"Religion stops a thinking mind...it is only another socially acceptable addiction."

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Would you not agree that Catholics would say that they are knowledgeable of things and doing things that Methodists do not know or are not doing? Can a Methodist go to Catholic Mass and feel as though he knew exactly what was going on? NOPE... How do I know this? I have visited other churches before joining with the Mormons at my mom's request. I heard and saw things in different churches that assures me now that a Baptist would feel more at home visiting our church than he would visiting a Pentecostal. I have been there, man! So, what is your point then?

Larry... for the love of God... this is so exasperating... are you reading what I'm typing? Did you visit the links? PLEASE mate.. visit the links... There is a Baptist Church AND a Pentecostal Church there. Been members of both. How many times do I have to say it? Baptist, Anglican, Pentecostal.

You are hypothesising on what I already AM. An Anglican, turned Baptist, turned Pentecostal. No conversion. Happy to interchange if I'm in another town. Same faith, same Chrisitanity.

Why aren't you reading what I'm writing? I've pointed this out numerous times?

I am as Anglican as I am Baptist as I am Pentecostal. Additionally there are Pentecostal Baptist Churches, Pentecostal Anglican Churches and even Pentecostal Catholic Churches!!

Yes I'm distressed. I've lived in the unity you are hypothesising doesn't exist!

[Maelakin]

First, it doesn't matter what the majority of Christians believe. It matters what a majority of the populace believes. The populace decides what definitions apply to individual words. As such, the argument you are having is a moot point.

As for what to call your gatherings specifically, you already stated that within “your” Christian circle Catholic is taken to consider universal, as stated in the creed. So, if you already use a word to include the denominations you speak, then why not continue to use that word? Seems to me there really isn’t any argument to have here at all, and you seem to have supplied yourself with the answer long ago.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Larry_OHF: ~yawn... If you do not want to accept me as a Christian, that does not make me a non-Christian.

I accept you love and follow Jesus Christ. I accept that though we have differring perceptions about who or what he may be, I accept that you and I when we pray, pray to the same creator of the Universe.

I am not calling a "Christian" one who follows Jesus Christ however. I am calling a Christian, one whose beliefs co-align with the core stated beliefs of THE Christian Church.

I made my offer about going to your church Larry. If anything my actions show I am more ready to accept you, than your church would be to accept me. I have put my money where my mouth is regarding acceptance.

I am simply asking that you acknowledge the Unity within the Christian Church. Acknowledge that we (non-Mormon Christians) do not regard each other as different religions, but as denominations of the one Christian Faith. I simply ask that you allow us to use the same definition that has been used for centuries. [/QUOTE] I'm surprised people are still willing to discuss with you, Yorick. You are so close minded and arrogant.

I didn't see anyone in this thread claiming you and your fellow "non-Mormon Christian" were different religions, or that you could not call yourselves the same definition that has been used for centuries.

People are going to call themselves what they want as they see fit, and you can change nothing of it. You are losing friends and making enemies over a word. No one is trying to make you change your definition, or claiming your definition is wrong, why do you feel the need to deny everyone else their opinion?

From what you are saying, you have made some people feel like you are rejecting them and their religion. It's like telling your Half Brother he's got no right to wear your familly name because you don't have the same mother and he don't come to your familly reunions.

Here's an advice. You should stop now and apoligize to the people you have offended before it's too late. Don't you agree friendship and good relations are more important than semantics? [/QUOTE]Why don't you keep your advice to yourself and keep the flaming to another thread oh moderator. Read the TOS and enforce them on yourself before namecalling me "arrogant" and "closeminded."

Yes Larry and I are friends, and if friends can't agree to disagree what's the world coming to? This is a forum for discussion. If someone wants to be an enemy of mine simply because I am adamant about my experiences in this life then that's their problem, not mine. I have certainty and assurance about certain things. I make no apology for that.

[Larry_OHF]

Hehe...I just remembered something. In Mexico, we knocked on the door of a man who was the Priest (or Father or something of authority in his parish)...anyway, when he found out who we were, he said to us,

"There are only two churchs that can claim to be of God, either it is the Catholics who claim that that The Church that Saint Peter founded never fell and never was there an apostasy, or it is the Mormons, who claim that it was refounded through an American man, due to the apostasy. For all other churches branched from us, the Catholics, who were the first."

Of course, this man assured us that we needed to become Catholics right away and quit converting his members away from his parish. We assured him that we were not converting anyone, as that was the job if the Holy Ghost...and that we were merely talking to people. I of course had to put in that I enjoyed practicing my Spanish in so many wonderful Catholic homes, and this drew a smile from him, despite it's underlying meaning.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: First, it doesn't matter what the majority of Christians believe. It matters what a majority of the populace believes. The populace decides what definitions apply to individual words. As such, the argument you are having is a moot point. As for what to call your gatherings specifically, you already stated that within “your” Christian circle Catholic is taken to consider universal, as stated in the creed. So, if you already use a word to include the denominations you speak, then why not continue to use that word? Seems to me there really isn’t any argument to have here at all, and you seem to have supplied yourself with the answer long ago.

Catholic does mean universal. "The Roman Catholic Church" is in effect "The Roman Universal Church." Same meaning. "Roman" is the delineation there.

As to what the majority of people vs the majority of people the noun refers to, did you not read what I said about China? About Macedonia? I could add the word "Yanks" to that.

To the majority of people in the world, all Americans are Yanks, or Yankees. We see no difference between Yankees and non-Yankees. Yet Americans see a difference. What is a Yankee to a person from South Carolina? What is the real meaning of the word?

Or how about "English'? To the majority of the world, the Welsh are aften called "English". In fact, there are many countries where I've heard all English speakers, Yanks, Canadians, Aussies, British - all referred to as "English". Is that correct?

How about the Chinese? You see an Asian. You call him Chinese. What if he's Tibetan or Mongolian, though living in a Chinese ruled area? You are incorrect in lumping him in with the Han, his oppressor.

Accuracy in names is often important to those in the noun. Clearly it is important to Larry and myself or we wouldn't be discussing.

What matters is what the mjority of the applicable noun call themselves. For they know what the word is. They ARE the word. All outside may make a decision in ignorance - as Aussies do in calling Southerners Yankees.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Yorick: Why don't you keep your advice to yourself and keep the flaming to another thread oh moderator. Read the TOS and enforce them on yourself before namecalling me "arrogant" and "closeminded." Yes Larry and I are friends, and if friends can't agree to disagree what's the world coming to? This is a forum for discussion. If someone wants to be an enemy of mine simply because I am adamant about my experiences in this life then that's their problem, not mine. I have certainty and assurance about certain things. I make no apology for that.

I didn't flame you, I called you what you are. And why did I do that? Because you personally said you didn't mind people telling you this. Or were you lying when you said that?

I'm not lying or exaggerating and you can't claim otherwise after typing those last few posts and even the comment in this post I quoted. That is what you have been these days, and I'm not the only one thinking so.

I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply giving you some advices, because I know how easy it is to get righteous and carried away over a thread. I've done it many time and I never got anyting good out of it.

Re-Read your posts, see what you said to people you claim are your friends. You should really do something now if you want to salvage that friendship.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Luvian: I didn't flame you, I called you what you are. And why did I do that? Because you personally said you didn't mind people telling you this. Or were you lying when you said that? I'm not lying or exaggerating and you can't claim otherwise after typing those last few posts and even the comment in this post I quoted. That is what you have been these days, and I'm not the only one thinking so. I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply giving you some advices, because I know how easy it is to get righteous and carried away over a thread. I've done it many time and I never got anyting good out of it. Re-Read your posts, see what you said to people you claim are your friends. You should really do something now if you want to salvage that friendship.

You are arguing the person Luvian. You flamed (the intent is obvious) and are using others opinions as a weight to support your own. Not a healthy arguing tactic. Speak for yourself, not them. I suggest you have a read of the TOS before stepping in again. I already said your advice is not welcome.

I have said nothing offensive to anyone. I have not belittled, or called anyone names nor commented on their worth as a humans. Saying someone is not part of the Christian Church is not an insult. Calling for knowledgeable accuracy in description is not a flame. Read what I've said to Larry. I have not made an argument as to whether he or I are right or wrong, and even if we did have that discussion, what is that to you? This is a serious discussion forum. I have discussed matters of faith on Ironworks long before you joined.

Larry knows my respect and admiration for him. Our communication is not limited to this forum. What transpires between us is none of your business.

What I want to know is why you are attempting to take this thread offtopic and start debating ME instead of the ideas. Doctor heed thine own advice.

[Maelakin]

While the semantics ring true, the application fails. When someone from another culture calls an America a Yankee, they are using a slang term. Slang terms only have a common definition in the region they were created. When speaking grammatically correct, an American would be an American. Even when a person in the United States refers to someone living North of the Mason Dixon line as a Yankee, they are still using a slang term.

In your reference to China, a Mongolian living in a region occupied by China would be Chinese. The descriptor “Chinese” when used grammatically correct refers to anyone living within Chinese borders. The Mongolians would at this time be nothing but a sub-set of the Chinese.

Continuing on to your multi-denominational congregation, if you are all part of the Catholic Church, based upon the universal definition you provided, then the various other denominations are but a sub-set of Catholicism. If this case, the descriptor you were looking to use would indeed be Catholic, not Christian. If in fact Catholic is universal and the Roman Catholics are a sub-set of the Catholic church, the rest of the world would have no problem being able to see this.

The above alleviates the confusion you are trying to avoid. You said yourself; you are arguing the language, not the religion. Language upholds the statement that Mormons are Christian. If you insist they are not, then you are arguing a religious standpoint and aren’t arguing use of language at all.

[Larry_OHF]

I am backing out.

I hope I did not go to far in the debate I had with Yorick concerning who is/(not) a Christian. I have made my final post regarding my defence, and I will say no more in an attempt to convince anyone that I am or am not something that they do not wish me to be.

I wish to thank those that tried to help out by clearing up loose ends, but I see that there is nothing more I can do, and I do not want others hurt because they were sticking up for me, or for my account. I lost the fight. ~shrugs~ It's okay, I am used to losing. Look at the RPG Forum. I am always getting killed in there, too!

This was like a role-play, and the bad guy (me) always has to lose in the end, right?

[ 11-12-2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: What matters is what the mjority of the applicable noun call themselves. For they know what the word is. They ARE the word. All outside may make a decision in ignorance - as Aussies do in calling Southerners Yankees.

So how do you justify your sweeping and incorrect typification of Buddhist Nirvana as 'self annihalation' is fact? How do you justify claiming Pantheist's Diety is 'wanking itself'? How can you justify making any comment about anything outside of your brand of Christianity if what really matters is what those non- Yorick's-brand-of-Christian people think themselves? Have you made some 'decisions in ignorance' recently and before?