New Nondenominational Christian Forum needs Mormons

[justamere10]

A new nondenominational Christian discussion board opened this week and it has a forum for "Mormons". When there's a lull on this board why not wander over and see if there's a bit of cyber missionary work needing to be done there?

http://www.ctr1.org

.

Edited July 10, 2008 by justamere10

[abqfriend]

Great Post-I would just add-that since the new forum is ecumenical-it needs Chrstians of all faith traditions including Mormons. As this is an LDS web site here-I echo your wish that Latter-Day Saints should be encouraged to join.

I hope representatives of all faith traditions join.

That would promote good dialog and better understanding of different faith traditions. .

There's a new Christian ecumenical forum starting up that I think Latter-day Saints should be strongly represented on right from the beginning.

Have a look and decide for yourself.

http://www.ctr1.org

[rameumptom]

Justamere10, I would guess this is a location you've created? Is this actually created by traditional Christians, or created by LDS for a spot to mingle with Christians?

[justamere10]

Yes, I confess that it was me who created the LDS1.org and the CTR1.org discussion boards. They are operated with much help from some great volunteer moderators.

Essentially both sites are Cyber Missionary oriented. www.lds1.org is oriented towards LDS Cyber Missionaries though non-members also come there to "Ask a Mormon" and some lively discussions are happening.

www.ctr1.org which opened yesterday is oriented as a nondenominational ecumenical Christian discussion board. It has much more for everyone including clergy, military, and children's forums.

It is my hope that good people from many denominations will rub keyboards at www.CTR1.org and some good fruit will come of it. I think it important that Latter-day Saints also have a strong presence and make their beliefs known, especially in the "Mormon" denominational forum.

Let me know what you think of the boards, thanks for your interest, invite your friends to join us on both boards if you like what you see.

Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • Index page

Sifting Time - free nondenominational Christian Religion Forum discussion board CTR1.org • Index page

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

The links don't seemed to want to work for me. I have tried IE, Firefox and Opera browsers...

[justamere10]

The links don't seemed to want to work for me. I have tried IE, Firefox and Opera browsers...

They all work for me, I don't know how to change it. Try typing ctr1.org into your command line?

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]

Unknown MySQL server host 'ldsnow.startlogicmysql.com' (1) [2005]

An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists.

That is the error message I get using Firefox lol.

I finally was able to load it up on IE but it took almost 15 minutes and I have a fast computer and cable internet...

[MrNirom]

I think it is the site that might be having problems right now. I was posting just fine.. and then all of a sudden it would tell me HTTP 400 bad request. So the server might be down.

Edited July 8, 2008 by MrNirom

[justamere10]

I think it is the site that might be having problems right now. I was posting just fine.. and then all of a sudden it would tell me HTTP 400 bad request. So the server might be down.

Agreed. I can't access the site right now either. I reported the problem to the host support people, hopefully it will be fixed soon. Thanks for your interest, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, please try www.ctr1.org later.

[justamere10]

Here's the latest message from support:

Please be advised that we are currently experiencing an issue with one of our core routers at our data center.

This is currently affecting a large portion of services provided by StartLogic.

We appreciate your patience while our teams work to resolve the issue. Please stay tuned for updates, as they will be made available when possible.

Thank you,

The StartLogic Support Team

[abqfriend]

I would think there are only -Christians- and in my opinion LDS members are as Christian as I am, no more and no less.

-Carol

Justamere10, I would guess this is a location you've created? Is this actually created by traditional Christians, or created by LDS for a spot to mingle with Christians?

[justamere10]

The router problem is resolved, everything's working well now.

Please register at the new Sifting Time ecumenical Christian board and participate when there's a temporary lull on this one. There's a forum waiting for you at CTR1.org regardless of your denominational affiliation or religious beliefs. It is my hope that the "Mormons" will also be well represented there as they are here.

See you at CTR1.org.

http://www.ctr1.org

Sifting Time - free nondenominational Christian Religion Forum discussion board CTR1.org • Index page

[rameumptom]

I would think there are only -Christians- and in my opinion LDS members are as Christian as I am, no more and no less.

-Carol

I agree that we are all Christian, but many would not agree with that sentiment. There are many that would relegate Mormons not to apostate, but heretic status, or another religion entirely that worships another god!

I wanted to ensure that if this was an LDS-based/supported Christian site that it would not be a spot to try and entrap other Christians into being invited to talk with missionaries, when they only came to blog.

[Moksha]

This site has the potential to produce good spiritual fruit, ecumenically speaking. :)

[prisonchaplain]

I agree that we are all Christian, but many would not agree with that sentiment. There are many that would relegate Mormons not to apostate, but heretic status, or another religion entirely that worships another god!

"Apostate," "Heretic," etc...such religious and vague terms. It's so much easier for me to say, "I'm right about a few things, and those folks disagree with me."

[rameumptom]

"Apostate," "Heretic," etc...such religious and vague terms. It's so much easier for me to say, "I'm right about a few things, and those folks disagree with me."

And that is such a healthy way to look at it. My boss, who is an elder in his Christian church (and former Baptist minister) states that when we all get to heaven, we'll all find out just how wrong we all are.

And I agree with his assessment. While LDS believe we have the restored gospel, we are not the only ones with truth. And we definitely should not be so pompous as to believe our prophets are perfect nor our scriptures so well-defined as to resolve every issue.

[Athanasias]

I believe very much in ecumenical talks and practices as they are good and produce good fruits. As a theology major i would say the question about whether one is a Christian or not is a bit more complicated though.

Here is a example;

In one sense we could say someone even a non-Christian is Christian in their heart and intention if they sincerely try their best to beleive whatever Jesus they are taught and have never got to hear about or articulate the real Jesus. Their desire to serve God and Jesus is a good thing and therefore they are Christian by intention but not in a real actual or formal way.

A good example. Lets say a person believed in Jesus and they called themselves a Christian because they believed in Jesus. Does this make them Christian? It depends. If the Jesus they believe in is God the Son, the second person of the blessed Trinity then yes. But if the Jesus they trusted in is just a Angel or a mere human or just "a" God or a magical donut etc. then no they would not be. Why would this be? Well it is based on the theological principle that in order to be a Christian one must follow the True Christ. St. Paul talks about many who are deceived by false Christ. They simply are not Christian in the real sense since they follow a false Christ. They may have good hearts and good intentions and God may be merciful to them because of their ignorance but in reality they followed a false Christ.

I am not pointing the finger at any one Church or denomination nor am I trying to debate here. I am just showing that theologically this issue has principles that are logical and need to be met before a person can really claim he or she is Christian in the truest sense even if they claim to love Jesus as savior.

[MrNirom]

It depends. If the Jesus they believe in is God the Son, the second person of the blessed Trinity then yes. But if the Jesus they trusted in is just a Angel or a mere human or just "a" God or a magical donut etc. then no they would not be. Why would this be? Well it is based on the theological principle that in order to be a Christian one must follow the True Christ. St. Paul talks about many who are deceived by false Christ. They simply are not Christian in the real sense since they follow a false Christ.

So.. the basis for being a Christian is a belief in the Trinity? This particular belief was not even realized until 325 AD when 300 or so Bishops got together out of 1800 that were invited, and decided it so. There is no mention of it in any scripture, neither Old testament or New. Could this not be the false Christ that was preached by Paul? If so.. then all those who believe in the Trinity would then be considered.. Non Christian, as the rules would be reversed.

Just some food for thought. :)

[Athanasias]

So.. the basis for being a Christian is a belief in the Trinity? This particular belief was not even realized until 325 AD when 300 or so Bishops got together out of 1800 that were invited, and decided it so. There is no mention of it in any scripture, neither Old testament or New. Could this not be the false Christ that was preached by Paul? If so.. then all those who believe in the Trinity would then be considered.. Non Christian, as the rules would be reversed.

Just some food for thought. :)

Thanks for your thoughts my friend. Well even if you beleive the opposite at least you see my point that are false christians and not all can be real ones. Please do not take this personally I did not try to point the finger at any one denomination or person. I wish to debate no one hear so I will not get involved with a debate with you over this issue. I was just showing the that there are basic principles to Christian theology that show that just because someone says they believe in Jesus as savior does not necessitate that they are truly Christian.

As a Catholic theology student I would politely dissagree with you over the historical, biblical, and miraclulous evidence for the blessed Trinity but I wish to debate no one on these forums. I was just giving mine and my churches theological opinion on this issue as well as the majority of Churches.

Please have a blessed day and God bless you always!

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias

[abqfriend]

I happen to be a Catholic, but I am not a theology major. I do have to agree with this poster that the doctrine of Trinity has been a debated issue in the earlier centuries of Christianity

I am here to learn about the LDS faith tradition-and not debate it or to call someone less a Christian than I am or a non-Christian because they may not hold some differentl doctrinal issues as myself.

The word Trinity-is indeed not in Sacred Scripture of the Old or New Testament. I do not believe that the word Sacrament is either. Words of a religious nature develop over time to try to define a concept or doctrine.

Let's all try to find where we can agree rather than disagree.

Perhaps Love Thy Neighbor as Thy Self is a good place to start for everyone including myself.

-Carol

[Athanasias]

I happen to be a Catholic, but I am not a theology major. I do have to agree with this poster that the doctrine of Trinity has been a debated issue in the earlier centuries of Christianity

I am here to learn about the LDS faith tradition-and not debate it or to call someone less a Christian than I am or a non-Christian because they may not hold some differentl doctrinal issues as myself.

The word Trinity-is indeed not in Sacred Scripture of the Old or New Testament. I do not believe that the word Sacrament is either. Words of a religious nature develop over time to try to define a concept or doctrine.

Let's all try to find where we can agree rather than disagree.

Perhaps Love Thy Neighbor as Thy Self is a good place to start for everyone including myself.

-Carol

Thanks for your input Carol. BTY I love your name JPII was named Carol too! I am here to learn too. If you read my post you know that I was not trying to debate at all. I was just presenting the Catholic theological understanding of what makes a person Christian. I am part of the ecumenical movement of the church but part of that movement also involves telling other where we catholics officially stand on important issues so in that way true ecumenical dialgue and understadning by both parties can began.

The word Trinity is not in the bible but then again why should it be? The concept is there, It is in the early apostolic tradition of the church which is also the word of God and defined by infallible Councils. So we as Catholics should believe it. I hope you realize that I was jsut giving a honest Catholic theological view. I appreciate your input and I wish the best of luck to you. God bless you always.

In Jesus through Mary

Athanasias

[MrNirom]

I happen to be a Catholic, but I am not a theology major. I do have to agree with this poster that the doctrine of Trinity has been a debated issue in the earlier centuries of Christianity

I am here to learn about the LDS faith tradition-and not debate it or to call someone less a Christian than I am or a non-Christian because they may not hold some differentl doctrinal issues as myself.

The word Trinity-is indeed not in Sacred Scripture of the Old or New Testament. I do not believe that the word Sacrament is either. Words of a religious nature develop over time to try to define a concept or doctrine.

Let's all try to find where we can agree rather than disagree.

Perhaps Love Thy Neighbor as Thy Self is a good place to start for everyone including myself.

-Carol

Carol,

I do understand what you are saying. And understanding what one says.. is what makes us more knowledgeable.

I can understand that Athanasias has the same Christian view as the majority of Christians.. and that is why the LDS Church is not considered Christian. It is solely based on the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. As long as that is the definition of a Christian by the Christian world.. then LDS will never be accepted as Christians.

We then get put in one of the other groups of non-Christians. I feel the Christian world really needs to take a look at their definition. Being a Christian should not be classified by such a specific doctrine. We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We believe the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone.. and the Holy Ghost does not. We believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose.. not one in spirit.. or the same person with different properties. We believe that they are 3 distinct individuals. It just doesn't seem right that it should be based on the belief of the doctrine of the trinity only.

Edited July 9, 2008 by MrNirom

[prisonchaplain]

I was just showing the that there are basic principles to Christian theology that show that just because someone says they believe in Jesus as savior does not necessitate that they are truly Christian.

As a Catholic theology student I would politely dissagree with you over the historical, biblical, and miraclulous evidence for the blessed Trinity but I wish to debate no one on these forums. I was just giving mine and my churches theological opinion on this issue as well as the majority of Churches.

Please have a blessed day and God bless you always!

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias

Athanasias, you raise a good question that gives rise to another. What does it mean to be a true Christian? You answer that, in part, it is believing in the correct Christ? Or, more specifically, believing correctly about who and what Christ is.

So...how wrong can we be? For example, my church teaches a cristology that is identical to yours (Assemblies of God is trinitarian). But, what of the Oneness folk who believe that God is absolutely one person, Jesus, who expresses himself in three modalities--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To be simplistic, they believe in ONE in THREE, rather than THREE in ONE. They are wrong. But, is their error unforgivable? And then, likewise, what of the LDS belief that Jesus is God the Son, 2nd person of the Godhead--but just not of one essence with Father and Spirit? We disagree, but is the error forgivable?

[Moksha]

But, what of the Oneness folk who believe that God is absolutely one person, Jesus, who expresses himself in three modalities--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To be simplistic, they believe in ONE in THREE, rather than THREE in ONE. They are wrong. But, is their error unforgivable? And then, likewise, what of the LDS belief that Jesus is God the Son, 2nd person of the Godhead--but just not of one essence with Father and Spirit? We disagree, but is the error forgivable?

And what of the Holy Ghost? Is He able to substantiate himself? I imagine He blends into the woodwork sometimes...

(Yikes, hope HG jokes are not sacrilegious. My thinking is God is the master of all humor ).

[rameumptom]

The problem with Athanasias' assessment is, who is qualified to establish what denotes a Christian?

The Bible only gives one requirement for being considered a follower of Christ: to have faith in Christ as the Son of God, believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, and rely on his atonement. I state these, because the New Testament are very clear on these issues.

There is nothing in the Bible that requires a belief in Trinity or Godhead or anything else.

So, if a person believes that Jesus is a mere human or a magical donut, he is missing requirements established by Jesus and the apostles. For example, John the Beloved insisted that anyone that claimed Jesus did not resurrect nor come in the flesh was an anti-Christ. Very short and brief requirement, but there it is.

It is entirely different than the Athanasius Creed, which insists a Christian believe in the traditional Trinity to be saved in Christ. And it is entirely different than the views of some traditional Christians who insist that others must believe exactly as they do if those others do not wish to burn forever in hell (so much for a loving and forgiving God, eh?).

So, while there are requirements for determining whether a person is Christian, those requirements MUST come clearly from the Bible, and not a 4th century ecumenical council that is neither apostolic nor scriptural.

Edited July 9, 2008 by rameumptom