For me, sociologically, I picture a Venn Diagram…with many circles overlapping to some degree in the center. Each circle represents a particular denomination/church that could be considered by most folks as Christian (i.e, believe in the divinity of JC and try to follow his example). I would refer to the overlapped circle in the middle as “Christianity”…for better or worse, it’s not that “big” (although probably still the most important part of the Venn diagram).
There is a significant amount of real estate in the denomination circles that does not intersect…
When I think of the term “Christianity” sociologically (as opposed to personally), I think of that relatively small (but important) overlapping circle…That overlapped area is what I (in my mind) have in common with Jodi, Poly and even Wildest Bill…
When I think of the term “Christian” personally…it has a meaning for me that includes other things like Saints, for example, not necessarily included in the narrower sociologic definition.
I have a feeling I just added an unneeded layer of murkiness to this…but hey
I don’t say that there isn’t such a thing as Christianity (a religion); I say there’s no such thing as The Christian Church. There are many Christian churches (or denominations. There is not a single, unified Christian Church. I don’t think anyone has had the right, practically speaking, to refer to their denomination as The Church since the late Reformation.
An “entity”? No. We do not all give money or allegiance to a larger Christian Church. We are all, severally, Christian churches. Can you describe Christianity as “a worldwide community of Christians”? It’s a pretty thought, but I’d again say no, because there really is no such “community.” All you can say that the various Christian denominations have in common is a belief in the divinity of Christ and a duty to follow His teachings. If your religion or church does that, then it is “Christian.” If you do that, then you are A “Christian.” But beyond that broadest canopy, I have nothing whatsoever in common with, for example, the Eastern Orthodox. Not the same beliefs, not the same traditions, not the same goals, not even the same holidays (yes, they have Christmas, but not when we do). Can you say that some denominations have more than that in common? Sure. To an outside observer, there’s probably precious little difference between American Methodists and, say, American Presbyterians. But differences do exist, even at that level, and profound differences exist at the national and world-wide level that would generally prohibit one from saying “all Christians believe X” – unless “X” equals the very broadest of Christian beliefs.
Of course not. We are all by definition “Christians” – followers of a Christ-based religion. That doesn’t mean we believe the same things. It means we believe some of the same things. And it doesn’t mean we belong to some larger fellowship, which would be nice, but doesn’t exist on a practical level. Again, there’s no big Church we send our offerings to or give our allegiance to.
But, you see, the analogy is not servicable when you are using it to ascribe to all of us beliefs you know many of us do not hold. If you are using the term “Christian” generally, in a way that does not impute particular beliefs or actions, I would not quibble with it. It’s only when I see people ascribing beliefs to all Christians that they know or ought to know many Christians do not hold that I get bothered. I mean, a majority of Christians believe that it is proper to pray to the Virgin Mary, because the majority of Christians world-wide are Catholic. But there is a sizeable minority who do not believe that, and it is incorrect to speak about all of us as if we do simply because the numerical majority does – especially when you do, in fact, know better.
[understatement] Yes; that would be correct. [/understatement]
I know you do. You do not agree with the divinity of Christ – the fundamental premise of the religion. So you could accurately say “Love the Christian; disbelieve Christianity” and you would not be guilty of an indefensible generalization, because you do, in fact, disbelieve ALL Christianity.
Thanks, Dave. I appreciate the correction, but I think my point still stands, even as a hypothetical. If most Christians world-wide were Catholic, it would still be inaccurate to say “[all] Christians venerate the Virgin Mary.”
No prob…actually I was correcting an earlier post by jmullaney…you just happened to sneak your post between 'em
And yes…either way, it’s silly to extrapolate Catholic specific behavior to the rest of Christianity.
Joke Break…my favorite Catholic joke
A fine Irish woman, Rose passes away at the ripe old age of 90. As she enters the pearly gates, St Peter asks “Rose, you’ve lived a saintly life…is there anything I can do to make your stay more pleasant?”
Rose replies “why yes Peter, I’ve always had a stong devotion to the Blessed Virgin…would it be possible for me to meet with Mary sometime?” Peter answers “why of course, my dear…if only all the faithful were as saintly as yourself”
So the next day, Peter arranges for Rose to meet up with Mary in a gorgeous park setting. Mary welcomes Rose and chimes in that she too has admired Rose for her saintly life…and welcomes her. Rose responds "thank you Mary…thats very kind…Now, if you don’t mind…I have a small question thats been on my mind for ages?
Mary says “speak your heart child…whatever you have to ask I will answer”
Rose asks “In all the paintings I’ve ever seen of you…you always look so serious…I’ve never seen a smiling Madonna…I’ve never seen a grinning statue…Why is this? Why do you always have such a a solemn look on your face?”
Mary looks carefully left…then carefully right…then bends over and whispers in Rose’s ear…
Oh haha!!! I love it!
Almost as much as the following:
So the Pope and Queen Elizabeth are meeting on the balcony at Buckingham Palace before a huge crowd. And the Queen says out of the corner of her mouth, “Bet you a tenner I can get all the English people in the crowd to go crazy with one wave of my hand.”
And the Pope says, “No way, it can’t be done!”
So the Queen does the Wave and immediately all the English people start cheering and hooting and waving their little plastic Union Jacks.
Now, the Pope doesn’t know what to do-he never thought she could do it. Then he gets an idea.
“Bet you that, with just one nod of my head, I can make all the IRISH people go crazy, not just today, but for weeks and maybe months on end.”
And Her Majesty says, “No WAY, you’re on!”
So the Pope headbutts her.
For the sake of argument, now that it is unilaterally (I think) agreed, by the example of the Wenn Diagrams, that there is this thing called Christianity, can we define it? If not, I would request that this thread be thrown out on the basis of arguing against something that doesn’t exist.
If this intersection or union is anything more than “A belief in the existence of Christ” I feel very happy. Many of my arguments make much more sense in light of this revelation (who’d of thought it was a revelation, though?)
Dope slap to forehead…thats what happens when I try to reply to 2 posts at once…
In the WORLD, the RCC “is” the majority of Christianity…In the UNITED STATES, they are outnumbered by the total non-RCC population http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001481.html
(they are still the largest Christian denomination in the U.S. though obviously).
First and foremost, Jodi and I and others who take what has been listed as a “pro-gay” stance have no duty or right to give up the name of Christian to the homophobic idjits against whom Esprix fulminates, for several excellent reasons:
What unites us and them is a common statement of aspiration to follow Jesus as “Lord,” to obey His commands. Clearly how we understand this varies; but Fred Phelps would agree with that statement, as would Mel White. And two men farther apart on the issues relating to gays could hardly be found.
We were there first. Without going into a huge amount of church history and politics, the original Christian churches considered themselves unified and aggregated into two groups, according to whether they spoke Greek or Latin. Those in the West unified around the Patriarch of Rome, addressed as “Papa,” whence comes Pope; those in the East around the other four Patriarchs. As Christianity spread beyond the Roman Empire, vernacular tongues came into use, and local national churches formed in allegiance to one or other of those two groups. The Catholic church of England separated from Rome on a minor issue where the Pope was playing politics, joined in the Reformation some years later, and gave rise to the churches of the Anglican Communion. Some political power plays between bishops and the leader of the Holy Clubs which some enthusiastic low-church Anglicans belonged to, an Anglican priest named Wesley, resulted in the separation of the Methodist Church. Meanwhile the Lutheran and Calvinist churches of the continent and Scotland were undergoing similar stresses and schisms. The various fundamentalist groups derive from splits from Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism, and the other main Reformation groups, and splits within those groups.
In our humble opinion, we and not they are doing our best to live out Jesus’s message and carry it to the world. They have, in general, gotten hung up on the Bible and elevated it to the place that only God should occupy. In all fairness, there are many conservative Christians, some of whom are regular posters on this board, who do not take that attitude, but as a generalization of the sort that has been dissected here in inordinate length, this is a generally true statement.
By the way, referring back to the “are Catholics a majority?” sidetrack, fairness would have to stipulate that many denominations hold all persons baptized in one of their local churches are therefore “members” – among them Roman Catholics. There was a discussion in ATMB about how many of the over 10,000 “members” of the Straight Dope Message Board are active posters; the same logic should be applied here. If over half the official “membership” of the Roman Catholic church actually consider themselves active members, even if occasional attendees, I will be quite surprised. This is not a putdown; I understand their logic that “the door is always open to those who have walked away” but that number is IMHO quite high proportionately to their membership claims. (The same is true for other groups as well, of course; I have no intention to single out Catholics. I belonged to an Episcopal parish with nearly 1,000 “members” – and an average attendance of scarcely 100.
Reverting to the question of “what makes a Christian,” the bottom line is that in some way all Christians see God at work in Jesus and in His followers and have committed themselves in some way to follow Him. Without getting into theology, I want to preserve that as an “outside” inclusive definition that will even allow for Christian UUs and Tillichians who do not believe in the divinity of Christ. (By the way, whoever it was --Jodi?-- that tried to draw the original UU distinction got it backwards. Universalism was a reaction against Calvinism that did not accept that God had predestined sinners to Hell; Unitarianism was the belief that God was One and the doctrine of the Trinity was “a misunderstanding of the mystic union of man and God that Jesus really meant by His remarks about being One with the Father.”)
Good Stereotypes?:
Con-men, liar politicians (only the liars, not all of them), bad business practice…we get involved with these groups because they seem trustowrthy, they act like the trustworthy people we know, and we stereotype them as “good” without much thought. Then they use that to their advantage, stealing, robbing, whatever. Because we trusted them, they have access to so much more than the average criminal. This is how good stereotypes can cause damage.
Christianity defined:
What?
Well, if there can be no real definition of Christianity, and each person makes up their own, then I made up my own…a Christian is a person who believes in God and Christ, and fits at least one of my generalizations. The end.
. . . which is, frankly, an odd question since it’s been defined multiple times.
By all means, throw it out – because it’s obvious that if we can’t come up with a definition YOU approve of, then Christianity must not exist. :rolleyes:
Another odd comment, since none of the attempts at defining “Christianity” have stopped at a mere “belief in the existence of Christ.” Many atheists belief Christ existed; that obviously doesn’t make them Christian.
But BEAGLEDAVE answers the question by defining Christianity as " a belief in the divinity of Christ…not much more than that." And POLYCARP defines it by saying:
So you have three possible definitions given in this thread: 1. A belief in the divinity of Christ (BEAGLEDAVE); 2. A commitment to try to follow His teachings (POLYCARP); and 3. both (JODI).
But AYNRANDLOVER, who apparently does not read or absorb things he or she personally disagrees with, says:
We have given you no less than THREE definitions, one of which – mine – I KNOW was posted multiple times – none of which is “made up” out of whole cloth. I guess you just missed them all.
As you are free to do, just as I can define a “bicycle” as “a round orange-colored citrus fruit.”
If you want to know the definition of “Christian” and for some reason reject the definitions given here, then throw caution to the wind and look the word up in a dictionary. Be sure to let us know which one you find that includes in the possible definition “and fits one of AYNRANDLOVER’S indefensible generalizations.”
So, a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. What are those teachings?
Who knows?–because
We can’t agree on things so we
Form our own denominations.
Thus, Christianity is a generalization that, suprisingly, implies no morality. At all. My generalizations, as well, are applicable to all faiths, all branches of Christianity.
It is not a matter of pleasing me. It is a matter of saying what you mean. All Methodists are Christians. All Christians are not methodists. To make a comment about Christians can imply on Methodists. To make a comment on Methodists cannot necessarily be spread to all Christians.
This much is clear. What seems to be unclear is that:
Chrsitians cannot be generalized. Obviously, they can. They can be called Christians. Now we come to nit-picks. I accept my generalizations through personal experience. Why are they valid for me?
I’ve seen it.
I don’t deal with all Christians everywhere.
Now, were I to claim some form of Christianity as my faith, I would clearly have a much harder time forming stereotypes. Much like you find it objectionable, or flat-out wrong.
Similarly, were I in a position that demanded my association with large groups of Christians (politics, for example), this stereotype could not be as successfully applied. This doesn’t mean I throw it out, but rather always remember, AS I’VE STATED, that I don’t use my stereotypes to form judgements about individuals.
I appreciate your desire to not be thrown in with baby-killing Americans and gay-hating fundies. It is a shame that you feel I’ve done that. I don’t see that anyone accused you of anything of the sort.
As well, because generalizations of Christians don’t necessarily apply to you, your specifics don’t apply to Christianity. Clearly, you see, you can argue all day and all night that the stereotypes don’t apply to you. And you would be right. So? That neither redefines Christianity nor removes you from being Christian.
well, I have met one other “lover of Ayn Rand”- and he was a wierdo- a member of her 'cult of personality", and basicly a n anarchist. Thus, you must be like that also. Since he actually prayed to her- i must assume you do so to. After all, I have my one ‘experience", which is all that counts, and since "loving Ayn Rand’ is a CHOICE, my sterotyping of you & your cult must be OK. No wonder you are condeming Christianity- it is a rival religion. :rolleyes:
Well, you are free to do so. By all means. :rolleyes:
Incidentally, at my very core I am an anarchist, though not in practice (I find its practice impossible). As well, I often “pray” to Rand, if you would truly like to stretch the word out as far as possible. “What was she thinking here? How would she interpret this response?” By that definition of “pray” however, I also pray to Jesus, and can thus be considered a Christian. How fun! Look, everyone, I’m one of the gang! I also pray to Ally McBeal and half the music groups I listen to. As well, all the other philosophers I’ve read. I chose to be associated with one of them, knowing how she and her “followers” are viewed in general, but not because of how they are viewed. I have read the bible, have you read Ayn Rand? I have read the Book of Mormon, have you read Sartre? I have read the Satanic Bible, have you? My quest is always to get more input. I am not perfect, as everyone here is happy to point out, and I do not plan to be nor even attempt to be. Instead, I offer my arguments in an attempt to either have people understand me or to have me understand other people.
You are free to form your generaliations however you see fit. You may, as well, apply them however you see fit. I don’t, and won’t, take it personally.
I was raised both Catholic, and then Baptist. I know Born-agains and non-denominationals. I talk to Jehova’s Witnesses. I worked with Southern Baptists when I lived in Mississippi. While in the Navy I had a chance to meet many people of many faiths. I’ve worked in churches, I’ve gone to churches to get to know the people even though I was an atheist. I’ve called pastors, priests, and the like asking questions. Clearly, I have researched the subject. If I have not reasearched any particular church, any particular christian, or any other specific you care to name I would not be suprised. But, I have lived in 5 states, have a large family, and I have a lot of friends. I clearly have footwork and data on my side, and I will not back down from my generalizations that have served me very well in the past few years on the basis of 5 christians (or so) who don’t “fit” into my picture.
This is so logically flawed on its face I’m surprised you would even post it. Just because we cannot agree on the precise meaning of some of His teachings doesn’t mean we don’t know what those teachings are – they’re in the gospels, aren’t they? And just because we have different ideas on what those teachings mean doesn’t mean that each of us doesn’t think he or she knows what they mean, at least in part. Moreover, denominations are not formed simply because people can’t agree on what Jesus taught, but for lots of reasons. Example: Is the communion host really the body and blood of Christ, or is it simply imbued with the holy spirit of Christ, or is in merely a symbol of the body and blood of Christ? MAJOR schism right there – relevance to His teachings: none.
Incorrect on its face. The teaching of Christ are full of morality, and the acceptance of the duty to follow Him necessarily implicates that morality. Again, just because we do not all agree on the contours or context of that morality does not mean it does not exist.
Sez you. :rolleyes: You have yet to post one of your personal pet “generalizations” that can reasonably be said to apply to all branches of Christianity.
Obviously. Your point is . . . ?
Again, labelling people as “Christians” is not making any particular generalization about them, other than that they embrace a religion involving Christ. That’s it. That’s all you can say at that point.
“Nit-picks”? Mormoms believe that although baptism is necessary for salvation, a soul can be baptized after its death. Some people feel it is not just unauthorized but downright offensive to baptize a person without that person’s consent after his or her death. Is that a nit-pick? Catholics believe that God allows some men (namely, priests) to absolve people of their sins. Most Protestants believe, with varying degrees of ferocity, that no man can absolve sin – that is left to God. Is that a nit-pick?
Well, sure. So if you meet a black man and he’s a thief, therefore you can generalize that all black men are theives because (1) you’ve seen it and (2) you don’t deal with all black men everywhere. So your generalization must be valid, right?
Yeah, you would, because it would be far harder for you to make generalizations out of sheer ignorance.
Because, obviously, as a person who knows something about Christianity – not I did not say as a Christian – I cannot generalize from ignorance.
Again, this is hogwash. You cannot stereotype large groups of people and not expect your stereotype to extend to individuals. What is a group, after all, other than a large group of individuals?
What are you talking about? Sometimes I wonder if you’re reading an entirely different thread. The question is not whether people are right to associate me personally with beliefs I do not hold (surprise! they’re not), but whether it is ever appropriate to ascribe to an entire group beliefs you know many in the group do not hold. Not just me – millions of us.
Do my beliefs apply to all Christians? Of course not. But so what? I never said they did.
It does, however, prove that the assertion that ALL Christians believe X can be conclusively disproven simply by showing that (a) I am a Christian and (b) I don’t believe X. QED: Not all Christians believe X. And, again, when we talk about support for gays, we are not just talking about me or even about a statistically insignificant minority; we are talking about lots of people.
Oh, but we’re not interested in hearing about you personally. You see, we have formed our preconceived generalizations of what Ayn Rand Lovers are like, and we will not be swayed from those generalizations just because you don’t fit them. And don’t bother to tell us about all the others that don’t fit them, because that won’t sway us. And don’t give us links tending to indicate that our generalizations are wrong and there are hundreds or thousands or millions who don’t fit them, because that won’t sway us, either. We have personal experience that you are all a bunch of idiots, and we certainly wouldn’t let something as piddling as facts get in the way of our prejudices. We’ve travelled a lot. We have family and friends, and that’s got to be good enough, right? In short, we prefer to operate out of ignorance, because that way we can keep our generalizations, not have to question ourselves or our philosophy, and stay comfortable.
