<p>This thread is mixing up two different things: What is meant by “Christian” and what is meant by a “Christian college or university.” Christianity is a term that includes Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox churches, as well as many other varieties. Anybody who is part of one of these religions is a “Christian,” although they may disagree over who is a “real” Christian. I think it is fair to say that some people are more likely to identify their denomination of Christianity as their religion than others–i.e., Catholic. Many Protestant denominations are pretty similar–and many people are members of non-denominational churches–and such people may say they are “Christians.”</p>
<p>But…I think it’s pretty clear that when somebody says they want to go to a “Christian college,” they generally mean something other than a college historically affiliated with a Christian denomination, and they don’t mean a Catholic college, either. They mean a more-or-less evangelical Protestant institution, generally one that integrates theology and Christian mission into its curriculum. I would agree that Wheaton is tops in this category.</p>
<p>I understand your point, but don’t agree. The real issue, I believe, is whether some people get to define themselves as “Christian” and all others folowers of Christ as “not Christian.” Many times that a group begins to appropriate a meta-term only to itself, excluding other subsets of that term, things go from bad to worse. In essence, it’s a form of bigotry. As an extreme example to illustrate a point, suppose a magazine published a list of universities for humans, and left out Yeshiva?</p>
<p>Yes, I know. This is far from that extreme, but the principle is the same, and religious fanatics have caused an awful lot of human misery and suffering over the years. </p>
<p>Personally, I think we should call them on it.</p>
<p>I am desperately trying to avoid a public criticism of Catholocism on this thread. The exclusion of Roman Catholocism and other belief systems (Mormonism, Jehovas Witness etc.) from the term “Christian” by the majority of protestant theologies is due to a plethora of theological contradictions inherent within the logical inconsistency of the aforementioned belief systems and the resulting necessity that there are core components of said faiths that must be untrue - or we must deny logic all together. I recognize that most Catholics consider themselves “Christian” and so too does the average Christian consider Catholics to be Christian as well. However, most learned Christians would soundly reject Catholicism from the term “Christian” because of certain heretical beliefs ingrained into the catechism and RC belief system (briefly: Works earn salvation, Prayer to the dead, Acceptance of apocryphal literature as divine, The necessity of baptism and sacraments for salvation etc.). This issue is further confused by the fact that the majority of Roman Catholics seem to engage in a “pick and choose” philosophy wherein they reject certain elements of Catholicism and accept others (this behavior is very common among protestants as well), which makes blanket statements about anything other than Catholicism qua Catholic Theology nearly impossible to apply in the real world. </p>
<p>The postmodern responses to the notion that someone might “gasp” be wrong or that :: SHOCK :: someone actually might say someone else is wrong are the mark of a poor education. The unintelligent man’s comeback in the modern age is to call someone else intolerant and bigoted and suddenly they’ve won the argument. I’m not about to walk into that trap here. </p>
<p>Tar, you can say whatever you want on the topic, but I have spent a lifetime studying this and I challenge you to ask yourself if you really have the education and background such that you are prepared for this sort of debate. Furthermore, I will NOT have this debate on this thread and open it up to every emotional and unfounded argument that any anonymous person wants to spew out into the digital abyss to justify their position or to honor familial ties and allegiances, on EITHER side of the issue. </p>
<p>I will discuss this with you privately if you want, but I will NOT get into the theological debate here as I don’t believe it will actually benefit anyone. </p>
<p>I KNEW if we just kept pushing that Phear would reveal what he really is. They always do. Let’s take a look at his words, shall we?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Translation: all Protestantism is completely logical, all non-Protestant belief systems are illogical. As usual, Phear asserts his intellectual superiority not only to the people on this board but to all theologians who aren’t Protestant. This would include, oh, St. Augustine perhaps? Tertullian? Chrysostos? Moore? </p>
<p>He also implies that such ideas as predestination (e.g. Presbyterian) are not logically inconsistent with such things as the charismatic movement and that drinking snake poison is the way to tell a true believer from a false one (after all, Mark says so). Episcopalians and Anglicans are Protestant. Phear would have you believe that their dogma matches up with Southern Baptist dogma.</p>
<p>Phear clearly thinks himself better educated and more intelligent than every Jesuit on the planet. Yet, I have talked with many Protestant ministers and many Jesuits, and I would have to give the brain power nod (emphatically) to the Jesuits.</p>
<p>Note how he uses the word “Christian” ONLY to denote Protestants. Basically, professing to believe that Jesus of Nazarus was the annointed one (Christos) and Son of God was not enough to be Christian. Apparently, one must also follow some sort of dogma or orthodoxy known (perhaps) only to Phear to qualify.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cute, huh? Funny thing, I can trace the origins of just about all those practices (and I’m not even Catholic and wasn’t raised Catholic). Most of them are borrowings from the Romans, as is the RC bureaucratic structure. Interestingly, the acceptance of apocryphal literature as divine has nothing to do, one way or the other, with God, Jesus, or anything else. It’s simply doctrine. The books in the Protestant bibles were chosen by committee with GREAT disagreement. We’re limited to four Gospels because it provided symmetry with the four winds, four elements, and four directions of the compass. Do you suppose Phear can show us exactly where, in the Bible, it says what books should be included and what books shouldn’t?</p>
<p>Talk about logical insconsistency!! Phear implies that one decision by a group of men is “heresy,” but I assume he’s quite on board with another decision by a group of men on the nature of the Holy Trinity, a topic so hotly debated that it caused countless murders and the forgery of Mark 16:9-20, which you can currently find in the King James Version of the Bible that is the ONLY authorized version allowed some Protestant denominations (Note that the oldest copies of Mark, the Sinaitic and Vatican versions, end at Mark 16:8)</p>
<p>Heck, Mark himself was a heretic when it comes to the Holy Trinity, if you take earlier words from his book: (quoting Jesus) “Do not call me good, for there is no one who is good except God.” So, how can no one but God be good if Jesus, himself, IS God, but in a different manifestation as one of the Holy Trinity? Nope, nowlogical contradiction there in that perfect, Protestant universe.</p>
<p>How about THIS knee slapper?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Roman Catholicism dominates much of Southern Europe (for those who still attend church at all there), much of Eastern Europe, all of South America, all of Central America, parts of Africa, the Philipines (I think it still does), has some adherents in North America, and others scattered around the globe. And, get this now, Phear KNOWS that the majority of Catholics engage in a pick and choose approach to their religion. Everywhere. Read his quote. I’m not making this up.</p>
<p>He goes on to imply that, because of this, one can’t apply Catholicism in the real world! But one CAN apply Protestantism in the real world? Really? Protestants are a lot better at this than Catholics, are they?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah. I see. I’m now poorly educated because I disagree with Phear. But one wonders how that works. It’s quite clear that I think Phear is wrong. So how could his ridiculously vacuous definition of postmodernism be true? Is that an example of the perfect logical consistency Phear keep telling us is the product of his extraordinary intellect? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The implication here is that anyone who calls someone intolerant and/or bigoted is unintelligent. No intelligent person could do that. Ergo, there are not real intolerant people or bigots, as intelligent person would know. Martin Luther King, Jr., who called some people bigots was, therefore, unintelligent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I have a Ph.D. in psychology. I’m also an avid amateur in the world of ancient history, and have been published on the topic. I have access to several of the faculty of the Oriental Institute and have a best friend who is on the faculty at Harvard Divinity School, so I suspect I can call in a few resources if need be. Oh, and I was raised a fundamentalist so, while I’m no longer able to quote chapter and verse like I used to, I think I have a fair amount of knowledge about the Bible.</p>
<p>Of course, whether I could hold a candle to a first-order genius like you remains to be seen, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>As for carrying out this conversation in PM, you HAVE to be kidding, right? I mean, the whole point of a debate is to set it before the judgment of others. I have no interest in debating a true believer of your ilk or any other ilk except with an audience.</p>
<p>I guess I still don’t understand why you haven’t responded to my questions about Notre Dame, Georgetown and other Catholic schools requiring theology classes. Is it because they teach certain heretical beliefs that they can not be considered theology departments? </p>
<p>The funny thing is that within the Catholic church many consider the Jesuits too “protestant” in their thinking to be true Catholics. So perhaps the theology departments at Georgetown, Holy Cross and Boston College, all Jesuit schools, may be okay under the definition you propose. At least the theologians at other Catholic schools, like Notre Dame, don’t claim that the Jesuits are not Christians.</p>
<p>Further, many think that the Catholic church is too black and white in their definition of right and wrong, for example their position on abortion. Doesn’t sound like they have a problem with stating what is right and wrong in this post modern world that we live in.</p>
<p>I know this is an old thread, but it was recently referred to somewhere else, and I have to say that in the opinion of this Jewish person, the idea that some of you “qualify” as Christians and some don’t is absurd – you’re all Christians to me!</p>
<p>The KKK uses the cross as a symbol - would you say they are then DEFINITELY Christian? These being people who hate jews when Christianity, properly understood, is about Christians being “grafted on” to the jewish culture and wherein Christians believe that God manifested Himself in the flesh of a jew!</p>
<p>Symbology does not equate to a coherent theology or unity between those who share the same symbols.</p>
<p>Donna - you reveal your ignorance and stereotypes! How would you feel if I said, “You’re all jews to me”. What about the VASTLY different sects of judaism that exist today, i.e:</p>
<p>I reveal myself to be nothing more than someone who is logically consistent with his belief system. I will not subscribe to postmodern thought that makes me a villain for believing that other people are wrong. Inherently, Catholics believe that Christians ARE WRONG and vice versa. This doesn’t make me intolerant or evil - it simply makes me aware of the fact that Catholics and Christians hold mutually incompatible belief systems. Lying to myself in order to sweep that under the rug would be the mark of a poor education. </p>
<p>This contrarian position between the two belief structures is what leads to confusion about semantical-taxonomic terminology.</p>
<p>Furthermore: I was clear to point out that Catholics believe we are heretical as well and you took my post out of context in order to argue for your obvious radical leftist and incoherent/illogical foundations. My post made it clear that the idea that the other party was heretical was a belief that went both ways. </p>
<p>I would challenge you to openly share your postmodern belief system on this thread and see how long it lasts before being torn to shred - and I would be happy to do so without quoting you out of context. It’s easy to throw stones from the shadows. </p>
<p>“I will not subscribe to postmodern thought that makes me a villain for believing that other people are wrong.”</p>
<p>One of the best statements I have ever seen on these boards and so relevant to everything going on these days. It is rather frightening how some groups attempt to silence opposing positions by labeling them as hate speech. Thank you phearme!</p>
<p>I think that the more religious christians (go to church every sunday, etc.) will be more likely to specify whether they’re Protestant, Methodist, Catholic etc. than less religious christians (believers, however dont regularly attend church etc.) Thats my take at least.</p>
<p>The litmus test:
Do you believe that Jesus is the ONE true Christ? If the answer is “yes” then you are a Christian. Everything else is just religious practice.</p>
<p>“However, most learned Christians would soundly reject Catholicism from the term “Christian” because of certain heretical beliefs ingrained into the catechism and RC belief system”</p>
<p>I must disagree on this point. It is a misunderstanding of religion and its history.</p>
<p>I went to Carthage College one year before transferring to Samford University. Believe me when I tell you that Carthage is no Christian school. It is out of control with alcohol and pot. Also, whoever posted the SAT score for Carthage, if they are stating that as their average, they are not accurately reporting their scores as anyone who graduates from high school can get in if they pay the tuition.</p>