Christian business owners . . .

[Aeson]

Question - do you believe there's something important about Marriage?

Which part of marriage? The legal part of it is simply paperwork in my estimation. The love and fidelity between a partners is the important part in my own estimation, and legal marriage is not necessary for those things to exist.

(Which is why my preferred solution is for government to get out the marriage business entirely.)

[SlowwHand]

If a shop owner is only willing to serve sheep staggers, and only Tuesday afternoons, that's their right.
The business will fail, but it's their shop and their right.

End of story.

[Aeson]

Christians are not Jews, and have different scriptures. Why do Mormons claim to be Christian but do not use the same books? Makes no sense to me.

They believe the Book of Mormon is simply another testament of Christ. It doesn't actually bring anything theological to the table, it's basically the same themes and morals as you find in the Bible. Christ is literally the same person, and teaches the same things. So it wouldn't make any sense for them to not claim to be Christian in regards to "one who follows Christ".

As for making "sense" ... none of it does, and neither do your own beliefs.

[Aeson]

You asserted that I believed in the priesthood of all believers. Something that I haven't believed since 2004 or so.

No, you implied that by confirming the analogy to what you were doing. You said it was exactly how it works. (Sure, you were confused about what you were responding too, but that's true about everything.)

[Aeson]

And... I'm arguing that the dictionary (and Daniel Webster) is not a reliable source as to what constitutes a Christian.

I suggest you actually address this argument rather than simply namecalling me as 'dishonest' when I have simply challenged one of your presuppositions.

Why is a dictionary authoritative?

Because what I said, what you took issue with, was explicitly about the dictionary definition of the term. The only way to ascertain the validity of the statement is to use the dictionary definition of the term.

[ZEE]

Aeson. If you cKontinue to sPam this thrade I will rePort your ass to MarkG.

Read, ResPond, or Be restricKtive.

[Aeson]

Of course you think it silly, but the thing is, that term has a very specific meaning, and if you're not using it to refer to a specifically Catholic doctrine concerning Mary's state of grace, you're using it wrong. It's as if, addressing scientists, you said, "acceleration, speed, pretty much the same, and 'speed' is shorter and easier to say."

No, it's not like addressing scientists about acceleration/speed. Those things are measurable and verifiable. Catholics won't agree with my use of Immaculate Conception (and neither will Mormons), but to me they are describing essentially the same thing (eg. how Jesus was born without sin). Rather than explain the LDS Doctrine in minute detail about that subject, I used a widely used term for a very similar thing.

It was my own definition of the term. If you are claiming that personal definitions of subjective matters are not valid, that would be interesting given the subject matter of this thread

[ZEE]

I think I'd make a P good mod.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was my own definition of the term. If you are claiming that personal definitions of subjective matters are not valid, that would be interesting given the subject matter of this thread

Theology would argue otherwise, and would argue that these distinctions are most certainly not subjective. Things can be true without necessarily being empirical after all.

Why are you so dishonest that you can't answer a simple question?

You've still not answered mine. Why is a dictionary considered to be authoritative? And no, I would argue that any dictionary that stated that Mormonism is Christian to be false, because they have significant theological differences.

Their explanation has just as much to back it up as your own beliefs.

The argument wrt to continuity extends back at least to the 3rd or 4th century based on actual sources that we possess. Citations from the Church fathers in the years after legalization show that there was a Pentarchy.

That's 250 - 300 year gap, at most, which is a big difference from 1800 years. The argument that the church founded in Rome by St. Peter is an argument, and the gap is a gap in sources, not in documentation - in that we have a reasonable argument as to how the Church grew from the Apostles to around the time of the 3rd and 4th century.

The Mormons, not so much unless you completely disregard history.

My own views on Catholic doctrine aren't very interesting, because I'm not Catholic. Your views on it are interesting, since you seem to be implying that you don't believe there have ever been any changes in Catholic doctrine

I don't believe that there have been changes to Catholic doctrine. Things like the Immaculate Conception were codified in the 19th century, but this had less to do with it not being taught by the Church prior, as there is substantial evidence that it's been around since at least the 6th or 7th century.

The biggest change has been the vernacular, but there's never been a requirement to say Mass in Latin and the Church itself predates the primary use of Latin. There's been times when Greek was the primary language, and the Church accommodated the shift to Latin, while retaining the use of Greek.

The only way to ascertain the validity of the statement is to use the dictionary definition of the term.

You're making a meta-ethical claim surrounding theological truth which I am challenging. People may claim this to be true, but the dictionary doesn't make any claims save the fact that people use language in this fashion.

Say, f'rinstance - people decided that the color purple also referred to the color orange. Would this change the frequencies of light? No. It would merely change what we choose to refer to these frequencies of light. Same is true with Christian. Yes, the dictionary can reflect the usage of speech to define 'Christian', to change with the common usage, but this doesn't change the actual core beliefs of what constitutes a Christian.

This has been my argument for awhile, and you still haven't even understood it.

No, you implied that by confirming the analogy to what you were doing

Great. Now you're claiming that I'm teaching something false. Let me be perfectly clear.

The Catholic church teaches that the Magisterium consists ONLY of Priests and bishops. Full stop. I want you to copy/paste what I just bolded so I can confirm that you've understood what I just wrote AND that you will confirm that this is what I said.

There no longer is, because those who debated against Young on the topic of Adam-God demonstrably won out

Brigham Young taught it, Joseph Smith taught it. You've confirmed that the earlier citations were correct, where's the debate? The facts are very one-sided here.

They believe the Book of Mormon is simply another testament of Christ. It doesn't actually bring anything theological to the table, it's basically the same themes and morals as you find in the Bible. Christ is literally the same person, and teaches the same things. So it wouldn't make any sense for them to not claim to be Christian in regards to "one who follows Christ".

ORLY? You might want to consult with some actual Mormons before making bold, and massively wrong statements about their faith.

Which part of marriage? The legal part of it is simply paperwork in my estimation. The love and fidelity between a partners is the important part in my own estimation, and legal marriage is not necessary for those things to exist.

I'm not talking about legal marriage. Do you believe there is anything special about the act of marriage in itself? This is an important question.

[Aeson]

Theology would argue otherwise, and would argue that these distinctions are most certainly not subjective. Things can be true without necessarily being empirical after all.

There's no way to prove that your faith in that regard to the nature of the birth of Christ is any more correct than a Mormon's or my own. It's purely a matter of faith and/or which sources you choose to have faith in.

You've still not answered mine. Why is a dictionary considered to be authoritative?

I've actually answered this explicitly a few times already. The reason the dictionary definition iis authoritative on the matter we are discussing is because the statement I made that you took issue with was explicitly about what the dictionary definition was and how it applied to Mormons. The dictionary definition is authoritative in that matter.

Now answer the question, "Does the dictionary definition of the term Christian apply to Mormons?" It's a simple yes or no question. Either the dictionary definition applies, or it doesn't. No matter how much you want it to be, the question isn't about what you think the definition should be.

The argument wrt to continuity extends back at least to the 3rd or 4th century based on actual sources that we possess. Citations from the Church fathers in the years after legalization show that there was a Pentarchy.

That's 250 - 300 year gap, at most, which is a big difference from 1800 years. The argument that the church founded in Rome by St. Peter is an argument, and the gap is a gap in sources, not in documentation - in that we have a reasonable argument as to how the Church grew from the Apostles to around the time of the 3rd and 4th century.

The Mormons, not so much unless you completely disregard history.

Again, just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the applicability of the dictionary definition of the term Christian.

I don't believe that there have been changes to Catholic doctrine. Things like the Immaculate Conception were codified in the 19th century, but this had less to do with it not being taught by the Church prior, as there is substantial evidence that it's been around since at least the 6th or 7th century.

I love how you pretend a change isn't a change by irrelevantly quibbling about the date the change occurred.

You're making a meta-ethical claim surrounding theological truth which I am challenging. People may claim this to be true, but the dictionary doesn't make any claims save the fact that people use language in this fashion.

Say, f'rinstance - people decided that the color purple also referred to the color orange. Would this change the frequencies of light? No. It would merely change what we choose to refer to these frequencies of light. Same is true with Christian. Yes, the dictionary can reflect the usage of speech to define 'Christian', to change with the common usage, but this doesn't change the actual core beliefs of what constitutes a Christian.

This has been my argument for awhile, and you still haven't even understood it.

I understand exactly what you are saying. You keep throwing up irrelevant strawmen to try to avoid answering a simple, direct question.

Great. Now you're claiming that I'm teaching something false. Let me be perfectly clear.

The Catholic church teaches that the Magisterium consists ONLY of Priests and bishops. Full stop. I want you to copy/paste what I just bolded so I can confirm that you've understood what I just wrote AND that you will confirm that this is what I said.

I said, "Using your logic, everything anyone in any capacity in the Catholic Church has ever said is official and eternal doctrine of the Catholic Church."
You quoted it and affirmed, "This is, in fact, what the Catholic church teaches."

By doing so you were (unintentionally no doubt) confirming that everything anyone in any capacity in the Catholic Church has ever said is official and eternal doctrine of the Catholic Church.

[Elok]

No, it's not like addressing scientists about acceleration/speed. Those things are measurable and verifiable. Catholics won't agree with my use of Immaculate Conception (and neither will Mormons), but to me they are describing essentially the same thing (eg. how Jesus was born without sin).

No, they really aren't. IC describes Mary's conception, not Jesus's. You are using the term wrongly. There is no point in using a widely used term to mean something other than its accepted meaning. I am tempted to quote Humpty-Dumpty from Through the Looking-Glass here.

[Sava]

If a shop owner is only willing to serve sheep staggers, and only Tuesday afternoons, that's their right.
The business will fail, but it's their shop and their right.

End of story.

What a dumbass excuse to allow discrimination. Absolute dumbass.

[giblets]

If you own a building that means you get to do whatever you want with it. Zoning restrictions? pfffffft.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's no way to prove that your faith in that regard to the nature of the birth of Christ is any more correct than a Mormon's or my own.

Logic. God can't be a created being because then something would have existed before him.

It's purely a matter of faith and/or which sources you choose to have faith in.

Not at all. Every statement made in the Athanasian creed is internally logical. The counterarguments are not - you might want to consult Descartes here... We can infer from this that the Athanasian creed is truer than the counter-argument (God is a created being), etc.

The reason the dictionary definition iis authoritative on the matter we are discussing is because the statement I made that you took issue with was explicitly about what the dictionary definition was and how it applied to Mormons

Why is the dictionary authoritative? You're saying that the dictionary is authoritative because it's authoritative. I'm asking the question as to "why is the dictionary authoritative?"

The dictionary definition is authoritative in that matter.

Why?

Now answer the question, "Does the dictionary definition of the term Christian apply to Mormons?"

I already answered this. No, because the dictionary has zero authority on this topic.

what you think the definition should be.

I don't care what the dictionary says. I care what the Church teaches on this matter. You can tell me that the dictionary states that everyone who claims to be Christian is Christian, and I'll stick with Christ who teaches the exact opposite.

Christ is the authority, not Webster, and until you understand my argument, we're not going to make any headway.

Again, just a strawman.

It's facts. When was this dictionary published, Aeson? Why should we accept a standard written in the 19th century over one written in the 4th? Pretty clear to me, I side with the standard that was written in the 4th century not whatever Webster cobbled together 1800 years after the fact.

I love how you pretend a change isn't a change by irrelevantly quibbling about the date the change occurred.

You've still yet to cite a single change, Aeson. I'm not making your argument for you. Either cite a change or cede the point.

I understand exactly what you are saying.

Then answer my question. Why does the dictionary have authority concerning the definition of a Christian? You keep answering, "the dictionary has authority", but never explain why. Why, Aeson? Why?

"Using your logic, everything anyone in any capacity in the Catholic Church has ever said is official and eternal doctrine of the Catholic Church."

I'm arguing that the founders, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are the magisterial equivalents within the Mormon church. This would be akin to Christ and St. Peter in the Catholic church.

You're the one expanding this because your argument got crushed.

I'm glad to see you finally acknowledging that the Catholic church has a magisterium of priests and bishops. (BTW, temple Elders, are the Mormon claim), but then you'd know this if you were actually Mormon and knew anything at all about their faith).

By doing so you were (unintentionally no doubt) confirming that everything anyone in any capacity in the Catholic Church has ever said is official and eternal doctrine of the Catholic Church.

You know what? I'm done here, Aeson.

I can tell you what the Catholic church actually teaches, but you're unwilling to accept that the Catholic church ACTUALLY TEACHES THIS so there's no point in discussing anything further. Take it or leave it. You can make up all the bull**** you want, but it ain't gonna be any more true.

Oh wait, that's what you're actually arguing. If you say enough bull**** the same way long enough, truth changes. If I say that Christians are not Christians that will eventually become true just because I say it's so.

Cool story, bro.

[Kidlicious]

"Every statement made in the Athanasian creed is internally logical"

That makes the same amount of sense as everything else that you've said.