Barb: You know, regardless of what your answer might have been or, rather, what Mike's might have been since I addressed the post to him, I would think that maybe you could have just treated my question seriously and to perhaps have examined how truth should be determined, but all you did is take pot shots at everything I said. The very reason I asked that my post not be dissected is exactly what happened although I do think that you even took it up a notch from what you usually do (In this case, taking it up a notch is not a compliment).

Dennis: Maybe if you proposed a serious question I could do that. All I did was answer your post point-counter-point. You seem incapable of debate when you cannot control the rules, which were extremely one-sided as you proposed them.

Barb: Your criticism of the rules I set down is unfounded.

Dennis: Only in your mind! You wished to take away prayer, scripture, testimony and scholarship. You pop up here after a year of battling anti-Mormons (such as yourself) and wish to lay down rules that are ridiculous and serve only your purposes.

Barb: In order to be able to determine whether the heart or scripture should be the touchsone of determining truth, which has been one of the ideas being discussed in this thread,it was necessary to eliminate all the things that would prevent us from finding out.

Dennis: I told you how to find out. The Holy Ghost tells you the truth, which causes a profound feeling in one’s heart. One can then take the scriptures and analyze that feeling against revealed truth, according to the scriptures. If the feeling is of God and the truth the scriptures will not be contradicted for God is not the author of confusion.

Barb: To illustrate just how much you either don't understand about what I write or just how much you try to misrepresent what I write, let me explain what my post was about. I posed a hypothetical situation in which Mike, a Mormon, was going to tell me, if both Mormons and J.W.'s believe in their hearts that the Holy Ghost has witnessed to them that they have the truth, why his heart truth was any more valid than hers.

Dennis: And I explained to you, by scripture, how that was to be. I challenged you to provide a basis for your doctrine, which does not contradict any other scripture, such as the doctrine of the trinity and works versus faith. Evidently you cannot do that. The LDS do this quite easily by correlating scripture and showing where they are in complete harmony. God is not the author of confusion.

Barb: I put myself in the position of being the one they were going to try and convince. At the end of my explanation, I asked Mike the following question:
Barb: I need to know why I should join your church over hers based upon your criterion.
And do you know what your response was to this HYPOTHETICAL situation? Here it is:
Dennis: So are you saying now that you previously lied and never were a member of the Church?
Good-bye Dennis.

Dennis: And I also issued you the above challenge and showed you how one was to gauge the feelings one receives from the Holy Ghost. I have battled anti-Mormons since I was a 17 year old growing up in the Deep South. I know first hand their tactics and their deceptions. I have studied their methods and their assertions in depth and actually looked up every reference given by the Tanner’s only to find 90% of them taken out-of-context and made to say what they do not. So, Good-bye Barb. I will continue to pray for a softening of your heart to the true things of God.

Posted by: Dennis | August 6, 2008 1:08 AM

Barb and OCS,

As I understand it, the definition of who is a "Christian" varies among different Christian groups. Some believe that, to be a Christian, an individual must join or participate in specific sacraments (DO YOU DO THAT?) Others teach that instead, a belief and acceptance in Jesus Christ is all that is necessary (DO YOU FIT THIS DEFINITION?). Some consider a Christian to be simply one who tries to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (HOW DOES ONE INTERPRET THESE TEACHINGS? DO NOT MORMONS "TRY" TO FOLLOW CHRIST'S TEACHINGS? BE THEY MISGUIDED OR NOT?).

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants define a Christian as one who has become a member of the church through the sacrament of baptism (SO THERE ARE SOME WHO SAY "THE CHURCH" IS MORE THAN THE BODY OF BELIEVERS AS YOU HAVE STATED TIME AND TIME AD NAUSEUM).

In these denominations, infants who are baptized may be considered Christians, although they are expected to make a personal affirmation of faith when old enough to decide for themselves (SO ONE CAN BE A "CHRISTIAN" WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHO JESUS IS? AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THE INFANT DIES BEFORE MAKING THIS PERSONAL AFFIRMATION? HELL?).

Evangelical and fundamentalist denominations do not generally practice infant baptism and do not necessarily believe that baptism is necessary for salvation (a sacrament). Rather, they consider it to be a public command of identifying oneself with Jesus Christ in his death, representing repentance and a new life in God, as in Christ's resurrection. They encourage youth and adults to "become Christians" by personally "accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour," and to follow that decision with Believer's Baptism. These groups also use the phrase "born-again" to describe becoming a Christian.

A few denominations and sects teach that Believer's baptism is necessary for salvation — the transition from non-Christian to Christian. They define a Christian as one who has been baptized as a repenting adult.

Other believers follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, but do not believe it is necessary to affiliate with organized religion (I ASSUME FROM YOUR POSTINGS THAT THIS IS YOUR CATEGORY OF "CHRISTIAN").

So therefore, from what you have blogged on here, you may or may NOT be a Christian...depending on which group is defining it, biblically speaking of course. And your own excluding of others, simply because they don't agree EXACTLY with your definitions shows how "UNCHRISTIAN" you really are...,

I am sorry to tell you this, but, your brand of self proclaimed Christianity represents a very SMALL minority of radical fundamentalism that thankfully, is really considered insignificant in the eternal scheme of things...

In point of fact, The LDS point of view has proven far more "Christian", biblically speaking, than yours...

In fact, I believe YOUR version of Christianity represents the greatest reason why Agnostics are closer to God than you...keep up the Good work!!
AFS

Posted by: AgnosticForSure | August 6, 2008 6:48 PM

Do you realize the Oxymoron that a Gnostic on these threads, is?
A Gnostic has no business saying anything about what is or isn't a Christian, especially since you have not decided there is even a God.
And by the way, not that I particularly want to patronize your blog, but what exactly is "acting" the part? And what does acting have to do with the Truth? Does that somehow appease you? If everyone acts Christian, then they are one?
Does the condescending tone of the Mormons on here sound Christian like to you? Huh, Truthofit...........I mean,AgnosticforSure?

Posted by: ocs | August 8, 2008 1:40 PM