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]

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.

Maybe what you mean is that it is difficult (rather than impossible) for some people to look at Christianity this way because of their prior theological commitments. I certainly appreciate that.

How much broader of a perspective could I have had?

My comment was about how some people who grew up as (or around) Protestants have a hard time looking at Christianity from anything other than a Protestant perspective (a point that a few atheists acknowledged early in the thread).

I'm not saying that necessarily describes you personally -- I'm trying to keep my comments more general. But if that doesn't explain your personal objections to this view, then I retract my comment.

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.

Sure, a 'sect' is, in sociological terms, a group that has broken away from a larger, established religious denomination and adopted a set of beliefs and practices that differ in some key ways from the parent group. In that way, a sect can never be what we have in mind when talking about a religion in general terms.

On the other hand, the view that Bust Nak offered in the OP takes the largest denomination from Christianity, Roman Catholicism, removes a couple of distinctive beliefs, and uses that as the baseline for viewing Christianity. That baseline describes Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy to a tee. And, depending on what belief or practices we are discussing, will find many Protestants in agreement as well, even if not all Protestant churches agree with every belief and practice in the baseline.

That seems to me like an entirely reasonable and practical way of approaching discussions on this board, especially if we want to talk about Christianity in general terms. If, instead, someone wants to talk about ideas unique to one or another Protestant denomination or sect, then they should be more specific.

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.

Christianity, like all religions, was influenced by religious ideas and movements before it -- especially Judaism, which itself was influenced by Persian religion and Greek philosophy, as well as older Babylonian and Egyptian religions.

But, whereas the influence of Roman religion on orthodox Christianity was rather superficial, the influence of historical, orthodox Christianity on modern-day Protestant denominations is substantial, including core beliefs about God, Jesus, scripture, and so on.

So the two are not really comparable.

[historia]

What makes you think, just because idiosyncratic views are being expressed, that they are not objective?

If a view is truly idiosyncratic, then it rests on the peculiar assumptions and interpretations of an individual. That is to say, it is more subjective.

Does being mainstream give objectivity to a view?

No, but more objective views tend to become mainstream, since they don't require people to adopt one individual's peculiar assumptions and interpretations.

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.

Don't we normally understand social phenomena like religions, political parties, and cultural movements based on an analysis -- both historical and in the present -- of what they actually believe and do? How is that 'biased'?

Looking at Christianity from an historical point of view commits us to certain historical facts, whether we personally like them or not, and so is more objective. Whereas conceiving of Christianity as an idealized concept of what the Church ought to be, based on someone's personal interpretation of passages that they selected from the Bible, seems far more subjective. If the Bible alone provided some objective way of determining what Christianity ought to be, then there simply wouldn't be the diversity of Protestant denominations and sects we see today.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's something we see in a lot of religions - while the basics (based on a book, usually) are the same (even the Buddhists tried to find common ground between Therevada and Mahayana), human groups will invent all sorts of regional variants which ought not to matter if the core beliefs are the same, but so often they do. That's apart from individuals who, for some reason or other, come up with some individual sect or cult.

I have observed before now that atheists tend to accept anyone with the basic belief in Jesus as the risen demigod as a Christian, while the Christians are the ones to damn each other to hell for misinterpreting some Bibletext.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #123]

I have observed before now that atheists tend to accept anyone with the basic belief in Jesus as the risen demigod as a Christian...

This appears to contradict the lack of belief in gods. Why would anyone who lacks such belief 'tend to accept' anyone who doesn't lack such belief?

Is the belief in 'demigods' somehow exempt from being grouped in with the belief in 'gods'?

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #123]

I have observed before now that atheists tend to accept anyone with the basic belief in Jesus as the risen demigod as a Christian...

This appears to contradict the lack of belief in gods. Why would anyone who lacks such belief 'tend to accept' anyone who doesn't lack such belief?

Is the belief in 'demigods' somehow exempt from being grouped in with the belief in 'gods'?

I accept that you believe in some sort of cosmic intelligence. I don't accept the belief.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #123]

I have observed before now that atheists tend to accept anyone with the basic belief in Jesus as the risen demigod as a Christian...

This appears to contradict the lack of belief in gods. Why would anyone who lacks such belief 'tend to accept' anyone who doesn't lack such belief?

Is the belief in 'demigods' somehow exempt from being grouped in with the belief in 'gods'?

<bolding mine>

I'm not TRANSPONDER, but like him, if someone told me they held a belief in Jesus as a risen demigod, then I would believe them to be a 'Christian'. It doesn't mean I accept their belief as true.

"I accept that you're not an atheist, because I have the evidence that you believe in Jesus, and I understand that to mean you're a Christian."

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #123]

I have observed before now that atheists tend to accept anyone with the basic belief in Jesus as the risen demigod as a Christian...

This appears to contradict the lack of belief in gods. Why would anyone who lacks such belief 'tend to accept' anyone who doesn't lack such belief?

Is the belief in 'demigods' somehow exempt from being grouped in with the belief in 'gods'?

<bolding mine>

I'm not TRANSPONDER, but like him, if someone told me they held a belief in Jesus as a risen demigod, then I would believe them to be a 'Christian'. It doesn't mean I accept their belief as true.

"I accept that you're not an atheist, because I have the evidence that you believe in Jesus, and I understand that to mean you're a Christian."

Interesting when worded that way.

What gives anyone who lack belief in gods, the idea that someone who believes in Jesus, means that they are a "Christian"?
Is it something biblical Jesus said, or from some other source?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #123]

I have observed before now that atheists tend to accept anyone with the basic belief in Jesus as the risen demigod as a Christian...

This appears to contradict the lack of belief in gods. Why would anyone who lacks such belief 'tend to accept' anyone who doesn't lack such belief?

Is the belief in 'demigods' somehow exempt from being grouped in with the belief in 'gods'?

I accept that you believe in some sort of cosmic intelligence. I don't accept the belief.

Interesting.

What makes you accept that I believe in 'some sort of cosmic intelligence'?

Is the acceptance based upon belief?

[Bust Nak]

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.

Catholic minus papal authority and Mary mother of God isn't just one sect though. Sounds to me like it would also cover Protestant Churches, are stuff like transubstantiation, crosses vs crucifix all that interesting when we are talking about Christianity as a whole?

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

Catholic minus papal authority and Mary mother of God isn't just one sect though.

Isn't that just protestentism?