Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What constitutes a Christian denomination?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Ooh! Dictionary wars!

    Here's the line that follows that definition here: A branch of any religion.
    SOED includes this: "A religious sect or body designated by a distinctive name".
    From your own link:

    A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church:

    Oops...

    Quite easily, given the alternative definitions you deliberately omitted.
    When I was in grade school, I learned that the first definition is often the most accepted definition on the list and moving down the list goes into less accepted definitions. Too bad for you. Oh well... when you can't win though logic and good reasons... blame others for your own failures...

    Incidentally, the definition you isolated is clearly not the only one since it doesn't recognise that other religions, such as Judaism, also have different denominations.Yes. It's a named subgroup of a religion. There may be other definitions you prefer because they support your argument, but that's the one I was using. I'll let rogue decide that.
    So what? We're talking about Christian groups, not Jewish ones. If you want to talk about Jewish groups, go talk to them.

    You may now have the last word - I'm no longer interested in your insults and quibbling.
    Irony at its finest. I think you can't admit that you're wrong and will do anything to avoid it... including ignoring basic facts (such as the fact that the first definition in the dictionary, is the most accepted or common one and that is why it is listed first).
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 02-22-2015, 11:01 AM.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      I would accept anyone as Christian who can affirm that the Apostolic and Nicene Creed faithfully condenses the essential teachings of the Bible (although I would be willing to make some concessions regarding whether or not someone thinks that Christ was begotten or not*).
      Careful - that might make me a Christian too You might want to add something about affirming the Creed itself.

      Otherwise I think that's a reasonable definition of a Christian. I suspect it's applicable to almost all the groups I listed (including at least one of the fictional ones). I'm not sure whether the Jehovah's witnesses accept the creed or not; a brief bit of research suggests they do accept it (and insist it is man-made), but non-Witnesses claim otherwise. I know the Mormons play fast and loose with it.

      The tricky part of the creed is the last section about "one church". Technically that wouldn't just discharge Witnesses and Mormons, but also all non-Catholics.

      Why should it take preference over the criteria of unorthodox groups? It's quite simple really, us orthodox people got first dibs on the term Christians and these unorthodox people came later and tried to wrongfully steal the term for themselves.
      I think it's not so much that they tried to steal the term, but that they added so many additional codicils, footnotes, clauses, tithes, requirements and other distractions that the "Christian" bit got lost in the noise. It's still there though, despite the founders of some of these groups being charlatans.

      Roy
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

      Comment


      • #33
        "The meanings are arranged with as strict a regard as possible for their appearance in order of time"
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          Maybe someone should move this whole "30 000 different denomination"-discussion to a thread of its own? It's strayed quite a bit from the original topic of this thread, IMO.
          Might be a good idea. Rogue?
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Careful - that might make me a Christian too You might want to add something about affirming the Creed itself.
            I would think that's so obvious it needn't even be mentioned.

            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Otherwise I think that's a reasonable definition of a Christian. I suspect it's applicable to almost all the groups I listed (including at least one of the fictional ones). I'm not sure whether the Jehovah's witnesses accept the creed or not; a brief bit of research suggests they do accept it (and insist it is man-made), but non-Witnesses claim otherwise. I know the Mormons play fast and loose with it.
            I suspect you could say that Jehovah's witnesses agree with the Apostle's creed if you really want to (although I think it would be quite a stretch), but they most definitely don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            The tricky part of the creed is the last section about "one church". Technically that wouldn't just discharge Witnesses and Mormons, but also all non-Catholics.
            Except the part about there being one catholic church doesn't really refer to the Catholic Church with a big C, but rather the collective of all true Christians around the world. I.e the universal Church, rather than the Catholic church.

            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            I think it's not so much that they tried to steal the term, but that they added so many additional codicils, footnotes, clauses, tithes, requirements and other distractions that the "Christian" bit got lost in the noise. It's still there though, despite the founders of some of these groups being charlatans.

            Roy
            The problem of course, is that it is many of these "additional codicils, footnotes, clauses, tithes, requirements and other distractions" (not to mention denials of, and distortions of, orthodox Christian teachings) is what disqualifies them from being Christian in the first place.

            Also, it seems I wrote the Apostolic Creed instead of the Apostle's Creed (), but I suspect most people understood what I meant.
            Last edited by JonathanL; 02-22-2015, 11:55 AM. Reason: replaced "most" with "many".

            Comment


            • #36
              It's quite funny, but I just noticed that I tend to overuse this guy () quite a lot.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                I would think that's so obvious it needn't even be mentioned.
                I see you don't post here often
                Except the part about there being one catholic church doesn't really refer to the Catholic Church with a big C, but rather the collective of all true Christians around the world. I.e the universal Church, rather than the Catholic church.
                When the Nicene creed was written we didn't have all these offshoots and non-Catholic versions of Christianity, so I'm not sure that what they meant then would apply to today's world. Anyway, haven't you introduced a paradox? If the definition of a true Christian is one that follows the Nicene creed, then the Nicene creed can't assume a separate definition of true Christians.

                Having lived through sectarian violence between protestants and catholics, as well as being aware of the history of those movements, I'm not sure that either of them would accept your interpretation that all true Christians belong to one church.

                The problem of course, is that it is many of these "additional codicils, footnotes, clauses, tithes, requirements and other distractions" (not to mention denials of, and distortions of, orthodox Christian teachings) is what disqualifies them from being Christian in the first place.
                Denials and distortions I agree could revoke their Christian status. But additions? If some-one affirms the Nicene creed but also insists God calls us to be vegetarians, does that mean they aren't a Christian? And even the idea of later prophets emerging doesn't contradict anything in Christianity that I'm aware of. (Feel free to point out anything that demonstrates I'm wrong)

                Also, it seems I wrote the Apostolic Creed instead of the Apostle's Creed (), but I suspect most people understood what I meant.
                Aren't they just different names for the same thing?

                Roy
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                  So have you read the theology of Christian scientist, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons? I wasn't aware that Jesus taught the physical world was a delusion or that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. This is just a few problems with your definition above. Do you want me to carry on?



                  Perhaps because the Franciscans are official affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church and submit to it and the pope's authority? I think you just found a list online and are really hoping that the rest of us do not know how to use the internet to quickly look up information on your list. How could the Franciscans be a separate denomination, when they are officially part of the Roman Catholic Church and submit to the church's authority? That is like saying that New York isn't part of the US because it has a state government (even though New York officially agrees to be part of the US). Does that make any sense to you?
                  I’d call most, if not all of those groups “Christian” (excluding those Catholic orders from this). I agree that it can be a problem when you get to the grey areas, for example, groups that deny the trinity.



                  What makes me call them Christian was from an experience I had around age 20 on actually meeting one of those supposedly non Christian groups. In this case it was the Christadelphians.



                  As a Methodist, I’d always been taught that these groups were non-Christian and heretics and on their way to hell. 

Around the age of 20 I had an acquaintance who was a Christadelphian. He invited me to one of their meetings. I went. Much to my surprise the speaker railed against all non Christadelphian denominations and sects accusing them of the very thing I’d been taught about them.

                  

After the meeting I was engaged in a friendly argument with a couple of Christadelphians, including the speaker. It brought about the undoing of my beliefs. For about an hour we both stood there arguing that each other was the heretic and on his way to hell, while we were the true Christian, on our way to heaven. The book that told us this? The Bible.


                  Then there are the Catholics. Around the traps I come across many Protestant fundamentalists and even conservatives who are adamant that Catholics are not Christian. Yet Catholics do accept the reality of the trinity.

                  

So exactly what is a Christian?
                  Last edited by rwatts; 02-22-2015, 12:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                    And to even reach close to that amount, you have to so loosely define 'denomination', that you have to count cult groups, groups that self identify as Christian (but don't identify as a denomination), fringe nutters, etc. People who make such claims about 'thousands of denominations' need to actually first define what a 'denomination' is and understand what makes a separate denomination (sometimes the only difference is focus or cultural group and no real difference between these groups actually exist).
                    Poke's point is that you're not get anywhere near 30,000 - probably 2 orders of magnitude fewer.

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      I can rarely resist a challenge.

                      Greek Orthodox
                      Church of England, Anglican
                      Church of Scotland
                      Baptist
                      Southern Baptist
                      Methodist
                      Roman Catholic
                      7th Day Adventists
                      Church of Jesus Christ of the latter day saints
                      Unitarians
                      Tai-ping (starting to scrape the barrel here)
                      Westboro baptist
                      Russian Orthodox
                      Lutheran
                      Christian Scientists
                      Jehovah's witnesses
                      Albigensians
                      Dominicans
                      Franciscans
                      Trappists
                      Knights Templar
                      Order of St Stephen
                      Dutch Protestant
                      Church of Christ Computer Programmer
                      Marcionites
                      Revivalists
                      Order of St Titus
                      Mennonites
                      Branch Davidians


                      That's 29, but several of them are historical, and two are fictional. Still, I think I managed 20 from memory.

                      It was hard.

                      However, finding a few hundred shouldn't be a problem. Opening Brewer's at "Monk" immediately reminded me of the Benedictine order, as well as the Carthusians and Cistercians, and linked to the Augustinians and Carmelites, which led to the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Wikipedia lists dozens and dozens of them. It wouldn't surprise me if there actually were many thousands altogether.

                      Roy
                      A worthy try but in some ways you proved my point. You need an incredibly liberal definition of the word denomination to create a list with more than a couple dozen. And some of those you mentioned are Christian denominations in the same way that Islam is a Christian or Jewish denomination.

                      Further, the various Roman Catholic orders are not actually denominations. They all follow Roman Catholic teachings but have differences that could almost be called cosmetic. That's like going to two Southern Baptist, or Methodist or Lutheran churches across town from one another and noticing the differences in how they do things and then declaring them separate denominations.

                      And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Order of Titus a medal of sort given to chaplains in the military (I say this because my best friend's father was awarded one)?

                      Finally, IMHO you scraped the bottom of the barrel not with the mention of Tai-ping (not even sure who they even are) but with Westboro Baptist which I honestly believes merely poses as being a church.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rwatts View Post


                        Then there are the Catholics. Around the traps I come across many Protestant fundamentalists and even conservatives who are adamant that Catholics are not Christian. Yet Catholics do accept the reality of the trinity.

                        

So exactly what is a Christian?
                        I don't know how many times I've heard various newscasters say things like "both Christians and Catholics..."

                        There are a lot of things that I disagree with the Catholic Church over. And a few things I admire them for. But to claim that they aren't Christian is for one thing incredibly historically inaccurate.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Maybe someone should move this whole "30 000 different denomination"-discussion to a thread of its own? It's strayed quite a bit from the original topic of this thread, IMO.
                          Might not be a bad idea. I'll ask around for a suitable location (Nat Sci doesn't seem to be the best fit )

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            I don't know how many times I've heard various newscasters say things like "both Christians and Catholics..."

                            There are a lot of things that I disagree with the Catholic Church over. And a few things I admire them for. But to claim that they aren't Christian is for one thing incredibly historically inaccurate.
                            Indeed.

                            And interesting book I've just finished reading:-

                            Apostles of Reason

                            - makes the point that recently, groups within Evangelical Christianity (which has often been hostile to Catholicism), have been looking at Catholicism and finding a lot that was good about it practice of worship.

                            And to your point. Modern Protestants and modern Catholics all share a common ancestor, the Catholics that came before the Reformation. Jorge shares that common ancestor with Protestants and Catholics. Best not tell him though.
                            Last edited by rwatts; 02-22-2015, 01:42 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              I see you don't post here often
                              I've met my fair share of person who needs everything spelled out for them, but I assumed you weren't one of them.


                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              When the Nicene creed was written we didn't have all these offshoots and non-Catholic versions of Christianity, so I'm not sure that what they meant then would apply to today's world.
                              I'm not so certain that the Catholic Church as we think of it now existed either, so I'm not sure if "non-Catholic versions of Christianity" is really a relevant term.

                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Anyway, haven't you introduced a paradox? If the definition of a true Christian is one that follows the Nicene creed, then the Nicene creed can't assume a separate definition of true Christians.
                              But the Nicene Creed itself doesn't assume a separate definition of true Christians, it simply affirms that they exist as the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church". That's a far shot from a definition.

                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Having lived through sectarian violence between protestants and catholics, as well as being aware of the history of those movements, I'm not sure that either of them would accept your interpretation that all true Christians belong to one church.
                              If by church you're referring to a (Christian) religious institution, denomination or something to that effect then I would certainly agree that all true Christians don't belong to one church. But that's really not the way I was using the word church...

                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Denials and distortions I agree could revoke their Christian status. But additions? If some-one affirms the Nicene creed but also insists God calls us to be vegetarians, does that mean they aren't a Christian? And even the idea of later prophets emerging doesn't contradict anything in Christianity that I'm aware of. (Feel free to point out anything that demonstrates I'm wrong)
                              Which is why said many, instead of all of their additions. To clarify, the additions that I think disqualifies a certain sect from being Christian is the ones that they would maintain needs to be followed in order to be saved. So if a sect maintained that God calls us to be vegetarians I would not necessarily say that they aren't Christian, unless they insisted that anyone who doesn't follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation.

                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Aren't they just different names for the same thing?

                              Roy
                              Perhaps, but I think the usage of the term "the Apostle's Creed" is far more common than "the Apostolic Creed".

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                So if a sect maintained that God calls us to be vegetarians I would not necessarily say that they aren't Christian, unless they insisted that anyone who doesn't follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation.
                                I have a problem with that. Isn't that what this argument is largely about?

                                People are asserting that group X cannot be Christian because its members don't follow a Y, where Y is "my version of Christianity" or Y is "anyone who doesn't follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation"?

                                What if, according to the Bible, anyone who does not follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation?

                                ETA
                                And they way I see it, everyone who claims to be Christian also claims to follow the Bible.
                                Last edited by rwatts; 02-22-2015, 02:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X