Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mormons= a sect and cult of Christianity

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 12:24:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Recently I have engaged the topic of whether or not Mormons (or any non-trinitatiran denomination) are Christian. I and many others argued that they are not. However, if we take the strict definition of Christian then any group that believes they follow the Jesus Christ in the Bible must be determined as Christian. However, in regards to Mormons and other non-trinitarian denominations calling them Christian would not be entirely accurate. It would be more accurate to say they are a sect and cult of Christianity. If we ignore the pejorative connotations of the terms and stick the their strict meanings this is true.

Sect: "...a group with distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

All denominations hold to certain beliefs so all denominations are also sects. The historical use of sect indicates a group that is determined to be heretical but the strict definition is simply a group with distinctive beliefs.

Cult: "...in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Who is to determine if a groups beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre? I propose that if the majority of said religions adherents consider the beliefs or practices of said sect to be be abnormal or bizarre then that sect must be considered a cult of said religion.

The majority of Christians are Trinitarian. The estimated total number of Christians is 2.1 billion (http://www.adherents.com...). The estimated number of non-trinitarian sects is about 58 million (http://www.adherents.com... crossed with non-Trinitarian Christians listed at http://en.wikipedia.org... [not including sects that adherants are below one million]).

I feel it would be misleading to not note that most Christian denominations consider non-Trinitarian denominations to not be Christian. However, taking the strict meaning of the terms non-Trinitarian denominations a Christian cults.

So I officially take back my arguments that Mormons are not Christian. They are a Christian cult. Not trolling :P Discuss...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 12:49:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 12:24:17 AM, joneszj wrote:
Recently I have engaged the topic of whether or not Mormons (or any non-trinitatiran denomination) are Christian. I and many others argued that they are not. However, if we take the strict definition of Christian then any group that believes they follow the Jesus Christ in the Bible must be determined as Christian. However, in regards to Mormons and other non-trinitarian denominations calling them Christian would not be entirely accurate. It would be more accurate to say they are a sect and cult of Christianity. If we ignore the pejorative connotations of the terms and stick the their strict meanings this is true.

Strict definition, they are Christians. Ok.

You impose trinitarian as a requirement to be a Christian. This must necessarily come from the Bible, and come in a way that can't be interpreted differently.

Sect: "...a group with distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

All denominations hold to certain beliefs so all denominations are also sects. The historical use of sect indicates a group that is determined to be heretical but the strict definition is simply a group with distinctive beliefs.

Cult: "...in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Strict definitions don't come from wikipedia.

Christianity would be a cult then too though.

Who is to determine if a groups beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre? I propose that if the majority of said religions adherents consider the beliefs or practices of said sect to be be abnormal or bizarre then that sect must be considered a cult of said religion.

Appeal to popular belief. If the majority of Christians decided that they would agree that Jesus was actually the son of John the Baptist, would that change anything? No. Interpretation of scripture doesn't change scripture, nor does one interpretation invalidate all others.

The majority of Christians are Trinitarian. The estimated total number of Christians is 2.1 billion (http://www.adherents.com...). The estimated number of non-trinitarian sects is about 58 million (http://www.adherents.com... crossed with non-Trinitarian Christians listed at http://en.wikipedia.org... [not including sects that adherants are below one million]).

Wait... non-Trinitarian Christians? How can they be Christians? I thought non-Trinitarian made you a non-real Christian? Maybe you should amend your sentence to 'non-Trinitarian Christian-cults'.

I feel it would be misleading to not note that most Christian denominations consider non-Trinitarian denominations to not be Christian. However, taking the strict meaning of the terms non-Trinitarian denominations a Christian cults.

Yes, with your strict meaning you pulled from Wikipedia. Here's a 'strict' definition for cult from a dictionary, listed higher than anything referencing 'unusual'.

Cult: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents.

So, by the strict meaning of the word, all religions are cults. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that one Christian faith is a cult while another is correct.

Unless, of course, you go against your word and don't "ignore the pejorative connotations of the terms".

So I officially take back my arguments that Mormons are not Christian. They are a Christian cult. Not trolling :P Discuss...

Sorry, but you fail. Not trolling :P
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:43:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 12:49:50 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 12:24:17 AM, joneszj wrote:
Recently I have engaged the topic of whether or not Mormons (or any non-trinitatiran denomination) are Christian. I and many others argued that they are not. However, if we take the strict definition of Christian then any group that believes they follow the Jesus Christ in the Bible must be determined as Christian. However, in regards to Mormons and other non-trinitarian denominations calling them Christian would not be entirely accurate. It would be more accurate to say they are a sect and cult of Christianity. If we ignore the pejorative connotations of the terms and stick the their strict meanings this is true.

For the sake of not getting confused I should have used the dictionary's definition of the terms. I have responded doing so.

Strict definition, they are Christians. Ok.

You impose trinitarian as a requirement to be a Christian. This must necessarily come from the Bible, and come in a way that can't be interpreted differently.

You obviously missed the premise of this post.

Sect: "...a group with distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

All denominations hold to certain beliefs so all denominations are also sects. The historical use of sect indicates a group that is determined to be heretical but the strict definition is simply a group with distinctive beliefs.

Cult: "...in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Strict definitions don't come from wikipedia.

If you look at the definitions for sect and cult they happen to be the reciprocal of what is stated in Wikipedia. So, using the dictionaries terms Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect ( a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.). The end result is the same.

Christianity would be a cult then too though.

Yup.

Who is to determine if a groups beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre? I propose that if the majority of said religions adherents consider the beliefs or practices of said sect to be be abnormal or bizarre then that sect must be considered a cult of said religion.

Appeal to popular belief. If the majority of Christians decided that they would agree that Jesus was actually the son of John the Baptist, would that change anything? No. Interpretation of scripture doesn't change scripture, nor does one interpretation invalidate all others.

If the majority of Christianity agreed that Jesus was actually the son of John the Baptist that would mean any group that deviated from that would be a sect. Being a sect does not invalidate ones interpretation.

The majority of Christians are Trinitarian. The estimated total number of Christians is 2.1 billion (http://www.adherents.com...). The estimated number of non-trinitarian sects is about 58 million (http://www.adherents.com... crossed with non-Trinitarian Christians listed at http://en.wikipedia.org... [not including sects that adherants are below one million]).

Wait... non-Trinitarian Christians? How can they be Christians? I thought non-Trinitarian made you a non-real Christian? Maybe you should amend your sentence to 'non-Trinitarian Christian-cults'.

You obviously missed the premise of this post. What sentence? And to remain consistent I would amend it to 'non-Trinitarian Christian-sects'.

I feel it would be misleading to not note that most Christian denominations consider non-Trinitarian denominations to not be Christian. However, taking the strict meaning of the terms non-Trinitarian denominations a Christian cults.

Yes, with your strict meaning you pulled from Wikipedia. Here's a 'strict' definition for cult from a dictionary, listed higher than anything referencing 'unusual'.

My bad. If you reciprocate cult with sect you will see the definitions are the same thus the end result the same just with sect and cult switched.

Cult: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents.

So, by the strict meaning of the word, all religions are cults. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that one Christian faith is a cult while another is correct.

By definition all religions (I can think of) fit the definition of cults.

Unless, of course, you go against your word and don't "ignore the pejorative connotations of the terms".

Why would I...

So I officially take back my arguments that Mormons are not Christian. They are a Christian cult. Not trolling :P Discuss...

Sorry, but you fail. Not trolling :P

Actually my post is me saying that I take back Trinitarianism as being a requirement for being Christian so most of what you said is missing the premise. Regardless if you go with Wikipedia or the dictionary definition its the representation behind the term that matters. For lack of confusions sake I will agree to use the dictionary's (as I should have initially) definition of the terms. Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect (a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.).
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:52:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:43:29 AM, joneszj wrote:
If you look at the definitions for sect and cult they happen to be the reciprocal of what is stated in Wikipedia. So, using the dictionaries terms Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect ( a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.). The end result is the same.

And, using those definitions, Catholicism is a sect and a cult.

Christianity would be a cult then too though.

Yup.

So what's the point?

If the majority of Christianity agreed that Jesus was actually the son of John the Baptist that would mean any group that deviated from that would be a sect. Being a sect does not invalidate ones interpretation.

'Deviating' is completely relative though. There is no objective standard for 'normal'. So, every religion would be a sect from almost any other frame of reference other than its own.

By definition all religions (I can think of) fit the definition of cults.

And sects.

Actually my post is me saying that I take back Trinitarianism as being a requirement for being Christian so most of what you said is missing the premise. Regardless if you go with Wikipedia or the dictionary definition its the representation behind the term that matters. For lack of confusions sake I will agree to use the dictionary's (as I should have initially) definition of the terms. Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect (a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.).

Right, along with every other religion in the world. So again, what's the point?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:23:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 1:52:36 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:43:29 AM, joneszj wrote:
If you look at the definitions for sect and cult they happen to be the reciprocal of what is stated in Wikipedia. So, using the dictionaries terms Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect ( a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.). The end result is the same.

And, using those definitions, Catholicism is a sect and a cult.

Cult (specific system of religious worship)? Yes. Sect (a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc)? How so? Given how many Christians are Catholic they are in no way irregular, unusual, or uncommon and therefor cannot deviate from normal religious beliefs because they are a (the) majority of Christians.

Christianity would be a cult then too though.

Yup.

So what's the point?

I was affirming what you said. So.... what was your point?

If the majority of Christianity agreed that Jesus was actually the son of John the Baptist that would mean any group that deviated from that would be a sect. Being a sect does not invalidate ones interpretation.

'Deviating' is completely relative though. There is no objective standard for 'normal'. So, every religion would be a sect from almost any other frame of reference other than its own.

That's debatable. It is relative but to say there is no objective standard for 'normal' is debatable. So lets look at what normal is relative to. Normal: usual; regular; common; (http://dictionary.reference.com...). So what is normal is that which is usual, regular, and common. So, in the whole Christianity what is usual, regular, and common? Statistically it is not Mormonism or any non-Trinitarian sect. Lets say Mormonism was 99% of Christianity, then it could be objectively stated that any Trinitarian sect would be not normal for it would not be usual, regular, or common. But because the differentiating core doctrines of Mormonism (example non-Trinitarianism) separate it from the other 99% of Christianity (Trinitarian) it can not be reasoned to be normal.

By definition all religions (I can think of) fit the definition of cults.

And sects.

Nope. Sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc. How can a religion be a sect of itself? Cults (denominations) can be considered sects if those cults deviate from 'normal' religious doctrine.

Actually my post is me saying that I take back Trinitarianism as being a requirement for being Christian so most of what you said is missing the premise. Regardless if you go with Wikipedia or the dictionary definition its the representation behind the term that matters. For lack of confusions sake I will agree to use the dictionary's (as I should have initially) definition of the terms. Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect (a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.).

Right, along with every other religion in the world. So again, what's the point?

The point is that you initially responded to my post saying I was forcing Trinitarianism as a requirement to be Christian when one of the main points of this post was me taking back that I had done so in previous posts. The primary point is: Mormonism (or any non-Trinitarian sect) is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect (a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.).
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:41:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:35:49 PM, joneszj wrote:
A rather interesting article on normalcy: http://www.philosophytalk.org...

Its very thought provoking :)

Anybody who has the slightest bit of smarts knows that being called a cult is a right of passage. Almost every single Christian denomination, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been called a cult. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is hardly referred to as a cult anymore, except by those other Christian denominations that are intimidated by us. There has been two members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to run for president this year and being Mormon was not brought up as a negative at all in the media or by opponents.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 3:04:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:41:44 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:35:49 PM, joneszj wrote:
A rather interesting article on normalcy: http://www.philosophytalk.org...

Its very thought provoking :)


Anybody who has the slightest bit of smarts knows that being called a cult is a right of passage. Almost every single Christian denomination, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been called a cult. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is hardly referred to as a cult anymore, except by those other Christian denominations that are intimidated by us. There has been two members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to run for president this year and being Mormon was not brought up as a negative at all in the media or by opponents.

LDS church is not considered normal on a doctrinal ground because of media. When comparing the doctrines of the LDS church to the rest of Christianity they are in no way (currently) accepted as normal. I don't see how members of LDS consider themselves normal makes them normal to the rest of Christianity. Statistically they are not normal on grounds of doctrine or by the number of their adherents. As for the term being used as a rite of passage it can be used as such. But that is not how I am using it (at least not as in a pejorative usage). Simply using the dictionary's definition of the terms cult and sect I do not see how Mormonism being a sect is inaccurate.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 3:12:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:23:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:52:36 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:43:29 AM, joneszj wrote:
If you look at the definitions for sect and cult they happen to be the reciprocal of what is stated in Wikipedia. So, using the dictionaries terms Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect ( a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.). The end result is the same.

And, using those definitions, Catholicism is a sect and a cult.

Cult (specific system of religious worship)? Yes. Sect (a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc)? How so? Given how many Christians are Catholic they are in no way irregular, unusual, or uncommon and therefor cannot deviate from normal religious beliefs because they are a (the) majority of Christians.

Sect: a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.

Not sure where you got your definition, but even with yours, Christianity as a whole, and Catholicism especially, would be a heretical belief from the view of Judaism.

Christianity would be a cult then too though.

Yup.

So what's the point?

I was affirming what you said. So.... what was your point?

If the majority of Christianity agreed that Jesus was actually the son of John the Baptist that would mean any group that deviated from that would be a sect. Being a sect does not invalidate ones interpretation.

'Deviating' is completely relative though. There is no objective standard for 'normal'. So, every religion would be a sect from almost any other frame of reference other than its own.

That's debatable. It is relative but to say there is no objective standard for 'normal' is debatable. So lets look at what normal is relative to. Normal: usual; regular; common; (http://dictionary.reference.com...). So what is normal is that which is usual, regular, and common. So, in the whole Christianity what is usual, regular, and common? Statistically it is not Mormonism or any non-Trinitarian sect. Lets say Mormonism was 99% of Christianity, then it could be objectively stated that any Trinitarian sect would be not normal for it would not be usual, regular, or common. But because the differentiating core doctrines of Mormonism (example non-Trinitarianism) separate it from the other 99% of Christianity (Trinitarian) it can not be reasoned to be normal.

First, I don't agree with your definition completely, and you used a different one in this post than your previous post. Your previous definition didn't say 'subset'. By your previous definition every religion is a sect.

By definition all religions (I can think of) fit the definition of cults.

And sects.

Nope. Sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc. How can a religion be a sect of itself? Cults (denominations) can be considered sects if those cults deviate from 'normal' religious doctrine.

Actually a sect is "a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination." I guess you can always use a different definition though...

Actually my post is me saying that I take back Trinitarianism as being a requirement for being Christian so most of what you said is missing the premise. Regardless if you go with Wikipedia or the dictionary definition its the representation behind the term that matters. For lack of confusions sake I will agree to use the dictionary's (as I should have initially) definition of the terms. Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect (a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.).

Right, along with every other religion in the world. So again, what's the point?

The point is that you initially responded to my post saying I was forcing Trinitarianism as a requirement to be Christian when one of the main points of this post was me taking back that I had done so in previous posts. The primary point is: Mormonism (or any non-Trinitarian sect) is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect (a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.).

Ok, all religions are sects and cults. Unless you go by your third definition of sect that you provided.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 3:36:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 3:12:01 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:23:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:52:36 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:43:29 AM, joneszj wrote:
If you look at the definitions for sect and cult they happen to be the reciprocal of what is stated in Wikipedia. So, using the dictionaries terms Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect ( a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.). The end result is the same.

And, using those definitions, Catholicism is a sect and a cult.

Cult (specific system of religious worship)? Yes. Sect (a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc)? How so? Given how many Christians are Catholic they are in no way irregular, unusual, or uncommon and therefor cannot deviate from normal religious beliefs because they are a (the) majority of Christians.

Sect: a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.

Not sure where you got your definition, but even with yours, Christianity as a whole, and Catholicism especially, would be a heretical belief from the view of Judaism.

I got my definitions from the Word English Dictionary here:
Sect http://dictionary.reference.com...
Cult http://dictionary.reference.com...

From what I understand Judaism does consider Christianity to be heretical. But the scope of sect is limited to a particular religion as defined in the word English dictionary and not at dictionary.com. The definition of cult however is not from both sources.

Christianity would be a cult then too though.

Yup.

So what's the point?

I was affirming what you said. So.... what was your point?

If the majority of Christianity agreed that Jesus was actually the son of John the Baptist that would mean any group that deviated from that would be a sect. Being a sect does not invalidate ones interpretation.

'Deviating' is completely relative though. There is no objective standard for 'normal'. So, every religion would be a sect from almost any other frame of reference other than its own.

That's debatable. It is relative but to say there is no objective standard for 'normal' is debatable. So lets look at what normal is relative to. Normal: usual; regular; common; (http://dictionary.reference.com...). So what is normal is that which is usual, regular, and common. So, in the whole Christianity what is usual, regular, and common? Statistically it is not Mormonism or any non-Trinitarian sect. Lets say Mormonism was 99% of Christianity, then it could be objectively stated that any Trinitarian sect would be not normal for it would not be usual, regular, or common. But because the differentiating core doctrines of Mormonism (example non-Trinitarianism) separate it from the other 99% of Christianity (Trinitarian) it can not be reasoned to be normal.

First, I don't agree with your definition completely, and you used a different one in this post than your previous post. Your previous definition didn't say 'subset'. By your previous definition every religion is a sect.

I did use a different definition then the previous one but both are from the same source and term. The implication remains, the scope is the only thing different between the usage of the word.

By definition all religions (I can think of) fit the definition of cults.

And sects.

Nope. Sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc. How can a religion be a sect of itself? Cults (denominations) can be considered sects if those cults deviate from 'normal' religious doctrine.

Actually a sect is "a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination." I guess you can always use a different definition though...

A sect from the Word English dictionary specifies a sect as: a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc.

Actually my post is me saying that I take back Trinitarianism as being a requirement for being Christian so most of what you said is missing the premise. Regardless if you go with Wikipedia or the dictionary definition its the representation behind the term that matters. For lack of confusions sake I will agree to use the dictionary's (as I should have initially) definition of the terms. Mormonism is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect (a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.).

Right, along with every other religion in the world. So again, what's the point?

The point is that you initially responded to my post saying I was forcing Trinitarianism as a requirement to be Christian when one of the main points of this post was me taking back that I had done so in previous posts. The primary point is: Mormonism (or any non-Trinitarian sect) is a cult (a particular system of religious worship) of Christianity that is also a sect (a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.).

Ok, all religions are sects and cults. Unless you go by your third definition of sect that you provided.

Based on the scope of how the terms are used and if sect is ambiguous and not referring to a specific religion then I can see that as being accurate. But the term sect when used within the scope of Christianity is how it is being used here. Context. What you are saying does not negate that non-Trinitarian denominations within Christianity are sects by definition.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 4:03:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 3:36:50 PM, joneszj wrote:
I got my definitions from the Word English Dictionary here:
Sect http://dictionary.reference.com...
Cult http://dictionary.reference.com...

Excuse me sir, but the definition for sect at that link is

"a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.".

You have decided to use a less-used meaning of the word specifically to support your stance. By that reference, every religion is a sect.

This is just like your arguments about interpretation of the bible. You decide that your preferred meaning of something is the only acceptable meaning.

From what I understand Judaism does consider Christianity to be heretical. But the scope of sect is limited to a particular religion as defined in the word English dictionary and not at dictionary.com. The definition of cult however is not from both sources.

what's the word English dictionary? All you have told us is the link you provided where you didn't use the first meaning.

I did use a different definition then the previous one but both are from the same source and term. The implication remains, the scope is the only thing different between the usage of the word.

Cherry-picking your definitions much?

A sect from the Word English dictionary specifies a sect as: a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc.

A sect from dictionary.com isn't. So it's just an argument about semantics.

All you are saying is that Mormonism is a branch off of 'traditional' Christianity. Nobody disagrees with that. I still don't know what your point is, unless you actually meant to attach the negative connotations of sect and cult to Mormonism.

Based on the scope of how the terms are used and if sect is ambiguous and not referring to a specific religion then I can see that as being accurate. But the term sect when used within the scope of Christianity is how it is being used here. Context. What you are saying does not negate that non-Trinitarian denominations within Christianity are sects by definition.

Well, I would argue that Catholicism is a sect of Christ's Church. It's obviously not the same church and didn't/doesn't have all the same teachings. It doesn't have prophets and apostles, which are the foundation of Christ's Church. Christ's Church didn't have a Pope or Cardinals. Christ's Church never said you could pay money for sins in advance. Etc...

This whole post is pointless. You're trying to cherry-pick meanings of words to apply negative connotations to something while simultaneously saying you aren't trying to do that.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 4:18:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This whole post is pointless. You're trying to cherry-pick meanings of words to apply negative connotations to something while simultaneously saying you aren't trying to do that.

Spot on...
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 4:53:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 4:03:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 3:36:50 PM, joneszj wrote:
I got my definitions from the Word English Dictionary here:
Sect http://dictionary.reference.com...
Cult http://dictionary.reference.com...

Excuse me sir, but the definition for sect at that link is

"a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.".

You have decided to use a less-used meaning of the word specifically to support your stance. By that reference, every religion is a sect.

Scroll down and you will see that the primary usage is as I stated from the Word English dictionary...

This is just like your arguments about interpretation of the bible. You decide that your preferred meaning of something is the only acceptable meaning.

No, the primary meaning is just as I stated it to be

From what I understand Judaism does consider Christianity to be heretical. But the scope of sect is limited to a particular religion as defined in the word English dictionary and not at dictionary.com. The definition of cult however is not from both sources.

what's the word English dictionary? All you have told us is the link you provided where you didn't use the first meaning.

Scroll down in the links I provided. The difference is in the scope of the term used

I did use a different definition then the previous one but both are from the same source and term. The implication remains, the scope is the only thing different between the usage of the word.

Cherry-picking your definitions much?

If anything I am cherry picking dictionary's. But in actuality I am using the terms specifically as apposed to generically.
The definition is still the definition. The Word English dictionary uses the definition I used as its primary usage.

A sect from the Word English dictionary specifies a sect as: a subdivision of a larger religious group (esp the Christian Church as a whole) the members of which have to some extent diverged from the rest by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc.

A sect from dictionary.com isn't. So it's just an argument about semantics.

We both agreed to use the dictionary's definition of the term sect. The link I provided shows that according to the Word English dictionary the primary usage is as I stated.

All you are saying is that Mormonism is a branch off of 'traditional' Christianity. Nobody disagrees with that. I still don't know what your point is, unless you actually meant to attach the negative connotations of sect and cult to Mormonism.

The point is that it is a sect of Christianity.

Based on the scope of how the terms are used and if sect is ambiguous and not referring to a specific religion then I can see that as being accurate. But the term sect when used within the scope of Christianity is how it is being used here. Context. What you are saying does not negate that non-Trinitarian denominations within Christianity are sects by definition.

Well, I would argue that Catholicism is a sect of Christ's Church. It's obviously not the same church and didn't/doesn't have all the same teachings. It doesn't have prophets and apostles, which are the foundation of Christ's Church. Christ's Church didn't have a Pope or Cardinals. Christ's Church never said you could pay money for sins in advance. Etc...

The argument is not based from personal interpretation. Its an argument on normalcy and whether or not Mormonism is a sect.

This whole post is pointless. You're trying to cherry-pick meanings of words to apply negative connotations to something while simultaneously saying you aren't trying to do that.

The point is coherency. I come up to you and say Jesus is the God. A 'x' comes up to you and says Jesus is a god. We both say we are Christians. Logically this is incoherent. Specification is needed. It is logical to say that my cult (denominational beliefs) is that Jesus is God. My cults beliefs happen to agree with the majority of other cults in Christianity. 'X's cults belief is in direct opposition to the majority of Christianity's denominational beliefs. X by definition is a Christian but X's beliefs deviate from the rest of Christian doctrine. Therefor it is fitting to determine X's cutls beliefs are a sect of Christianity. The terms are in their primary usage.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 4:57:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 4:18:22 PM, tyler90az wrote:
This whole post is pointless. You're trying to cherry-pick meanings of words to apply negative connotations to something while simultaneously saying you aren't trying to do that.

Spot on...

Your judging my sincerity... I specifically recall you telling me to not do this. There is a word for that. I chose the Word English dictionary's primary definition because its scope is that of within a religion (as Mormonism is) and not generic to where if it were used generically would make no coherent sense.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:02:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 4:53:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
Sect http://dictionary.reference.com...
Scroll down and you will see that the primary usage is as I stated from the Word English dictionary...

No, the primary meaning is just as I stated it to be

Scroll down in the links I provided. The difference is in the scope of the term used

If anything I am cherry picking dictionary's. But in actuality I am using the terms specifically as apposed to generically.
The definition is still the definition. The Word English dictionary uses the definition I used as its primary usage.

We both agreed to use the dictionary's definition of the term sect. The link I provided shows that according to the Word English dictionary the primary usage is as I stated.

So, it's just a matter of picking the meaning you like.

But, since you can't agree to let Mormons get the meaning they prefer out of the bible, we will go with the first definition on the page you used.

I got your argument now. You are trying to get around the appeal to popular belief, but you still use it in your arguments.

Ironically, this whole thread only STRENGTHENS my argument that you choose the only interpretation of the Bible that is allowed. You do the same thing with dictionary definitions.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:13:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:02:55 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:53:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
Sect http://dictionary.reference.com...
Scroll down and you will see that the primary usage is as I stated from the Word English dictionary...

No, the primary meaning is just as I stated it to be

Scroll down in the links I provided. The difference is in the scope of the term used

If anything I am cherry picking dictionary's. But in actuality I am using the terms specifically as apposed to generically.
The definition is still the definition. The Word English dictionary uses the definition I used as its primary usage.

We both agreed to use the dictionary's definition of the term sect. The link I provided shows that according to the Word English dictionary the primary usage is as I stated.

So, it's just a matter of picking the meaning you like.

Its a matter of using the definition that fits the scope so that two separate beliefs can be cogently of the same religion.

But, since you can't agree to let Mormons get the meaning they prefer out of the bible, we will go with the first definition on the page you used.

What are you talking about? I don't recall talking about meanings derived from the Bible here.

I got your argument now. You are trying to get around the appeal to popular belief, but you still use it in your arguments.

If determining normalcy is appealing to majority belief then yes I agree with you.

Ironically, this whole thread only STRENGTHENS my argument that you choose the only interpretation of the Bible that is allowed. You do the same thing with dictionary definitions.

What have I interpreted in this thread that comes from the Bible? As a matter of fact I specifically have stated that the interpretation does not negate whether or not one is Christian. Whether or not ones doctrinal beliefs are normal compared to the rest of that religions doctrinal beliefs determines if it is a sect or not. Its for coherency not derogatorily labeling a denomination.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:14:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:13:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:02:55 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:53:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
Sect http://dictionary.reference.com...
Scroll down and you will see that the primary usage is as I stated from the Word English dictionary...

No, the primary meaning is just as I stated it to be

Scroll down in the links I provided. The difference is in the scope of the term used

If anything I am cherry picking dictionary's. But in actuality I am using the terms specifically as apposed to generically.
The definition is still the definition. The Word English dictionary uses the definition I used as its primary usage.

We both agreed to use the dictionary's definition of the term sect. The link I provided shows that according to the Word English dictionary the primary usage is as I stated.

So, it's just a matter of picking the meaning you like.

Its a matter of using the definition that fits the scope so that two separate beliefs can be cogently of the same religion.

Lolz cogently = coherently

But, since you can't agree to let Mormons get the meaning they prefer out of the bible, we will go with the first definition on the page you used.

What are you talking about? I don't recall talking about meanings derived from the Bible here.

I got your argument now. You are trying to get around the appeal to popular belief, but you still use it in your arguments.

If determining normalcy is appealing to majority belief then yes I agree with you.

Ironically, this whole thread only STRENGTHENS my argument that you choose the only interpretation of the Bible that is allowed. You do the same thing with dictionary definitions.

What have I interpreted in this thread that comes from the Bible? As a matter of fact I specifically have stated that the interpretation does not negate whether or not one is Christian. Whether or not ones doctrinal beliefs are normal compared to the rest of that religions doctrinal beliefs determines if it is a sect or not. Its for coherency not derogatorily labeling a denomination.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:23:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Christianity cannot be coherently understood if adherents to it both state contradicting doctrine. This is simply one reason why denominations a made, for coherency. A sect differentiates denominations that are not in agreement with the majority (what is normal) of Christian denominations doctrinal teachings. I could easily accuse you of cherry picking your definition. They both are used as the primary usage of the term; the difference is in the scope. Because you do not agree does not mean that by definition Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:25:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:23:42 PM, joneszj wrote:
Christianity cannot be coherently understood if adherents to it both state contradicting doctrine. This is simply one reason why denominations a made, for coherency. A sect differentiates denominations that are not in agreement with the majority (what is normal) of Christian denominations doctrinal teachings. I could easily accuse you of cherry picking your definition. They both are used as the primary usage of the term; the difference is in the scope. Because you do not agree does not mean that by definition Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.

Correction: Because you do not agree does not mean that by definition Mormonism is 'not' a sect of Christianity.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:33:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lolz cogently = coherently

Resorting to pointing out grammar errors in a debate, shows the strength of your argument.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:35:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I suppose a practical example of why this is useful is someone wants to know what the majority of Christians believe in the area of Theology Proper. To give the Mormon doctrines of Theology Proper would be wrong and deceitful because the majority of Christians believe differently.

Lets try it! What do the majority of Christians believe about the Godhead?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:35:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:13:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:02:55 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:53:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
Sect http://dictionary.reference.com...
Scroll down and you will see that the primary usage is as I stated from the Word English dictionary...

No, the primary meaning is just as I stated it to be

Scroll down in the links I provided. The difference is in the scope of the term used

If anything I am cherry picking dictionary's. But in actuality I am using the terms specifically as apposed to generically.
The definition is still the definition. The Word English dictionary uses the definition I used as its primary usage.

We both agreed to use the dictionary's definition of the term sect. The link I provided shows that according to the Word English dictionary the primary usage is as I stated.

So, it's just a matter of picking the meaning you like.

Its a matter of using the definition that fits the scope so that two separate beliefs can be cogently of the same religion.

Its a matter of using the meaning of the word that supports your intended point best.

But, since you can't agree to let Mormons get the meaning they prefer out of the bible, we will go with the first definition on the page you used.

What are you talking about? I don't recall talking about meanings derived from the Bible here.

Not here, in other threads. You claim that if someone interprets something differently than you, they are just wrong, AND that because they are wrong, they don't really believe in the bible.

I got your argument now. You are trying to get around the appeal to popular belief, but you still use it in your arguments.

If determining normalcy is appealing to majority belief then yes I agree with you.

Yes, determine normalcy by using a certain group and a certain definition to achieve the goal of justifying using a word that has negative connotations.

Ironically, this whole thread only STRENGTHENS my argument that you choose the only interpretation of the Bible that is allowed. You do the same thing with dictionary definitions.

What have I interpreted in this thread that comes from the Bible? As a matter of fact I specifically have stated that the interpretation does not negate whether or not one is Christian. Whether or not ones doctrinal beliefs are normal compared to the rest of that religions doctrinal beliefs determines if it is a sect or not. Its for coherency not derogatorily labeling a denomination.

Haha, you have said multiple times that Mormons don't believe in the God of the Bible. I showed you how they interpret it, you interpret it differently, but you claim they don't believe in the God of the Bible because you are right and they are wrong.

What is different from calling Mormonism a Christian Faith and calling it a Christian Sect or Christian Cult? The basic meaning IN YOUR OWN LINK is the same either way, but you use a sub-meaning of one word to justify using words that have negative connotations as well.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:36:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:25:38 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:23:42 PM, joneszj wrote:
Christianity cannot be coherently understood if adherents to it both state contradicting doctrine. This is simply one reason why denominations a made, for coherency. A sect differentiates denominations that are not in agreement with the majority (what is normal) of Christian denominations doctrinal teachings. I could easily accuse you of cherry picking your definition. They both are used as the primary usage of the term; the difference is in the scope. Because you do not agree does not mean that by definition Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.

Correction: Because you do not agree does not mean that by definition Mormonism is 'not' a sect of Christianity.

And by my definition, Catholicism is a sect of Christianity. Again, what's the point, unless you just want to justify using the words sect and or cult to apply some kind of negative connotation?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:38:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:33:36 PM, tyler90az wrote:
Lolz cogently = coherently

Resorting to pointing out grammar errors in a debate, shows the strength of your argument.

And avoiding the debate while pop shooting at my arguments pointing out moot discrepancies shows your integrity. So I misspelled a word and my browser corrected it and I missed that its correction was not the word I intended. How does that determine the strength of the argument?
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:53:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:35:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:13:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:02:55 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:53:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
Sect http://dictionary.reference.com...
Scroll down and you will see that the primary usage is as I stated from the Word English dictionary...

No, the primary meaning is just as I stated it to be

Scroll down in the links I provided. The difference is in the scope of the term used

If anything I am cherry picking dictionary's. But in actuality I am using the terms specifically as apposed to generically.
The definition is still the definition. The Word English dictionary uses the definition I used as its primary usage.

We both agreed to use the dictionary's definition of the term sect. The link I provided shows that according to the Word English dictionary the primary usage is as I stated.

So, it's just a matter of picking the meaning you like.

Its a matter of using the definition that fits the scope so that two separate beliefs can be cogently of the same religion.

Its a matter of using the meaning of the word that supports your intended point best.

And it does. Does it not? How does that negate the point?

But, since you can't agree to let Mormons get the meaning they prefer out of the bible, we will go with the first definition on the page you used.

What are you talking about? I don't recall talking about meanings derived from the Bible here.

Not here, in other threads. You claim that if someone interprets something differently than you, they are just wrong, AND that because they are wrong, they don't really believe in the bible.

In this thread I SPECIFICALLY stated that a denominations interpretation of the Bible DOES NOT mean they are not Christian. In other threads I said that if certain denominations do not agree with 'essential' ecumenical Christian doctrines they cannot be determined to be Christian. I specifically took that back in this threads first post.

I got your argument now. You are trying to get around the appeal to popular belief, but you still use it in your arguments.

If determining normalcy is appealing to majority belief then yes I agree with you.

Yes, determine normalcy by using a certain group and a certain definition to achieve the goal of justifying using a word that has negative connotations.

A certain group as in (1) the whole of Christianity and its adherents. The definition fits the scope of how I am using it. Whether or not it has negative connotations does not mean its not fact. Plus, I specifically said to ignore the connotations; as the connotations do not define the word.

Ironically, this whole thread only STRENGTHENS my argument that you choose the only interpretation of the Bible that is allowed. You do the same thing with dictionary definitions.

What have I interpreted in this thread that comes from the Bible? As a matter of fact I specifically have stated that the interpretation does not negate whether or not one is Christian. Whether or not ones doctrinal beliefs are normal compared to the rest of that religions doctrinal beliefs determines if it is a sect or not. Its for coherency not derogatorily labeling a denomination.

Haha, you have said multiple times that Mormons don't believe in the God of the Bible. I showed you how they interpret it, you interpret it differently, but you claim they don't believe in the God of the Bible because you are right and they are wrong.

And many times specifically in this thread I said I took back those statements.

What is different from calling Mormonism a Christian Faith and calling it a Christian Sect or Christian Cult? The basic meaning IN YOUR OWN LINK is the same either way, but you use a sub-meaning of one word to justify using words that have negative connotations as well.

Here is the difference: Mormonism is a Christian faith. The statement can be left there and it would be fine. Now, when comparing different denominational beliefs within Christianity it would not be coherent to leave it there. Instead it would be proper to specify that Mormon doctrine differs from the majority of other Christian denominational doctrines; it is a Christian sect. The terms are defined based on the scope in context. Negative connotations do not define the word. How do you propose to differentiate denominations when comparing what they believe?
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:01:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:36:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:25:38 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:23:42 PM, joneszj wrote:
Christianity cannot be coherently understood if adherents to it both state contradicting doctrine. This is simply one reason why denominations a made, for coherency. A sect differentiates denominations that are not in agreement with the majority (what is normal) of Christian denominations doctrinal teachings. I could easily accuse you of cherry picking your definition. They both are used as the primary usage of the term; the difference is in the scope. Because you do not agree does not mean that by definition Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.

Correction: Because you do not agree does not mean that by definition Mormonism is 'not' a sect of Christianity.

And by my definition, Catholicism is a sect of Christianity. Again, what's the point, unless you just want to justify using the words sect and or cult to apply some kind of negative connotation?

The point is how it is used in context. You are using the term to identify the denomination exists. I am using the term to identify doctrinal differences within Christianity to be differentiated by the proportion of adherents that follow certain doctrines. Both uses are determined by dictionary's to be the primary (I can only reason that to be so because the scope is the only difference between them). I don't care for the negative connotations. My denomination is a cult of Christianity. I care about the taxonomy of doctrinal discrepancies within the denominations of Christianity.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 11:05:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:53:48 PM, joneszj wrote:
Its a matter of using the meaning of the word that supports your intended point best.

And it does. Does it not? How does that negate the point?

I can negate your point by choosing a different meaning. It's just subjective, so why go out of your way to prove it unless you want negative connotations too?

Not here, in other threads. You claim that if someone interprets something differently than you, they are just wrong, AND that because they are wrong, they don't really believe in the bible.

In this thread I SPECIFICALLY stated that a denominations interpretation of the Bible DOES NOT mean they are not Christian. In other threads I said that if certain denominations do not agree with 'essential' ecumenical Christian doctrines they cannot be determined to be Christian. I specifically took that back in this threads first post.

Ok, I didn't realize that was what you meant. I'm glad to see you acknowledging that now :)
Yes, determine normalcy by using a certain group and a certain definition to achieve the goal of justifying using a word that has negative connotations.

A certain group as in (1) the whole of Christianity and its adherents. The definition fits the scope of how I am using it. Whether or not it has negative connotations does not mean its not fact. Plus, I specifically said to ignore the connotations; as the connotations do not define the word.

Actually, you should consider connotations when choosing what words to use. You can use 'faith' without any negative connotations like 'cult', even though, according to the dictionary, they are the same thing.

So, why use a word with negative connotations when there is an equal choice without them?

Haha, you have said multiple times that Mormons don't believe in the God of the Bible. I showed you how they interpret it, you interpret it differently, but you claim they don't believe in the God of the Bible because you are right and they are wrong.

And many times specifically in this thread I said I took back those statements.

Ok, acknowledged.

What is different from calling Mormonism a Christian Faith and calling it a Christian Sect or Christian Cult? The basic meaning IN YOUR OWN LINK is the same either way, but you use a sub-meaning of one word to justify using words that have negative connotations as well.

Here is the difference: Mormonism is a Christian faith. The statement can be left there and it would be fine. Now, when comparing different denominational beliefs within Christianity it would not be coherent to leave it there. Instead it would be proper to specify that Mormon doctrine differs from the majority of other Christian denominational doctrines; it is a Christian sect. The terms are defined based on the scope in context. Negative connotations do not define the word. How do you propose to differentiate denominations when comparing what they believe?

I don't really have a problem with the word sect, but 'Christian faith' would work just as well. Everyone understands that a Christian faith will have different beliefs than other Christian faiths.

Otherwise, you should distinguish between every Christian group's variation from the 'majority' belief in each area.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 12:50:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 11:05:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:53:48 PM, joneszj wrote:
Its a matter of using the meaning of the word that supports your intended point best.

And it does. Does it not? How does that negate the point?

I can negate your point by choosing a different meaning. It's just subjective, so why go out of your way to prove it unless you want negative connotations too?

It can be used to differentiate between major and minor belief systems in Christianity. Because it is subjective does not negate this. What exactly is the negative connotation to this? That when compared to the majority of Christian denominations that non-Trinitatian doctrine is considered (not necessarily fact) heretical? Well, it is (considered heretical). There is nothing to argue about there. The intention is not to offend but simply to identify. If they term is used in fidelity and the party spoken of is offended that does not eliminate the truth of the statement.

Not here, in other threads. You claim that if someone interprets something differently than you, they are just wrong, AND that because they are wrong, they don't really believe in the bible.

In this thread I SPECIFICALLY stated that a denominations interpretation of the Bible DOES NOT mean they are not Christian. In other threads I said that if certain denominations do not agree with 'essential' ecumenical Christian doctrines they cannot be determined to be Christian. I specifically took that back in this threads first post.

Ok, I didn't realize that was what you meant. I'm glad to see you acknowledging that now :)
Yes, determine normalcy by using a certain group and a certain definition to achieve the goal of justifying using a word that has negative connotations.

A certain group as in (1) the whole of Christianity and its adherents. The definition fits the scope of how I am using it. Whether or not it has negative connotations does not mean its not fact. Plus, I specifically said to ignore the connotations; as the connotations do not define the word.

Actually, you should consider connotations when choosing what words to use. You can use 'faith' without any negative connotations like 'cult', even though, according to the dictionary, they are the same thing.

Usually I would not use a term that has negative connotations. Usually as in daily usage. Specifically if those connotations are inaccurate. I am using it here for the sake of being accurate.

Also

I would consider negative connotations if those connotations are inaccurate. But because those connotations happen to be accurate it would be more accurate to use sect as opposed to faith.

So, why use a word with negative connotations when there is an equal choice without them?

Haha, you have said multiple times that Mormons don't believe in the God of the Bible. I showed you how they interpret it, you interpret it differently, but you claim they don't believe in the God of the Bible because you are right and they are wrong.

And many times specifically in this thread I said I took back those statements.

Ok, acknowledged.

What is different from calling Mormonism a Christian Faith and calling it a Christian Sect or Christian Cult? The basic meaning IN YOUR OWN LINK is the same either way, but you use a sub-meaning of one word to justify using words that have negative connotations as well.

Here is the difference: Mormonism is a Christian faith. The statement can be left there and it would be fine. Now, when comparing different denominational beliefs within Christianity it would not be coherent to leave it there. Instead it would be proper to specify that Mormon doctrine differs from the majority of other Christian denominational doctrines; it is a Christian sect. The terms are defined based on the scope in context. Negative connotations do not define the word. How do you propose to differentiate denominations when comparing what they believe?

I don't really have a problem with the word sect, but 'Christian faith' would work just as well. Everyone understands that a Christian faith will have different beliefs than other Christian faiths.

Agreed. But not in every case. Christian Faith is ambiguous as to Christian sect is specific to the relation between what the majority of Christians believe compared to what the minority believes.

Otherwise, you should distinguish between every Christian group's variation from the 'majority' belief in each area.

I would. For this particular case I used Theology Proper, specifically the Trinity. Mormons differ significantly from what the majority of Christian denominations in Theology Proper. However, for the most part denominations within Christianity agree with ecumenical doctrines. Honestly the only place I can think of where denominations have split in otherwise ecumenical doctrine would be with the doctrine of Justification between the RCC and the Protestants. But both denominations are considered normal (statistically) so it would be inaccurate to determine either a sect on that subject. The reason I say ecumenical doctrines is that they are the only normal (common) doctrines shared within Christianity as a whole. The dictionary uses the term 'rest' of Christianity and ecumenical doctrines are the only thing that can determine that (when the context is doctrine). While percentage of adherents would determine 'rest' statistically. A sect is determined by doctrine in which the rest of Christianity agrees on (ecumenical) that the sect does not.

I kinda feel a quasi double standard coming from you. You demand that Mormons aught to be considered Christian because of the dictionary definition even though the majority of Christians believe they are not. But when it comes to differentiating Mormons from the rest of Christianity by calling them a sect you object. In both situations I am using as accurate identification as possible according to the dictionary. I accepted the notion that Mormons are Christian based from the dictionary definition though most Christians would disagree and even be offended by doing so. Since you demand the term Christian to be defined by the dictionary why can you not accept that Mormonism is a sect as defined by the dictionary?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 1:03:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/22/2012 12:50:21 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/21/2012 11:05:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:53:48 PM, joneszj wrote:
Its a matter of using the meaning of the word that supports your intended point best.

And it does. Does it not? How does that negate the point?

I can negate your point by choosing a different meaning. It's just subjective, so why go out of your way to prove it unless you want negative connotations too?

It can be used to differentiate between major and minor belief systems in Christianity. Because it is subjective does not negate this. What exactly is the negative connotation to this? That when compared to the majority of Christian denominations that non-Trinitatian doctrine is considered (not necessarily fact) heretical? Well, it is (considered heretical). There is nothing to argue about there. The intention is not to offend but simply to identify. If they term is used in fidelity and the party spoken of is offended that does not eliminate the truth of the statement.

I conceded that I don't have an issue with the word sect as I do the word cult, and that criticism started earlier in the thread.

Not here, in other threads. You claim that if someone interprets something differently than you, they are just wrong, AND that because they are wrong, they don't really believe in the bible.

In this thread I SPECIFICALLY stated that a denominations interpretation of the Bible DOES NOT mean they are not Christian. In other threads I said that if certain denominations do not agree with 'essential' ecumenical Christian doctrines they cannot be determined to be Christian. I specifically took that back in this threads first post.

Ok, I didn't realize that was what you meant. I'm glad to see you acknowledging that now :)
Yes, determine normalcy by using a certain group and a certain definition to achieve the goal of justifying using a word that has negative connotations.

A certain group as in (1) the whole of Christianity and its adherents. The definition fits the scope of how I am using it. Whether or not it has negative connotations does not mean its not fact. Plus, I specifically said to ignore the connotations; as the connotations do not define the word.

Actually, you should consider connotations when choosing what words to use. You can use 'faith' without any negative connotations like 'cult', even though, according to the dictionary, they are the same thing.

Usually I would not use a term that has negative connotations. Usually as in daily usage. Specifically if those connotations are inaccurate. I am using it here for the sake of being accurate.

Also

I would consider negative connotations if those connotations are inaccurate. But because those connotations happen to be accurate it would be more accurate to use sect as opposed to faith.

So, why use a word with negative connotations when there is an equal choice without them?

Haha, you have said multiple times that Mormons don't believe in the God of the Bible. I showed you how they interpret it, you interpret it differently, but you claim they don't believe in the God of the Bible because you are right and they are wrong.

And many times specifically in this thread I said I took back those statements.

Ok, acknowledged.

What is different from calling Mormonism a Christian Faith and calling it a Christian Sect or Christian Cult? The basic meaning IN YOUR OWN LINK is the same either way, but you use a sub-meaning of one word to justify using words that have negative connotations as well.

Here is the difference: Mormonism is a Christian faith. The statement can be left there and it would be fine. Now, when comparing different denominational beliefs within Christianity it would not be coherent to leave it there. Instead it would be proper to specify that Mormon doctrine differs from the majority of other Christian denominational doctrines; it is a Christian sect. The terms are defined based on the scope in context. Negative connotations do not define the word. How do you propose to differentiate denominations when comparing what they believe?

I don't really have a problem with the word sect, but 'Christian faith' would work just as well. Everyone understands that a Christian faith will have different beliefs than other Christian faiths.

Agreed. But not in every case. Christian Faith is ambiguous as to Christian sect is specific to the relation between what the majority of Christians believe compared to what the minority believes.

What the majority believe in regards to what? To be truly fair here, you would have to break down every topic of Christian faith, examine what the majority believes in each instance, and label any faith that doesn't follow the majority in every case as a sect.

Otherwise, you should distinguish between every Christian group's variation from the 'majority' belief in each area.

I would. For this particular case I used Theology Proper, specifically the Trinity. Mormons differ significantly from what the majority of Christian denominations in Theology Proper. However, for the most part denominations within Christianity agree with ecumenical doctrines. Honestly the only place I can think of where denominations have split in otherwise ecumenical doctrine would be with the doctrine of Justification between the RCC and the Protestants. But both denominations are considered normal (statistically) so it would be inaccurate to determine either a sect on that subject. The reason I say ecumenical doctrines is that they are the only normal (common) doctrines shared within Christianity as a whole.

Except, they aren't shared within Christianity as a whole. There are topics that are agreed upon by a majority, but I seriously doubt any single church agrees with the majority in every case.

The dictionary uses the term 'rest' of Christianity and ecumenical doctrines are the only thing that can determine that (when the context is doctrine). While percentage of adherents would determine 'rest' statistically. A sect is determined by doctrine in which the rest of Christianity agrees on (ecumenical) that the sect does not.

I kinda feel a quasi double standard coming from you. You demand that Mormons aught to be considered Christian because of the dictionary definition even though the majority of Christians believe they are not. But when it comes to differentiating Mormons from the rest of Christianity by calling them a sect you object.

No, I just feel you are cherry-picking what is used as a standard and what isn't. Christianity isn't what you believe about the trinity. Christianity is what you believe about everything Christ taught(along with the rest of biblical teachings).

To be fair, you should really find out what the majority believes about the Trinity, mode of baptism, grace vs works, requirements for discipleship, church organization, and every other belief, to find out which faiths 'diverge' from the normal.

It seems you are simplifying it specifically to call Mormons a sect while not applying that to others.

In both situations I am using as accurate identification as possible according to the dictionary. I accepted the notion that Mormons are Christian based from the dictionary definition though most Christians would disagree and even be offended by doing so. Since you demand the term Christian to be defined by the dictionary why can you not accept that Mormonism is a sect as defined by the dictionary?

I agree that Mormonism is a sect, but I use it with the meaning of the first term in the link you provided. As I have shown, however, the second term you provided would make every church a sect.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13