Sanders vs Vought = Postmodernism vs Truth

[brotherofJared]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The question, once again is not who wrote John.  The question is whether the Early Christians taught that Christ is God.  Historical facts on the matter (and even on the gospel of John) are abundant.  Especially in the Catholic Church.  Whether you take such facts as credible or not is, of course, up to you.

Ok. Here's an idea. How many apostles were present at the time Christ was baptized? Answer: 0. Whose testimony do we read in the beginning of John? Answer: John the Baptists. He was THE witness and therefore it is His testimony. But the facts are, we don't know who wrote the Gospel of John. You used evidence to support the teachings of the apostles when there weren't any apostles. The apostles didn't teach Christ as God. They were very specific to address The Father as God and Christ as Lord. The evidence is abundant, especially in the Bible. Whether you take such facts as credible or not is, of course, up to you.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Well, we certainly can count on "facts" coming from there. I feel so much better.

For your information, the LDS and Catholic Churches share the same history. 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Ok. Here's an idea. How many apostles were present at the time Christ was baptized? Answer: 0. Whose testimony do we read in the beginning of John? Answer: John the Baptists. He was THE witness and therefore it is His testimony. But the facts are, we don't know who wrote the Gospel of John. You used evidence to support the teachings of the apostles when there weren't any apostles. The apostles didn't teach Christ as God. They were very specific to address The Father as God and Christ as Lord. The evidence is abundant, especially in the Bible. Whether you take such facts as credible or not is, of course, up to you.

So, you are saying that "Christ is God" as taught in the Gospel of John is not taught by the Early Christians even if..... IT GOT COMPILED INTO THE BIBLE?  What, it got there by magic?

Now, if the Early Christians did not teach that Christ is God, then how did those same early Christians end up having to squash the heretical teachings that Christ is not God because there is only One God - the Father?  Did they just somehow invent the teaching that Christ is God after the Apostasy?  And Joseph Smith - the prophet of the restoration - just happened to believe it?

Edited June 29, 2017 by anatess2

[brotherofJared]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

lol. 

Facts are a harsh mistress. They don't really care what your (generic) opinion is. 

Indeed, but they are not as harsh as these opinions that keep flying my way. Tomatoes anyone?

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, brotherofJared said:

Indeed, but they are not as harsh as these opinions that keep flying my way. Tomatoes anyone?

I honestly have no clue what you're saying here.

[brotherofJared]

44 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, you are saying that "Christ is God" as taught in the Gospel of John is not taught by the Early Christians even if..... IT GOT COMPILED INTO THE BIBLE?  What, it got there by magic?

Nope. I didn't say when it got in the Bible, but I'm pretty sure it was after John was no longer with the Church. But I'm pretty sure that the people who put it there did believe it. I believe it. The early Christians didn't necessarily, but if they did, they had a reason for teaching God the Father was God and Christ the Lord was Lord without ever specifying that Christ is God. It developed over time.

John doesn't specifically state that Christ IS God, He said the Word WAS God. After the Word was made Flesh, the then refers to The Father as God. There was some mencing of words there. Joseph Smith cleaned it up a bit. John 1:1 JST

"In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God."

Here, the word isn't the Son, but is the gospel. No statement was made that Jesus was God.

We have completely gone off the rails here to the point where I'm defending an argument that has little or nothing to do with condemning Muslims. So, I'm going to take a walk back up through this thread and see what the point of this argument is supposed to be.

---

My statement that Mohammed was in harmony with teachings of the early Christian Church concerning the nature of Christ, in that Allah was God and is the God we worship. I still believe that from Mohammed's perspective and point in history, he was right. The issue that was developing was Christians praying to Jesus or to Mary or to the Saints (which actually developed much later). I read the Quran as stating that we all worship Allah, that is who we pray too. It is still who we pray too.

Edited June 29, 2017 by brotherofJared
recentering my argument

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

My statement that Mohammed was in harmony with teachings of the early Christian Church concerning the nature of Christ, in that Allah was God and is the God we worship. I still believe that from Mohammed's perspective and point in history, he was right. The issue that was developing was Christians praying to Jesus or to Mary or to the Saints (which actually developed much later). I read the Quran as stating that we all worship Allah, that is who we pray too. It is still who we pray too.

And you and I both agree that this is irrelevant to the OP.

[brotherofJared]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I honestly have no clue what you're saying here.

I'm don't know what to do with this. Are you asking for clarification or just making a statement?

Edited June 29, 2017 by brotherofJared

[brotherofJared]

38 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

And you and I both agree that this is irrelevant to the OP.

Eh. Due to some odd cut and paste issues with this forum, I had to save my comments before I finished. I brought it back to the OP through an examination of presentism which is what opened the door to this discussion. My point being that Mohammed had a pretty good idea of who Christ was/is. History, for the Muslims who refused and repelled the modern Chrisitan soldiers, as well as for Christians, has eroded much of the truth that was taught in early Christianity. Islam, through bigoted Christian eyes, will never have the gospel and the Muslims who adhere to it will stand condemned. But that's not the Muslim's fault. God put them there. I believe He has a plan for all of his children that all might obtain the reward. It is not offered just to Mormons or Jews or Christians. No one, not Christian or Mormon, has the right to state that any person stands condemned before God because we aren't God.

My issue with Vaught is he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He says all people deserve respect while He denigrates his own kind for acting like a Christian who simply followed God's great commandments.

[brotherofJared]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

those same early Christians end up having to squash the heretical teachings that Christ is not God because there is only One God - the Father?

Which early Christians are you referring too?

@Carborendum Note: This is what a request for clarification looks like.

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

Eh. Due to some odd cut and paste issues with this forum, I had to save my comments before I finished. I brought it back to the OP through an examination of presentism which is what opened the door to this discussion. My point being that Mohammed had a pretty good idea of who Christ was/is. History, for the Muslims who refused and repelled the modern Chrisitan soldiers, as well as for Christians, has eroded much of the truth that was taught in early Christianity. Islam, through bigoted Christian eyes, will never have the gospel and the Muslims who adhere to it will stand condemned. But that's not the Muslim's fault. God put them there. I believe He has a plan for all of his children that all might obtain the reward. It is not offered just to Mormons or Jews or Christians. No one, not Christian or Mormon, has the right to state that any person stands condemned before God because we aren't God.

My issue with Vaught is he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He says all people deserve respect while He denigrates his own kind for acting like a Christian who simply followed God's great commandments.

It's true that if you have a faulty premise you can logically arrive at a faulty conclusion. Do you see how Vaught can logically arrive at the conclusion that he does? Namely, that a person may stand condemned in his/her present state but still warrant respectful treatment?

[brotherofJared]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

It's true that if you have a faulty premise you can logically arrive at a faulty conclusion. Do you see how Vaught can logically arrive at the conclusion that he does? Namely, that a person may stand condemned in his/her present state but still warrant respectful treatment?

That's not my premise or conclusion. It has nothing to do with his opinion of Muslims but of his treatment of Christians. My conclusion is that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. My premise is that while claiming respect for Muslims, he condemns Christians even though he is a Christian and he did so while defending a Christian institution.

I realize this creates a problem when defending oneself against those who are supposedly of the same faith but act in ways that differ. Kind of like, me on this site. I claim I am a Mormon, but I'm getting hacked up by Mormons because my views are different. What do we do? Or, more pointedly, what do you do? Should the admins ban me because my views are different? Should I be placed on administrative leave? How do you deal with differences and where do we draw the line of right and wrong?

Is this statement wrong:

Quote

"I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book," she posted Dec. 10 on Facebook. "And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God." -  Larycia Hawkins - from the Chicago Tribue online

1

Was she condemned because she said Muslims and Christians worship the same God or because she quoted a Catholic? What did the Pope mean when H\e said it? What are "people of the book"?

What are my responses to the harassment and ridicule I get in this thread? How could you expect me to respond in any other way? I believe in a concept of being Christian in the generic form as those who are following Christ. I don't care if they are Mormon, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic or Evangelical. A Christian need only learn of Christ and they will take his name upon them. It may happen after death. It will have to happen after death for billions of people because for them, there was no Christ during their life. This is a fundamental tenet of the Mormon faith. Those who have not learned of Christ will be taught and given an opportunity to accept baptism (taking the name of Christ upon them) and the endowments, even eternal marriage... Does anyone think that God really cares if they are Muslim or Jew or Mormon? The path to exaltation is simple and it is not exclusive to any one group.

Now, I, like Larycia, make my statements in hopes that others, especially Mormons, will stop dwelling in the darkness and see the light that they apparently don't comprehend. My doctrines are not false, we do worship the same God. This argument is no different that the argument that modern Christians use to claim that we worship the wrong Christ, a different Chris with the same name. So what if the Muslims call Him Allah and we call Him Elohim or God. 

People of the book references a common source. We call it the Old Testament. The Muslims call it the Torah. We both are descendants of Abraham. And Christian or Muslim or Jew, this is more true that anyone could possibly imagine.

I'll cease from my self-defense now and return to the OP.

I don't have a problem with Wheaton College defending what they believe. That is their right even if I disagree. I don't have a problem with the position that the Professor took in taking a Christ-like stand for the unfair judgments being leveled at Muslims as a race and a religion. Sure, they have their bad guys. They are no different than evil Christians (not an oxymoron) who use religion for their own personal gain. But they also have many many good, and though they don't know it yet, Christian people among them who wear hijabs. Sanders was wrong in applying a religious test, but only in that, he stated that the answers to that test were the reason he wouldn't vote for him. I think we, the people, needed to know Vaught's position. I was impressed that Sanders would bring that previously unknown information to light. However, if it had been presented in any other way, it would not have the weight it carries today. Vaught is a bigot and a hypocrite, claiming respect he does not have and vouching a Christian love that he doesn't show his own.

The test that has been brought to bear here begs the question: are Mormons no better than other modern Christians claiming to have truth but don't live it? Do they respect others or is it only lip service? The lesson to learn here is that none of us is ever able to rise above another to condemn them. It doesn't matter what the Bible says, we are not the judges of who meets those conditions and who does not.

We have a responsibility to protect our beliefs but I would have to ask of whoever severs the tie, what if you're wrong? What if they are right? Will it matter? 

[prisonchaplain]

On 6/24/2017 at 9:29 PM, brotherofJared said:

Because she was acting as a Christian... In other words, she was doing what Christ would have done.

Jesus would have denied his own identity and deity by saying the worship of God by those who deny He is God the Son is the same as the worship of God by those who follow Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God?" 

[mordorbund]

13 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Vaught is a bigot and a hypocrite, claiming respect he does not have and vouching a Christian love that he doesn't show his own.

How is he being a hypocrite? His position, as I understand it, is that God condemns those who don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, but they still deserve from him (Vaught) the same love owed to all mankind. I'm not seeing the hypocrisy.

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

How is he being a hypocrite? His position, as I understand it, is that God condemns those who don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, but they still deserve from him (Vaught) the same love owed to all mankind. I'm not seeing the hypocrisy.

Bigot and hypocrite are boJ's go to accusations.

[brotherofJared]

22 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Jesus would have denied his own identity and deity by saying the worship of God by those who deny He is God the Son is the same as the worship of God by those who follow Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God?" 

Too many by's in there.

Jesus would have denied his own identity... Um. No. His identity as the Son of God, no, He didn't deny that. We are all son's of God. That includes Muslims. Deny His role as The Son of God. No. He was the only one who could fulfill that role and that role defined his identity. However, He did deny his deity, specifically stating that he was not good because there was only one that was good and that is God. Obviously, Christ was not that God (so He must have been a different God -- so to speak).

Did she deny that Jesus was God or the Christ? No (identity and role).

Those who deny He is God. Though they speak with their mouth, their actions betray them. If they follow the teachings of Christ, all that is left is to know He is Christ. You nor any other modern Christian can possibly know who will and who will not accept Christ. The fact that they are Muslim has no bearing on their ultimate decision. It has no more bearing than modern Christians that claim they know Christ but don't.

"the worship of God by those who deny His deity (we really need to escape presentism but I fear that it is impossible for some of you)
 Is the same as the worship of God by those who follow him..."

Oh yes. Definitely. Christ didn't care that the person robbed wasn't an accepted Israelite. Who was the neighbor? Certainly not the pious modern Christians who passed him by on the other side of the road  But instead a regular non-descript Jew who actually did something to help the man. And what was the second great commandment? Love thy neighbor. Thus the person who follows Christ (whether he knows Christ or not) is a Christian, those who don't are not. It doesn't matter what they confess with their lips.

Thus, those who deny him, but follow him, only need to meet him.
Those that claim they know him, but don't follow him will have no hope in the life to come.

There is also the sad issue that modern Christians think they worship God by worshiping Jesus. For them, there is no other God than Jesus. So for the Muslims to worship Allah, and we know Allah isn't Jesus, then they are condemned to hell in the modern Christian mind. But the fact is, they worship the Father of us all, the Father of Christ, the Father of you and me and of every man and woman who has ever been born, how is now living or who will yet live. He is the same being that Christ worshiped. Christians don't get to corner God and block off everyone else.

I addressed the problems of presentism. The problems that Muslims face are the same as the ones Christians face because history has made a mess of their beliefs (not the facts, because we don't have the facts today, but the opinions of men and their lust for power). Today, Muslims don't know God any more than Christians do. The world was without God until Joseph Smith revealed Him. They worship an idea which has been clouded through time and now the God they worship serves them and not the other way around.

Mohammed, on the other hand, had a much clearer picture and understanding of Christ than we do. The problem that arose in history is that God is a three in one being. When we address Christ, we address the Father because they are the same being. Mohammed understood that they were not the same being and that Christ was the son of God and God was Allah... That being said, I haven't had any more chance to talk to Mohammed than anyone here, but I'm positive that the existence of elohim and it's implications were beyond the scope of his understanding. His purpose was to unite a people and preserve a promise made to their father's mother. They were smart enough not to get suckered into the idea of Christianity that flourished in Rome because it was false as Mohammed stated, though I believe he gave them the benefit of doubt. He didn't condemn Christians as Christians condemn them.

Again, in this scenario, the professor is the follower of Christ, Vaught is a Pharisee. I know the Muslims need to come to Christ and I believe that will happen in the Lord's time and Christians would do well not to judge.

[brotherofJared]

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

How is he being a hypocrite? His position, as I understand it, is that God condemns those who don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, but they still deserve from him (Vaught) the same love owed to all mankind. I'm not seeing the hypocrisy.

You are missing my point. The hypocrisy is not about the Muslims. It is about the Christian he threw under the bus.

[prisonchaplain]

@brotherofJared In this public forum you have declared Vought, a man I presume you have never met, to be a Pharisee. You do so because he concurred with his college's firing of a professor for violating the institution's community covenant, which reads as follows:

 

Our Community Covenant

The goal of campus life at Wheaton College is to live, work, serve, and worship together as an educational community centered around the Lord Jesus Christ. Our mission as an academic community is not merely the transmission of information; it is the development of whole persons who will build the church and benefit society worldwide "For Christ and His Kingdom." Along with the privileges and blessings of membership in such a community come responsibilities. The members of the Wheaton College campus community take these responsibilities seriously.

 

The professor's primary offense was to say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. She was given the opportunity to clarify her remarks and she refused. Vought did not damn her soul, he observed the obvious. She is no longer fit to serve the school as a leadership-mentor, given she no longer abides by the covenant she signed on to.  Vought did not say that Muslims in general, or any Muslim in particular, would never confess Christ. He said that apart from Christ they stand condemned.

I do not get your attack on Vought, nor your apparent sympathy for a professor who chose to break her covenant, and then play the victim. I get that you find aspects of Islam that you admire. As a chaplain, I do too. I get that you hold out much hope for Muslims to reconcile with God. All fine and good.  What does any of that have to do with a professor's employment status with a Christian college? And, how did Vought throw her under the bus? Van Hollen, on the other hand, certainly did throw Vought under the bus, saying that he agreed with Sander's aggressive univeralism (he is, in fact, not religious) over Vought's mainstream Evangelical beliefs.