Define Christianity

[Ebionite]

Okay. I still define it by the Nicene Creed.

The reason that it's important is because of the problem of tribute. According to Paul, tribute must be paid to Rome, but according to Yeshua (Jesus), tribute should only be paid when due, and tribute to deity is separate from tribute to Rome.

 

[Eddi]

What do you mean by Christianity?

I don't really have a definition but I know it when I see it

And I can tell when something is not it

But of course, that is entirely subjective and based on my own personal prejudices

So basically, it's Christianity if I say it is and it isn't Christianity if I say it isn't!

 

[Rival]

According to Paul, tribute must be paid to Rome

Where does Paul say this?

 

[LuisDantas]

This is fairly bizarre, even by modern standards, though. It seems Christianity in Brasil has taken on a more folksy vibe than it has in Europe etc.

I don't disagree, and I do not blame you if you doubt my accuracy.

 

[Rival]

I think one issue here is that some people seem to believe that Christianity is a personal phenomenon. This happened at the Reformation where religion was turned into a personal object and to be understood individually by the believer.

This isn't how it was understood before, when it was seen as communal and affecting everyone, not as interpreted by individuals.

Those who are more on board with personal religion will be more for the Reformation view, I think, where one gets to choose what one believes, so to speak. Those who are more communitarian about religion, with it being a social phenomenon, will disagree that one can have an individual interpretation of it.

As I am not an individualist, I reject individualistic religion and individual interpretations thereof. When everything is defined by individuals, nothing is defined.

 

[Ebionite]

Where does Paul say this?

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Romans 13:1-7

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The reason that it's important is because of the problem of tribute. According to Paul, tribute must be paid to Rome, but according to Yeshua (Jesus), tribute should only be paid when due, and tribute to deity is separate from tribute to Rome.

I have no idea what you're talking about, man. Or what any of this has to do with defining Christianity.

 

[Rival]

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Romans 13:1-7

OK, so people in Rome have to pay taxes to Rome etc. I don't see a problem unless you are advocating lawbreaking?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I think one issue here is that some people seem to believe that Christianity is a personal phenomenon. This happened at the Reformation where religion was turned into a personal object and to be understood individually by the believer.

This isn't how it was understood before, when it was seen as communal and affecting everyone, not as interpreted by individuals.

Those who are more on board with personal religion will be more for the Reformation view, I think, where one gets to choose what one believers, so to speak. Those who are more communitarian about religion, with it being a social phenomenon, will disagree that one can have an individual interpretation of it.

As I am not an individualist, I reject individualistic religion and individual interpretations thereof. When everything is defined by individuals, nothing is defined.

In other words, do you believe moral truth is exclusively top-down or is it primarily bottom-up? I’m firmly in the latter.

I believe there is a significant divide on this correlated with gender.

 

[Rival]

In other words, do you believe moral truth is exclusively top-down or is it primarily bottom-up? I’m firmly in the latter.

As far as Christianity I am a conciliarist Conciliarism | Council of Constance, Papal Supremacy, Ecumenical Councils

Minds coming together to discuss matters.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christianity, not Christians. How would you define the religion, what are its beliefs, its doctrines, its rules?

That's the thing, though: a religion is a community of people. Ultimately, it's defined in terms of who identifies as a member of the community and who the community recognizes as members.

The doctrines, beliefs & rules all serve as criteria that the community uses to decide who's a member and who isn't, but its importance and how this is applied varies depending on how the community approaches this material.

And with Christianity, it isn't even one community. I see Christianity as a family of denominations/communities... and paradoxically, some of them view other denominations as "not Christian."

There's a lot of diversity of belief across Christianity. I'd be hard-pressed to identify anything that I could say all Christians believe.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

As far as Christianity I am a conciliarist Conciliarism | Council of Constance, Papal Supremacy, Ecumenical Councils

Minds coming together to discuss matters.

I’m on the side that says the Holy Spirit is the most reliable guide, and the HS is accessed within you. This opens you up to deception, as it’s the riskier path, but it’s the only path which can deliver on the promise of Christianity in full.

 

[Rival]

That's the thing, though: a religion is a community of people. Ultimately, it's defined in terms of who identifies as a member of the community and who the community recognizes as members.

The doctrines, beliefs & rules all serve as criteria that the community uses to decide who's a member and who isn't, but its importance and how this is applied varies depending on how the community approaches this material.

And with Christianity, it isn't even one community. I see Christianity as a family of denominations/communities... and paradoxically, some of them view other denominations as "not Christian."

There's a lot of diversity of belief across Christianity. I'd be hard-pressed to identify anything that I could say all Christians believe.

That's fair.

I just wonder if someone says, as in the linked threads,

'Why is Christianity so hated?'
'I hate Christianity because...'

What do both of these parties mean by Christianity?

It might be better stated in terms of certain Christians rather than a whole.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's Orthodox, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian...

If you have an issue with this creed, you are pretty much outside the faith as a whole.

Some evangelical and other Christians consider the Nicene Creed helpful and to a certain extent authoritative, but not infallibly so in view of their belief that only Scripture is truly authoritative. Non-Trinitarian groups, such as the Church of the New Jerusalem, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses, explicitly reject some of the statements in the Nicene Creed.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Personally, I consider Mormons and JWs to be Christian.

I recognize that some Christians say these denominations "aren't Christian," but I hear the same comment about the Catholic Church, so I don't give it any weight.

 

[Rival]

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Personally, I consider Mormons and JWs to be Christian.

I recognize that some Christians say these denominations "aren't Christian," but I hear the same comment about the Catholic Church, so I don't give it any weight.

If one uses the creeds, as has historically defined orthodoxy, these groups aren't Christian. That's pretty simple, I suppose. If one has no definition, that's the issue - the issue behind this thread...

Historically we have had this standard, e.g. against Arians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's fair.

I just wonder if someone says, as in the linked threads,

'Why is Christianity so hated?'
'I hate Christianity because...'

What do both of these parties mean by Christianity?

I generally consider Christianity to include all religious groups who:

- follow Jesus in some way, and
- self-identify as Christian.

The second criteria excludes groups that acknowledge Jesus as some sort of holy figure but don't identify as Christian (e.g. Muslims).

 

[Rival]

I generally consider Christianity to include all religious groups who:

- follow Jesus in some way, and
- self-identify as Christian.

The second criteria excludes groups that acknowledge Jesus as some sort of holy figure but don't identify as Christian (e.g. Muslims).

Then would it be fair to say that one dislikes an individual's take on Christianity rather than Christianity, if that presumed Christian is defining it how he pleases?

 

[Eli G]

The united group of followers of Jesus were called Christians in the first century. It is not a name that was invented in modern times, although it has adopted any number of definitions according to each one wants... Its true meaning lies in what it implied when the term was originally coined, not what anyone today wants it to mean.

Acts 11:22 The report about them reached the ears of the congregation in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas as far as Antioch. 23 When he arrived and saw the undeserved kindness of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all to continue in the Lord with heartfelt resolve; 24 for he was a good man and full of holy spirit and faith. And a considerable crowd was added to the Lord. 25 So he went to Tarsus to make a thorough search for Saul. 26 After he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year they assembled with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If one uses the creeds, as has historically defined orthodoxy, these groups aren't Christian.

I would argue that the fact that these groups are generally considered Christian implies that the Nicene Creed and other creeds aren't the basis for our definition of Christianity.

That's pretty simple, I suppose. If one has no definition, that's the issue - the issue behind this thread...

Historically we have had this standard, e.g. against Arians.

But if you're defining Christianity in terms of whether they proclaim some creed to be true, what do you call the group of people who came up with the creed?

Did Christianity originate at the Council of Nicea, or did it exist before that?

BTW: why would we decide that the Arians aren't Christian (as opposed to deciding that they're heretical Christians)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then would it be fair to say that one dislikes an individual's take on Christianity rather than Christianity, if that presumed Christian is defining it how he pleases?

I said groups, not individuals.

This gets back to the community aspect: someone who self-identifies as a Christian will either be accepted or rejected by their Christian community. Only the beliefs held by people who get included in the community are part of the religion.