Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

u/Wahhabislayer I think you meant "wahhabis of Christianity" btw shoma ahl e koja hastid? Iran ?

u/Optical_ilyushin why did you waste your time by dropping sanity in that thread ? It's unnecessary anyways, the Christian religion will soon be replaced by the one true deen, Islam

That is not sanity

Or are there "wrong" interpretations of Christianity? And what forms of Christianity are "wrong" then?

He act's like that is a "Gotcha" question when its really commonly accepted that the first seven Church Councils pretty much hashed this out.

Alright, edited it now, but still basing your beliefs on what ancient people decided was the truth isn't too good.

not sure if your interpretations of my words as "gotcha" is implying anything, but given religious institutions have been defied in the past - without invalidating the branched off sects (see most major theological splits), the only real measure of whether or not an interpretation of religious teachings qualifies someone as a member is arguably the number of people who accept it as a branch of the faith.

even still, so long as those who adhere to that sect are firm believers, in their minds they are of that faith, and unless the faith has membership requirements explicitly written somewhere, I doubt their claim is outside of the definition of a follower.

last I checked, Christianity has no unified requirements to be a Christian beyond believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

last I checked, Christianity has no unified requirements to be a Christian beyond believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Then you must have checked before 381 CE. Ever heard of the Nicene Creed?

the fact that they continued into the 6th century, and schisms on these councils in fact continued, not to mention the entirety of the protestant reformation, showcase that these attempted standardization of Christianity did not really work in any way to make the Christian faith more comprehensive at all.

Unless of course, we go back to 787 and presume Christianity and theology have not progressed since.

You realize that protestants also accept the Nicene Creed right? The Chalcedonian and Athanasian Creed too. The only grey area is the Oriental orthodox or Coptic Christians. They still accept the Nicene Creed though. You can argue that there are a lot of denominations with a lot of different beliefs, but they all agree with the base of the Nicene Creed so it is literally a good working definition of Christianity. Its also how Christians would define themselves.

I am not saying people can or cannot adhere to the agreements and creeds set forth, but understand not only are they not universal, as in fact you have said yourself

he only grey area is the Oriental orthodox or Coptic Christians.

and that many faiths lack the unity to have entrance requirements, as it were.

Last I checked, most Christians aren't going to read theological history, and wouldn't be wholly aware of whether or not they're in violation of such codes of unity. This doesn't discount them as Christians, but it does discount the idea they would necessarily define themselves by these rules, at least universally.

not to mention the fact that followers of a faith can still act outside of the faith and be practitioners, as well as full members, of the faith. Just because a catholic commits a sin doesn't disqualify them as a Catholic, nor does it disqualify them as a Christian. Committing sin, no matter the degree, doesn't disqualify a person unless some major formal action is taken (such as excommunication), and even then, once again, it seems as though excommunication isn't always the be all end all for a branch of faith.

Nice way to conveniently avoid the end of that caveat: even Oriental Orthodox accept the Nicene Creed. It's literally the way Christians have defined themselves for centuries, there have always been people outside that definition trying to claim the word Christian, and there's a word for them too: Heretics. Even if someone doesn't themselves study the history of theology they are attending congregations that affirm the beliefs born out of that history, and so end up affirming orthodox beliefs as well. All your hand waving and hemming and hawing is just a pendantry designed to be inclusive to the point of irrelevance. If anything Heresy helps better define Christianity rather than throw doubt on its confines.

so let me get this clarified: branches which are currently accepted as Christian sects are heresy if they do not adhere to the Nicean creed?

I guess I must apologize for misreading as well, but it seems like we are nitpicking and getting derailed from the original point I was trying to make. it may pay to read my original comment.

so to clarify, does this mean Jehovah's witnesses are heretics, as is the Mormon church and the massive explosion of Christian sects in the last 100 years?

I may very well be wrong in my interpretation of what a Christian is, I would not mind clarification on the matter.

so to clarify, does this mean Jehovah's witnesses are heretics, as is the Mormon church and the massive explosion of Christian sects in the last 100 years?

By definition, yes.

so what are they then?

what would we call a branch of faiths which believe in Jesus Christ but do not adhere to a theological consensus established by an older set of beliefs and Churches, but who weren't necessarily Christ himself?

If you follow the textbook definition, that would make them heretics. Rejecting trinitarianism and following false prophets (since the wider christian world hasnt accepted them) are good examples of heresy in any case.

wait, so Christians decide who is a Christian then? Where would biblical text work into this? is it just a numbers game?

also, does this mean offshoot faiths such as Islam are considered heretical in Christianity?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of heresy?

I have an idea of what it is, however my notion of it is a tool for political dogma.

perhaps there is a different form of heresy?

Here m8, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity

Heresy is a crazy broad catagory. Basically every sect considers another heretics of some stripe. Some disputes are minor (do you believe in transubstansiation?), some are major (do you believe in the books Joseph Smith added to the Bible?).

So from what I'm reading, this has a minimal relevance to morality, but is largely theological?

No, not really. Accepting the authority of Joseph Smith and modern leadership of JWs/Mormons leads to some pretty major differences in religious practice.

So, once again - the difference is theological from what you are telling me, not really moral.

Mormons believe that polygamy in 19th century was divinely ordered. Here's a major moral difference to you.

right - but the core reason Mormons are deemed heretics is because they renounce the Nicean and Apostle's creeds, or at least do not adhere to them.

Polygamy may also disqualify them (it seems they have been on and off about it due to legal issues, i.e. the belief is made sure to be politically convenient and somewhat kept under wraps, scary stuff), but they seem to be heretical for the same reason JW are considered heretical, so I'd imagine the primary concern for heresy is a deviation in theological tenets.

My point was that the heresy had actual real life consequences, not just debates about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Dividing religion into practice, theology, politics, culture etc. is a very modern practice anyway. Morality vs. Theology is not how people viewed religion throughout centuries.

You're 100% right, I wanted to distinguish that there is of course a difference, given morality exists both within and outside of the sphere of religion and mythology - arguably having preceded it, it is important not to conflate the two.

Ding ding ding, it’s almost like two cults founded by people usurping Christian ideology for personal gain are heretics. Who would have guessed?

condemnation of heresy is beginning to sound like a dogmatic tenet, or at least prone to becoming dogmatic.

It’s a very common thing in every religion. It’s not so much as people are worshipping the wrong way, it’s that they are using the name of the religion and saying they are the right way.

The thirty years war for example wasn’t the Catholic Church trying to kill off heretics, it was the Protestants and the Catholics trying to kill Each other to prove their faith is right (very, very simplified explanation of the thirty years war and way too narrow in view but I’m focusing on the religion aspect on a personal level as opposed to nation state level) Sunnis and Shiites hate each other, it’s not just one way it’s that every sect of a religion claims their way is right, which is why heresy is something that is concerning to people in an established religion because it’s usurps the already established practices.

Not to mention charlatans like the Mormon church and the JW are cults in every single way which pisses off even non-Christians

Not to mention charlatans like the Mormon church and the JW are cults in every single way which pisses off even non-Christians

I don't doubt this for a second, but I don't consider them abhorrent for being heretical of Christianity - I find their institutions have a history of being parasitic and insidious in nature, their main failing is that they're morally bankrupt institutions taking advantage of as many people as they can, including many of their own followers.

Christian or no - there is a baseline of moral responsibility they are evidently failing to achieve. I am reminded of the Holy See from Berserk.

Heresy seems to be a political tool more than a theological or moral one however - I find it dangerously convenient.

It can be used against those who are doing "false advertising" as it were, but it can also be used to quell dissidence or reform that may compromise an established status quo.

The point is that there are some very clear and concise definitions of what constitutes a Christian. (whether you agree or not is something we can argue until the cows come home) So you can very clearly argue some things are or are not Christian without committing the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.

Oh yeah, but so far I don't think anything said goes in tow with the principle argument that I was originally rebutting, as even the idea of many newer Christian sects being heretical isn't universally accepted - and even if they were, it looks to not be practically definitive as to what is considered Christianity by both the people and the state, which ultimately means the only real defining factor for why they wouldn't be Christians is theological rather than moral - ultimately that means that what I was rebutting still holds up; that person was conflating morality and faith.

There are a lot of things beyond believing in Jesus that make a Christian that all Christians accept. For example, without the Trinity, you are not a Christian. That was already decided before the Protestants spread their heresy.

I would like you to clarify what you mean by heresy in this case, and in what sort of context.

I wouldn't dispute the belief in trinity, that much I guess could be complicit to the belief in Jesus Christ himself as it does fall in line with the nature of why the trinity was developed as an idea.

that being said, not even that has unified belief - its interpretation varies wildly even to this day, despite how many debates they have had for over a millennium.

my point has been very simple: the interpretations of the faith are massive and non universal. outside of some basic characteristics, arguably the belief and faith in Jesus Christ (allow me to add and thus that which is a part of him), Christianity is incredibly divided. the comment I was responding to was trying to interpret a different morality as a lack of faith, and used "no true scotsman" as a means to justify it.

There is only one correct interpretation of the Trinity and when it is rejected you get Jehova's witnesses, Mormons, and Unitarians, none of whom are Christian.

I did some quick searching and it seems that isn't a universal opinion even among the more established Christian community - at least not colloquially.

in that case, what else doesn't make a Christian then? these do not seem to be moral tenets but theological ones, so I do believe my original point hasn't been rebutted, albeit I may need to update both my own definitions as well as those of Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and a few other dictionaries.

Christianity places an emphasis on orthodoxy, which means correct belief. Correct understanding comes before moral behavior, a factor that comes from Christianity's scholarly tradition. So it is natural that sectarian differences do not generally come from moral differences first.

so given I have recently been informed that Christianity has had an explosion of sects since the 1900's, effectively increasing in number on an exponential curve - those new developments are to be considered largely heretical in nature?

outside of an appeal to tradition and appeal to masses, what validates the established branches of Christianity over the newer sects?

I don't think it's appropriate to call church doctrine, where tradition is considered as binding as scripture, an "appeal to tradition". Church tradition is built into the way Christianity is perceived by its adherents.

that's quite literally what it is however.

I apologize if it came off as inappropriate, I am trying to find some means to standardize what Chritianity is and isn't; there are massive swathes of sects developing and growing every day, and if there is to be a dissemination of what qualifies as a sect of Christianity and what is in itself a whole new faith, there needs to be something comprehensive.

Well, there is also a difference between heretical sects and a heresy that becomes a new religion. Lutherans are an example of the first and Mormons and Islam are examples of the second.

You could say that any new denomination is heretical in the first sense but needs something totally foreign to both scripture and tradition to be heretical in the second sense. For example, Lutherans believe that man achieves salvation through faith alone, yet Mormons believe that God was once like man and achieved his status. So when Americans develop falsehoods like the Rapture it is heretical but not tantamount to founding a new faith.

ah ok, I guess it makes more sense that it is a spectrum.

Sorry for taking so much of your time on the matter, this was actually quite informative, thank you.

I would ask perhaps a million more questions at this point but I feel to an extent we are exhausting the thread, would it perhaps be alright if I sent you messages asking a few more questions?

Were Arians not Christians? Are Oneness Pentecostals not Christians? I guess according to you, probably not, but the trinity seems like a silly place to draw that line. They call themselves Christians and have the same scripture as most other Christians (without additional scripture like the Mormons have). As far as I understand, a lot of their other beliefs and practices are similar to other Christian groups.

I don't think the Trinity is silly at all, it is the most important distinction between Christianity and every other religion in the world.

Why is that the dividing line? Why isn't it believing in the divinity of Jesus, or believing that Jesus died so that we might be saved, or believing that we should try to live as Jesus told us to, or any other number of beliefs that are also held by nearly all groups that consider themselves Christian?

Why are Oneness Pentecostals not Christian? Are their beliefs really different enough from that of more orthodox Christians that they should be considered a separate religion? From an outside perspective, their beliefs are much more similar to trinitarian Pentecostals than say Methodists are to Anglicans.

Were Arians not Christians?

From a religious point of view? Absolutely Not. From a historical point of view? It's complicated.

Are Oneness Pentecostals not Christians?

No. Non-trinitarian Christianity in modern times makes as much sense as a denomination of Islam centered around drinking alcohol or a denomination of Mormonism centered around making porn. Christianity was strictly trinitarian for 1000+ years before American hillbillies started calling their new religion Christianity.

>unironically using CE

come on m8

best choice for compromise

CEAD: Common Era Anno Domini

or

Clothelines of Enemy Air Defenses - the less valuable acronym related to SEAD.

There are plenty of Christians who don't accept the validity of all of the first seven ecumenical councils (and historically, a greater percentage of Christians did not. Just because they were successfully suppressed doesn't mean they weren't Christian, I don't think)

I don't see the issue with what I have written, I was trying to showcase a basic logical fallacy - I was not saying their faith was invalid, I was not shunning their teachings, I was mostly stating definitions, last I checked.

This is a drama subreddit my dude

I'm enjoying it greatly

:)

u/Shallowm this is how you win over people to your subreddit

Anyone ever notice how the people like /u/tickle_mittens saying that conservative Christians aren't really Christian, are never actually Christian (or are at least non-practicing) themselves?

It's the weirdest thing. I can't even think of an equivalent somewhere else. It's like seeing a bunch of conservatives who reflexively defend Mao and call Khrushchev a revisionist.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJELMPjXoAAkcCF.jpg

Most Christian groups do advocate taking in refugees, though. So that's hardly an argument unique to atheists.

Iirc, One True Christianity™ has a 44/56 split Democrat/Republican, or something to that effect.

It depends on whether you put emphasis on the new or old testament I guess.

OT: An eye for an eye, respect authority, don't fuck around. God is a vengeful bastard so you better impose his morals on everyone close to you or they're going straight to hell for an eternity.

NT: Turn the other cheek, question authority, hang out with literal prostitutes. Jesus forgives you and sacrificed himself so that you may indulge in whatever depravities you wish.

It's more likely Mary Magdalena wasn't a prostitute. The bible doesn't mention it in any case.

Not cool man. You're making me look bad. I hate to be wrong on the internet.

Oh yeah, I get off on that.

Don't feel bad, most Catholics had that wrong between about 600 and 1960.

I mean all roasties are sluts tbh so it checks out

There's really not a huge difference between the NT and the OT, people have just gotten in the habit of quoting selectively because they like the idea of hippie Jesus. Things like turning the other cheek or not looking at a woman in lust were intensifications of the law, not relaxations of it. Like a third of the Gospels are him telling people that they're going to hell, and hinting darkly at the impending destruction of Israel by the Romans, and saying that they have it coming for missing the point of Judaism and rejecting him as Messiah. A lot of his message in the mold of OT doomsayers like Isaiah.

That's interesting. Time to return to the source material I guess.

hinting darkly at the impending destruction of Israel... saying that they have it coming

Wtf?! I love Jesus now

NT: Turn the other cheek, question authority, hang out with literal prostitutes.

Sure, Jesus does that because prostitutes need a dose of his medicine more than others. If you're already an observant Jew then you've less to worry about other than being too full of yourself.

Jesus forgives you and sacrificed himself so that you may indulge in whatever depravities you wish.

Nope, not the italicised bit - as one of the Epistles makes clear.

a dose of his medicine

A dose of his "medicine"? ;) No need to beat around the bush.

The Man himself sez "it is not the well who need a doctor, but the sick" so leave off the edgy-af smuttiness, you know very well what I mean.

You know very well what I mean. That there is chance for redemption for all.

The OT doesn't even mention heaven IIRC. The impression you'd get if you only read the OT is that you obey god so he doesn't make your life hell or kill you.

Do you think he'll come after us?

The great part of this comment is it works for several major denominations.

I don't see what's wrong with the argument your stupid cartoon is criticizing. If someone claims to be Christian but then is not acting according to their faith, it's perfectly fine for a non-Christian to call them out on that.

It's making fun of the "Bernie is totes like Jesus" crowd. It's not about people not acting according to their faith, it's about an outsider trying to define someone's faith and then calling them out for it. Sort of like how some of the crazier conservatives think that only Wahabbis/Salafis are real Muslims.

If you think someone's a retard for being a Christian, why would you try to hold them to their retard faith?

Typically the people doing this know dick all about Christianity so their half-baked "ACKSHULLY JESUS WAS A MALE FEMINIST" bit is extra aggravating.

I don't tell Buddhists what their religion is or why it means that actually they should agree with me.

Come to think of it, the kind of people who tell Christians what Christianity is really about are the same kind who think that Buddhism is pacifist despite all the sword-wielding monks in Myanmar.

Well yeah, because anyone who can see conservative Christian hypocrisy isn’t retarded enough to believe in God.

If hypocrisy by adherents of a belief system invalidates it then absolutely every belief system is invalid. "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made", and whatnot.

then absolutely every belief system is invalid

Yeah no shit. I know r/atheism euphoria made it cool to hate on atheism, but it still boggles my mind that so many people continue to believe in religion when they grow up.

Not just religious belief systems. Liberals and leftists pay through the nose for private schools or housing in neighborhoods where their kids can be sent to good public schools with similarly well-off (and melanin-deficient) students. Corporations and thinktanks that supposedly like free markets engage in rent-seeking when legislation affecting them is in play. Like three quarters of the alt-right likes tranny porn and Asian girls. Hypocrisy and special pleading are the default human state.

We’re on the same page there, I know I’m a hypocrite despite trying hard not to be one. I was just trying to stir shit but you’re being obnoxiously reasonable, Happy Current Year+2

I hear purgatory is unpleasant. I will intercede with Mary on your behalf in Heaven.

Listening to Catholic radio prior to the election, the sentiment was that while it was understandable not wanting to vote for Trump there was no way a Catholic could vote for Hilary in good conscience.

So basically "You can't be Christian and support Trump!"

Well who the fuck ARE you suppose to support, the aborting loving gender fluid?

.....what? From how you described it they gave the option of either voting for Trump or not and leaning towards giving Trump a chance while saying you absolutely couldn’t vote for Hillary and be a Christian.

Basically it was just that, give Trump a chance if you want but fuck Clinton.

My stance going into the election was give anyone a chance but fuck Clinton, so if I were still Catholic I'd be all over that.

Ok but how is that the Catholic radio station saying “You can’t be Christian and support Trump” that sounds like the exact opposite of what they were saying

No they were saying there were arguments for supporting or not supporting Trump, but no arguments for supporting Hilary.

YOu haVe an oPinIon? ThAt'S aDorAblE

Are you retarded or just illiterate

YOu haVe an oPinIon? ThAt'S aDorAblE

If you have an audience that will definitely vote, and scores Hillary at a -10, then you can badmouth Trump all you want and they'll think of him at -9. They'll still vote for him, but you get to claim the moral high ground.

These people need Odin

PREACH, BROTHER!

Well flow my tears.