I thought that a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ was the sole criterion defining a Christian church. Am I wrong?
There is no single criteria. The oldest attempt to list the criteria was the Apostle’s Creed (traditionally held to have been written by the 12). Impressively, it still holds up, though some of the language is very open to interpretation. (which of course is why it still works…)
the basics, most of which were settled in Church councils in the first few hundred years AD:
- Deity of Christ
- Humanity of Christ. (one man, both human and divine)
- Virgin Birth
- Inspiration and authority of scripture.
- Death and resurrection of Christ.
- Second coming (however defined)
- Man’s need of God’s grace for forgiveness of sins (How exactly one recieves that grace is a whole 'nother subject …)
That’s pretty much it. Lose more than one or two of those and you’re not going to be accepted as Christian by most others.
LDS (Mormons) and JW’s consider themselves Christians; however most other denominations do not.
Well, HairyPotter that would be the logical response. B You take Christ’s name than you can be called a Christian. That’s the way it should work. But I’m beginning to believe that logic has very little place in Christianity.
I can’t imagine why most Protestant Churches are so keen on pointing out who really worships Christ and who doesn’t. Are they upset because some new group is co-opping their “label”? If that’s the case, I bet the Catholics are pissed.
Remember, the title of the Mormon Church is not well, the “Mormon Church”. It’s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I’m thinking that’s a pretty strong implication on how they feel about the Guy.
Isn’t the official title of the Roman Catholic Church something like the " (Holy) Apostolic Roman Catholic Church"? or something of the sort.
I remember my grandma got really worked up she would say she belonged to “la Iglesia Católica Apostólica Romana Santa etc.” to leave no doubt where her allegiances were to any unlucky 18 year old Mormon missionary who canvassed her barrio.
And she was just verbal in her protests, I’ve seen some of 'em get whacked in the head with rolled up flyers by less polite ladies.
I think that what many of us adherents regard as an ongoing personal relationship with the Deity has to be regarded as a plus.
Then there isn’t a Christian church on the face of the earth.
Sounds more like Klingons than Jews.
Studi
I think that the above statement is a bit misleading. In Judaism, individuals are responsible for their own actions, there is no concept of “original sin”. There is plenty of forgiveness in Judaism, but it has to be asked for from both God and those sinned against, wrongs have to be righted, and the person has to be truly sorry.
ever heard the expression “never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers?”
it’s a truthful statement.
Not that all christians are stupid, but I must say the mentality of an individual changes when immersed in a group. Attending church is akin to attending a football game. Everyone is cheering. Everyone is hoping for the same outcome. The more people cheering, the better you feel, the more apt you are to come again, and again, and again.
Christianity is an easy answer and a story people can relate to. Jesus Christ, Luke Skywalker, what’s the difference? Pwerful father, special skills, it’s all fairly transparent to anyone willing to step outside and look in, rather than remain inside and look out.
Rather than say, “jesus is my lord and saviour,” say “I believe the leader of an end of the world cult who died who thousand years ago is the son of an omnipotent, supernatural, invisible, God” and the idea becomes slightly less acceptable.
really, all one needs is a good sense of historical perspective.
Lolo
Please do not quote me out of context. I also stated:
Michener made it quite clear in the book that there was no way out for the sinner. The only way to be forgiven for the sin was to endure ostracism for the rest of his life. The same was true for his descendents (who were completely blameless, of course). Who has control over the circumstances of their birth?
So, is the situation outlined in The Source true or not?
Robby, easy there Cha Cha. I was in no way quoteing you out of context. I did read the rest of your recap of Michener, no need to repost the whole thing. I’m not holding you accountable, I was merely responding to that particular part of the post, which I think is misleading, not wrong. It’s more of a nitpick on my part.
There is a difference in forgiveness from God and the punishment for sin. Those future generations may have suffered the consequences of one man’s sin, but it does not mean they themselves are to be considered sinful. At least that is my understanding of it, but IANAJ, so if you want a detailed explanation of Michener’s illustration, you’d probably have to ask a Jew.
Re: What Mormons believe:
1.Check
2. Check
3.Check
4.Check
5.Check
6.Check
7.Check
My apologies.
It’s just that I’d gone to so much trouble with disclaimers, etc.
Just the same, I probably jumped the gun a bit. Sorry about that.
Because it gives christians a good excuse to hate someone. It’s no longer socially acceptable to hate someone because of something like their skin color, because they can’t change that. But nonchristians could choose to believe in christianity. (Or so they say, I personally can’t force myself to believe something just because I’m told to, but maybe that’s just me.)
Anyway, since they believe nonchristians are going to hell, their god must not like us much, so its ok to hate us.
Even the christians who don’t think ALL nonchristians are going to hell think that sinners are, so they still have somebody to hate.