<p>braggin' or complainin' ? :confused: You did not indicated if any of these institutions were genuinely Christian though?</p>
<p>There is no such thing as "genuinely Christian." Not bragging or complaning, just countering the origional post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no such thing as "genuinely Christian."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>leo, I believe you've managed to capture in your sorry observation the very essence of what a great many professors, governors, and students at so-called Christian colleges say every day in way too many forums. I'm betting all eternity it's not what the Man would've said. To the contrary, he noted, "only one way, dude...and it's a very narrow path." And that's about as genuine as it gets. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
...why does it bother you that there's a Christian sub-forum?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Didn't Jesus forewarn his followers to beware, a whole buncha folks in the world would find you absolutely disgusting? Or something like that?</p>
<p>btw, this may be a good time to suggest that many Christian colleges don't disallow gays or lesbians? It's that specific behavior that's a no-no. Same as they don't want unrepentent bank robbers, car thieves, guys n gals having sex outta marriage, child molestors, drug users and purveyors, and on and on and on ... Tough as it is for society to swallow, its those behaviors that are unacceptable. Where the rubber meets the road sorta, is that society proclaims it's fine and dandy being gay. God says t'aint so, at least in the written Word He's provided. (I know, I know. Many who don't like that interpretation or even claiming the Word, prefer to disregard, reinterpret, ignore, redefine "truth", etc.) </p>
<p>And to the contrary, those who might harbor those wayward thoughts and actions in absence of carrying them out, are welcome at literally every Christian college on the planet. In fact, those colleges were especially established for them. They're ... make that we're ... called sinners. And it is for us that Jesus came, not the righteous (whoever they are?:confused:).</p>
<p>"only one way, dude...and it's a very narrow path."</p>
<p>Is one a true Christian if he believes that all other forms of religion including other sects of Christianity a <em>not</em> "wrong"?</p>
<p>Sorry, but the answer is "no." C.S. Lewis guides on this point. He notes the very 1st usage, defining the word Christian is in Acts 11:26. Christians are those who BELIEVE and follow in the tenants of Christ. (Not, btw, those who BEHAVE like Christ. Were that the definition, it would exclude all. The trouble comes when society tries to persuade that gay and lesbian behavior does not go against the teachings and beliefs of Christ. And they want to use civil "law" as the basis of its acceptability. So then many on the civil side of the argument relish in suggesting that Christians are homophobic, when in fact it's simply sinofobic. It's like trying to persuade that it's not "wrong" for a man to have as many women as he'd like. Or woman. In case you wonder about this latter issue, read the story of Jesus with the woman at the well ...) While many like to embrace the notion that Christ's ideas are not exclusive, i.e. that they do not allow any room for other faiths, Jesus said, my way alone. But in our fuzzy wuzzy "you're ok, I'm ok, who's to say what's true" world, many try to portray Jesus in the same light, misconstrueing and twisting the idea that he loved all (he did and does) and came to save all, not a few. That's all on the theological money. But he allows a free choice. It would seem a great many choose not to follow him. </p>
<p>I'm not sure what you mean by "sect" of Christianity.</p>
<p>But in summary, the general, clear answer CS and JC gave to your question remains ...No.</p>
<p>I'm not interested in trying to change opinions, but from the perspective of someone of another religion, Jesus's words are meaningless... Furthermore, he never addressed the issue of homosexuality that I know of.</p>
<p>Christianity is divided up into numerous denominations, churches, sects, and fringe groups. They believe different things about a lot of different doctrines, and some recognize others as genuinely Christian, and some don't. There are many who believe that they are right about important issues of doctrine, but who nevertheless believe that others who disagree are still genuinely Christian. It depends on the doctrine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Christianity is divided up into numerous denominations, churches, sects, and fringe groups. They believe different things about a lot of different doctrines, and some recognize others as genuinely Christian, and some don't. There are many who believe that they are right about important issues of doctrine, but who nevertheless believe that others who disagree are still genuinely Christian. It depends on the doctrine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. There are, from a traditional/historical perspective, some doctrines that can be used as a measuring rod for what can be considered Christian. For instance, creeds such as the Nicene Creed of the 4th Century (The</a> Nicene Creed) give us a picture of what was important to the early church. From this, it is evident that such doctrines as a monotheistic God with 3 separate persons (a triune God) was a cornerstone belief.
In addition to the creeds, we also have early records of solutions to theological problems that were deemed "heretical" for one reason or another. Interestingly enough, one major issue that came up was the issue of the Trinity -- or, rather, how to solve the issue of a single God while still having the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One man by the name of Arius (Arianism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) came up with the idea that Jesus was essentially the first born of God and, therefore, slightly less than God (essentially a demigod). He was declared a heretic (twice... because Constantine II liked Arianism so he drove out the Nicene Creed-adhering priests....and then when he was gone Arianism was, once again, declared heresy).
Such Church history is of importance to modern Christianity because it provides a fairly definitive answer of what is "Christian" and what is not. From this perspective, for instance, there are basically 3 branches of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant), each being equally Christian. On the other hand, there are fringe groups, many of which claim to be "the only Christian church," that cannot, from this point of view, be considered "Christian" because their doctrines are simply not in line with those of the established religion -- it's the same reason Christians don't call themselves "Jewish," even though their religion has Jewish origins.</p>
<p>Note: for anyone who's curious about the Arian problem (since I didn't see it in the Wikipedia article). The problem the early church fathers had with Arius' solution was that if Jesus was anything less than God, His sacrifice could not save mankind. By definition, God had to be incarnated and die [on the cross] to save His creation. His own creation (which would include a demigod/half-son) could not "stand in the gap" in this way. Therefore, if Arius' solution was true, then God's salvation plan was an utter failure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Such Church history is of importance to modern Christianity because it provides a fairly definitive answer of what is "Christian" and what is not.
[/quote]
This may make sense from within mainstream Christianity, but it isn't how somebody studying the religion from outside would look at it; such a person would see a group of varying sects evolving out of those historic Christian groups, and would think of all of them as forms of Christianity.
Remember, when you talk about the "established" religion, you have to answer this question: established by who? Who has the authority to declare what is really Christianity, and what isn't? While I tend to agree with you that there are some core beliefs that have to be there before it really makes sense to call something a form of Christianity, I don't think there are really that many of them.</p>
<p>Hunt, I suspect your argument borders on cultural relativism. What's the meaning of "is" type of gobbledy gook. </p>
<p>It seems like you are rightly differentiating between academic study at a Christian college vs. academic study of Christianity. They are eternally different subjects.</p>
<p>I like C.S. Lewis imagery about this centuries old discussion ...Christianity is a big hallway with many rooms exiting from it, many requiring more dogma and criteria to enter than "mere Christianity." But his use of the term "mere" is not to diminish its transforming power, but rather to say that those denominations, protestant vs. catholicism, can be debated and discussed until the proverbial cows come back to the barn. But the discerning factor is do individuals believe and embrace that Jesus was who He proclaimed and that He and He alone is sufficient. (btw, this is where groups, many would say cults, like the scientologists, Christian scientists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and a bunch of others who have Jesus in their mix of tricks, but fail to find him all sufficient, the beginning, the end, and everything in between ...fall from grace. They find need to add to via the Eddys, Smiths, etc. or they need to tweak how JC defined himself and it wasn't as the Archangel Mike or some prophet. Or we need to worship Mary along side her Son. He said clearly, "I'm THE Man!"). So while it's really very simple, wannabe mini-gods like to pervert its simplicity out of necessity, it seems. In reality all of this stuff, including denominationalism is man-contrived, wanting to play God and ending up simply revealing the same nature of Adam & Eve. Wanting to do our own thing. All the rest are simply trappings, figuratively and for many of us, literally.</p>
<p>There is no non-mainstream Christianity. Only non-mainstream Christians, many of which possibly aren't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
established by who? Who has the authority to declare what is really Christianity, and what isn't? While I tend to agree with you that there are some core beliefs that have to be there before it really makes sense to call something a form of Christianity, I don't think there are really that many of them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. Ultimately, the central tenants of a faith must be determined by the members of that faith. While I agree that the outside world may have trouble differentiating between different sects within and without Christianity, is this not true of most people groups? In general, is it not true that, for instance, people of Asian decent are going to be better at identifying who is Chinese vs. who is of Korean ancestry (assuming, of course, that they have increased exposure to others of similar ancestry)? They are the ones around those people groups most and, therefore, are most likely to be able to spot the distinguishing features of those groups; while the rest of us may have trouble spotting said features as quickly. It does not make the features any less real, does it, just because you or I might miss some of them?
In the same sense, I would expect those within a faith to be better able to define the boundaries of that faith and identify its most important features. While I may have a basic understanding of the differences between the different types of Judaism (or, maybe more appropriately, forms of practice), I would certainly not claim to be able to distinguish between what is or is not "correct" or "orthodox." It is not my place to do it as it is not a group of which I am a part.</p>
<p>As far as central dogmas that define Christianity, I would agree that there are really only a few, and each one ultimately is necessary for Christianity's central message (salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ) to be true.</p>
<p>They are eternally different subjects.</p>
<p>Eternally huh? </p>
<p>I thought your first sentence said "I respect your argument..." But no such luck.</p>
<p>No, tht's not what I posted. Your perspective is certainly a prevailing, common worldview in today's culture. apumic's view might capture the notion...</p>
<p>
[quote]
...the central tenants of a faith must be determined by the members of that faith.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, Christianity's central pillar was not determined by popular vote (it was dictated.) much as the polity works at twisting and shaping it to our liking and cultural comfort and whims. Somehow Jesus is so often portrayed as this all-tolerant, all-accepting kind of Mr. Nicey Guy. Loving you, loving me, loving all ...regardless of who we view Him to be. How silly we are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or we need to worship Mary along side her Son. He said clearly, "I'm THE Man!").
[/quote]
See, here's an example of how hard this is when you get to specifics. Are you suggesting that Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity? I repeat that there's a big difference between disagreeing on many points of doctrines, even very important ones, and saying that another flavor of Christianity isn't "really" Christianity.
I had a friend in high school who went to a church that firmly believed that baptism by immersion after a positive decision for Christ was essential for salvation, and therefore that all so-called Christians who practiced infant baptism were going to Hell. This means all Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. They had pretty decent arguments for this position from Scripture. I guess what I'm saying is that when you say that the essence of Christianity is THIS, you're picking a point on a spectrum, and there are lots of people at all points of that spectrum. If you don't recognize that and think carefully about it, you will lose your ability to discuss doctrine and to persuade others.</p>
<p>No, not at all. I'm suggesting that's one of those "rooms" off the hall in Lewis' metaphor. Believing that Mary merits similar adulation and worship is simply one of those things for God to determine, imo. Sure, there's a theological discussion here, and it may well be revealed one day that one side or the other blew the call. But the real issue is JC. Who do you and I claim HE is, and is His place in our heart totally sufficient. No more, no less needed.</p>
<p>But you're right, if ever there was a hot button that could separate us rather than reconcile us, it's Mama Mary and was she supernatural or merely human. I'm totally willing to let the Catholics have their Heavenly Mary, as long as she's not competing with JC. For me, she's just the warm-up act, not the Main Attraction. The delivery girl. Maybe God will show us how He did that trick when we get back stage. For now, it's not majoring in the Major.</p>
<p>You might want to reconsider your tone when addressing other people's deeply cherished beliefs, at least if you ever want to persuade anybody of anything. Using a dismissive tone suggests that it's somehow obvious that your views are the correct ones.</p>
<p>you're right Hunt. It's a fine line between acknowledging truth, waxing philosophic, calling a spade a spade. Especially in a society where everyone's opinion is often given equal weight for the sake of tolerance. Conversely, pervasive cultural relativism abounds and too many are offended when it's acknowledged for what it is. That lends no reason to be ornery. My views aren't mine. Simply plagiarized. apologetics never persuaded anyone of anything though.</p>