Are Roman Catholics Christians?

[Hitchkok]

I found interesting things in my search.

This Book

This Page

A quote from the above page may explain our current conundrum.

Below is an article defining once and for all what is a Christian. It's such a quagmire that even believers themselves cannot agree. I find it absolutely hilarious that any of these apologists has the gall to tell anyone else what is a Christian. ;-)

Honestly, it's an entertaining post.

you forgot the next sentence in that page:

To avoid confusion, we repeat here our site's simple definition of "Christian:

"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe that they follow Yeshua of Nazareth's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) teachings as they understand them to be."

which, honestly, counters about half your posts (i.e., accepts the raptilien warlord and the gospel by samwise gamgee to be just as true as the orthodox, catholic, protestant, and any other church). and also, does not require belief in jesus as either son of god, part of the holy trinity or messiah.
this in effect will prove you right, as it will show my definition is not universally accepted. HOWEVER:
you chose to conveniently disregard my request that the qoutes will be from a reliable source. the first clue is the site's name: "debunking christianity". not much of a searious discussion comes from such a title. definiatly not an objective one. a quick google search came up with these:
The John W. Loftus Closet of Logical Fallacies
John W. Loftus: Irrational or Idiotic?.
regarding the book, you might want to point me to where it defines christianity and christians.

now, if you'll read ny first link you will most likely accuse me of at least two fallacies:
1)ad populum, for claiming that my definition is correct because it is universally accepted.
2) ad hominem, for claiming loftus's ideas are not reliable because he is not an expert/authority in this field.

my answers are this:
1) as previously stated, since this is a definition, the basic building block of logical chains, acceptance is the only criterion to which it must concede in order to be true.
2) the page clearly explains why loftus's ideas are null from a rigid logical stand point.

having said that: techniclly, youv'e proven youre point. the definition is not universally accepted. but then again, to do this you could have just stated that you do not accept it.
as it stands, you failed to provide a strong counter-point to the definition.

[agapooka]

But the only point that I was trying to make was that it wasn't universally accepted. As I told Thriller, I cannot argue with individual definitions. That's why I didn't mention that website's definition, because they claim it is their own, not that it is universally accepted. In fact, they state that it is not universally accepted.

Having grown up in a fundamentalist setting where a literal interpretation of the Bible was the only accepted interpretation, I was literally surrounded by people who disagreed with your definition for the same reasons that we've covered before about the distinction between the necessity and sufficiency of certain criteria.

I am not setting out to prove that your definition is wrong. How could I? I can't prove that it's right, either. One must only observe the conflict WITHIN Christendom to understand that there is no universally accepted definition of a Christian. I found that the webpage I found illustrated that humorously. That is all.

EDIT: I've now read the posts concerning the individual who authors the blog to which I linked you. Whilst it seems that he had committed quite a few fallacies, it is indeed an ad hominem to assume that every conclusion to which he has come relies on a fllacy or more. Granted, I always described this particular post as "entertaining" and "humorous". The lack of agreement on the definition of a Christian within Christendom is something I've experienced and it is a feature of quite a lot of bloodshed throughout history, according to the history books...

EDIT2: As for the book, it is a mere compilation of different Christian creeds. A creed is a statement of faith that ultimately has the effect of defining who adheres to a particular faith.


Cheers,

Agapooka

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

I feel that discussions of whether definitions of Christianity are universally accepted or not are moot.

Christianity is a belief of personal choosing, an expression of personal faith. A Christian is any person who defines themselves as one.

[agapooka]

Personally, I see no problem with that definition, so long as you apply it consistently.

This means that even someone who commits heresy by your own standards can also be a Christian from your perspective, if they call themselves a Christian. If this is the case, I accept your definition.


Agapooka

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

Personally, I see no problem with that definition, so long as you apply it consistently.

This means that even someone who commits heresy by your own standards can also be a Christian from your perspective, if they call themselves a Christian. If this is the case, I accept your definition.


Agapooka

Of course they are still Christians, heresy or not.

Mind you, as the name implies, it requires an adherence to some form of "Christ".

[Brdavs]

How did this reached page five?

I simply looked up "christianity" on wiki, saw the definition and followed the link to the "List of Christian denominations" and it all makes sense and seems clear to me.

[Hitchkok]

How did this reached page five?

I simply looked up "christianity" on wiki, saw the definition and followed the link to the "List of Christian denominations" and it all makes sense and seems clear to me.

well, it reached page 5 since wikipedia is a very bad site to reference as a way of proving a point.
why? because if i don't like the definition it gives, i can just change it, thus "proving" every point i wish to make.
having said that. wikipedia is usually accurate and reliable (i cite it myself alot, including in this thread). just problematic in discussions like this.

[Brdavs]

The point wasnt that wiki is the crown jewel proof of anything.

The point was that the discussion is unnecessary pvercomplicating of certain "objective facts" which to me seem adequatly stated on wiki. I feel this is like arguing weather or not 1 and 2 are both numbers despite their differences of one being odd, the other even, one being prime and the other not etc.

I mean it`s kinda "universally accepted" that christians are peolpe who hold a belief system centered around one carpenter jesus of nazareth. How those induviduals percieve eachother is not exactly relevant.

It`s like having a discussion about islam, christianity and judaism being abrahamic religions bickering that they cant be cos each one cites for the other two that they`re blasphemy. Taht doesn`t matter the slightest. They all go back to abraham and, so to speak, revear what is basically one and the same diety, only their interpretations varie. One that is not bothered with subjective perceptions can objectivly see "dude, thats the same abraham it all tracks back to" ergo they are all abrahamic faiths! Sure each one would like dibbs on the interpretation of the term and a solly valid POV but hey, thats "lolz" material.
Same with christianity.

[Hitchkok]

the thing is, the discussion became formal logic.
talking formal logic, Agapooka, by bringing a different definition to a christian, showed that my definition ("a person who believes Jesus of nazereth is the messiah and son of god") is not universally accepted.
that what took most of the thread.
i still think it is a very good definition, it is the definition cited on wikipedia (for what it's worth), it's the definition i will keep on using, but it is not accepted by many people. Greased Gerbile being one. my father being another. and i'm sure if you'll ask around you will find some more.
and there is no such thing as "objective facts" in theology (i think we covered that too in the discussion), because theology (religion, faith, belief system, what ever you like), almost by definition (and i know, here we go again...) is subjective.

[Brdavs]

It`s theological because your definition is too theological and by that completley inadequate. Cos christianity in itself is not a (solely) theological term - and in the context of this particular debate of clasiffications, it`s the "laymans" notion of the term that is the relevant one.

You need to find the lowest possible common denominator. And as long as you CAN find that common denominator, these religions have something in common and can be classified via that.
Weather or not members of said religions wish to recognise that is irrelevant.

Your argument is aplicable to "disproving" any established qualification regarding religions in existance. Good for you, but hey, whats the point eh? Islam judaism & christianity are all monotheistic faith, even if they discount eachother as blasphemy, that each has itsown one "true" god and that the christian god is apparently a schizophreniac. That much is fact as far as 99.999% of people are concerned. Rest are irrelevant to all but themselves.
And all christian faiths are about that guy christ, even if they don`t all see eye to eye.

Because no one numenator has dibbs on the denominator.

"A religious belief centered around one J.C." - I`ll think you`ll be hard pressed to find me a subjective nieche that considers itself christian that this definition wont apply to. And I also think such a definition is a lot closer to what pops in uninvolved peoples mind than the one you stated. "Christianity. Its about buddy christ. "messi? Lionel? son of whoagain?" Yea, whatever, that guy christ, beard, toga, cross. Got`cha."



And its so painfully obvious that this is a theological discussion, you guys are arguing about blatantly obvious things (to most people) for no particulary good reason. I mean christ people... Pun intented.

[Hitchkok]

i'm just explaining how it got to page five...

[Brdavs]

Oh...