From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Contents 1 Mormonism? 2 Denominations 2.1 Rewind 3 Something like an explanation 4 Theology section edit 5 Definition 6 Morality

Mormonism?

Should Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses really be included as a branch of Christianity, albeit under the "Disputed" subcategory? tealish^??!!!1 03:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the orthodox (believing in the Trinity, Divinity of Christ) view, they are not really Christians. However, the fact that they consider themselves Christians and use the name of Jesus, should qualify them to be disputed. Their status is disputed. It's a factual statement. AddisonDM 06:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

...except it currently just lists them as the "non trinitarian" branch of Christianity.BradleyF (LowKey) 17:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It explains that the Christian credentials of those two are disputed by other Christians in the first paragraph of Definition. Ajkgordon 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm totally for the current presentation of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. It makes the most sense, especially from this site's POV.tealish^..... 06:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Denominations

Should Fundamentalism really be listed as a denomination? I would have thought you could have a fundamentalist Catholic, a fundamentalist Evengelical, or most of the others listed.

I'd change it myself but I've already been caught out thinking Anglicans were Protestants - thanks Gordon!--CPalmer 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fundamentalism is neither a denomination or a branch of Christianity. I'm deleting it.

Anglicans are often described by Catholics as Protestants, but that's often because of either the Irish religious dichotomy or because Catholics see everything that isn't Catholic as protestant! In reality, there is little difference between Catholicism and Anglicanism. The English Reformation from which Anglicanism was born was not the same thing as the Protestant Reformation. Ajkgordon 16:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm an Anglican and I can reel off a lot of differences between Anglicans and Catholics. Probably a question of perspective I suppose. Thanks for the explanation.--CPalmer 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Like what? Almost all the significant differences are stylistic ones (sign of the cross, veneration of the saints, incense, hymns, etc.) rather than what they believe - the most significant being, of course, the authority and of the Pope. As an Anglican who is married to a Catholic, I see virtually no difference between Holy Communion services, for example. Ajkgordon 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear that the Anglican church in Sydney is quite different. ᛟ ListenerX^TalkerX 16:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning? Ajkgordon 16:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning that unlike with Catholicism, Anglican practices can vary widely from diocese to diocese; you have the high-church crowd, and then you have the Calvinists in Sydney. ᛟ ListenerX^TalkerX 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see. So we can probably summarise that the highest Anglicans resemble Catholics and those at the other end of the Anglican spectrum are virtually indistinguishable from Protestants. Hence the phrase via media (between the two). Ajkgordon 16:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

When I was a wee girl there were Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants; all Church of England. I know because I had an argument with my primary school teacher when she asked me which I was, having previously eliminated Jewish & Methodist. When I told her I was neither and hadn't been baptised (!) she was horrified. (I was still marked as C of E) User 11^{speak to me} 17:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely "Anglo-Catholics" and "Anglo-Protestants" are colloquialisms? Ajkgordon 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but they were widely used back then. There's still "High church" Angicans and "Low Church" Anglicans which convey the same meaning. User 11^{speak to me} 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And: it's not true that virtually all "accept the Bible as the infallible word of God". A great many take the OT as largely allegorical (if that's the right word) and indeed mythical. User 11^{speak to me} 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are infallible and allegorical necessarily mutually exclusive? Ajkgordon 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No, not in my view. I don't see people who view the OT allegorically as rejecting that the Bible is the Word of God. There are different kinds of writing, and the point of those contentious OT verses is first of all to convey some divine truth. AddisonDM 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely, if it's "infallible", it's verbatim truth? User 11^{speak to me} 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) There are some people who consider the Bible as containing the Word rather than being it, so to them it might be erroneous in some places on all levels. [1] ᛟ ListenerX^TalkerX 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) No. In a theological sense, infallible simply means revealed truth. Ajkgordon 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So, this "infallible" God speaks in words that are open to interpretation, depending on what the hearer (reader) wants it to mean. That's alright then. User 11^{speak to me}

OK, but do you still object to the phrase you challenged further up? Have we shown that the Bible can be infallible and in places allegorical? Ajkgordon 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Who gets to choose which bits are truth & which allegory? It really gets me that otherwise intelligent people take the writings of fairly primitive middle eastern nomads as anything but indicative of local mores, customs and legends. Why should they be any more reasonable than any other writings? I know: Faith. To coin a phrase: Bah Humbug. ;-) User 11^{speak to me} 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A wrong proposition leads to a wrong conclusion. I don't know of any "otherwise intelligent people who take the writings of fairly primitive middle eastern nomads as anything but indicative of local mores, customs and legends", but that's because those intelligent people believe that those writings are ultimately authored by the infallible, omniscient creator, using quite intelligent middle-eastern people as the actual writers. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think you can refute 2,000 years of theology by dismissing it as faith in the writings of fairly primitive middle eastern nomads, then I think you should rethink your strategy. The only people who would be persuaded are those who need no persuasion. Ajkgordon 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Theology is the study of the existence or attributes of a god or gods, and of how that god or those gods relate to the world and especially to human existence; more generally," (Wikipedia) = theology is the study of fiction. Sorry, but our world views differ too much. We have almost zero common ground to discuss this on. User 11^{speak to me} 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* You're missing the point. The point is that these statements of yours refute nothing. If you want to challenge faith here, then you'll have to do better than that. Otherwise it's just trolling. And I have never said anything about my world view or faith so how do you know if we have any common ground? You assume to much. Ajkgordon 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I object strongly to the "trolling" comment, I thought that you were above such cheap internet comments. However: "Faith is a belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof."(WP). "Without proof isn't that what I'm saying? If you believe that faith and a history of people having faith and discussing faith and arguing about (for) faith, have validity, then your world view is different from mine. The fact that X or Y thinks or thought that faith is even lightly worthy of discussion in the context of religion/gods does nothing to validate any argument which they might make, in fact IMHO it lessens any argument they might have to the level of an assertion without any evidence. User 11^{speak to me} 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but you're the one challenging faith, not the other way round. I have given you a specific example of someone whose faith and reason didn't conflict. Lemaitre wasn't just a God-botherer with an interest in science. He was a Roman Catholic priest who discovered the Big Bang. That to me is proof if you need it that faith and reason do not necessarily conflict. You asserting that they just do because, well, just because, is just that - an assertion. And mindful of this site's declared world view and raison d'etre.... well, if the glove fits. If you want to preach to the choir, then there are loads of places out there that would love an extra "faith and reason are mutually exclusive" discussion that they can all agree with. But, and I repeat, if you want to persuade people of faith here that they can't have reason as well, then this isn't the way to go about it. Ajkgordon 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Invalid: he (Lemaitre) Didn't use his faith as justification, it was another facet of the man. If I were to have faith in my shoes being able to perform magic when I clapped my heels, that wouldn't stop me using them to walk. People who use faith as a fall-back argument are those I have difficulty with. I know I won't persuade anyone here, but I can't let assertions of faith to justify beliefs in how the world works go without commenting, sorry. To coin a phrase:"Teh Stupid; it Hurts" User 11^{speak to me} 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, he didn't use his faith as justification. But his faith didn't conflict with either his scientific research or the theory that he produced from it. How is that an invalid demonstration of how faith and reason are not mutually exclusive? But I agree with you about faith justifying scientific belief. That's not science. But I'm not sure anyone was doing that in this conversation. Ajkgordon 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, let us agree to differ. User 11^{speak to me} 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's. I feel dizzy. Ajkgordon 16:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewind

Sorry, I vanished shortly before Gordon asked about differences in belief. Here are a few:

• Catholics believe you can pray to a saint to intercede for you. Anglicans only pray to God.
• Catholics believe in transsubstantiation (bread and wine actually becoming body and blood) whereas Anglicans see the elements as symbolic.
• Catholics believe in the immaculate conception, the assumption, and a lot of other extra-Biblical things about St Mary that Anglicans don't.
• The Catholic system of confession (as a sacrament) is not used by Anglicans.
• Anglicans believe that women can be priests.

Those are a few. They might seem a bit technical from the outside but they do make a difference. NB Because of the plurality within the Anglican Communion, there are probably some Anglicans who share the Catholic beliefs on all these points, but the vast majority don't.--CPalmer 08:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Andrew actually :)

• Catholics don't believe you can pray to a saint. Prayer and more specifically worship is exclusive to God. What Catholics do is called veneration. While many non-Catholics see little distinction between worship and veneration - indeed many actually accuse Catholics of idolatry - Catholics themselves make a distinction between the worship they exclusively reserve for God and the veneration of their saints, including Mary. Many high church Anglicans also venerate the saints.
• Transsubstantiation again is believed by many Anglicans, and not just laymen. While official (if there is such a thing) Anglican policy is that nothing is definite unless it can be backed up by scripture, many Church writings either support transsubstantiation or talk about something close like Christ's "Real Presence" during the Eucharist
• Same again for both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - many Anglicans believe in them.
• Again, same again for confession. True that almost no Anglicans confess to a priest (thank God!) but they do confess during the the Eucharist.
• Again, some do and some don't. As you probably know, the ordination of women priests has been very controversial in the Anglican church.

So, yes, Anglicans are not Catholics. But nor are they, as a whole, Protestants.

But I withdraw my rather rash statement above that "there is little difference between Catholicism and Anglicanism." That is overstating it. I suggest we keep to the accepted declaration by the Anglican Communion itself that they are via media - between Catholicism and Protestantism. Ajkgordon 12:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you - the list was more for the benefit of any third parties who might be reading this. As I think someone said above, it all really comes down to Catholics deferring to the Vatican over what they believe (at least in theory) and Anglicans being much less uniform on these matters.--CPalmer 12:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An agreement? Will wonders never cease? Oh, wrong wiki! Ajkgordon 13:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Some Catholics believe women can be priests. It's not like Jesus really does a gender check when a priest acts as a channel of his absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, for example. That falls outside of the realm of belief and faith, and is simply a matter of Church policy. Mega 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Something like an explanation

(At the risk of sounding like a broken record...)
Philip. You've argued that the absence of an absolute basis for morality makes a philosophy immoral.
This relies on the concept of an absolute morality being possible.
And presumably you see biblical Christianity as being this absolute morality (correct me if I'm wrong.)
So, surely, you can demonstrate that this system is absolute?
I mean, if you couldn't -- if the precepts of biblical Christianity weren't empirically proven or even conceptually different to innumerable other moral theories -- then Christianity would be just as non-absolute as atheism. Pink_{(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides)} 19:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You've argued that the absence of an absolute basis for morality makes a philosophy immoral. I haven't put it quite like that.

...presumably you see biblical Christianity as being this absolute morality (correct me if I'm wrong.) No, Christianity is not the morality. Christianity is the belief in and worship of the Creator God, and He, not Christianity itself, is the source of absolute morality. So in an indirect sense, Christianity is the source of absolute morality (like the moon is a source of the sun's light), but Christianity is not itself morality.

So, surely, you can demonstrate that this system is absolute? I can demonstrate it logically. God, being the unchanging, supreme, perfect person that He is, is the source of absolute morality, as absolute morality is unchanging, and not relative to anything that itself changes, such as public opinion.

...if the precepts of biblical Christianity weren't empirically proven... History is not empirically provable, because you can't observe or repeat the past.

...or even conceptually different to innumerable other moral theories... Christianity is unique. No other religion proposes that the creator God Himself became a man and lived among mankind and gave His life for it, and offers mankind a gift of forgiveness and eternal life without us having to earn it.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't put it quite like that. -- Yes, I described your position rather than quoting it. I may continue to do this.

No, Christianity is not the morality. Christianity is the belief in and worship of the Creator God, and He, not Christianity itself, is the source of absolute morality. So in an indirect sense, Christianity is the source of absolute morality (like the moon is a source of the sun's light), but Christianity is not itself morality. -- Yes, I meant "providing this morality", rather than "being this morality". I'm sure you knew that really.

I can demonstrate it logically. God, being the unchanging, supreme, perfect person that He is, is the source of absolute morality, as absolute morality is unchanging, and not relative to anything that itself changes, such as public opinion. -- This doesn't differentiate Christianity from belief in any other supreme being -- dozens of other belief systems can be "logically proved" just by swapping "God" for a different name. It also begins with the premise that God exists, which is cheating.

History is not empirically provable, because you can't observe or repeat the past. -- Oh, I agree! But nonetheless, if you've found Christianity to be the one source of absolute morality you must have done this at some point in your decision-making process.

Christianity is unique. No other religion proposes that the creator God Himself became a man and lived among mankind and gave His life for it, and offers mankind a gift of forgiveness and eternal life without us having to earn it. -- I'm not arguing that it's not unique (I really should point out that all religions are unique in that respect, but I suspect you'd say something like "I doubt that"). I'm arguing that it's conceptually the same as any belief because it's theoretical -- it can't be proved. Pink_{(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides)} 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the above I just thought of something. Are yous (Strine is useful sometimes) perhaps equating the concept of an absolute morality with one "true" absolute morality? I am freewheeling for the moment, so bear with me. In any definition of absolute morality I would include a) coming from a source greater than humanity and b) not changing with consensus or opinion. Within that definition I can see scope for the "source" to be real or not real, supreme or not supreme. So a false religion could have an absolute morality in some cases. This doesn't help atheism in the morality stakes, though. OF course, I could just be rambling, as I have a fever and may be a little delerious, but I will read this back when I am feeling better. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I described your position rather than quoting it. Yes, I realised that, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. But my point was that your description is probably not 100% accurate, although it's close enough for now.

Yes, I meant "providing this morality", rather than "being this morality". I'm sure you knew that really. Given some of the ignorance of the Christian, Biblical, and creationary positions I see in comments thrown at me, I don't assume that people who have misstated it, correctly understand it. Similarly, do the journalists who talk about Christians' faith sustaining them really understand that it is not the faith itself, but the God in Whom they put their faith?

This doesn't differentiate Christianity from belief in any other supreme being... Perhaps not, but the question was about the absoluteness of it.

Oh, I agree! [that "History is not empirically provable, because you can't observe or repeat the past."] Oh? So you agree that evolution is not empirically provable also?

But nonetheless, if you've found Christianity to be the one source of absolute morality you must have done this at some point in your decision-making process. You still appear to be conflating two different concepts. I am convinced that Christianity is true. Logically, Christianity (if true) contains revelation of an absolute morality. I don't have to empirically prove anything for the latter to be true.

I really should point out that all religions are unique in that respect, but I suspect you'd say something like "I doubt that" In what respect? Not in respect of the particular reasons I gave for Christianity to be unique. But I do accept that every religion is unique in some way, even if only in the particular combination of beliefs that it holds. My point was that Christianity is unique in some fairly significant ways.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Theology section edit

Pink, I have reverted your edit to the Theology section. It was accurate the way it was. Inerrancy and infallability are two distinct (though not always totally separate) doctrines. The doctrines relating to Scriptural validity/applicability are those of; Inspiration, Infallability, Inerrancy, Sufficiency, Authority. (I don't think I have missed any, but my references are packed in boxes so I can't check right now). The mainstream evangelical position is "Yes" to all of those. "Liberal" Catholicism says yes to the first two, and I think the last. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Scope" is the one I forgot! It consists of two questions, really. Does Scripture apply to everyone? Does Scripture apply to every situation? BradleyF (LowKey) 03:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Article says:

While anyone who accepts and lives by Christ's teachings can be considered a follower of Christ and thus a "Christian", belief in the divinity of Christ and Trinity, as well as in the blood atonement of Christ, are considered by many Christians to be a test of orthodoxy. Thus, many Christians reject that groups such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) (which does not accept the traditional Trinity) or Jehovah's Witnesses (whose view of Christ is closely related to Arianism) can be truly called Christian.

I think that's generally correct, but is simplifying things a bit. I think there is general agreement among Christians that there is some core list of beliefs which is necessary for a group to really be Christian, and that just because a group calls itself "Christian" doesn't necessarily mean it is. However, I think the agreement ends when it comes to exactly which beliefs are core and which are non-core.

At one extreme, are those who have a quite short list of core beliefs, and hence will draw Christianity very broadly (including disputed groups like LDS or JWs); at the other extreme, are those who draw Christianity very narrowly, so that many (or even most) Christians don't end up really being Christians - the later is the logic of those people who claim, e.g. "Catholics aren't Christian".

Now those are the extremes, and I think most Christians are in the middle. But still even in the middle there is a lot of variation and a lot of diferent approaches. For example, many would point to the Creeds (especially the Nicene) as a standard of what is Christianity, whereas the above definition reflects an approach which isn't so focused on the Creeds. Consider someone who believed in the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, but maybe "blood atonement" is not a good statement of their theory of the atonement. Then, such a person would not be a Christian by the definition in the article, yet they may well still be one by the Nicene Creed definition (which talks about the atonement, but isn't so specific so as to refer to 'blood').

I take "blood atonement" to refer to penal substitutionary atonement, but many Christians have adhered to other theories of atonement, such as the ransom theory or Christus Victor, including many of the Church Fathers. So this definition is suggesting many of the early Church Fathers were not actually Christians, so is arguably flawed. --Maratrean 02:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's two different aspects to this; one is whether an individual person is a Christian, and the other is whether a particular group can be classified as Christian. For example, I would consider most Catholics to not be Christians simply because they've not made a personal decision, but consider themselves "Christian" because they were raised as Catholics. But unlike some, I would accept that Catholicism falls into the category of being "Christian", and also that a Catholic can be a Christian. But I agree that precise definitions will vary.

Actually, the sentences you quote from the article discuss both individuals and groups without making it clear that it's talking about two (slightly) different things. As far as individuals are concerned, in a sense we are not to be judges of whether or not they are Christians; that's between them and God. But when it comes to whether or not a particular set of beliefs—such as held by a religious group or even an individual—can be classified as "Christian"; that is something we are entitled to make a judgement about. However, that does not mean that it is always possible to make that judgement; there may well be borderline cases for which we have to say we don't know for sure.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And on the other hand, most Catholics would not consider you "Christian", based on your ideas, words and behaviour. not a member! 08:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Another typical RW vague assertion. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And truthful. not a member! 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated. And certainly not believed by the Catholic who knows me the best; my colleague at work. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Philip, I think your raising of the individual-vs-group distinction is interesting. And I think it also relates to Protestant-Catholic differences. From the Catholic viewpoint, a Catholic is someone who has been baptised Catholic. That doesn't mean they are saved. They are saved by baptism, but if they later sin mortally they lose their eternal salvation, although they can regain it from the sacrament of reconciliation. So, from the Catholic viewpoint, all of these lapsed Catholics are still Catholics, but some of them may not be going to heaven. Even if they join another religion, they are still considered Catholic - they may be excommunicated as a result (either automatically, or in rare cases by the action of a church official), but an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic - it's a suspension of the privileges of membership, not an expulsion. From the Catholic Church's viewpoint, once a Catholic, always a Catholic - baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that can never be erased.

The Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of most other denominations as valid, so someone baptised as a Christian (in a form the Catholic Church sees as valid), is a Christian for life, whatever they believe today. There are a few criteria that have to met for a valid baptism, but the beliefs of the person being baptised isn't one of them - for an adult, they must consent to be baptised for the baptism to be valid - but they can have all kinds of strange views and still be validly baptised. The minister doing the baptism (as opposed to the person being baptised) must normally have certain beliefs, about the Trinity and the nature of baptism - but these are beliefs of the minister, not of the person being baptised. (Actually, an atheist can perform a Catholic baptism if a Catholic baptism is what they are intending to do - this is only an issue for other Christian denominations, whose ministers are assumably intending to perform their own baptism, not a Catholic one - and then the question is whether if the minister intends to perform e.g. a Mormon baptism, if that denomination's concept of baptism is close enough to the Catholic one.) So from a Catholic viewpoint, a Christian can believe anything at all and still be a Christian.

The Protestant perspective is of course very different. A Christian is someone who has chosen to believe, and is saved because of that belief. So, only a saved person is a real Christian, and since only God knows for sure who is saved, only God knows for sure who really are Christians. The Catholic idea of a Christian is fundamentally about sacraments - if one is validly baptised, one is a Christian - possibly a hellbound sinner or heretic or apostate, but a Christian nonetheless. --Maratrean 06:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm clearly not as familiar with Catholic thinking as you are, so I won't comment on most of that, but I'll enlarge a bit on the individual/group distinction. You comment seems that me may be arguing that, in Catholic thinking, being a Christian is based on belonging to a "Christian" group, e.g. the Catholic church. However, my point was different one, and that is that it is people, not organisations, who go to Heaven (i.e., are Christians). I was once chided for referring to a company (a commercial business) as a "Christian" one. My chider pointed out that only people can be Christians, not businesses. He was correct, but was missing the point that although only a person can be a "Christian" (noun), an organisation, including a business, can be legitimately described as "Christian" (adjective) in some cases. In the particular case I was referring to, the company was started by Christians and they applied some of their Christians principles to it (such as no business meetings on a Sunday). I was not, of course, claiming that the business was a Christian. Similarly, religious groups can be described as "Christian" depending on what their particular beliefs are. Islam cannot be described as "Christian" as its beliefs are contradictory. Baptist denominations can be described as "Christian". Many people (including me) would regard Jehovah's Witnesses (the organisation) and Mormonism as non-Christian (although I recently saw the term "pseudo-Christian" used, which I think is appropriate). Many would also exclude Catholicism from the branding "Christian", although many others would not. The point, though, is that there won't be a Baptist denomination, nor a Catholic one, in Heaven, as only people can go to Heaven (i.e., only people can be Christians (noun)). There will be members of Baptist churches who are not Christians, and members of Catholic ones who are.

Having made that point, I'll also note that even your post was based on individuals being Christians, as you point out (whether rightly or wrongly) that Catholics will accept individual people as Christians even if they are not Catholics, depending on the particular circumstances of those individuals.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, to clarify the point a bit more... in Catholic thinking, being a Christian is based on having received the sacrament of baptism. So that would imply having been a member of the Catholic Church, or some other Christian church whose beliefs and practices around baptism are sufficiently close to the Catholic ones. But, it says nothing about whether they are currently a member of any such a group.

Also, from the Catholic viewpoint, not all Christians go to Heaven. Some Christians go to Hell. Anyone who is validly baptised is a Christian for life, but a Christian who dies in a state of unabsolved mortal sin will go to Hell. So, from the Catholic viewpoint, Hitler definitely was a Christian, because he was baptised in the Catholic Church. But, he's very likely in Hell right now, along with many other Christians.

As to specific groups, well the Catholic church looks to the group's baptismal practice (do they use water), wording (do they say the right words), meaning (do they mean the right things by the words). On the last point, their theology of Baptism and the Trinity does matter. So, beliefs are part of the criteria. But it may not be quite the same criteria Protestants use.

According to the Catholic church, the JW baptism is invalid, so JWs aren't Christian. Interestingly, the Catholic church used to accept Mormon baptism, but has since changed its mind - so, you could say the Catholic Church used to think Mormons were Christians, but have changed their mind since then. The reasoning is that JW's reject the traditional terminology of the Trinity, so Catholicism always rejected it. The Mormons use traditional Trinitarian language - so the Catholic Church accepted them as Christian based on that language. More recently, they've worked out that although Mormons use the same words, they mean very different things by them, so the Catholic Church doesn't consider Mormon baptism valid anymore.

Maybe my point is... is there really a neutral definition of Christian? Any definition which involves theological concepts is going to vary depending on exactly which theology you adopt. Everything you say is right from the viewpoint of what (most of) Protestant Christianity understands Christian to mean, but other Christian perspectives (e.g. the Catholic one) can give quite different answers. --Maratrean 10:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Morality

Would be nice to have a brief summary of Christian morality/ethics in this article. Something like what Conservapedia does in there's (although not necessarily the exact same points). Can someone write a succinct overview of Christian morals? --Maratrean 01:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I made a bit of a woeful attempt at a start of such a section. At first I was thinking Conservapedia's section was not a bad model, but having re-read it I actually think it is a bit too all over the place, it seems to throw together various topics which were on people's mind at the time they wrote it, rather than focusing on the essence of the issue. Although the beginning, with the Greatest Commandment, is good at capturing the essence; but the rest does seem a bit all over the place. Anyway, hopefully someone else can improve it. --Maratrean 09:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I also started something, only to find when I went to save it that you have too! Actually, the CP section is more to do with Christian charity, and most of what I wrote was on that theme also, so there's probably not much overlap between our two attempts. I'll have a look now at what I can do to merge the two. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)