Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BEFORE certain people post endless comments on how terrible (or great) Christianity is, just remember that this thread is not about the existence of God or the usefulness of religion. Nor is it a billboard for anti-religious rants. I'm guessing the Mods will be keeping a close eye on this from the start, and it won't take much to get this thread locked.

Since we are not allowed to talk about it in the Nazi thread, I started this one so that the whole matter could be clarified (or be stuck further in a quagmire of intolerance and trolling, whichever one works out better). The vast collection of different branches of Christianity have been evident throughout history and today; The Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, Protestants, Anglican, Presbyterian, Morman (debateable?), Westboro and countless others. The 'Christian' status of some of these is in question, in others widely accepted. Some accept that different branches are also Christian and may also be saved, others claim to be the only path. The question is where the line is drawn.

So are there any set standards on being a Christian? Have these changed over time?

Is there any organisation or individual that can decide what branch of Christianity is in fact Christian? Does this authority lie with the Catholic Church, and if not, who? (Jesus Christ I guess, but is there anyone that knows what his definition is?)

I've heard explanations (to some extent) on these questions, but I'll leave those Dakkanaughts to post their thoughts rather than try to reiterate their words.

A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Like Westboro Baptist?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Is recognising his divinity a crucial part of this?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Is recognising his divinity a crucial part of this?

Yes.

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Is recognising his divinity a crucial part of this?

Yes.

And who is the authority that decides this?

Do you know anything about the Bible?

Amaya wrote:Do you know anything about the Bible?

Yes, I was bloody force fed the damn thing my whole life. From this I assume your answer is God (or the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). The problems with appealing to authority in this case are obvious.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

This.

The interpretations of those teachings that have been translated at least twice are obviously going to be varied.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ulver wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

This.

The interpretations of those teachings that have been translated at least twice are obviously going to be varied.

It's not even that. It's that EVERY so called Christian church out there tacks stuff on that doesn't even exist.

Amaya wrote:You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Who? Me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:]

Ulver wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

This.

The interpretations of those teachings that have been translated at least twice are obviously going to be varied.

It's not even that. It's that EVERY so called Christian church out there tacks stuff on that doesn't even exist.

So which Christian Church is the REAL one?

There isn't a 'real one'.

Amaya wrote:There isn't a 'real one'.

This has been really helpful.

IMHO Protestantism fails due to the biblical authority element. Who gave Luther the authority to remove the apocrypha from the bible?

Catholicsm is a case of believe us as we have the authority which our book we compiled says we do.

By definition I think a person who accepts 'The Lord Jesus Christ as their God as Saviour' is a christian.

Amaya wrote:Do you know anything about the Bible?

Which one

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:There isn't a 'real one'.

This has been really helpful.

Really, you didn't understand that before? You read Jesus saying talking about love and forgiveness and thought that anyone was teaching that? Maybe, the Quakers, or a group like that would be close, but how could you possibly think that these instutions that endorsed slavery, the crusades, sexism, racism, molesation of children, religious wars, and all that rot were really Christian?

Phototoxin wrote:IMHO Protestantism fails due to the biblical authority element. Who gave Luther the authority to remove the apocrypha from the bible?

Catholicsm is a case of believe us as we have the authority which our book we compiled says we do.

By definition I think a person who accepts 'The Lord Jesus Christ as their God as Saviour' is a christian.

Miner quibble Luther was a catholic who was only focused on reforming the practice of letters of indulgence, and in fact, had little to do with the Lutheran protestant movement

Phototoxin wrote:
By definition I think a person who accepts 'The Lord Jesus Christ as their God as Saviour' is a christian.

But even that most basic principle was challenged in the Arian heresy (before being denounced by the Catholic church).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:There isn't a 'real one'.

This has been really helpful.

Really, you didn't understand that before? You read Jesus saying talking about love and forgiveness and thought that anyone was teaching that? Maybe, the Quakers, or a group like that would be close, but how could you possibly think that these instutions that endorsed slavery, the crusades, sexism, racism, molesation of children, religious wars, and all that rot were really Christian?

I think that these were examples of how the definition of Christian has changed over time (though I can't recall one that supported molesting children).

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Aren't the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ second hand accounts, and as psychology has proven free recall of things and events is much less effective when compared to recognition. My point is that you could be modelling your life after someone elses ideas of Jesus Christ, not what he wanted to teach exactly .

Squig_herder wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Aren't the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ second hand accounts, and as psychology has proven free recall of things and events is much less effective when compared to recognition. My point is that you could be modelling your life after someone elses ideas of Jesus Christ, not what he wanted to teach exactly .

I feel that Jesus's overall message is "don't be dick"

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:
By definition I think a person who accepts 'The Lord Jesus Christ as their God as Saviour' is a christian.

But even that most basic principle was challenged in the Arian heresy (before being denounced by the Catholic church).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:There isn't a 'real one'.

This has been really helpful.

Really, you didn't understand that before? You read Jesus saying talking about love and forgiveness and thought that anyone was teaching that? Maybe, the Quakers, or a group like that would be close, but how could you possibly think that these instutions that endorsed slavery, the crusades, sexism, racism, molesation of children, religious wars, and all that rot were really Christian?

I think that these were examples of how the definition of Christian has changed over time (though I can't recall one that supported molesting children).

Cause the NT condones all the actions I just described?

Are you really gonna say that? You can at least argue the slavery claim on the basis that the NT says to serve your master, but at no point does the NT say go out and enslave people to do your bidding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Aren't the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ second hand accounts, and as psychology has proven free recall of things and events is much less effective when compared to recognition. My point is that you could be modelling your life after someone elses ideas of Jesus Christ, not what he wanted to teach exactly .

I feel that Jesus's overall message is "don't be dick"

Pretty much.

All Amaya has is the No True Scottsman argument.

And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions.

Amaya wrote:And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions.

You don't understand what we are discussing do you? I also enjoy the idea that I go on "anti-Christian rants".

Amaya wrote:And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions reflect the actual religion.

Again, he is not damning christianity, he is making the same point you are, and if you bothered to read his posts you'd realize that. He is saying that there are those whoe belive them selves to be christian despite going against the words of christ.

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions reflect the actual religion.

Again, he is not damning christianity, he is making the same point you are, and if you bothered to read his posts you'd realize that. He is saying that there are those whoe belive them selves to be christian despite going against the words of christ.

And they are obviously not Christian.

What does this have to do with answering the OP's question?

There is a catechism, which gives the fundamental tenets of the church.

The problem is that each Christian sect has a slightly different catechism.

http://frsimon.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/revised-catechism-of-the-church-of-england/

If you examine all the various catechisms and find the common factors, then that would be the core of Christianity.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you examine all the various catechisms and find the common factors, then that would be the core of Christianity.

Haven't you been reading? Amaya gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't.

I love this thread.

Amaya wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions reflect the actual religion.

Again, he is not damning christianity, he is making the same point you are, and if you bothered to read his posts you'd realize that. He is saying that there are those whoe belive them selves to be christian despite going against the words of christ.

And they are obviously not Christian.

What does this have to do with answering the OP's question?