Can I take this to mean that- for lack of a better term- “mainstream” Christians all agree on the nature of the afterlife and the nature of how you get there? Heaven seems like the most ambiguous concept in a pile of ambiguities. And what of the works vs. deeds debate among various Christian sects?
Any post beginning with a Junior high School-level discharge such as “wow”
doesn’t promise much in the way of intellectual.
“Objective’ means fact-based and unbiased.
Maybe the Nicene Creed will come in handy after all. My definition, admitting as
it does Arians, Monophysites and Unitarians is much more inclusive than what the
vast majority of Christians were willing to include in the 15 or so centuries
following publication of the NC. Yet my definition permits disallowing just anyone,
such as David Koresh or Hong Xiuquan, to remain within the Christian congregation
despite declaring himself to be Christ, Christ’s brother, or some such thing.
Every post to every Great Debates thread from day one here has contained opinion,
Monty. How you could have missed something so obvious is beyond me. A specialty
of your writing, perhaps?
The value of an opinion depends on how well-grounded it is in fact and logic, not on
the number of pissy little wisecracks, such as yours quoted above, which can be squeezed
into one post. It is my opinion that if just anyone can sashay along and call himself
Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ’s successor, that we must altogether lose the ability to
characterize fraud for what it is. And such “successors” are not hypothetical constructs,
they are a recurring fact of history.
Objective fact: What is unique to Mormons is that they accept as divinely inspired
the ministry of Joseph Smith and the three extra-biblical scriptures promoted by Smith.
I am not a Christain.
Excuse me? Typo?
(from post #31):
*the New Testament is the culminating, perfect, *
and final written account of Christ’s ministry,
I did not mention the OT only because it is not unique to Christains as scripture.
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
Scotsman fallacy.
Several people in this thread have defined Christianity as those who believe in the Nicene Creed. You have defined Christianity as those who believe the New Testament is perfect (in some senses, but not in others) and final. Monty is pointing out that your definition of Christianity excludes all those who believe in the Nicene Creed. (Actually, he seems to be associating both of these conflicting definitions with you, but I just skimmed the thread and don’t see where you’ve used the first definition.)The defining document of Christianity (according to half of the people in this thread) was penned hundreds of years after some parts of the New Testament.
Rhodes: Actually, it looks to me like colonial has simply defined Christian as “most outfits calling themselves Christian except for the Mormons.” And he’s being quite rude about it, too.
ETA: And he’s now displaying a stunning ignorance of what the New Testament actually includes.
Christianity has become such a mess these days, with so many different groups claiming to have “The Truth” and the correct understanding of the Bible, that it is becoming a blur with all these different churches.
When/Where I grew up in Germany, there where Roman Catholics and Evangelists (protestants) – or so at I least thought or was told. Then there where Jehovah’s Witness – I was told they are “weird” and never mind these orthodox ones, they are weird as well and commis.
Then later on all sorts of different churches emerged – all weird of cos.
Now that I live in Ireland, I noticed there are even more fractions. Then comes the US along with it’s huge amount of different churches – all interpreting “The Word of God” in varies forms and theories and saying they are Christians.
What does it really matter at this stage, if some other group claim to be Christian?
I personally stopped counting and caring.
Ai yai yai.
Something inferred from the NT, or deduced from the NT, and uncontradicted by it,
may be reasonably considered as falling within my definition.
Post #31, Page #1.
Addressed, but those who define Christianity as Nicene Creed-based must exclude
the LDS, because the LDS concept of the Trinity is not Nicene.
LDS considers Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be three distinct beings. The NC explicitly
defines the Son as “of one being with the Father.” Also, although the wording may
appear ambiguous on the point, the Holy Ghost was considered, at least from Augustine
onward as coeternal and consubstantial with Father and Son.
Bullshit.
If you can’t take it then don’t dish it out.
What do you mean by this [del]glurge[/del] statement?
I don’t see where in post #31 you “defined Christianity as those who believe in the Nicene Creed,” but surely you see that that definition is not compatible with “accepting the New Testament as final.” If the NT is perfect and final, then the confusing creed is not necessary.
colonial and Monty: you will both refrain from commenting on the other poster’s behavior or attitudes.
Stick to discussing the issues of the topic and take your personal feud to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Not really. He’s just the guy Christianity is named after; he’s not actually in charge. Even if he was alive he wouldn’t be. Christianity the religion has little to do with Christ the guy; he’s basically a logo and mascot for it, like Mickey Mouse is to Disney.
I have already noted that this definition lacks any particular “objective” status.
Since you appear to wish to defend that position, I would like to know the source upon which you base your claim.
I have no problem noting that Islam is not Christian, (as any Muslim will tell you).
I have no specific problem noting that under various definitions, the CoJCoLDS can be considered “not Christian.” (Certainly, an appeal to the Nicene Creed would rule it outside Christianity.) However, while the LDS will find itself outside the borders of Christianity by some definitions, it can be considered Christian under other definitions. Your appeal to an “objective” definition does not appear to bear much weight as it does not appear to be based on anything that I would recognize as “objective.”
Similarly, declaring some “objective” rule that places David Koresh outside Christianity looks much more like playing No True Scotsman. Koresh may have been a kook who espoused a corrupted version of Christianity, but one does not get to declare him to be not a Christian on that basis.
As for the following tirade that I originally ignored, it looks particularly odd given that Evangelicals are the group most likely to wish to make sure that the LDS is branded “not Christian.”
I did not, and did not say I did. I referred to others as having done so.
A creed in the sense of the Nicene is merely a summary of articles of faith,
inferred from scripture.
It might be creeds come in handy for those not as smart as others who can
easily read, understand, and commit to memory a body of writing as lengthy
as the Christian scriptures.
Now, I hope your posts will begun to include something more worth replying to
than the knitpicking of the last two. Otherwise don’t be suprised not to hear from me again.
I don’t think Monty has done anything wrong here, Tom. And Monty would agree with me (I think) that was disagree about almost everything, so believe me I’m not being biased here, just trying to keep some fairness going.
Certainly agreed, and that may be my inelegant phrasing. I know plenty of non-religious people whom I consider to be moral and treat even their enemies well. I know plenty of Christians who are jerks. I think those jerks are missing the point of application.
My pointing to the Nicene Creed is an explanation like I would receive from a Pastor on what are the requirements to be a Christian with respect to other denominations. Personally, I don’t believe there is a fiery hell with eternal suffering, and there are many people who would not consider me Christian for that reason.
I am the source upon which I base my claim.
All Christian denominations have for over 1500 years held Christ and the NT in the
esteem I describe. That historical fact is obvious and should be uncontroversial.
Employing those two historical facts as the definition of Christianity objectively
encompasses the common doctrinal belief of the maximum number. If I have missed
any common doctrine I will be happy to add it.
I see the No True Scotsman fallacy is in vogue around here. Well, too bad for it,
because there is nothing wrong with stipulating: “No true Christian considers
himself to be Jesus Christ.” For that matter how about “No true Christian believes
in Zeus”? Or why not: no true Red Sox fan pulls for the Yankees (at least not in
Fenway Park!). So you see the No True Scotsman fallacy just plain does not work
in many constructions.
Exactly the same would apply in the Islamic world if some Muslim claimed to be
successor to Mohammed, and attempted to purvey a supplement to the Koran.
Not that I am trying to whitewash Christianity by reading Koresh out of the congregation:
there is no denying Christianity’s long history of criminal violence (now thankfully abating),
violence which, by the way, LDS is wholly innocent of.
Yes, you may add oddness to the list of things that set off tirades from me about
the Evangelicals. It is indeed odd for so many people to espouse such flagrant
religious hypocrisy as the Evangelicals do when they ignore the obvious, objective
implications of their own doctrine for political reasons i.e to get Romney elected.
So, your definition is subjective, not objective, being something you have created for your own purposes.
Holding Jesus in esteem is all very well, and is certainly consistent with Christianity. Holding the New Testament to be perfect for 1500 years is historically inaccurate and manages to ignore the first 400+ years of Christianity. There have been quite a few criticisms of the New Testament. Martin Luther was famously critical of the Letter of James, dismissive of the Letter of Jude, and scornful of the Revelation of John and had to be persuaded by Malancthon and others to refrain from removing them from the canon. As to the “perfection” of the New Testament, that, too, has been questioned on numerous occasions.
Since your facts are in error and your goalpost was set at a rather arbitrary point of 512 (or so) C.E., it is impossible for your conclusion to have been an objective fact.
Well, you are certainly willing to employ it. 
While it may be irrelevant in some discussions, it is, indeed, a fallacy as you attempted to apply it to Koresh in the conext of identifying Christian groups or movements.
Actually, as presented, that it exactly what you were doing. However, if you now admit that Koresh was part of “the congregation,” I will not pursue that error further.
You seem to now be applying your own unsupported beliefs to make a political statement. I have not seen any Evangelical make any defense of Romney as Christian. (One or two may have done so, but I have not encountered them.) During the primaries, he was rather famously attacked by Evangelicals for not being, (in their opinions), Christian. Since Romney took the nomination of the GOP, I have seen Evangelicals supporting him for president, but I have still not seen any of them asserting that he is Christian. And, as long as they are not asserting that he is (in their view) Christian, I see no hypocrisy. Romney is running for president, not church elder. There is no Scriptural basis to insist that a Christian may vote only for a(n Evangelical) Christian for public office. If they believe that his political goals coincide with theirs, Evangelicals are free to vote for Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or whomever.
Now, I am willing to grant you your opinion. You may even have some sort of basis on which to build your opinion. It is, however, an opinion. Your assertion of “objective” fact simply fails. You have not yet provided any reason for anyone else to accept your opinions and the few “facts” you have offered have not been factual.