The Catholic/Protestant schism occurred 500 years ago over practices and situations that don't even exist anymore. After all this time most of us have become accustomed to our own worship traditions, although some Protestants and whole Anglican dioceses have rejoined the Catholic Church. It's no more complicated than that, except to the people who believe what lunatics like Jack Chick tell them and that the Pope is the anti-Christ. What is your stake in this, anyway?
"Stake"?? I have no "stake" in this. I'm just interested. I suspect that purgatory, praying to Mary, differences in view of baptism, etc., are more than simply "worship traditions" to which we may become accustomed.
I'm not sure what you are asking - or where you are suggesting you are. Or, are you continuing to present your religion through snide comments? Let me know - I don't mean to upset anyone here.
We keep trying to tell you and you act like we are doing an end run around it. We're not, we are giving it to you straight. We're not trying to hoodoo anybody, but it seems to me that if we don't tell you what you want to hear you think we're lying.
I do NOT believe you are lying. But, I do think you are dodging the issue of Catholicism and protestantism, preferring not to address what seem to me to be pretty clear issues. I'm more interested in the intersection of religion and science - where opposition is easy, but perhaps not necessary, at least to a destructive extent. I think mutual understanding of decision making methodology has something to do with that.
Well, whose call that is is in itself a denominational issue, Mormons do tend to take it upon themselves, and Catholics/Protestants disagree with that (I assume). I don't really care what the actual resolution is (indeed, I hold that it's a better description of the truth to know that there are different understandings than to pick one understanding that one prefers and ignore the others) my comment was specifically that there is a range of opinions and that just declaring one's own position is not successfully avoiding denominational issues (and that knowing his own denomination/interpretation would give us others some insight into how he drew some of those lines). That seems both likely and reasonable. I don't have a problem with his intentions to avoid it, my point was that he ended up not avoiding it.
I'm sure there are technicalities around it, but doesn't the divine nature of Christ contradict the deist postulate of a non-intervening god?
This is a myth propagated by stereotypical atheists who find it convenient to believe America was founded by a few marginally religious philospher-kings who managed to steer the overwhelmingly Christian populace away from what would otherwise have surely become a 19th century Nazi regime, when the fact is that the Founders were, wonder of wonders, overwhelmingly professing Christians.
I think this is drifting a bit from my argument. My point was about whether what you wrote in your OP were denominational issues. What you write here seems extremely denominational (in that it's explicitly at odds with many who would at least call themselves Christian), but I think it is different from the claims in your OP, so that's not in itself a problem right now. My argument had to do with what you said is common to all interpretations of Christianity, what you're presenting here is a very specific interpretation. You may think that your particular one is true, but obviously, everyone thinks they themselves are right, so that's not particularly interesting at the moment.
IF... An event happened in history, where a Man lived, spoke, and taught specific things, AND IF.. These words, teachings, and events were the spark of a worldview we call 'Christianity', THEN.. those words, teachings, and events DEFINE Christianity. IF... teachings, words, and events are crafted after the above definition that are contrary and contradictory to, the original definition, this departure can only be considered 'not-Christianity', even if some try to label it the same. The problem is not the original definition, but the hijacking of the terminology so that 'Christianity,' and 'not-Christianity', appear to mean the same thing. The problem is the fluid and ambiguous definition of the term, not the original definition. If you are claiming the list in the OP are NOT original, historical descriptions and definitions of biblical, historical Christianity, you need to evidence your refutation. Merely sweeping every crackpot theory, heresy, revisionist claim, or outright lie, and calling them all 'Christianity!' is not an argument. That is a labelling fallacy.. an orwwellian distortion of terms to obscure reality, rather than reveal it.
Labels are the big problem, here. My premise is there is an exact, precise, historical, and biblical DEFINITION of Christianity. It is spelled out in the nt manuscripts, and there is an unbroken line of orthodoxy that preserves the integrity of the original message. There are perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of 'not-Christianity', tenets, beliefs, and worldviews, regardless of how they are labelled. So in determining whether a set of beliefs can be included in the 'Christian' worldview, you have to see whether the fundamental principles and tenets align. Can you have Christian atheists? Christian polytheists? When a term loses all objective meaning, and becomes a fluid term with contradictory definitions , it becomes useless as a descriptor, and must be re-defined before a rational discussion can take place. That is my attempt here.. to define historic, biblical Christianity so it actually describes a worldview , and not just a feeling.
From my studies of history, and especially the reformation, i see a time of apostasy, in the visible church. Corruption was rampant, and positions of power were sought to control and manipulate people.. a most common practice among humans in any era or region. During this time, orthodoxy was being muddled and obscured with man made constructs, that were contradictory to the original biblical worldview. Defenders and apologists arose, who resisted the corruption of the original message. Man's institutions reacted typically to any challenges to their power, and they killed and tortured any outliers. But the reformation preserved the historical accuracy of the original message. And association, or non-association, with man's institutions, has little to do with the process of redemption. There may be a great number of the redeemed in different clubs or corporations, or tax free LLCs. Their association with these institutions is irrelevant to their inclusion in the true, invisible Church. The labels are man made..some might be minor differences in organization or administration. Some might be heretical departures from orthodoxy. There is no 'one size fits all' category for the variety within those who claim the 'Christian' label.
I think this is very insightful. Even if it is not the conscious intent, it is the implication. The issue is overblown, about all the 'divisions!' within the Christian worldview. I do not see it. I see apostasy, or departure from the faith, or irrelevant add ons distracting from it, but there is still only one Lord.. one faith.. one baptism. The attempt seems to be to smear the True faith, by association with false ones, man's institutions, greed, and quest for power. But the Redeemed have little to do with the worldly machinations of man. They remain secured in the true, invisible, catholic church, where the storms of the world, the fickle winds of fashion, the lies and distortions from the enemy, and the pop religion of the day do not move them. They stand securely on the Rock, while the storms of life blow by.
No contradiction at all. The main difference between Deism and Theism is that Deism postulates a distant God whereas Theism says He/She/They watch over you. I believe we are on our own.
Wonderful points. But WHO or WHAT is that great deceiver you refer to? Personally I do not place credibility on the concept that says Satan, or the devil or Lucifer is a fallen holy angel.
Many moons ago when I was an Episcopalian, I was part of an ecumenical movement for several years. I could talk to the faithful from just about every tradition, and even with differences in terminology we all pretty much knew what the others were saying. It always goes back to "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again". Arguments about using wine or grape juice when celebrating the Eucharist are silly, like the dunking vs sprinkling debate, but they aren't deal breakers in my view. What is a deal breaker is when someone claims to be Christian espouses an ancient heresy and tells me I'm wrong for believing what the Church has always taught. For people who never set foot in a church to try to turn true believers against one another is unconscionable.
What is confusing to some might be comparing Christianity to Judaism. Judaism is both a Religion (or belief) and a race. Not all Jews are of the faith and not all jews are of the race. You do not have to "believe" to be a Jew.....if you are of the race you are entitled. Some are not of the race but embrace the Faith. On the other hand, "believing" is the only" pre-requisite" to being a Christian and there will be good works coming out of that belief. No one is entitled through race, family, or citizenship or in fact the wearing of a symbol. It is an individual thing defined by a change of heart. Scripture bears this out.
Isn't the idea of Christ sacrificing himself for our sins an intervention? A way in which God watches over us, which by definition, a deist god wouldn't? That being said, deists still have Jesus as existing and right on a number of issues, just not a godly interaction.
The Church Catholic (which includes both protestants and Roman catholics, not to be confused with the Catholic church) defined the faith centuries ago, Mormons are Johnny come latelies trying to cash in on what already exists. In this thread it seems like some of you are soft peddling the glaring doctrinal issues and making more than what is there of the penny ante stuff.
I'm not so interested in your claims that these things are so, I'm mostly interested in your claim that this definition is not a denominational issue, that is, that other denominations would agree with you. For instance, many denominations interpret Jesus' words differently, and whoever got it wrong would by your definition not be a Christian. They themselves are however quite likely to still call themselves Christian, i.e. they would disagree with your definition. I think that is ample proof that the definition is denominational.
