God gets to decide what True chrsitianity is. It isn’t someones guess or whatever opinion they feel it should be.:rolleyes:
If people disagree on what christianity is, most of them must be wrong.
Vanilla, that assumes that God is a lexicographer.
When you describe what “true christianity” is, what you’re doing is stating your beliefs on what True Reality is. By extension, you’re saying that anyone who has a correct belief in reality is a True Christian, and that the others aren’t.
It’s a mighty weird definition, but I can understand what you’re getting at. Assuming that God gets to decide what True Christianity is, then True Christianity could mean believing in Zeus and Athena and believing that Jesus was a two-bit con artist.
Here, I think, would be a better working definition for Christian:
A Christian is a person who believes that their, and possibly other people’s, spirit is best served by following the teachings of Jesus Christ as described primarily in some version of the New Testament.
This is a definition of Christianity that is useful: it distinguishes Christians from Buddhists and Discordians and Rastafarians. And it’s a meaningful definition. And it doesn’t try to usurp the powers of any putative God by setting the universe’s definitions.
I’d define you, from your posts here, as a fundamentalist literalist Christian. This is a useful term as well. Conflating it with Christian confuses the issue.
Daniel
I want to address the subthread about atheists referring to religion as “fantasy.”
I am an atheist, and I have been known to do this – in certain circumstances. Usually, I just keep my beliefs to myself, because I know how nasty the arguments can get. In addition, I have absolutely no problem letting people believe whatever it is they want to believe about The Great Unknowable. Sure, there might be a God who’s in charge of everything. It’s possible to construct a model of the universe in which everything leads back to a supreme supernatural intelligence. It’s just that, the more I learn about the world, the less likely that scenario seems to me; it’s far easier to explain everything as a result of human thought patterns and typical behavior. I simply don’t talk about it that much.
However, I will refer to religion as a fantasy when I’m put in a corner and am attempting to respond to insistent questioning from one of the faithful: “But why don’t you believe?” I’ve found that the only way to explain my belief system, the only way to convey exactly why I can’t buy into the world’s religions, is because they strike me as facets of the same delusion. I’m not trying to put a value judgment on it; I’m not trying to imply that because 90% of humanity has these beliefs they’re all deluded fools. I readily admit the role religion plays in day-to-day life, and the framework it provides for perceiving how the world works. To me, it’s a fantasy, albeit a well-honed and extremely useful one, and I will refer to it as such when a believer presses me on why I can’t “just believe” – but not until then.
And regarding the OP, for what it’s worth, I’ve managed to maintain some very close relationships over the years with some extremely devout people. We’ve simply agreed that the subject of faith is off-limits for discussion.