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'?

[theophile]

I said the NT is the core teaching of Christianity / all Christian churches (or at least the majority - I'm sure there are some crazy exceptions). Are you arguing that point?

But tam and cms are the ones arguing against that point.

Did they? I know they gave other views, which may very well be true. I believe in a multiplicity of truth. Different aspects, levels, and whatnot. Even your broader question of "pure" versus "core". And bringing "truth" into it too. These all require further context to be understood how, of if, they fit, and what they fit, and whether that makes any sense.

By way of context, my first post had distinguished between Christian beliefs and Christian values (I didn't specifically say 'values', but that was was in my mind at the time). My opinion was that I saw Christians (as a category) more easily in terms of belief than values, since a lot of those values aren't exclusively held by Christians. There's a large overlap with other religious groups, as well as humanists.

That position was challenged by way of using Hitler as an example, which (I think) was what led you to rightly caution us all of the dangers of stereotyping: the point about 'giving Christianity a bad name' above. You're exactly right there, as there are unfortunately many people who will accept 'Hitler was a Christian. Hitler was evil. Therefore, Christians are evil' as a sound and logical argument.

Which of course, it absolutely isn't.

Again, just my opinion, but it appears to me as if cms is more in the 'values' camp, while your claim about New Testament teachings fits better in the 'beliefs' camp. tam is (meant in a non-judgemental way) a bit of an outlier in this respect, and certainly has a very different approach again to what defines a Christian.

Good summary! Let me try to summarize some of the multiple Christian truths to try to bring it together, and perhaps a more well-rounded answer to the OP. (My view at least --)

Visceral: like an actual person you could meet in the world who is the real deal
Moral: what a Christian values, influencing right and wrong and how they are meant to live their lives
Source: the NT (I would equally add the OT but whatever)
Dogmatic: specific churches and associated teachings
Popular: the baptized masses and what they believe
Academic: what the more objective professionals have to say
Historical: what actually happened

I'm sure we could grow and refine the list.

[historia]

That is, indeed, the whole point of the thread. Some here have tried to make this a discussion about who is a 'true' Christian or what is 'true' Christianity, but that idea is wholly foreign to the questions posed in the OP.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you, but isn't that what you are doing (with regard to the bold and underlined), when you say that we should be picturing the RCC or Eastern Orthodox when we think of "Christianity"?

No, what I meant there was that some folks in this thread want to equate the term 'Christianity' with what is 'true'. And, so they think that only those Christian beliefs and practices that they personally agree with should be referred to as 'Christianity'.

My argument -- actually it's Bust Nak's argument, I'm just adapting it -- is that Roman Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy are the mainstream, historical (and to this day still the largest) expression of Christianity. And so we should have that in mind when generally talking about Christianity without any qualifier.

We can take the same approach with other religions, too, as I noted in post #23. So this is not about what is ultimately 'true'.

[cms]

Again, just my opinion, but it appears to me as if cms is more in the 'values' camp,

Diagoras, Actually, I think this is a pretty good description. I agree with theophile in the being/doing and with tam in saying Jesus. I think we might very well be saying the same things but in different ways. I believe this what the Old and New Testaments are teaching. Honesty, love, joy, peace,mercy,kindness, goodness, etc.etc. are the fruits of the Spirit, and what many saw /see in Jesus, all things good (aka light).

[tam]

Peace to you,

That is, indeed, the whole point of the thread. Some here have tried to make this a discussion about who is a 'true' Christian or what is 'true' Christianity, but that idea is wholly foreign to the questions posed in the OP.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you, but isn't that what you are doing (with regard to the bold and underlined), when you say that we should be picturing the RCC or Eastern Orthodox when we think of "Christianity"?

No, what I meant there was that some folks in this thread want to equate the term 'Christianity' with what is 'true'. And, so they think that only those Christian beliefs and practices that they personally agree with should be referred to as 'Christianity'.

My argument -- actually it's Bust Nak's argument, I'm just adapting it -- is that Roman Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy are the mainstream, historical (and to this day still the largest) expression of Christianity. And so we should have that in mind when generally talking about Christianity without any qualifier.

I think I understand what you mean now. But I don't think what you are suggesting is possible. There are too many protestants/protestant sects. The RCC/Eastern Orthodox would never be what comes to mind for me when hearing or referring to "Christianity". It's the oldest, and the biggest, but it doesn't have the power/authority or influence that it used to have. That is more with the protestant/evangelical groups, even a smaller group that stemmed from them can have a great deal of influence in the world. Of course, that could depend on what part of the world you live in.


And when asking a person what they picture "Christianity" as being in their mind's eye, I don't think many are going to picture something that they don't think is true (the exception being someone who believes all Christianity - the religion with its many sects and denominations - is false). So I suspect that what a person thinks is true (or false) is going to necessarily be a factor in what they picture when thinking of "Christianity".


Just some thoughts.

Peace again to you.

[historia]

My argument -- actually it's Bust Nak's argument, I'm just adapting it -- is that Roman Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy are the mainstream, historical (and to this day still the largest) expression of Christianity. And so we should have that in mind when generally talking about Christianity without any qualifier.

I think I understand what you mean now. But I don't think what you are suggesting is possible.

It's definitely possible. Bust Nak and I (and no doubt others) have been doing it for years.

The RCC/Eastern Orthodox would never be what comes to mind for me when hearing or referring to "Christianity".

That can happen to people who grew up as (or around) Protestants. I appreciate it can be hard to take a broader perspective.

There are too many protestants/protestant sects.

A couple of thoughts here:

First, I'm not exactly asking for a definition of the term 'Christianity' in this thread, which may be what is hanging you up here. Surely, any complete definition of Christianity would include Protestant denominations and other Christian sects.

Instead, I'm asking for something more impressionistic: How do you picture Christianity.

I would argue that Christianity is simply too diverse a religious tradition to realistically have all of it in mind when talking about it in general terms. Any comment along the lines of "Christianity teaches X" or "Christians believe Y" would be vacuous if it had to encompass even the most marginal Christian sects.

Moreover, that seems unnecessary when there is actually a great deal of agreement among most Christian denominations on a wide array of beliefs and practices. If we try to take in all the minor exceptions, we might miss the general rules. Which leads me to:

Second, Protestants agree with historical, orthodox Christianity on many points.

As I noted above, Anglicans (one of the largest Protestant bodies) are very similar to Roman Catholics. Lutherans are too, just to a lesser degree. Indeed, there is a gradation of agreement with historical, orthodox Christianity within Protestantism.

In that way, the influence of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy extends well beyond those two communions into many Protestant churches.

Even folks in this thread who want to eschew all of these denominations nevertheless appear to accept as authoritative the New Testament canon that orthodox Christians put together.

And when asking a person what they picture "Christianity" as being in their mind's eye, I don't think many are going to picture something that they don't think is true (the exception being someone who believes all Christianity - the religion with its many sects and denominations - is false). So I suspect that what a person thinks is true (or false) is going to necessarily be a factor in what they picture when thinking of "Christianity".

I appreciate that. I'm just asking people to put aside their subjective, idiosyncratic views in favor of something more objective.

[tam]

Peace to you,

My argument -- actually it's Bust Nak's argument, I'm just adapting it -- is that Roman Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy are the mainstream, historical (and to this day still the largest) expression of Christianity. And so we should have that in mind when generally talking about Christianity without any qualifier.

I think I understand what you mean now. But I don't think what you are suggesting is possible.

It's definitely possible. Bust Nak and I (and no doubt others) have been doing it for years.

Possible for some people, sure (especially for those who already hold that view). I don't see that as being possible for everyone. For reasons already stated.

The RCC/Eastern Orthodox would never be what comes to mind for me when hearing or referring to "Christianity".

That can happen to people who grew up as (or around) Protestants. I appreciate it can be hard to take a broader perspective.

That sounds a bit dismissive.

I attended a Roman Catholic High School (which included religion class, religious retreats, and mass - though as soon as it was permitted, I took a world religions class so I could see what others believed outside of "Christianity"). I attended some sunday school classes in protestant religions as a younger child, as well as a couple RCC masses with a catholic friend and her family.

How much broader of a perspective could I have had?

There are too many protestants/protestant sects.

A couple of thoughts here:

First, I'm not exactly asking for a definition of the term 'Christianity' in this thread, which may be what is hanging you up here. Surely, any complete definition of Christianity would include Protestant denominations and other Christian sects.

Instead, I'm asking for something more impressionistic: How do you picture Christianity.

And I answered that.

I would argue that Christianity is simply too diverse a religious tradition to realistically have all of it in mind when talking about it in general terms.

The fact that it is too diverse a religious tradition suggests to me that it is not realistic to have just one sect in mind when talking about it in general terms.

Any comment along the lines of "Christianity teaches X" or "Christians believe Y" would be vacuous if it had to encompass even the most marginal Christian sects.

Moreover, that seems unnecessary when there is actually a great deal of agreement among most Christian denominations on a wide array of beliefs and practices. If we try to take in all the minor exceptions, we might miss the general rules. Which leads me to:

Second, Protestants agree with historical, orthodox Christianity on many points.

As I noted above, Anglicans (one of the largest Protestant bodies) are very similar to Roman Catholics. Lutherans are too, just to a lesser degree. Indeed, there is a gradation of agreement with historical, orthodox Christianity within Protestantism.

In that way, the influence of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy extends well beyond those two communions into many Protestant churches.

Even folks in this thread who want to eschew all of these denominations nevertheless appear to accept as authoritative the New Testament canon that orthodox Christians put together.

If we are going by influence (please see my first post on this thread), then why stop with the RCC? The RCC was influenced by the Roman State Religion before it.

And when asking a person what they picture "Christianity" as being in their mind's eye, I don't think many are going to picture something that they don't think is true (the exception being someone who believes all Christianity - the religion with its many sects and denominations - is false). So I suspect that what a person thinks is true (or false) is going to necessarily be a factor in what they picture when thinking of "Christianity".

I appreciate that. I'm just asking people to put aside their subjective, idiosyncratic views in favor of something more objective.

And that is where it is going to very much depend upon how a person defines "Christianity".


Peace again to you.

[theophile]

I appreciate that. I'm just asking people to put aside their subjective, idiosyncratic views in favor of something more objective.

...

My argument -- actually it's Bust Nak's argument, I'm just adapting it -- is that Roman Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy are the mainstream, historical (and to this day still the largest) expression of Christianity. And so we should have that in mind when generally talking about Christianity without any qualifier.

What makes you think, just because idiosyncratic views are being expressed, that they are not objective? Or that there isn't a desire for objectivity in the person expressing them? This is the second time you've made a comment to that effect and it's a bit puzzling.

Does being mainstream give objectivity to a view? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

All I see you doing is applying your own biases, favoring the most "historical" churches with the "largest" followings, to push what the default view of Christianity should be. How is that more objective than my favoring actual biblical testimony, and how it describes the church? Answer: it isn't. We each have our preferences (e.g., history versus biblical testimony). Your preference isn't more objective than mine (or tell me why it is), and neither of our preferences precludes objectivity in our answers. At least not so far as I can tell.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #116]

I attended a Roman Catholic High School (which included religion class, religious retreats, and mass - though as soon as it was permitted, I took a world religions class so I could see what others believed outside of "Christianity"). I attended some sunday school classes in protestant religions as a younger child, as well as a couple RCC masses with a catholic friend and her family.

How much broader of a perspective could I have had?

Oh, and Mormons too. I totally forgot. We used to live next door to a mormon family when I was younger, and I was friends with one of their children, and they took me to one or two of their religious gatherings. I don't recall any teaching, I just remember a big potluck meal and sitting on the floor afterward with other children.

(I also remember that the mom seemed so comforting and gentle... with a big comforting motherly bosom! I have personal experience of that bosom because she had many children, and while she was baking something in the kitchen, one of her sons decided to taking a flying leap off an armchair, directly onto my stomach as I was lying on the floor... you know, this was before wrestling was discovered to be 'fake'. I would have cried if I could have drawn a breath, lol, but this was the first time I ever had the wind knocked out of me. All I remember was the mom rushing in and completely engulfing me in a big warm bosomy hug. Problem solved, lol.)

Sorry, just got caught up in the memory.


Peace again to you and to you all!

[JoeyKnothead]

Peace to you,
...
(I also remember that the mom seemed so comforting and gentle... with a big comforting motherly bosom! I have personal experience of that bosom because she had many children, and while she was baking something in the kitchen, one of her sons decided to taking a flying leap off an armchair, directly onto my stomach as I was lying on the floor... you know, this was before wrestling was discovered to be 'fake'. I would have cried if I could have drawn a breath, lol, but this was the first time I ever had the wind knocked out of me. All I remember was the mom rushing in and completely engulfing me in a big warm bosomy hug. Problem solved, lol.)

Sorry, just got caught up in the memory.

Peace again to you and to you all!

Lol

It ain't right to laugh at someone's pain, but sometimes it is, ya can't help but to do it.

With loving respect.

[bjs1]

For my part, I think of Christianity in terms of doctrine as acceptance of the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, the Beatitudes, and the 10 Commandments.

There is a lot of other stuff that has to be worked out to have any kind of meaningful expression of Christianity, but those are the bare bones that someone has to accept as true in order to be an orthodox Christian.