "baptism" are two completely different experiences and theological underpinnings. They are even more different than what trinitarian Christians and unitarian Muslims mean when both say that we believe in one and only one God.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-27-2006, 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
doug,
is that acrostic specifically southern baptist, or more general?
I am not a Southern Baptist. I have never seen this acrosstic before. But I would have no problem with a Sunday school teacher using it as a teaching tool in my church. In fact, I may copy it and pass it on to them with the suggestion that they use it.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
11-27-2006, 11:09 PM
You know what I always wondered about, do Christians consider catholics as christians? I mean they had a very rough past and things have still not settled. Up untill recently there was still a lot of bombing in ireland. And I know that Catholics tend to look at Christians like they abandoned their faith but what about the other way around? Do Christians see catholics like some old-fashion cult, or do they look upon them more as "confused Christians".
Reply

Woodrow
11-27-2006, 11:52 PM
Originally Posted by steve
You know what I always wondered about, do Christians consider catholics as christians? I mean they had a very rough past and things have still not settled. Up untill recently there was still a lot of bombing in ireland. And I know that Catholics tend to look at Christians like they abandoned their faith but what about the other way around? Do Christians see catholics like some old-fashion cult, or do they look upon them more as "confused Christians".
Up until I was in my mid twenties I was a very devout Catholic. As a Catholic we did believe that other Christians had fallen away from the faith.

At that time the teachings were that a person of another denomination was still Christian, but did not know the proper means of worship nor did they follow the complete bible. At that time non-Christians were believed to be able to attain heaven, provided they sincerly believed in their fath and followed the teachings of their faith to the best of their ability. (I do not know if that applied only to the Abrahamic faiths, my memory is not that good) I state at that time as the teachings may have changed since my days as a Catholic. Keep in mind in those days a person who left Catholochism was viewed as an apostate, to be ex-communicated from the Church and was doomed to hell.

Getting back to your original statement:

Do Christians see catholics like some old-fashion cult, or do they look upon them more as "confused Christians"
I would say both are true. Some denominations do seem to view Catholics as being an old-fashion cult, especialy the fundamentalistic denominations. While others such as the more traditional Anglican denominations view them as being confused.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-28-2006, 12:40 AM
Originally Posted by steve
You know what I always wondered about, do Christians consider catholics as christians? I mean they had a very rough past and things have still not settled. Up untill recently there was still a lot of bombing in ireland. And I know that Catholics tend to look at Christians like they abandoned their faith but what about the other way around? Do Christians see catholics like some old-fashion cult, or do they look upon them more as "confused Christians".

Rather than just blather on about how I personally feel -- which is that Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox churches are all Christian, let me share with you some discussion occuring between Roman Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians on a Christan forum akin to this one.

(Sorry, it requires a subscription, or I would just post a link.)


from the Vatican, "The Decree on Ecumenism",
posted by phatcatholic

1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.
posted by protestantboy
As an evangelical, the one document that speaks out to me is The Decree on Ecumenism. I love the first paragraphs but I quickly depart from the document when I get further into it.
posted by phatcatholic
let's share the paragraphs that you love! hopefully they will balance out the more divisive issues:
posted by protestantboy
Just for the sake of conversation and understanding that I'm not trying to be argumentative or disruptive or "a hater," I just depart on some areas of the document. I don't think some of the reforms went far enough IMO.
posted by phatcatholic
no worries

posted by protestantboy
1. Peter and his succesors as head of the united church. Obviously, protestent church history doesn't teach this to be true. We're not going to solve this here... but it's been a point of division for more than 400 years, in my western civ classes it was pointed out that this was divisive for much longer than that. So protestant's and catholics are likely to disagree on that topic indefintely.
posted by phatcatholic
here's what he is referring to, from the third and fourth paragraphs of article 2:
quoting from "The Decree on Ecumenism"
In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying.(10) Among their number He selected Peter, and after his confession of faith determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven,(11) and after His profession of love, entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith(12) and shepherded in perfect unity.(13) Christ Jesus Himself was forever to remain the chief cornerstone (14) and shepherd of our souls.(15)

Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors -the bishops with Peter's successor at their head-should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love. It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people's fellowship in unity: in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God.
posted by protestantboy
2. Point 3 clearly accuses both protestant and orthodox Christians of the sin of seperation. It starts off by saying this was mutual "both side to blame" but then condemns the people they are trying to unite by saying "who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation." Specifically, this fails to acknowledge that the Reformers acted righteously in seperated from a corrupt papacy. Protestants still hold that Luther's claims were valid and this document calls Luther's actions "sinful." So we are likely to disagree on that topic indefinitely.
posted by phatcatholic
maybe you were unintentionally imprecise with your wording here, but the document does not "condemn" those who grew up in communities that have their source in schism from the Church. here is the first paragraph of article 3:


quoting from "The Decree on Ecumenism"
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

footnotes:
19. Cf. 1 Cor. 11, 18-19; Gal. 1, 6-9; 1 Jn. 2, 18-19.
20. Cf. 1 Cor. 1, 11 sqq; 11, 22.
21. Cf. CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VIII (1439), Decretum Exultate Deo: Mansi 31, 1055 A.
22. Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299
i would assert that this Decree on Ecumenism is one of the most gracious and conciliatory statements about non-Catholic Christians ever written by the Magisterium (especially when compared to Trent ). it goes on to affirm the sources of grace that can be found in the separated communities and their effectiveness as a means of salvation. while not novel, or an invention, it is a remarkable change of focus and i wish more protestants would be appreciative of this. i'm not saying u should always be looking for affirmation from the Catholic Church, but it is a great step towards unity that we have taken.

as for Luther, i acknowledge full well that the papacy was corrupt in his day. but, to Catholics, the proper response to corruption is not separation from the Church, but patient and steadfast work towards the building up of holiness, starting with oneself. he allowed himself to be scandalized by what was occurring around him and he forsook his faith in the Church, opting instead for one of his own making. this can never be considered "righteous." now, let it be known that i consider myself no better of a man than Luther. i've never lived in a time like his, and its difficult for me to say whether or not i would have abandoned the Church. but, i still know what is the right thing to do, and that is the standard in which all Catholics, even Luther, should be held up against.
posted by protestantboy
3. Protestants do not acknowledge the following statement as true "For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation." Protestants beleive that salvation comes from grace alone. (Ephesians 2:8) We're likely going to disagree on this point until the cows come home.

posted by phatcatholic
what do u think that sentence means? it is certainly not a denial of salvation by grace. the Church is the "means of salvation" not b/c it is set up as a replacement of grace, but b/c the Lord grants us his saving grace through the Church. that is what is meant by "means." a similar word would be "instrument", the Church is an "instrument" of grace, an "instrument" of salvation. this Decree is also not a denial of the presence of grace in other Christian denominations, or in salvation as a result of membership in them (as all of article 3 affirms).


Of course, there is much more, but I think you get the drift. There are MAJOR differences in some beliefs between denominations, especially between Roman Catholics and others. But Protestants do recognize Roman Catholics and Roman Catholics do recognize Protestants as being Christians. Oh, of course, you can always find a few hotheaded exceptions, but this is the general rule.

Peace to my brothers and sisters of all faiths.
Reply

dougmusr
11-28-2006, 12:47 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
doug,
is that acrostic specifically southern baptist, or more general?
It is contained in material published by Lifeway which is a Southern Baptist organization, but I would say it presents the Gospel in a manner which would be acceptable to most Christian denominations. If you want to view a live Sunday service online from my church, you can find links on www.ghbc.org.

If you want to know more about Southern Baptist beliefs, there is a pamphlet "The Baptist Faith and Message" which can be found on line at on www.sbc.net, or purchased from a local LifeWay Christian store.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-28-2006, 09:57 AM
Why "Church of Satan" is not mentioned here?
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-28-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Why "Church of Satan" is not mentioned here?
I thought it was obvious....

...aren't all Christians members of the "Church of Satan"? :hiding:
















::He said, with sarcasm dripping from his chin.:: :okay:
Reply

north_malaysian
11-29-2006, 04:51 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I thought it was obvious....

...aren't all Christians members of the "Church of Satan"? :hiding:
I've read somewhere years ago that Church of Satan is gaining converts among the Christian Menadonese in Indonesia. Why they're targetting Christians?^o)












::He said, with sarcasm dripping from his chin.:: :okay:[/QUOTE]
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-29-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I've read somewhere years ago that Church of Satan is gaining converts among the Christian Menadonese in Indonesia. Why they're targetting Christians?^o)
hmmm. It's news to me. Wish I could be more helpful, but I'm afraid I just don't know much about them.
Reply

Keltoi
11-29-2006, 02:26 PM
The "Church of Satan", which I suppose is the one created by Anton Levay, is not a "religion". Which I thought would be obvious. They liked to dress up and have "black masses" and so forth, but they were and are primarily athiests out to have a "good" time. I don't understand why the Church of Satan would be recruiting Christians in Indonesia....as far as I know the Church of Satan is still mainly a San Francisco phenomenon. This is of course if you are referring to the little club started by Anton Levay. If there is some other Church of Satan I've never heard of it.
Reply

snakelegs
11-29-2006, 07:40 PM
the satan worshippers are creepy.
actually, i always assumed that they are all former christians who, instead of just leaving christianity, are rebelling (childishly) by worshipping its antithesis.
if this is true, it could explain why they would specifically target christians for potential "converts".
Reply

Woodrow
11-30-2006, 01:05 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
the satan worshippers are creepy.
actually, i always assumed that they are all former christians who, instead of just leaving christianity, are rebelling (childishly) by worshipping its antithesis.
if this is true, it could explain why they would specifically target christians for potential "converts".
I agree with you very much. I believe that at some point they were deeply religious and then had reason to doubt their teaching and are now rebelling against it in the strongest way possible.
Reply

Goku
11-30-2006, 01:21 AM
Is the Church of Satan different from the Satanists?
Reply

Woodrow
11-30-2006, 01:25 AM
The Church of Satan are generaly regarded as being Satanists. However I think most of the members only belong to it for shock value and do not participate in the rituals associated with most Satanists.
Reply

Goku
11-30-2006, 01:31 AM
I see, Jazak Allah Khair Brother Woodrow.

I came upon a Satanist website in the past, they had a list of things they believed in, one of which they said was "We worship the one true EDIT, so who dares worship the EDIT?" That shocked me a bit, and they do have odd rituals.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-30-2006, 04:39 AM
There are about 7,000 "Satanists" in Malaysia, all ex-Muslims. The most hardcore of all are known as J.I.T (Jangan Ikut Tuhan - "Dont Follow God").

Among their rituals:

1) They start their ritual with "Bismi Ibliss Ir Rahman Ir Rahim" (In the name of Devil, the Most Gracious and Merciful)

2) They desecrate the Koran page by page, and put it in the middle, and the circling it.

3) Then they'll step on those pages of Koran and say "Dengan ini kami Murtad" (With this act we became Apostates).

4) Then some girls would lying naked on that pile of koranic pages, and each male member would have sex with those girls on it.

5) Lastly they would urinate on that pile of koranic pages and burn it.

Last year, there's a vcd circulated in northern malaysia region depicting those despicable act. It's soooo popular because people just want to see the sex scene.
Reply

snakelegs
11-30-2006, 06:35 AM
interesting!
so these would be the muslim equivalent - instead of leaving islam, they are worshipping its antithesis - a childish rebellion.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-30-2006, 06:54 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
interesting!
so these would be the muslim equivalent - instead of leaving islam, they are worshipping its antithesis - a childish rebellion.
This Satanists made Muslims in Malaysia worry... first they burnt the Koran, who knows in the future they might burns th mosques, kill the imams.

Do you know how they recruit schoolchildren? They ask those innocent kids to burn a coin and make an "Antichrist" symbol tattoo on their hands... by telling those kids that they will be excelled in their exams. While the girls are advised to wear Antichrist necklace (hide under their hijab)...
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-30-2006, 08:11 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Do you know how they recruit schoolchildren? They ask those innocent kids to burn a coin and make an "Antichrist" symbol tattoo on their hands... by telling those kids that they will be excelled in their exams. While the girls are advised to wear Antichrist necklace (hide under their hijab)...

Which begs the following questions:

1) What do you, a Muslim mean, when you refer to the "Antichrist". I know that you believe that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet. Do you also believe that Jesus was also THE CHRIST, the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for?

2) And then do you mean the same thing by "Antichrist" that Christians do -- someone who is the antithesis of the glorified Christ (swt), not just the antithesis of the man Jesus -- or do you mean something different?
Reply

north_malaysian
11-30-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Which begs the following questions:

1) What do you, a Muslim mean, when you refer to the "Antichrist". I know that you believe that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet. Do you also believe that Jesus was also THE CHRIST, the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for?

2) And then do you mean the same thing by "Antichrist" that Christians do -- someone who is the antithesis of the glorified Christ (swt), not just the antithesis of the man Jesus -- or do you mean something different?
I am referring to Western Satanists concept of antichrist... because these ex Muslim Satanists took this concept from them.

For me, Jesus is the Messiah...
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-03-2006, 02:43 PM
Interesting thought, as most of you might have heared the catholic pope visited the orthodox patriarch and they have tried building bridges. I was wondering anybody thinks they could grow closer then this and eventually even "merge" toghether or is this (aknowledging one another) about as far as they are able to go?
Reply

Woodrow
12-03-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally Posted by steve
Interesting thought, as most of you might have heared the catholic pope visited the orthodox patriarch and they have tried building bridges. I was wondering anybody thinks they could grow closer then this and eventually even "merge" toghether or is this (aknowledging one another) about as far as they are able to go?
Until there is a mutual understanding of the Nature of Isa(as) there is no possible way for any merger. However, I can see more tolerance towards each other and more understanding as to what is being said.

Even within Christianity there is much disagreement over the Nature of Isa(as) that will have to be resolved among themselves before there can be any actual dialogue between Muslim and all Christians. At the moment I would say there are some Christian denominations that are better to understand the beliefs of us. And there are some Denominations that are absolutly unable to see past their own concepts.

For true understanding and dialogue I believe the best understandings will be with the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican Protestants. However, I believe those 3 need to mend there own differences before they can speak on behalf of Christianity, otherwise there will never be any mutual agreement with all Christians as to what Islam actually teaches.

In Christianity I would say the Christians who are the closest to and have the better understanding of Islam are the Coptics. The Coptics hold true to many Islamic beliefs and in Egypt it is very difficult to distinguish between coptic and Muslim.

The Next closest would be The Catholics. In spite of their insistence of having Statues in the Church.

The Catholics do not believe in a one time forgiveness of sin and believe that forgiveness needs to be constantly asked for and worked for. the Catholics also tend to believe in the necessity to do good deeds to gain the mercy of God(swt) Although Catholics were the ones to introduce the concept of the trinity to Christinanity, the concept does differ from the concept followed by many other Christians. Most Catholics will direct their prayers to God(swt) directly and not through Isa(as)
Reply

YusufNoor
12-03-2006, 04:44 PM
:sl:

Most Catholics will direct their prayers to God(swt) directly and not through Isa(as)
______
erm, except when they are praying the "Hail Mary" ^o)
;)


:w:
Reply

Woodrow
12-03-2006, 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
:sl:



erm, except when they are praying the "Hail Mary" ^o)
;)


:w:
True.

However I do not think the hail Mary is intended to be a prayer. It is not a prayer directed to her. It is asking her to pray on the behalf of Catholics.

I will agree that it is still an erroneous thing as no person can intercede for us.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-03-2006, 06:46 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
True.

I will agree that it is still an erroneous thing as no person can intercede for us.

Yet, I just read another thread where a Muslim speaks of Muhammad (pbuh) intercedeing for us.

(I need to learn how to link to an actual post.)
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-03-2006, 06:53 PM
Originally Posted by steve
Interesting thought, as most of you might have heared the catholic pope visited the orthodox patriarch and they have tried building bridges. I was wondering anybody thinks they could grow closer then this and eventually even "merge" toghether or is this (aknowledging one another) about as far as they are able to go?
Hard to say at this point in time. There are many denominations that have already merged. The division between the RCC and the Orthodox goes back a long way. Even though theologically they are very close together, the political differences and structure of the two groups is such that it might be hard to meld together at this point in time. My best guess, is that they will continue in dialogue for a couple of generations, and then once the comfort level is built up and natural anxieties are lessened, some future generation will be the one to move them into full reconciliation.
Reply

YusufNoor
12-03-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yet, I just read another thread where a Muslim speaks of Muhammad (pbuh) intercedeing for us.
(I need to learn how to link to an actual post.)
:sl:

Salaam,

but we don't pray TO him, we pray FOR him!

you know, honestly, i NEVER got it when Jesus said it either, BUT Islam explains it.

on the Day of Judgement, The Eternal Creator G-d, Allah(SWT) to Muslims, the prophets will each have the abillity to intercede on behalf of their "umma".

thus, MAYBE, Insha' Allah , the Rasool Allah(SAWS) may save some of us from the "fire". Jesus/Isa(as) will have the same opportunity with his umma, as will all the other Prophets(as).

each Prophet(as) will be asked about his umma.

:w:
Reply

GARY
12-03-2006, 07:54 PM
Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

But the question is this..

If they refer to themselves as christians.....who are we to say they are not?

I mean if i were to have a debate with a chritian of different sect,as you pointed out,anglican,catholics,mormon and so on...and each say they are the rightly guided ones,,,,who are we to say they are wrong?Each believe that each is right.

But at the core i would say is if the group uses the bible then can they be termed christians.
But then again,every sect have their own bible...

So again,it is awfully easy to be misled..

It is same as in Islam,,,sunni shia and so on,we have different schools of thinking but at the core is the Quran,Allah and Propeht Muhammad saw...

We are all muslim,but you encounter some Saudi sunni who follow their brand of Islam claiming other as not Islam and so on...
This post caught my attention. It raises some important questions. On a subtle level, and sometimes not so subtle, many muslims claim that those that call themselves for example, 'shia', are not muslims at all. In a sense, the statement is very similiar to the title of this thread; Not every group that uses the name 'muslim' is muslim.

It is safe to say that many muslims do not consider some, or all of the following groups to be muslim;Sunnis(majority, but some from the other groups would say not true muslims),
Shia,
W ahhabi(who consider all others to not follow the quran strictly enough),
Kharijites(less common these days),
Ismailis,
Khojas-a.k.a Hashshashin('assassin'-smoke hash and set out to kill christians)- a sub-group of Ismailis,
Sufi,
Baha'is,
Zikri,
Ahmadiyya,
and more...
If they refer to themselves as muslims.....who are we to say they are not?
At the core i would say is if the group uses the quran they can be termed muslims.

Are there any people here that consider all of these as muslim? Some? only one?

If these other sects (not sunni) which are growing at incredible rates, were the major contributing factor to the world growth of islam, would those of you that don't consider them muslim still think islam was the fastest growing religion? I mean if it were that it were actually mostly the other sects contributing and not the majority sunni.
Reply

GARY
12-03-2006, 08:20 PM
Major technical problems while posting my last post. Have fixed it to the best of my memory, but I believe I have lost my main point... *sigh*...
Reply

Skillganon
12-03-2006, 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by GARY
This post caught my attention. It raises some important questions. On a subtle level, and sometimes not so subtle, many muslims claim that those that call themselves for example, 'shia', are not muslims at all. In a sense, the statement is very similiar to the title of this thread; Not every group that uses the name 'muslim' is muslim.

It is safe to say that many muslims do not consider some, or all of the following groups to be muslim;Sunnis(majority, but some from the other groups would say not true muslims),
Shia,
W ahhabi(who consider all others to not follow the quran strictly enough),
Kharijites(less common these days),
Ismailis,
Khojas-a.k.a Hashshashin('assassin'-smoke hash and set out to kill christians)- a sub-group of Ismailis,
Sufi,
Baha'is,
Zikri,
Ahmadiyya,
--------------------------------------------------------------
We don't exactly clasify all of them as non-muslims.

I can say safely Bahai are not, they have their own book, and accept all the books e.t.c as valid.
Bahai is more of a religion itself, not exactly a sect of Islam. Accept as Bahullah as a divine messenger (something similiar to that)

We all can say safely Ahmadiyaa and Qadiani are not, for similiar reason Bahai are not.
We have been warned against Kharijites.

In a sense the majority of the muslim are W ahhabi (by correct definition) and I am gathering many here in this forum even if they don't know what that words entail. It's not a sect, but more of a movement.

The word has been miss-construed by over night so called expert in the political arena.

We have a "Sect & Division" section on this forum so check it out for info on this various sects.
Reply

GARY
12-03-2006, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE=Skillganon;584590]
Originally Posted by GARY
This post caught my attention. It raises some important questions. On a subtle level, and sometimes not so subtle, many muslims claim that those that call themselves for example, 'shia', are not muslims at all. In a sense, the statement is very similiar to the title of this thread; Not every group that uses the name 'muslim' is muslim.

It is safe to say that many muslims do not consider some, or all of the following groups to be muslim;Sunnis(majority, but some from the other groups would say not true muslims),
Shia,
W ahhabi(who consider all others to not follow the quran strictly enough),
Kharijites(less common these days),
Ismailis,
Khojas-a.k.a Hashshashin('assassin'-smoke hash and set out to kill christians)- a sub-group of Ismailis,
Sufi,
Baha'is,
Zikri,
Ahmadiyya,

--------------------------------------------------------------

I can say Bahai are not, they have their own book, and accept all the books e.t.c as valid.

We all can say safely Ahmadiyaa and Qadiani are not.
We have been warned against Karijatte.

We have a secterian
In a sense the majority of the muslim are *******s and I am gathering many here in this forum even if they don't know what that words entail.

The word has been miss-construed by over night so called expert in the political arena.

We have a "Sect & Division" section on this forum so check it out for info on this various sects.
I understand what you say, and have a few comparisons. First, this is the mirror statement of what other sects say. You can find members of other sects that will say much the same about your particular beliefs. Some will reject certain hadith that you accept, and vice-versa.
Second comparison, many Christians say the same things. They say that certain group reads the Bible incorrectly to say this, while it actually says that, and vice-versa.
The point is, while many muslims claim that islam is not plagued with the same 'sect problem' as christianity, I beg to differ. The similarity is obvious. Muslims and Christians both have sects. Each sect of each religion claims to be correct while others are wrong, and both claim there is only one path.

There is a parallel to nearly all points made by any sect on either side, in a point made in any other sect, regardless of which side this other sect comes from.
Reply

Skillganon
12-03-2006, 09:04 PM
[QUOTE=GARY;584605]
Originally Posted by Skillganon

I understand what you say, and have a few comparisons. First, this is the mirror statement of what other sects say. You can find members of other sects that will say much the same about your particular beliefs. Some will reject certain hadith that you accept, and vice-versa.
Second comparison, many Christians say the same things. They say that certain group reads the Bible incorrectly to say this, while it actually says that, and vice-versa.
The point is, while many muslims claim that islam is not plagued with the same 'sect problem' as christianity, I beg to differ. The similarity is obvious. Muslims and Christians both have sects. Each sect of each religion claims to be correct while others are wrong, and both claim there is only one path.

There is a parallel to nearly all points made by any sect on either side, in a point made in any other sect, regardless of which side this other sect comes from.
Christian sectarian issue is not same as Islamic Sectarian issue.

Firstly I have to problem with the list. Bahai's are not a sect of Islam neither do they claim to be muslim.

W ahabhi is not a sect of Islam it's more of a movement. They follow the Sunnah.

Secondly Ahmadiyahh/Qadiani are later innovations that came way later. Their theology was never practiced in the past, same for bahai's. we can safely say they have no bearing.

We do have sect's however it is not so a wide thing as one make it out to be. We more of have a problem with bidah & Shirk due to ignorance.
Reply

GARY
12-03-2006, 09:32 PM
Originally Posted by Skillganon

Christian sectarian issue is not same as Islamic Sectarian issue.

Firstly I have to problem with the list. Bahai's are not a sect of Islam neither do they claim to be muslim.

W ahabhi is not a sect of Islam it's more of a movement. They follow the Sunnah.

Secondly Ahmadiyahh/Qadiani are later innovations that came way later. Their theology was never practiced in the past, same for bahai's. we can safely say they have no bearing.

We do have sect's however it is not so a wide thing as one make it out to be. We more of have a problem with bidah & Shirk due to ignorance.
I somewhat agree with you on the Bahai faith. I included it because the founder used the teachings of Muhammad as a launchpad, however I was incorrect to classify it as muslim. I agree, it is 'technically' not. I would disagree about Ahmadiyahh unless the same considerations for classifying sects were given to christians sects that came later. In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Fair is fair. If we are to disregard "later innovations", then we can quickly whittle down both religions to a couple of core sects.
Christian sectarian issue is not same as Islamic Sectarian issue.
Once again, I beg to differ.




I purposely left others out. I can provide a full list if you like. (it will have to wait though, I have to go for a while)
Reply

Skillganon
12-03-2006, 09:53 PM
Ok, you said W ahabi is a sect, tell me how it is a sect?
Reply

GARY
12-04-2006, 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Ok, you said W ahabi is a sect, tell me how it is a sect?
Wa*habism has been described by some as more of a movement than a sect. Others describe it as a sect. But the bottom line is, it boils down to one question, "what is a sect?" So, sect defined is: sect; a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.

Next, what is wa*habism? It is a strict form of islam that insists upon literal interpretation of the quran, in a nutshell.

I think that the confusion comes from three things; the demographics of those that practice Wa*habism, people's definition of the word 'sect', and the fact that they usually don't identify themselves as such.

So first, by definition those that follow the doctrine that prescribes this strict interpretation of islam, and shun many of the teachings found in sunni, shia and other ways of thought, are following wa*habism.

What I meant about the 'demographics' of those that follow wa*habism, is that they can be found anywhere, in any mosque. You can be at a sunni mosque, and find some men that are perhaps not happy with the others that attend the mosque. They may be upset because the others are not following a literal interpretation of each verse in the quran.

These men do not readily identify themselves as following wa*habism. Although some do identify themselves as 'Ikhwan', 'the Brethern'. There is some confusion with mixing up or grouping with 'salafism', which is not exactly the same thing. People that follow wa*habism can be found in any sunni mosque, hence a sort of 'follower of two sects'(I know, a rather 'course' description - I am having trouble articulating what I want to say here *sigh* (cursed poor vocabulary)).
Many in Saudi Arabia follow wa*habism, and the Taliban and 'some' members of Al-Qaeda (I say 'some' because some members of Al-Qaeda are known to have taken part in some 'western' indulgences).

I think because we don't see a name officially pegged to people that they are not following this doctrine. How are sunnis and shia identified? Is it written on the front of the mosque? Or is just known that 'that is a shia mosque'?

A sect does not require a building to gather in( 'shia' mosque or 'wa*habi' mosque) in order to be a sect. They don't have to call themselves the same thing. By definition, they must adhere to a distintive doctrine or a certain leader. Not to say that there isn't entire congregations that meet at certain mosques that are not wa*habis.

The things I have written here may very well be wrong, but it is what I have learned in my study of islam. If I am wrong point it out. If I still disagree I will point out why.
Reply

Skillganon
12-04-2006, 01:47 AM
Originally Posted by GARY
Wa*habism has been described by some as more of a movement than a sect. Others describe it as a sect. But the bottom line is, it boils down to one question, "what is a sect?" So, sect defined is: sect; a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.
Ok.

Next, what is wa*habism? It is a strict form of islam that insists upon literal interpretation of the quran, in a nutshell.
Not entirely correct to use strict for of Islam.

I think that the confusion comes from three things; the demographics of those that practice Wa*habism, people's definition of the word 'sect', and the fact that they usually don't identify themselves as such.
I can agree, also people think it is a sect because it is sometime potrayed as that, or hence by muslim & non muslim from their own ignorance.

So first, by definition those that follow the doctrine that prescribes this strict interpretation of islam, and shun many of the teachings found in sunni, shia and other ways of thought, are following wa*habism.
Not entirely correct. Incase of Shia it can be said yes.


What I meant about the 'demographics' of those that follow wa*habism, is that they can be found anywhere, in any mosque. You can be at a sunni mosque, and find some men that are perhaps not happy with the others that attend the mosque. They may be upset because the others are not following a literal interpretation of each verse in the quran.
Not entirely correct.

These men do not readily identify themselves as following wa*habism. Although some do identify themselves as 'Ikhwan', 'the Brethern'. There is some confusion with mixing up or grouping with 'salafism', which is not exactly the same thing. People that follow wa*habism can be found in any sunni mosque, hence a sort of 'follower of two sects'(I know, a rather 'course' description - I am having trouble articulating what I want to say here *sigh* (cursed poor vocabulary)).
Many in Saudi Arabia follow wa*habism, and the Taliban and 'some' members of Al-Qaeda (I say 'some' because some members of Al-Qaeda are known to have taken part in some 'western' indulgences).
It will be wrong to mix politics in to it.

I think because we don't see a name officially pegged to people that they are not following this doctrine. How are sunnis and shia identified? Is it written on the front of the mosque? Or is just known that 'that is a shia mosque'?
If something is not readily identified than I can see how most non-muslim can have difficulty with it let alone muslim. Incase of Muslim it will be more out of Ignorance.

A sect does not require a building to gather in( 'shia' mosque or 'wa*habi' mosque) in order to be a sect. They don't have to call themselves the same thing. By definition, they must adhere to a distintive doctrine or a certain leader. Not to say that there isn't entire congregations that meet at certain mosques that are not wa*habis.

The things I have written here may very well be wrong, but it is what I have learned in my study of islam. If I am wrong point it out. If I still disagree I will point out why.
Here is a link that will help to clear think up. I am sure you will find it interesting or atleast a good read.

Link: http://www.islamicboard.com/sects-divisions/

I refered you to the section where the articles is contained, as the word w'ahabi is censored it stops me from posting it.

If you can't access the Link let me know.
Reply

Umar001
12-04-2006, 01:54 AM
Assalamu Aleykum,

Sorry to jump half way through the thread been meaning to reply to this thread.

:)


Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

But the question is this..

If they refer to themselves as christians.....who are we to say they are not?

I mean if i were to have a debate with a chritian of different sect,as you pointed out,anglican,catholics,mormon and so on...and each say they are the rightly guided ones,,,,who are we to say they are wrong?

Each believe that each is right.

But at the core i would say is if the group uses the bible then can they be termed christians.
But then again,every sect have their own bible...

So again,it is awfully easy to be misled..

It is same as in Islam,,,sunni shia and so on,we have different schools of thinking but at the core is the Quran,Allah and Propeht Muhammad saw...

We are all muslim,but you encounter some Saudi sunni who follow their brand of Islam claiming other as not Islam and so on...
Theres a big difference between Islam and Christianity. To compare the saying of Muslims calling other non-Muslims and Christians calling others non-Christian is pretty difficult to swallow.

Can a Muslim be a Muslim if he states "It is not obligatory to pray"? No he can't why because the Prophet said the difference between a Muslim and infidel is the prayer. So thats justified there, we can see how it would work in Islaam.

In Christianity, it is not the same as that.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
While it is hard to have an objective standard for something as subjective as faith, I think that you will generally be ok if you use the following criteria to define Christian: "A faith group, or member thereof, who accepts the Bible as both an inspired work and a sufficient record of all that is necessary for salvation, accepts the God of the Bible as the one and only true God, and who views Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind."
So according to the definition given then Mormons would fall under that umbrella, since am sure they believe that the Bible in its originality was sufficient for Salvation.

Even if they did not fall under this then it would not change much, unless a person could bring passages with clear meaning from the Bible and show that the Mormon faith is totally leaving those aside, with no significant reason, then they would be said to be pick and choosers from the Bible.

The above is impossible in my eyes, I wait to be proved wrong.
Reply

north_malaysian
12-04-2006, 03:28 AM
The term "*******sm" is derogatory... just call them Salafism.
Reply

GARY
12-04-2006, 07:48 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
The term "*******sm" is derogatory... just call them Salafism.
Why is the term wa*habism derogatory?
Reply

Skillganon
12-04-2006, 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by GARY
Why is the term wa*habism derogatory?
because it is a term used now from a new movement called "*******sm" which came about only two centuries ago during the time of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab in Saudi Arabia.

(Following is an excerpt from "TheW'ahhabiMyth.com")

The correct way of referring to them is by terming them Salafis, as they are those who adhere to the way of the Salaf - the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) and his companions.

Following the way of the Salaf is the way which has been legislated in the Quran and Sunnah, the very sources of Islam. The Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) said to his daughter Fatimah: "Indeed, I am for you a blessed Salaf."

When asked about which was the correct and acceptable way of understanding Islam, the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) replied by saying: "That which I and my companions are upon."

Similarly, Allah says in the Quran that He is pleased with the companions "and also those who follow them exactly (in faith)."

As such, He said regarding the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him security) and his companions:

"So if they believe as you (i.e. the Salaf) believe, they are indeed rightly guided."

All of the orthodox scholars of Islam followed the way of the Salaf in understanding religion. Early scholars such as Imam al-Awzaa'ee, who died 157 years after the Prophet's emigration to Medina, said: "Be patient upon the Sunnah, and stop where the people (i.e. the Salaf) stopped, and say what they said, and refrain from what they refrained from, and follow the path of your righteous Salaf; for verily, sufficient for you is what was sufficient for them."

Today, one of the famous Sunni schools of jurisprudence is named after a scholar named Abu Haneefah. Millions of Muslims all over the world ascribe themselves to his school of jurisprudence; those who the media would term "mainstream" Muslims. Regarding adherence to the Salafi methodology, he said, "Adhere to the narrations and way of the Salaf, and beware of newly invented matters (in religion), for all of it is innovation."

The orthodox scholars who came after these early generations also followed the understanding of the Salaf in religious matters. Imam ath-Thahabi said: "It is authentically related from ad-Daraqutni (a scholar from approximately 1,000 years ago) that he said: There is nothing more despised by me than 'ilmul-kalaam (innovated speech and rhetoric). I (adh-Thahabee) say: The man never entered into ’ilmul-kalaam, nor did he enter into argumentation (i.e. philosophy), he did not delve into that. Rather, he was Salafee (a follower of the Salaf)."

The present day scholars who stick to the mainstream understanding of Islam also ascribe themselves to the way of the Salaf. Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan is considered to be one of the most knowledgeable of scholars alive today. Regarding Salafism, he made the following remark: "It is not a party from amongst the various parties… Hence Salafism is a group of people who are upon the way of the Salaf, upon what the Messenger (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) and his Companions were upon; and it is not a party from amongst the contemporary groups present today."

The media claim that Salafis/"*******s" believe that all those who do not follow their form of Islam are heathens" is a tall tale. Salafis believe that those Muslims who do not follow the understanding of the Salaf are not adhering to these and other clear texts. As such, they do not fall under the above-mentioned Quranic verse as being "rightly guided." Salafis distinguish between those who fall into religious innovation and those who fall into disbelief.

When considering the proofs which are contained within the Quran and Sunnah and the statements of all the orthodox scholars of Islam from the earliest generations to the present time, it becomes obvious that it is a great blunder for the media to refer to Salafism as being a new movement called "*******sm" which came about only two centuries ago during the time of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab in Saudi Arabia.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-05-2006, 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Assalamu Aleykum,

Sorry to jump half way through the thread been meaning to reply to this thread.

:)




Theres a big difference between Islam and Christianity. To compare the saying of Muslims calling other non-Muslims and Christians calling others non-Christian is pretty difficult to swallow.
I will agree with your that there is a difference between the denominationalism of Christianity and the sectarian divisions within Islam. But I think you still miss why I say that not every group that uses the name "Church" is Christian. It isn't just that say I disagree with them. But that they also reject my and every other Christian's form of Christianity, often to create something brand new without even any historical connection to previous teachings, other than to reject everything except some new revelation. Their only connection to "Christianity" is to have been originated in western culture, and thus they think that all religious institutions are called churches. I've actually heard of people refer to the Church of Islam. It just shows me that such people no little of either Christianity or Islam.


So according to the definition given then Mormons would fall under that umbrella, since am sure they believe that the Bible in its originality was sufficient for Salvation.
This is exactly what I was talking about above. Mormons DO NOT believe that the Bible in its originality was sufficient for Salvation. That is why they needed a new prophet and new revelation.

Even if they did not fall under this then it would not change much, unless a person could bring passages with clear meaning from the Bible and show that the Mormon faith is totally leaving those aside, with no significant reason, then they would be said to be pick and choosers from the Bible.

The above is impossible in my eyes, I wait to be proved wrong.
I believe I can do that. I can actually do that from Mormon source materail even. Do you want me to spend time on that in this thread or in a thread specifically dedicated to the differences between Mormon and orthodox (used as an adjective, not refering to the denomination) Christian thought?
Reply

Umar001
12-05-2006, 08:52 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I will agree with your that there is a difference between the denominationalism of Christianity and the sectarian divisions within Islam. But I think you still miss why I say that not every group that uses the name "Church" is Christian. It isn't just that say I disagree with them. But that they also reject my and every other Christian's form of Christianity, often to create something brand new without even any historical connection to previous teachings, other than to reject everything except some new revelation. Their only connection to "Christianity" is to have been originated in western culture, and thus they think that all religious institutions are called churches. I've actually heard of people refer to the Church of Islam. It just shows me that such people no little of either Christianity or Islam.
This is why I say, bring forth proof that they have left the fold of Christianity, simply saying that they reject your and every other form of Christianity is not proof that they are not Christian, this is why I think the task of saying someone is not Christian is a difficult one, because the boundries are not clear cut, as they tend to be on a whole in Islaam.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
This is exactly what I was talking about above. Mormons DO NOT believe that the Bible in its originality was sufficient for Salvation. That is why they needed a new prophet and new revelation.

Ok, well I do not know their position, are you sure that they did not believe the Bible to be enough in its originality but only that as time has gone by that they think that because of the 'innacuracy' new revelation need to be brought?

Also, even if they didn't they would still believe in the bible to some extent and in it's teaching to some extent, would they not? I think that is why you need to bring clear points from the Bible which are not subject to any interpretation and use them to show how Mormons are not Christians, but hen again what is the definition of a Christian, that is something you'd have to provide from the Bible itself. This is why the task is so difficult.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I believe I can do that. I can actually do that from Mormon source materail even. Do you want me to spend time on that in this thread or in a thread specifically dedicated to the differences between Mormon and orthodox (used as an adjective, not refering to the denomination) Christian thought?
If you feel it will hold a thread up on its own make a thread, as that will avoid confusion ;)
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-06-2006, 01:14 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
[B]
If you feel it will hold a thread up on its own make a thread, as that will avoid confusion ;)
There is plenty of information available if there are that many questions. However, I doubt there is sufficient interest. But maybe I am wrong.

My point remains, that lumping all that some have declared to be Christian together is not a correct way to group them. There is as much or more similarity between orthodox Christianity and Islam as there is between orthodox Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or Christian Science. Those three groups (are completely unlike each other also), have their own scriptures that supersede the Bible, they feel that the Bible has been corrupted, they deny the divinity of Jesus (except where they claim that all humans have a divine nature which belongs to them also), they do not think that one can be based saved solely on the message found in the Bible, and in some cases actually believe in a completely different God than the God of Abraham. (Mormonism isn't even monotheistic.) I would rather my children grow up Muslim than any of these other groups; I think Islam at least worships the true God, which I think these others have perverted into something else.

So, I am simply saying don't be fooled by the name above the door. There are all sorts of different things on the inside. Don't let the name "Church" fool you into thinking that we should all be lumped into the same category unless your are willing for Islam, Judaism, and Christianity to all be lumped together as similar because we all are descendants of the faith of Abraham.
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2006, 01:03 AM
hehe..... christians do takfir too! ;D ;D ;D
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2006, 01:29 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
hehe..... christians do takfir too! ;D ;D ;D

Probably. I certainly can't argue with you, as I have no idea what "takfir" is. I've picked up a few words in the month I've been here, but not that one. Is there a glossary someone can refer me to???:playing:
Reply

YusufNoor
12-07-2006, 01:42 AM
:sl:

Allahu Akbar!



one of the forums is for new "reverts" or folks intereted in Islam. there are some posts on defintions. the one under Hajj.














i use it!;D

Peace!

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
12-07-2006, 01:48 AM
Here also is a nice link to common phrases. You will note that the transliteration vary from site to site as there is no real phonetic equivilants for some arabic pronunciations.

http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/expressions.html
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2006, 01:54 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Probably. I certainly can't argue with you, as I have no idea what "takfir" is. I've picked up a few words in the month I've been here, but not that one. Is there a glossary someone can refer me to???:playing:
some muslims have a hobby of calling each other kafirs.
and apparently, some christians like to call other christians non-christian.
sometimes it's not as much fun to be an agnostic. :D
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2006, 02:17 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
some muslims have a hobby of calling each other kafirs.
and apparently, some christians like to call other christians non-christian.
sometimes it's not as much fun to be an agnostic. :D

Yeah, we are guilty of that also. My grandmother used to swear that all Catholics were going to hell.

And though I guess that others see me as doing that in this thread, I have tried to do all I can to show you that I am speaking of something different. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. But if you don't get it, then you really will likely never fully understand Christianity.

You likely also will think that all meat is meat, yet as any good Jew or Muslim will tell you, pork may be meat, and they may eat meat, but they don't eat pork. Likewise, you may think that the flesh of all animals is meat, but as any strict Catholic will tell you they don't eat meat on Fridays, but they do eat fish. There is a difference between what is Christian, and some of the other religious groups that others are putting in the same box. What you do with Jesus and the plan of salvation is the key to discriminating between them.
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2006, 03:21 AM
i know there is a great diversity among christian beliefs.
but if someone defines himself as christian, that's enough for me.
Reply

Keltoi
12-07-2006, 03:26 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
i know there is a great diversity among christian beliefs.
but if someone defines himself as christian, that's enough for me.
One cannot be a Christian if they don't believe Christ was crucified for our sins and was resurrected. That is the core belief behind Christianity. If you call yourself a Christian but do not believe Christ was crucified for your sins, or that he wasn't resurrected, then you are not a "Christian". Calling yourself a Christian is one thing, being a Christian is something else.
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2006, 03:35 AM
are there people who call themselves christians and don't believe these 2 things?
Reply

Keltoi
12-07-2006, 03:50 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
are there people who call themselves christians and don't believe these 2 things?
I'm sure there are many on an individual level, but as for churches, the Unitarian Universalists would be one example. There is alot of debate about Mormons, but I think while Mormons believe some very strange things from my perspective, they do believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Reply

north_malaysian
12-07-2006, 03:52 AM
Unitarians are the moonies, rught?
Reply

dougmusr
12-07-2006, 03:55 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Unitarians are the moonies, rught?
No, Unitarians are not part of the Unification Church which follows Rev Moon. It is my understanding that the Unification Church believes that Christ did not accomplish His work on earth in that He had no children. That apparently is Rev Moon's job as a new Messiah.
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2006, 04:21 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I'm sure there are many on an individual level, but as for churches, the Unitarian Universalists would be one example. There is alot of debate about Mormons, but I think while Mormons believe some very strange things from my perspective, they do believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
you're right - i forgot about unitarians. tho i doubt they would refer to themselves as christians.
i think i would probably go by what you said earlier.
One cannot be a Christian if they don't believe Christ was crucified for our sins and was resurrected. That is the core belief behind Christianity
that seems a pretty good definition to me.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2006, 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
One cannot be a Christian if they don't believe Christ was crucified for our sins and was resurrected. That is the core belief behind Christianity

that seems a pretty good definition to me.
Which is why I began this thread with the statement that not every group that uses the name "Church" is Christian.

For instance we are now talking about two different groups that refer to themselves as a "church" (the Unitarian Church and the Unification Church) but that would not fit the definition of Christian you just accepted.

The same could be said of some other groups that we have already talked about on this thread.

The Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins.

The Christian Science Church does not believe that Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints says they believe this when talking to non-Mormons, but they do not actually teach this concept to Mormons.

The Church of Scientology does not believe that Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2006, 06:16 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
thanks for your reply - interesting info about mormons.
you and i have different criteria for defining a christian. in addition to the ones i mentioned earlier, i think if someone calls himself a christian - then he's a christian. i don't really see how being very different from all other christians makes you a non-christian as long as your sect believes that jesus died for your sins, that jesus is divine, that baptism is necessary to go to heaven and that have the holy communion ritual - which mormons do.
but then, you can't expect an agnostic to use the same criteria as a pastor!

As this quote taken from page one seems to be unresolved still, I have created a new thread Please don't confuse Mormonism with historic Christianity for those who wish to pursue this aspect of the subject more fully.
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2006, 08:47 AM
this is a matter of concern to christians only, i think.
Reply

Umar001
12-07-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

The Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins.
Are you sure?
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2006, 10:18 PM
From JWs own documents:
"To get one's name written in that book of life will depend on one's works, whether they are in fulfillment of God's will and approved by his Judge and King." (Watchtower, August 15, 1972).
JWs do believe in a ransom theory, that Jesus died to pay a price for sin, but they do not believe that Jesus' death actually saves people. As pointed out above, according to JW theology, one has to earn one's salvation by doing good works. Perhaps it should not surprise me that several Muslims on this board seem to like the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those who do, may also find themselves in agreement with this item taken from their website:
CHRISTENDOM HAS BETRAYED GOD AND THE BIBLE
Included among those who do not live by the Bible are the peoples and nations of Christendom. "Christendom" is defined as that part of the world where Christianity prevails. It is largely the Western world with its church systems, which from about the fourth century C.E. became prominent. Christendom has had the Bible for centuries, and its clergy claim to teach it and to be God's representatives. But do the clergy and missionaries of Christendom teach the truth? Do their actions really represent God and the Bible? Does Christianity really prevail in Christendom? No. Since its religion came to the forefront in the fourth century, Christendom has proved to be an enemy of God and of the Bible. Yes, the facts of history show that Christendom has betrayed God and the Bible.

The fundamental doctrines of Christendom are based not on the Bible but on ancient myths—those of Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and others. Teachings such as the inherent immortality of the human soul, eternal torment in hellfire, purgatory, and the Trinity (three persons in one Godhead) are not found in the Bible.
But note, if you do agree with them, then you are saying that what has represented itself as Christianity for the last 1600+ years, is not true Christianity. (Which, based on some posts I have read, I would not find it surprising to discover some persons willing to so state. :cry: )
Reply

YusufNoor
12-07-2006, 11:59 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
From JWs own documents:


JWs do believe in a ransom theory, that Jesus died to pay a price for sin, but they do not believe that Jesus' death actually saves people. As pointed out above, according to JW theology, one has to earn one's salvation by doing good works. Perhaps it should not surprise me that several Muslims on this board seem to like the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those who do, may also find themselves in agreement with this item taken from their website:
CHRISTENDOM HAS BETRAYED GOD AND THE BIBLE
Included among those who do not live by the Bible are the peoples and nations of Christendom. "Christendom" is defined as that part of the world where Christianity prevails. It is largely the Western world with its church systems, which from about the fourth century C.E. became prominent. Christendom has had the Bible for centuries, and its clergy claim to teach it and to be God's representatives. But do the clergy and missionaries of Christendom teach the truth? Do their actions really represent God and the Bible? Does Christianity really prevail in Christendom? No. Since its religion came to the forefront in the fourth century, Christendom has proved to be an enemy of God and of the Bible. Yes, the facts of history show that Christendom has betrayed God and the Bible.

The fundamental doctrines of Christendom are based not on the Bible but on ancient myths—those of Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and others. Teachings such as the inherent immortality of the human soul, eternal torment in hellfire, purgatory, and the Trinity (three persons in one Godhead) are not found in the Bible.[/QUOTE] But note, if you do agree with them, then you are saying that what has represented itself as Christianity for the last 1600+ years, is not true Christianity. (Which, based on some posts I have read, I would not find it surprising to discover some persons willing to so state. :cry: )[/QUOTE]


:salamext:

Greetings of Peace Brother,

i guess i shouldn't point out that i erupted in laughter when i read that!

not sure if i ever said so, but it was a Jehovah's Witness who sparked my interest in "finding the right church".

which, of course lead to me remembering watching Herbert W. Armstrong on the telly!

i'm NOT trying to be your worst nughtmare! :giggling:

but on a serious note:
To get one's name written in that book of life will depend on one's works, whether they are in fulfillment of God's will and approved by his Judge and King."
does that really seem far-fetched? you have to "find the right path" and then you have to "do the things that keep you on it."

as logical as Mr. Spock!

Peace,

:wasalamex
Reply

snakelegs
12-08-2006, 04:09 AM
grace seeker,
that quote from the jehovah's witness folks was really interesting.
hope i remember it if i ever feel a desire to become a christian - i will check them out first.
interersting - they also call other christians non-christians.
do you know if JW's believe in the divinity of jesus?
thanks! :)
p.s. i have learned more about christianity on this forum than in my whole life!
Reply

snakelegs
12-09-2006, 03:16 AM
this is probably a stupid question. (won't be first, won't be last).
if someone believes in the trinity does that mean he automatically believes in the divinity of jesus?
Reply

Skillganon
12-09-2006, 03:23 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
this is probably a stupid question. (won't be first, won't be last).
if someone believes in the trinity does that mean he automatically believes in the divinity of jesus?
I am not speaking for christianity, but the whole concept of Trinity is based on 3 person in 1 God. That meaning they do believe Jesus devine and the holy Ghost. Co-equal but of the same essence.

(Allah Forbid)
Reply

Woodrow
12-09-2006, 03:58 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
this is probably a stupid question. (won't be first, won't be last).
if someone believes in the trinity does that mean he automatically believes in the divinity of jesus?
Some Hindus believe in the trinity to be Brahm, Siva and Vishnu. so I guess it depends on the trinity as being seen by different religions. If a Christian states he is trinitarian it is a statement that he believe in some concept a divinity of Jesus(as)

In Christianity you will find some denominations that are not trinitarian. Some that believe in a duality in which Jesus(as) is not devine and then there are the hard core Trinitarians who do believe in the Divinity of Jesus(as)

Even among the trinitarians there seems to be some difference of opinion as to the exact nature of Jesus(as).
Reply

snakelegs
12-09-2006, 05:59 AM
interesting....confusing, too!
Reply

KAding
12-09-2006, 10:28 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Unitarians are the moonies, rught?
Moonies??? They sound wonderful!!!
From wikipedia:
General Beliefs of UUs

Unitarian Universalists (UUs) believe in complete but responsible freedom of speech, thought, belief, faith, and disposition. They believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues like the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any heritage, have any sexual orientation, and hold beliefs from other cultures and religions.

Concepts about deity are quite diverse among UUs. Some believe that there is no god; others believe in many gods. Some believe that God is everything. Some believe in a female God (Goddess), a passive God, or that god is found in nature. Some UUs reject the idea of deities and instead speak of "universal spirit" or "reverence of life". Unitarian Universalists believe that individuals should be supported by their community in their personal searches for truth about deity.
Principles and Purposes
1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
So tolerant and supporting, it almost makes me want to cry :cry:.
Reply

Keltoi
12-09-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Moonies??? They sound wonderful!!!
From wikipedia:




So tolerant and supporting, it almost makes me want to cry :cry:.
Yes, they sound like a very tolerant and loving group of people. I don't have a problem with the Universalists, besides their politics, my only point is that they aren't representative of Christian faith and belief, although they have a "church".
Reply

KAding
12-09-2006, 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, they sound like a very tolerant and loving group of people. I don't have a problem with the Universalists, besides their politics, my only point is that they aren't representative of Christian faith and belief, although they have a "church".
Very true :).
Reply

Keltoi
12-09-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Very true :).
Do I sense some sarcasm there....:uuh: surely not.
Reply

KAding
12-09-2006, 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Do I sense some sarcasm there....:uuh: surely not.
No no, don't fear. There was no sarcasm :). Look at the part I quoted earlier from wikipedia:
Concepts about deity are quite diverse among UUs. Some believe that there is no god; others believe in many gods. Some believe that God is everything. Some believe in a female God (Goddess), a passive God, or that god is found in nature. Some UUs reject the idea of deities and instead speak of "universal spirit" or "reverence of life".
There is no way I would define any of those beliefs as 'Christian'.
Reply

snakelegs
12-09-2006, 08:35 PM
i think the unitarians are no longer allowed to call themselves "church" and now call themselves uniratian universalist society.
my stepfather was an athiest, my mother an agnostic - they were unitarians. during the 30's and 40's (probably long before that too) the unitarians were the centre for progressive movements and intellectuals in general - the communist party met there (my stepfather was a communist), so did the socialists. they were also active in the civil rights movement. don't know much about them over the last few decades.
i wasn't raised in any religion, but once in a great while they attended services (which often consisted of a book review or talk about important social issues) and i was parked in sunday school where we spent our time learning about how other kids in other parts of the world lived and making fun stuff.
there was no mention of god that i can remember at all. in fact, i never heard anything about their theology and still no almost nothing about it.
however on the west coast, they can be quite different apparently. my mother went a few times in the 70's and that church was about half and half liberal/conservative.
again, i don't know how they may have changed over the past decades...
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-10-2006, 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by KAding
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Unitarians are the moonies, rught?
Moonies??? They sound wonderful!!!
From wikipedia:


So tolerant and supporting, it almost makes me want to cry :cry:.
You provided good information on the Unitarian Universalists, but be aware that they are NOT Moonies. Moonies are members of the Unification "Church", a completely different and unrelated group. Of course, by neither Keltoi's nor even Snakeleg's definition are either of these two groups Christian.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-10-2006, 12:56 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
grace seeker,
that quote from the jehovah's witness folks was really interesting.
hope i remember it if i ever feel a desire to become a christian - i will check them out first.
interersting - they also call other christians non-christians.
do you know if JW's believe in the divinity of jesus?
thanks! :)
p.s. i have learned more about christianity on this forum than in my whole life!
Hey! Then all of this confusing, and hopefully clarifying, conversation is doing some good.

In answer to JW views about Christ's divinity. No, I don't believe they would recognize it. Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with the mainstream Christian belief that Jesus was "fully God, fully man." Witnesses teach that Jesus was not God, but rather God's first creation. Jesus existed in pre-human form as God's agent of creation and God's chief spokesman (the Word), and took on human form as the man Jesus by means of a virgin birth.

The purpose of Jesus' incarnation on earth was threefold in the view of Witnesses: (1) To teach the truth about God; (2) to provide a model of a perfect life for people to follow; and (3) to sacrifice his life to set humans free from sin and death. His crucifixion was not on a cross, but a single upright stake. After his death, God raised Jesus from the dead "as a spirit creature" and Jesus returned to his home in heaven. Jesus was not made King, however, until 1914.

The above is a summary of information provided on the follow JW website: Who Is Jesus Christ?
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-10-2006, 01:00 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Originally Posted by snakelegs
this is probably a stupid question. (won't be first, won't be last).
if someone believes in the trinity does that mean he automatically believes in the divinity of jesus?
I am not speaking for christianity, but the whole concept of Trinity is based on 3 person in 1 God. That meaning they do believe Jesus devine and the holy Ghost. Co-equal but of the same essence.
Skillganon, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I hope when someone asks me a question about Islam, I can represent your beliefs as well as you just presented mine.
Reply

snakelegs
12-10-2006, 03:45 AM
thanks for your reply, GS.
Reply

Skillganon
12-10-2006, 04:59 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Skillganon, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I hope when someone asks me a question about Islam, I can represent your beliefs as well as you just presented mine.
No problem.

Well, I just provided the common dogma without my thought's concerning it, which I am sure one will appreciate less if I did so.
:)
Reply

snakelegs
12-10-2006, 05:19 AM
ooooopss, skillganon!
thanks for your reply too! :)
Reply

Muslim Woman
03-09-2007, 04:37 PM



I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

With the name of ALLAH (swt) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful


Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)

&&


Originally Posted by YusufNoor
:sl:

.....ALL Christians should observe the Sabbath and all of the ancient Israeli Holy Days. ...... and ALL Jewish dietary laws should be followed.


--- I read about a Christian girl who did not appear in her school final exam on Saturday & there was a special arrangement for her to attend the exam next day. So , i guess , some Christians do observe Sabbath. Is there any prohibition in Bible that they can't do it ?

if Christians start celebrating all the jewish holy days & follow dietary laws , then Jews may object ????? yak.....stupid question may be :nervous:


Catholic will tell you they don't eat meat on Fridays
--why??


Reply

Grace Seeker
03-09-2007, 05:02 PM
Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
--- I read about a Christian girl who did not appear in her school final exam on Saturday & there was a special arrangement for her to attend the exam next day. So , i guess , some Christians do observe Sabbath. Is there any prohibition in Bible that they can't do it ?
No. There is no prohibition regarding what day Christians can and cannot worship. Now there are some Christian groups which would disagree with that statement, the 7th Day Adventist comes to mind; they believe that worship should be on the Saturday Sabbath -- other days would be permissable as one cannot worship God too much, but it is required on the Sabbath day. They hold that the same regulations given to the Jews still apply to Christians today.

if Christians start celebrating all the jewish holy days & follow dietary laws , then Jews may object ?????
How Jews would react is better asked of a Jew. They may not think it is necessary, but I can't see why they would object.

Catholic will tell you they don't eat meat on Fridays. Why?
There are Catholics that frequent this thread; I'll let them speak for themselves.
Reply

Woodrow
03-09-2007, 07:13 PM
Being a former Catholic about 40 years ago. At one time it was required that Catholics observe a partial fast at least one day a week. That eventualy became a rule of no meat on Friday. In the 1960s that changed from being a Church obligation to a suggestion that it could be a method by which Catholics can observe a partial fast. It is not strictly limited to meat. Some Catholics will just have one light meal on Friday, often just a glass of water and a slice of bread.

In the 1960s it was realised that the individuals intent and desire to fast was more important than how they chose to fast.
Reply

Talha777
03-09-2007, 07:29 PM
Being a former Catholic about 40 years ago. At one time it was required that Catholics observe a partial fast at least one day a week. That eventualy became a rule of no meat on Friday. In the 1960s that changed from being a Church obligation to a suggestion that it could be a method by which Catholics can observe a partial fast. It is not strictly limited to meat. Some Catholics will just have one light meal on Friday, often just a glass of water and a slice of bread.

In the 1960s it was realised that the individuals intent and desire to fast was more important than how they chose to fast.
This is why I can never become a Catholic. If God has made certain laws for us, who are we as human beings to question them and dare to "amend" them? At least when the mainstream Latter Day Saints church abrogated polygamy, they claimed it was by divine revelation to their prophetic head of the church. But when the Catholic Church convenes their Vatican councils, do they claim that it is because God has ordered them to do so, or is it because they need to update their manmade rules so as to keep their flock from leaving the church en masse? A religion that is more dedicated to maintaining the quantity of their adherents rather than sticking to divine principles no matter what the cost is a farce.
Reply

Woodrow
03-09-2007, 09:25 PM
Originally Posted by Talha777

This is why I can never become a Catholic. If God has made certain laws for us, who are we as human beings to question them and dare to "amend" them? At least when the mainstream Latter Day Saints church abrogated polygamy, they claimed it was by divine revelation to their prophetic head of the church. But when the Catholic Church convenes their Vatican councils, do they claim that it is because God has ordered them to do so, or is it because they need to update their manmade rules so as to keep their flock from leaving the church en masse? A religion that is more dedicated to maintaining the quantity of their adherents rather than sticking to divine principles no matter what the cost is a farce.
Those are some of the reasons I left Catholochism a long time ago.
Reply

paarsurrey
03-10-2007, 05:29 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Mormons do call themselves Christian. And probably there are many non-Mormons who would consider them such, for they talk about Jesus using many of the same words that other Christian groups do.
Since I had been discussing with Christians on different forums, I have come to know of a litmus test to recognize a Christian from the Muslims.

The reality is that all Muslims whatever faith/sect believe that Jesus did not die and could not die on Cross, and the basis of their reasoning is Quran .Further all Muslims whatever the faith/sect believe that Jesus was not a cursed person and was a ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH and his ranking as stated by Muhammad Khatamun Nabiyyeen and as recorded in Sahih Hadith is on second sky or the highest stated is on the fourth sky; not beyond that, our ProphetMessenger Muhammad saw this in his vision in which he saw all this and met many prophets in that vision. He even saw that Moses and Abraham were above the status of JesusYeshuaIssa, they were on sixth and seventh skies respectively. So there is no question of a Muslim believing that Jesus sat at the right hand of GodAllahYHWH and in fact assumed all power from GodAllahYHWH. So these two points should be thought of and affirmed by all Muslims.
On the other hand all the Christians whatever their faith/sect believes on the basis of their NTBible:
1. Jesus cursed death on Cross.
2. He got resurrected from the dead.
3. This was done for redemption of the Christians sins.
4. Jesus ascended to heaven and sat on right hand of God; by right hand they mean hand of power, Jesus assuming power of God.
Thus the whole edifice of Christianity is built on one thing “Jesus’ cursed death on Cross”.
During our discussions I pointed towards this natural litmus test of a Christian and a Muslim, to draw a clear line of discussion to which both sides agreed categorically, without a shadow of doubt.From the perspective of Islam, Mormons are Christians as they do fit in the above test as Christians.
I would therefore appeal to every Muslim, before indulging into any discussion with the Christians to chalk out a draft program taking care of on this understanding. Unless you break the backbone of the opponent and concentrate on that and remain focused on that one cannot open up their hearts and minds for the truth of Islam. This has to be realized.
Thanks
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2017, 06:26 AM
  2. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 01:54 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!