Christianity in your mind's eye

[historia]

Christianity is one of the world's largest and most diverse religious traditions.

And yet, for brevity's sake, it's convenient to make reference to 'Christianity' or 'Christians' on this forum without having to reel off a litany of qualifiers about which particular churches, beliefs, and practices we are describing. But do we all have the same thing in mind when we do this?

Consider these comments from a couple of our friendly neighborhood atheists:

Take mainstream Catholic teaching, remove Mary, mother of God stuff, remove Papal authority. That's my working assumption of what Christianity is

As far as I'm concerned, anyone that says they're Christian is Christian, but pretending that the Catholics are anything but the standard for orthodoxy is chutzpah.

Questions for debate:

When making reference to 'Christianity' in general terms, should we all have in mind Roman Catholicism (or something close to that)?

Is that, in fact, the expression of Christianity you have in your mind when you personally use the term 'Christianity'?

[historia]

If Jesus is the focus of Christianity, then why is it strange to equate Jesus with Christianity

Because people aren't religions. It's nonsensical to talk in that way.

The NT has already defined Christianity as X

Where does the word 'Christianity' appear in the New Testament?

And why should we consider the New Testament authoritative if 'Christianity' is simply Jesus or just some other essential idea or attitude?

[cms]

Because people aren't religions. It's nonsensical to talk in that way.

Christianity is not a religion. It's a way of life. People have turned it into a religion.

Where does the word 'Christianity' appear in the New Testament?

Jesus CHRIST , CHRISTianity.

historia, no offense I'm sorry that you don't get that, and I feel like I'm just repeating myself here. So, I'm gracefully bowing out of the conversation with you.

[Diagoras]

Couldn't a Jew, Hindu or Muslim assert this line exists in regard to their own religion with equal conviction, based on something in their own holy book? Certainly a Jew could, since the Old Testament is used by both religions.

Diagoras, In my mind's eye, Christianity encompasses a lot of people. However, it is minimally defined as love of others as self. That's it. It's not a big umbrella term.

<bolding mine>

So, for this 'lot of people', are you saying that every single one of them can be a Christian as long as they 'love others as self'? Even those who don't believe the virgin birth and resurrection stories, or are a Jew, as per my previous question? And on the flip side, that not accepting the 'love others as self' creed means you cannot be a Christian, no matter the level of faith you may have in Scripture and moral behaviour you display?

We don't all fall under the banner of Catholicism just because we share similar beliefs. All it takes is a difference of one belief and it becomes a different group. Catholics and Lutherans, for example share some beliefs, but they are two different groups, with different names.

That's self-evident and not being disputed here, so I wonder why you bring it up. Moving on...

The NT has already defined Christianity as X, one word. So if you come along and say Christianity is now X plus Y then you've made a different group.

If you can please point to the source in the New Testament that defines Christianity in one word (or phrase), and also provide evidence of some different denominations that accept that definition, then that will save everyone a lot of time. Or is this just your opinion of what the definition should be?

Readers of this thread that see the 'if you come along and say' comment might not remember that I was only reporting what self-professed Christians on this board have told me is the basic set of Christian-defining beliefs. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone whether they were a 'true' Christian or not, so any comment that might be taken that way is slightly unfair, in my view. Please don't shoot the messenger!

[Diagoras]

Christianity is not a religion. It's a way of life. People have turned it into a religion.

So if people have turned it into a religion, then Christianity is presently a religion, surely?

I note that defining religion is certainly problematic, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that the idea's a fairly modern, Western construct. Certainly, Christianity has elements which by most definitions would qualify as being religious.

[cms]

If you can please point to the source in the New Testament that defines Christianity in one word (or phrase),

Diagoras, Love is written all over the NT, but here are a few verses Luke10:27, Matt.22:40, Matt. 22:36-40, Romans 13:8-10 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:16 Galatians 5:14 " The entire law is fulfilled in one word: Love your neighbor as yourself."

Readers of this thread that see the 'if you come along and say' comment

I was not saying you in particular. I was making an example. Maybe best to use the word someone next time.

So, for this 'lot of people', are you saying that every single one of them can be a Christian as long as they 'love others as self'? Even those who don't believe the virgin birth and resurrection stories, or are a Jew, as per my previous question?

Yes.

And on the flip side, that not accepting the 'love others as self' creed means you cannot be a Christian, no matter the level of faith you may have in Scripture and moral behaviour you display?

Yes, except that I'd say moral behavior would already include love of others. And those who don't love others can become Christian by changing their ways.

That's self-evident and not being disputed here, so I wonder why you bring it up.

So, I'll lay it out in a different way here so you can see my point.

Christianity=x ( Belief in Jesus Christ who was the living word: Love of others and is the example which we are to follow)
Catholics = x plus a,b,c,d,e,f,g etc.
Protestants =x, plus a,b g
JW's = x, plus d,e,h,k
LDS= x plus a, b, k, j

We all share x. But we don't say that we're all Catholics or all Protestants etc. because of this shared belief. Each has different beliefs that separate one from another, which constitutes a different name. Each is it's own faith. Christianity would encompass more people as it has only 1 requirement. The problem comes from the others who exclude people by additional requirements.

[Bust Nak]

Bust Nak, you said:
Catholic minus the distinctly Catholic ideas is a pretty safe starting point.

I'm just curious, why all the minuses? Why not just the starting points of Jesus the Christ ( the pure form of God's word to love others as ourselves)from which the name Christianity is derived?

I told you why, I use that as the starting point because it cover most popular sects of Christianity. The starting point you suggested here, says nothing about the importance of sin and forgiveness, of an everlasting life. It doesn't even make explicit that Jesus is the son of God, who died on the cross and risen on the third day. Without this, your faith is in vain.

Merely loving others as ourselves would make Christians out of many non Christians.

PS if you use the quote or reply buttons, I get a notification, there is a good chance that I would miss your response without a notification.

[theophile]

To be clear, there is no distinction in my mind between a true Christian and any member of Christendom. These are the same thing to me. But per all my previous posts on this topic, I think that a true Christian is a rare bird (Jesus himself was a miracle). It's also something that cuts across social lines (e.g., religion, race, gender, what have you).

So, name one personality alive today whom you would consider a 'true Christian' and what's more, make it a personality who is NOT a member of the Christian religion.

I did just say how rare I think such examples are, right? Also, not sure how I could name a familiar personality when I don't even know them beyond a public facade. Or who I am to name such a one. Or what that naming would even accomplish.

So attack the argument. I've pushed two versions:

1) Being / doing versus saying / believing. While the latter may help us achieve the former, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. And if someone doesn't actually live what they say / believe, then they are a hypocrite, and not worthy of the name Christian. (But conversely, if someone does live it, but doesn't say it or believe it, they are. There is nothing substantial about them to set them apart from the real deal and hence to be worthy of the name.)

2) The more scriptural argument from baptism, which I think we'd all agree is the entry point to Christianity. There are two types in the gospels: by water, and by fire (/Spirit). There is no shortage of those baptized by water, many of whom fall into the hypocrite bucket above. These are not the same as those who have joined the body of Christ, which to me is the mark of the true Christian - exemplified by their entire being and action being infused with the Spirit.

So we can broaden the aperture and call everyone who says / believes (or has been baptized by water) Christian, but we should do so in full knowledge and recognition of the hypocrisy that is there. And that they wouldn't pass any test that cut to the heart.

[theophile]

Jesus is obviously the focus of Christianity, but it's rather strange to equate Jesus with Christianity. That's not the approach major encyclopedias (e.g., Britannica) take when defining Christianity, so this is a rather idiosyncratic view you hold.

Encyclopedias are for grade school research assignments.

Sure, encyclopedias provide a general, consensus description of various topics, so are good starting points for people (including children) learning about something.

That's my point: If you are using the term 'Christianity' in a way that runs completely contrary to the Encyclopedia Britannica, then other people are going to find your idiosyncratic description confusing. That doesn't facilitate better discussion on a forum like this.

If Encyclopedia Britannica already answered the question (even in a general sense), then why are we having the debate?

But I get your point, and if this is a debate about religion, in the sense of the various social institutions proliferating throughout history and grouped under the banner 'Christian', then by all means. But we need to separate out those institutions from the most original articulations of the church (/body of Christ). As idiosyncratic as it may be, they are the best approximation we have for the teachings of Jesus Christ and therefore what the Christian church ought to be (and how a Christian should be measured).

[cms]

I told you why, I use that as the starting point because it cover most popular sects of Christianity.

All the faiths that claim to be Christianity aren't Christianity as per my post #65. Each is it's own faith. We say that all are Christianity because of a few shared beliefs. But as I pointed out,we don't do this with any of the other faiths.

Merely loving others as ourselves would make Christians out of many non Christians.

On the contrary, the other faiths are turning Christians into non- Christians.

The starting point you suggested here, says nothing about the importance of sin and forgiveness, of an everlasting life.

The NT has already boiled the minimal requirements of Christianity down to this " Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law." Love does no harm to a neighbor ( or yourself); therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Aka. the law of Christ

"Forgive and you will be forgiven.", which is part of loving others as yourself

When claiming the name Christianity, one agrees to abide by the law that it requires. And when one enters in, he/ she must leave all other baggage at the door. Adding things to the requirements constitutes another faith and another name.

P.S. I got you note. It seems that the expand view only goes back so far, so I was unable to quote. Of course, I'm probably doing something wrong. Do you have any tips?

[Bust Nak]

All the faiths that claim to be Christianity aren't Christianity as per my post #65. Each is it's own faith. We say that all are Christianity because of a few shared beliefs. But as I pointed out, we don't do this with any of the other faiths.

We don't? Not sure what you mean here, there are different sects of Buddhism, we say they are all Buddhism because of a few shared beliefs re: desire, suffering, rebirth and Karma. Doesn't this count?

Also a word with my moderator hat on, careful about stating which faith is and isn't Christian, because it's a contentious issue, there is a blanket ban on that, check rule 15.

On the contrary, the other faiths are turning Christians into non- Christians.

Not sure why it's "on the contrary" and not "concurrently." Many nominally non Christians are loving, making them Christians; and many nominally Christians are hateful, making them non Christians.

The NT has already boiled the minimal requirements of Christianity down to this " Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law." Love does no harm to a neighbor ( or yourself); therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Aka. the law of Christ

"Forgive and you will be forgiven.", which is part of loving others as yourself

When claiming the name Christianity, one agrees to abide by the law that it requires. And when one enters in, he/ she must leave all other baggage at the door. Adding things to the requirements constitutes another faith and another name.

That's still missing the resurrection and an ever lasting life. Is that not core to Christianity?

P.S. I got you note. It seems that the expand view only goes back so far, so I was unable to quote. Of course, I'm probably doing something wrong. Do you have any tips?

Not sure, but there is a button near the bottom of a page, where you can sort and filter post by date.