Oh, I accept you are doing this with best intentions

In other words, I was referring to Catholics who they themselves believe are Christians whilst believing most of their fellow Catholics are not.

Except you don't know any. Or very very few. And you certainly have an outsider's view, with very little research, so you are delving in an area you could not possibly know.

And then you made a broad assumption about select people within the group, what they believe, and even sillier, what they believe about other within their select sub-group.

You guys came later and grabbed the term, the broader one, the first one, and then decided it applied only to you. Note: The you here is the historical group of people that came before the "individual" you. And this term, being a christian, is used by every religion that has Christ as a cornerstone. I've met many, of varying branches, and I'm always willing to trigger a religious discussion to see where it goes. To tell one of these people they aren't christian is an incredible insult. Any of them.

At least when this group of people broke off from the Jews they didn't simply decide to call themselves Jews and the elders needed to come up with a new name.

You seem to feel it applies just to your subgroup (or any-sub group that shares your beliefs, but certainly not the Catholics) in the specifics. Which sets them up nicely as being "others", and not part of your core group.

This comes down to identity. Who gets to choose their own? And when an outsider is labeling the group, and the group competes with the outsider, someone is going to lose. Go read up on "The Whore of Babylon" to get a feel why some people may be touchy about it.

So there seem to be a couple of problems here.

#1 - You don't get to appropriate such an important historical term while denying it to others. Especially if they were using it first. Wars get started over this. It is a direct provocation.

#2 - You make assumptions about levels of deeply held beliefs in others that seem to be very contradictory to their stated beliefs to justify these assumptions. I suggest you try to get to know a few. As much as this broadly shared delusion may cause damage, I've found that the Catholics (when they aren't running the inquisition or supporting Hitler) usually aren't the ones trying to kill the Jews. That is usually the later splits. So I have an affinity to that branch as opposed to most of the others.

Remember, from an outsider's point of view (an outsider who doesn't believe that Christ was any more special than any of the thousands of prophets babbling in that time frame) whether or not you are Christian is really easy. It means you went to a church that has a cross on it, said a few select things, the priest (and/or congregation) said a few select things back, and poof, you're a Christian. It doesn't mean that on a day by day basis you are a "good" Christian, people can judge you on your actions for that, but only the individual gets to state the claim that they are a Christian. At that point, if they are part of the sub-group that believes in hell (a large portion of them), if you tell they they are not a Christian, you are telling them they are going to hell. It's pretty clear.

To me, the varying Christian branches can be shown via a Venn diagram of overlapping beliefs, with the center being the belief in Jesus being something special that is shared by all of them.

Oh well, as long as you guys are fighting amongst yourselves, at least the rest of us have a bit less to worry about.

One of the things that happens in churches is the concept of visiting speakers. I'm sure you've heard of it; it is not a phenomenon isolated to churches. Some of my knowledge about what Catholics believe and how they behave and think are from such visiting speakers who are or have been Catholic and are there to teach, amongst other things, how other christian groups behave and what they believe. My exact example about Catholics who believe they are Christian whilst they believe that those around them in their own Catholic church are not, was directly from people who really believed this (much like there are Jews who also believe Jesus is the Messiah, but otherwise remain Judaistic Jews). Most other knowledge I have is from theological writers who identify themselves as Catholic, even to the point of having office in the Catholic church, and writers who have cause to discuss the image of the Catholic church in the wider society.

Now, as to who are "christians" and who are not... in my experience, for most people I have spent time with who identify as "christian", it is not a daily concern as to whether they consider attendees of a catholic or orthodox church as "christian" or not. I couldn't even say whether most would say 'yes' or 'no' on the question: most of the time, it simply doesn't come up. But most such people I have known would include Catholics as part of the Christian Church, just in a "more distant cousin" kind of way. I have seen this slight differentiation cause problems. Note this requires the distinction made between being "christian" in belief and being an attendee of a Christian Church. Most Protestants I know and have known through the years will make such a distinction, as do I (usually), regardless of what others may do.

OTOH, once the topic turns to church history, the Catholic church is always acknowledged as an irremovable part. In fact, "catholic" is nearly as old as "christian" and is applied by some to refer to all who call themselves "Christian". It is why the organisation based around the Pope is called the Roman Catholic Church so as to avoid ambiguity and perceived bias.

Surely I don't need to remind you that the history of the Christian Church(s) is a highly complex story with many points-of-view. I also have not mentioned at all desires to kill Jews, as this is a topic in church history I feel I do not know enough about to comment on.

I notice you have your discussion.

Wade.

Post #319,611 by crazy 1/6/10 5:27:36 AM 1/6/10 5:48:48 AM Reply	Oh, I accept you are doing this with best intentions In other words, I was referring to Catholics who they themselves believe are Christians whilst believing most of their fellow Catholics are not. Except you don't know any. Or very very few. And you certainly have an outsider's view, with very little research, so you are delving in an area you could not possibly know. And then you made a broad assumption about select people within the group, what they believe, and even sillier, what they believe about other within their select sub-group. You guys came later and grabbed the term, the broader one, the first one, and then decided it applied only to you. Note: The you here is the historical group of people that came before the "individual" you. And this term, being a christian, is used by every religion that has Christ as a cornerstone. I've met many, of varying branches, and I'm always willing to trigger a religious discussion to see where it goes. To tell one of these people they aren't christian is an incredible insult. Any of them. At least when this group of people broke off from the Jews they didn't simply decide to call themselves Jews and the elders needed to come up with a new name. You seem to feel it applies just to your subgroup (or any-sub group that shares your beliefs, but certainly not the Catholics) in the specifics. Which sets them up nicely as being "others", and not part of your core group. This comes down to identity. Who gets to choose their own? And when an outsider is labeling the group, and the group competes with the outsider, someone is going to lose. Go read up on "The Whore of Babylon" to get a feel why some people may be touchy about it. So there seem to be a couple of problems here. #1 - You don't get to appropriate such an important historical term while denying it to others. Especially if they were using it first. Wars get started over this. It is a direct provocation. #2 - You make assumptions about levels of deeply held beliefs in others that seem to be very contradictory to their stated beliefs to justify these assumptions. I suggest you try to get to know a few. As much as this broadly shared delusion may cause damage, I've found that the Catholics (when they aren't running the inquisition or supporting Hitler) usually aren't the ones trying to kill the Jews. That is usually the later splits. So I have an affinity to that branch as opposed to most of the others. Remember, from an outsider's point of view (an outsider who doesn't believe that Christ was any more special than any of the thousands of prophets babbling in that time frame) whether or not you are Christian is really easy. It means you went to a church that has a cross on it, said a few select things, the priest (and/or congregation) said a few select things back, and poof, you're a Christian. It doesn't mean that on a day by day basis you are a "good" Christian, people can judge you on your actions for that, but only the individual gets to state the claim that they are a Christian. At that point, if they are part of the sub-group that believes in hell (a large portion of them), if you tell they they are not a Christian, you are telling them they are going to hell. It's pretty clear. To me, the varying Christian branches can be shown via a Venn diagram of overlapping beliefs, with the center being the belief in Jesus being something special that is shared by all of them. Oh well, as long as you guys are fighting amongst yourselves, at least the rest of us have a bit less to worry about. Edited by crazy Jan. 6, 2010, 05:48:48 AM EST Expand All History
Post #319,615 by static 1/6/10 7:13:11 AM Reply	I do not speak from a position of no knowledge. One of the things that happens in churches is the concept of visiting speakers. I'm sure you've heard of it; it is not a phenomenon isolated to churches. Some of my knowledge about what Catholics believe and how they behave and think are from such visiting speakers who are or have been Catholic and are there to teach, amongst other things, how other christian groups behave and what they believe. My exact example about Catholics who believe they are Christian whilst they believe that those around them in their own Catholic church are not, was directly from people who really believed this (much like there are Jews who also believe Jesus is the Messiah, but otherwise remain Judaistic Jews). Most other knowledge I have is from theological writers who identify themselves as Catholic, even to the point of having office in the Catholic church, and writers who have cause to discuss the image of the Catholic church in the wider society. Now, as to who are "christians" and who are not... in my experience, for most people I have spent time with who identify as "christian", it is not a daily concern as to whether they consider attendees of a catholic or orthodox church as "christian" or not. I couldn't even say whether most would say 'yes' or 'no' on the question: most of the time, it simply doesn't come up. But most such people I have known would include Catholics as part of the Christian Church, just in a "more distant cousin" kind of way. I have seen this slight differentiation cause problems. Note this requires the distinction made between being "christian" in belief and being an attendee of a Christian Church. Most Protestants I know and have known through the years will make such a distinction, as do I (usually), regardless of what others may do. OTOH, once the topic turns to church history, the Catholic church is always acknowledged as an irremovable part. In fact, "catholic" is nearly as old as "christian" and is applied by some to refer to all who call themselves "Christian". It is why the organisation based around the Pope is called the Roman Catholic Church so as to avoid ambiguity and perceived bias. Surely I don't need to remind you that the history of the Christian Church(s) is a highly complex story with many points-of-view. I also have not mentioned at all desires to kill Jews, as this is a topic in church history I feel I do not know enough about to comment on. I notice you have your discussion. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,620 by crazy 1/6/10 8:56:36 AM Reply	Tada!

Welcome to IWETHEY!