Because they do not endorse the orthodox definition of the Trinity and their views of the afterlife are utterly deviant.
If there is error and heresy it must be condemned. Jesus did so, so did Paul, so did the Church Fathers, so did the Reformers and so should we.
And you know that this orthodoxy is correct … how?
You’re a scary guy, Curtis.
How do you know you’re not the one in error?
Basically, you’re trying to establish, a priori that your version of Christianity is the “correct” one. That’s fallacious. It’s tautological. You’re assuming your own assertion.
You do know that the Trinity is not in the Bible, don’t you? Nor does it give any clear doctrine on the afterlife. It doesn’t even have Hell in it. Those beliefs are extra-Biblical, and do not come from either Jesus or Paul, so you have no authoritative basis for saying that not accepting them is “deviant.” It’s actually Trinitarianism that deviates from the Bible.
How do you know what’s “heretical?” Jesus never said anything about a Trinity. Neithetr did Paul. I would argue that it’s Trinitarians that are the heretics. Jesus,in particular, probably would have been appalled at the notion.
Indeed, there’s strong evidence that the early copies of the Bible were redacted to provided support for the Trinitarians. As in, someone went in and scribbled over the existing copy to make it look as if there was support, altering words.
Questions directed at politicians have never been limited just to where they stand on legislation, appointments, and other aspects of governing, at least not in the media age. Folks also want to know about the personal beliefs of the candidates. After all we can’t know in advance everything that a potential candidate will have to deal with. Knowing them generally as a person is thus the best we can do in advance, since it gives us general information about how they’ll do in office. About two years ago there were plenty of questions lobbed at Barack Obama about how he felt about Jeremiah Wright. Obama wisely did the intelligent thing and clearly disassociated himself from Wright.
Jeez, back in 2008 y’all were pitching fits because Obama dedicated his book to a racist preacher and got called on it. Now all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot. Or maybe the magic underwear is on a different ass.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, well, religion is like farts. You like your own, but everyone else’s stinks.
Point to Ponder:
“Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live happily forever after if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a primeval rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense to me.”
Well it only sounds weird because you left out the part about the global flood and a guy in the middle east who got kangaroos onto his ark to save them from drowning. Once that gets added in, it all makes perfect sense!
And there’s nothing symbolic about the flesh eating-- see my earlier post. It’s the real thing.
“…For those of us not blessed with the ability to believe that God sacrificed himself to himself in order to save us from himself, and that the Catholic Church is literally (not figuratively) serving the blood of Jesus every week, it’s really not that appealing.”
(I can’t remember who I’m quoting)
Works better on the poster (Warning: heavily-makeuped Jim Caviezel.)
Au contraire. I have a quite devout friend who doesn’t consider non-Trinitarians real Christians either. He’s a former Evangelical, gone more or less mainstream Protestant. But I strongly suspect the vast majority of the flock at the big box Evangelical church he still attends would agree with him.
Whether it is a majority opinion among mainstream Protestants, I wouldn’t venture to guess. But given many Evangelicals ( bizarrely ) seem to even categorize Christian and Catholic as somehow being distinct, I wouldn’t doubt the “non-Trinitarians as non-Christian” meme is probably common enough in those circles.
But I certainly agree. There is nothing holy ( or shouldn’t be ) about the Nicene creed - it ain’t in the Bible. It was just a theological/political compromise decision worked out centuries after the putative death of Christ.
Actually I don’t think I’d call Islam a branch of Christianity in any significant sense, despite the embrace of Jesus as a prophet and generalized elements of the New Testament. Theologically its almost certainly closer to Judaism overall and is probably better categorized as another branch off that tree.
It certaily isn’t a lineal descendant of Christianity. More like a later parallel branch that incorporated some Christian elements.
Yeah, I know – literally the body and blood etc. – I was raised Catholic, spent my Kindergarten through 8th Grade years (1955-64) enduring emotional and psychologic torture at the hands of the Nuns From Hell; then spent my first three years of High School being force-fed even more hypocritical bullshit by the Priests. Escaped to a normal HS for my Senior year, and actually managed to get a year’s worth of useful education.
For what?
That’s the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Protestants do not endorse that so I suggest you do not generalize.
No. Transubstantiation is the philosophical explanation of how it occurs, but a number of churches in the Lutheran and Anglican traditions, as well as the Orthodox, all hold that Holy Communion is, in some way or another, the real body and blood of Jesus. Trying to make that a “Catholic” issue indicates a lack of understanding.
Um…there are plenty of persons who aver that Witnesses are not Christians; likewise for Mormons and, in an enormous display of historical ignorance, Catholics. I used to date one. Such is not an uncommon belief among black Pentecostals of my acquaintance, many of whom suffer from a severe case of NoTrueScotsmanism. (Also, many of them are willfully ignorant, determined to avoid critical thinking skills, or otherwise stupid.)
And, interestingly enough, a sizeable chunk of Pentecostals aren’t Trinitarians themselves ;).
Yeah, first you Dopers* say Obama’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be relevant to his election, now you go saying Romney’s aren’t relevant either! How dare you be consistent. Jeez!
*Exception: ITR Champion, who seems to feel that the religious beliefs of both Obama and Romney are relevant, thus making him consistent, albeit in the opposite direction.
What the hell are you talking about? Have you even read the thread? Who beside the OP is agreeing that Romney’s religious beliefs are relevant?
Also, Obama did not dedicate a book to a “racist preacher.” Just FYI.
