Defining Christianity

[Ken Carman]

When I write a column and include the Volconvo community I usually do this the opposite way: write a column and then open it up as a point of discussion on the board. Considering the topic I think I'm going to flip the processes and, in a few weeks, provide the results via Inspection.

First, the question for debate...

"Christianity, is it actually one religion or a collection of many?"

Background...

Christianity could be considered either, depending on whom you are willing to include, or not. Is Christianity actually many religions loosely defined as one, a big tent, or true believers with a horde of wannabes trailing behind; and even attempting to get true believers off the correct path?


Depending upon your point of view this is a steaming hot pile of controversy. I know some who don't consider Catholics to be Christians. Then, of course, we have what many might refer to as "the fringe elements:" Jehovahs, Unitarians, Mormons with their "Jesus came America" aspect... and if you really want to loosen up the definition to anyone who follows Jesus you could include some most of them and Jews, too, and I don't mean Jews for Jesus. Many Jewish sects do consider him a prophet.

Interesting sidebars...


Would "following" be defined as absolutely exclusive Jesus, and no one else: not even in a minor role? (Note: if you choose "absolutely" that might shove Catholics out the door since, even though Jesus is their savior, they do have Saints... and prayers are directed there.)

Since Jesus had quite a diverse group of disciples, could one argue that the tent should be rather big rather than small?

Is Christianity a rather loose group of many, many interpretations of his words, "the word" and the mechanics of Christianity? ("Mechanics" as is "we dip em, they sprinkle em", or baby vs. youth to adult baptism>)... or one, basic (However you define that) hard core group of followers and a bunch of squabbling "me too-sters" who trail along and keep trying to lure "true" believers off the trail? (If so, who would be to blame for that: human frailty? Satan? A bit of both? Loki?)

There's a lot here. Let's see what happens.

****Important note... I will be using quotes and attributing them to your screen name. If you don't want one, or both, you could put "DA" for "don't attribute" in bold, or "DQ" in bold for "don't quote." . I will respect your preference, but I do suggest you do that every time. Things can get over looked, and I would never claim to be perfect in this regard... or any other.

[HelioPrime]

Christianity is one religion:
I would say christianity has many paths, but the same god.

Chrisitanity is like rebuilding the 9/11 site. The ultimate goal of rebuilding is there, yet there are many proposals, different methods of obtaining them, and their conflicting suppporters. All for the same goal of rebuilding.

Belief in god is the uniting fact in chrisitanity, respect god, yourself, and others. The golden rule described in the new testament being the one undisputed command all christians accept.

I don't count extreme examples or faiths formed for tax reasons. Anyone with 5 people can declar a new religion. So these small band religions do not count.

[butterbut]

Christianity is one religion. To be a Christian one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He died on the cross for our sins. All people who believe this, no matter what sect they belong to, are Christians.

[grandpa]

Quote by: butterbut Christianity is one religion. To be a Christian one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He died on the cross for our sins.

Still, there is always one "true" church somewhere condemning the others to hell.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa Still, there is always one "true" church somewhere condemning the others to hell. Grandpa h.

What "true" churches condem others to hell? The major mainstream ones don't.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: HelioPrime Christianity is one religion: I would say christianity has many paths, but the same god. Chrisitanity is like rebuilding the 9/11 site. The ultimate goal of rebuilding is there, yet there are many proposals, different methods of obtaining them, and their conflicting suppporters. All for the same goal of rebuilding. Belief in god is the uniting fact in chrisitanity, respect god, yourself, and others. The golden rule described in the new testament being the one undisputed command all christians accept. I don't count extreme examples or faiths formed for tax reasons. Anyone with 5 people can declar a new religion. So these small band religions do not count.

I'm going to refrain, mostly, from commenting and just soak it in: save what I find instructive. But especially the quote I put in bold... what an interesting perspective to have right up front. Thanks!

I will be using spell check as much as possible, so no one here will need worry too much. Just have at it!

[Jack]

When I speak of Christianity, I mean to include all the sub-sects that have branched off at one time or another from another Christian denomination. It's a tree with a multitude of branches but one trunk, a belief centered on the person of Jesus and that the Bible is the source of their beliefs. Whether the sub-sect considers him a deity or a prophet, as long as he and the Bible are the center of their faith I'd call them Christian. The disputes over styles of baptism, the role of the Holy Spirit, healing, prophecy, prayers for the dead, transubstantiation, all those are what divide one sect from another. I would contend they're still under the broad umbrella of Christianity.

[Jack]

Quote by: HelioPrime What "true" churches condem others to hell? The major mainstream ones don't.

The Catholics and Baptists have along history of not considering the other a valid faith and saying that those who identify themselves as members of each is condemned as unbelievers by the other. Then you've got the Mormons, a Christian sect no one else seems to like much.

[Jack_Sparrow]

As a condition Christianity follows Christ. Christ is not uniformly followed but the condition still holds.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: HelioPrime What "true" churches condem others to hell? The major mainstream ones don't.

I guess you missed the Pope's speech on the "true Church". I guarantee you a lot of Protestants with their ears to the ground didn't.

[Mr. Jaggers]

“There have been no sects in the christian world, however absurd, which have not endeavoured to support their opinions by arguments drawn from Scripture, misinterpreted or misapplied.

“We had a melancholy instance of this in our own country, in the last century, - when the church of Christ, as well as the government, during that period of national confusion, was torn asunder into various sects and factions; - when some men pretended to have Scripture precepts, parables, or prophecies to plead, in favor of the most impious absurdities that falsehood could advance. The same spirit which prevailed amongst the fanaticks, seems to have gone forth among these modern enthusiasts. - Faith, the distinguishing characteristic of a christian, is defined by them not as a rational assent of the understanding, to truths which are established by indisputable authority, but as a violent persuasion of mind, that they are instantaneously become the children of God - that the whole score of their sins is for ever blotted out, without the payment of one tear of repentance. - Pleasing doctrine this to the fears and passions of mankind! - promising fair to gain proselytes of the vicious and impenitent.”

- Laurence Sterne, “On Enthusiasm,” Sermons of the late Rev. Sterne, V-VII, Sermon 11 (1769)

[Technosoul]

I recall that somewhere in the scriptures Jesus mentioned that wherever two or three people gather to talk about their insights, about God or morality, then that is where his church is located. But not sure if that can be classified as an organized religion with a whole set of pre-established beliefs about how to get baptised or whatever. Heck, if a Buddha monk happened to talk about truth using the scriptures that would include him in that "twosome" or "threesome" (or more) people that can be identified as 'the chruch'.

Later the church was founded by Paul whom might of been a gentle who got converted after experiencing a revelation.

Both Moses and Jesus recieved their childhood training in Eqypt and so we have that influence to concider.

And Abraham had his roots in the kingdom of Sumer, which was different then our modern Christian or Jewish beliefs. And Jesus said "before Abraham I was".

And if the temple of God is in fact, our mind, then that could change modern interpretations about what the chuch really is.

Religions therefore are illusions we create to stereotype groups of people within the common denominator of humanity. illusions created to provide us with a sense of indenity that is sperated from our true identity as human beings.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Isherwood The Catholics and Baptists have along history of not considering the other a valid faith and saying that those who identify themselves as members of each is condemned as unbelievers by the other. Then you've got the Mormons, a Christian sect no one else seems to like much.

Thanks, Ish. You beat me to it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul I recall that somewhere in the scriptures Jesus mentioned that wherever two or three people gather to talk about their insights, about God or morality, then that is where his church is located. But not sure if that can be classified as an organized religion with a whole set of pre-established beliefs about how to get baptised or whatever.

Too bad Jesus never said "blessed is he who can control his own mind." But, of course, that would strike a blow at the whole principle of seeking a savior.

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Blessed are the rich, for they shall receive tax cuts.
- The Gospel according to George W. Bush

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Technosoul I recall that somewhere in the scriptures Jesus mentioned that wherever two or three people gather to talk about their insights, about God or morality, then that is where his church is located. But not sure if that can be classified as an organized religion with a whole set of pre-established beliefs about how to get baptised or whatever. Heck, if a Buddha monk happened to talk about truth using the scriptures that would include him in that "twosome" or "threesome" (or more) people that can be identified as 'the chruch'. Later the church was founded by Paul whom might of been a gentle who got converted after experiencing a revelation. Both Moses and Jesus recieved their childhood training in Eqypt and so we have that influence to concider. And Abraham had his roots in the kingdom of Sumer, which was different then our modern Christian or Jewish beliefs. And Jesus said "before Abraham I was". And if the temple of God is in fact, our mind, then that could change modern interpretations about what the chuch really is. Religions therefore are illusions we create to stereotype groups of people within the common denominator of humanity. illusions created to provide us with a sense of indenity that is sperated from our true identity as human beings.

Actually, Paul was a Jew.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I guess you missed the Pope's speech on the "true Church". I guarantee you a lot of Protestants with their ears to the ground didn't.

I guess I did miss it.... And these people wonder why the old line churches of Europe are failing...perhaps because they offer the choice, join me or burn eternally if you join them!

One could compare the church and its leaders to the Washington establishment.

The raw ideals are there, the constitution, the bible. Then you bring in the men with power and the meaning behind the words becomes muddy.

[phoenix_fire]

The whole question depends on whom you ask. In practice, many of the observant churches with members that spend more than just an hour a week thinking about God tend to have the side effect of thinking that they're the only ones that have it right. And a lot of churches that are filled with people that are going solely out of tradition and culture (and spend most of the sermon fidgeting about the football game) tend to take a very ecumenical view. Probably because they don't know enough about what they believe themselves to take issue with what someone else says.

Most Catholics and Protestants don't accept Mormonism. It's not just that Mormons have a different way of looking at our Bible. They have their own, that was supposedly given to them by an angel. The South Park episode actually explains it pretty neatly. The reason why Catholics and Protestants don't accept Mormonism is because if they did, they would have to acknowledge the legitimacy of this Touched By an Angel episode and thus the legitimacy of their scriptures. We'd have to become Mormons ourselves. And we don't think their scriptures are legitimate.

Many Protestants take issue with several doctrines of the Catholic church. The worship of Mary is unfathomable to most, and [I think] ironic considering their view toward women in the clergy. (If she's supposed to be this big intercessor with Jesus, then how can they say that women aren't suited to what they ultimately consider an intercessory role?) But I digress. Protestants also don't like that Catholicism emphasizes that the priesthood has a monopoly on God's ear. We believe that pretty much defeats the purpose of the Holy Spirit. Now, despite all of this, many Protestants still accept Catholicism as legitimate (some have a little trouble with that) but the Catholics, as I mentioned before, don't seem too keen on returning the favor. Catholicism is, however, the root from which Protestant churches sprung, so it's a very different situation from Mormonism.

And did anyone mention the Orthodox? No one ever seems to.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: HelioPrime I guess I did miss it.... And these people wonder why the old line churches of Europe are failing...perhaps because they offer the choice, join me or burn eternally if you join them! One could compare the church and its leaders to the Washington establishment. The raw ideals are there, the constitution, the bible. Then you bring in the men with power and the meaning behind the words becomes muddy.

It's a mixed reaction. On the one hand, it was an outrageous thing for him to say. On the other, we've all known that they've been thinking it: he just finally said it. And it's probably better to have that out in the open.

[Jack]

And did anyone mention the Orthodox? No one ever seems to.

Perhaps for the same reason the Mennonites and Quakers are left out of discussions like this; no one's quite sure where they fit in the overall scheme of religion. However, I don't think there's any question those two are both substantially Christian, while the Orthodox are also Christian branches of the original Catholic church. Talk about intolerance; the Orthodox take first prize among the various Christians factions when it comes to not accepting anyone but themselves as saved and heaven-bound.