What is Christianity?

Copernicus wasn't actually threatened by the Church. He published his work not long before his time of death. The Catholic Church actually had no idea that Copernicus was even working on the topic.Copernicus had some fear of the Church, but his work actually preceded the Church's policy that Galileo was punished with. Actually you cannot distinguish between the Ptolemy system and the Copernican system via observation. Both of those systems fail by about the same amount in making predictions of the location of heavenly bodies. I think that leaves your point about observable science right in the crapper.Once we had Newton's theory of gravitation, it became possible to make a meaningful distinction between a system with the planets orbiting the sun and other systems. But that's not just observational science, is it?

Except that Moose did not actually say that, did he? In fact, he ruled that discussion of some of those Biblical literalist topics were off topic.I know that reading comprehension is hard, but when you are claiming to be a literal reader of the Bible, it would be good to set a better example of how to actually read.A Christian is a person who accepts Christ as his Lord and savior and who attempts to follow the example of Christ life and teachings. Most of the rest of the requirements people tack onto that are just dogma and baggage.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am proposing that you get on topic.

I've never encountered a literalist who believed any such thing. In fact most of the people who claim to be literalists insist that you cannot be a Christian unless you read the entire Bible as literally true. Faith claims that Jesus 'authored' the entire Bible.

Not, new no. But I do find it curious that when pinned down about what is required to be 'saved' these same people insist that the requirements are small in number (faith by Gods Grace) and that other's are false Christians because they add requirements or because the pastors where funny hats. And then these same buffoons find it easy to tell people they are not Christians because the fail to hold beliefs that have already been identified as irrelevant to salvation.Christianity is apparently a human creation completely separate and sometimes only peripherally related to believing in Jesus as the Christ. And that is a shame.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

As best as I can tell, jar does not believe any such thing. You seem to be the lone Christian here set on excluding others who are trying to follow Christ.

It is the kind of "gobbledygook" that is inevitable when you are both honest, and when you stop worshiping other men who have purported to interpret the Bible for you. I do my best to ascertain truth. Sometimes I fail. But because of God's grace, my salvation does not require perfection.You, however don't suffer from such issues. Just as surely as you know that King James lived a blameless life, that the Pope is the anti-Christ, and that Puritans never tormented Quakers, you are perfect in your own knowledge and free to cast stones. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've called things as I see them. I'm not trying to please you.I can see in your zeal, your desire to follow Christ. It is not for me to judge the minutiae in your walk or that of a Jehovah witness or a Catholic.I see now that you needed to remove your accusation regarding lying to accuse me of slander. Perhaps you can point to something in my message that I cannot back up by referring to one of your own posts.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You did say that. I am responding to your claim that your views represent literalists. That does not seem to be correct, but perhaps you are defining 'literalist' to mean whatever Phat thinks the Bible literally says.

You appear to be judging yourself based on my citing of your past actions. There is nothing I can do about that.ABE: Nice stone casting!Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Here is what I have claimed. Please identify the lie among the above statements. I would be happy to provide documentation for any of them.And to drag this bash fast back onto the topic, which is the definition of Christianity. I cannot pretend to define Christianity for you or jar or Phat. I've presented my own view. I don't expect you to agree, but given that this is a debate, I do think it appropriate to point out where offered definitions do not make sense. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Surely a person can discover the Bible on his own and follow Jesus without being a member of any Chapter. That is at least a technical possibility. Besides that, I can remember periods in my life when I flitted about from church to church without regard for denominations.I actually think that makes it easier to define, albeit a little harder to identify Christians.On the other hand, there is enough of Jesus message that is about obedience to his Father that I have more difficulty accepting that an atheist can be a Chrisitian. Atheism would seem to deny a good deal of what Christ taught.

So according to you, the things that separates you from people merely professing Christianity is a bunch of beliefs having only a peripheral relationship to Jesus Christ.[removed by edit]ABE:I just re-read the OP for this thread. I find that jar specifically asked that we not criticize whatever belief someone else posted. Accordingly I have edited this response to remove the more critical component. I have left in my observation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Only possible? I cannot accept that.I wouldn't exclude people who can point to membership. I just don't believe it is necessary to do anything other than follow Jesus teachings to be a Christian. A person might make the decision to follow Christ first and the decision to join a chapter separately or not at all. If that's enough to constitute membership, then we agree. But then the membership requirement would seem to be mere lip service. Wouldn't that also leave out those churches that Paul founded?What are we trying to count here anyway?

I understand the difficulty. Does not change my mind that the teachings are the primary aspect. As a first take, I'd go with the red letter text in the NT as a working definition. I'm sure there are other sources, but I'd want to hear the arguments pro/con.Other definitions might be useful depending on the context. ISIS is looking to cut off a Christian's head, they might use one definition. If instead a man was looking for someone to accompany him on to mission to talk about Jesus, he might use a different definition.