What is Christianity?

Yawn.You keep proselytizing but offer us nothing related to the topic.Is this a case of you not understanding English? What is Christianity?

Lots of words Phat but still no content that I can see. Fine but that still tells us nothing related to the topic which is "What is Christianity?" Fine but what the hell does that mean? What does belief in church mean? What does fellowship of the brethren mean? What does that mean?What does being born again mean? How do you identify someone who is born again? What does it feel like to be a Christian? How is that feeling different than a bad burrito or a warm fuzzy?What is Christianity?

Yup, but that still tells us nothing. The different Gospels have Jesus saying different things so we cannot take them as being literally what Jesus said. In addition people over the ages have interpreted "Jesus teachings" in totally different ways.If you ask Faith if she tries to follow Jesus teachings I would imagine she would claim that she tries.The goal of this thread was to see if some clear definition of "What is Christianity" might be possible but so far the answer is "No!"I had suggested using the criteria of "Someone who is a member of one of the chapters (even self identified chapters) of Club Christian but you and others have pointed out that someone could be a Christian even if not associated with any such club. Others has suggested it could be anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus but again, that itself is undefined beyond your suggestion of it being the "Red Letter" passages. Again, the goal of the topic was to see if one definition of "What is Christianity" would be possible. Saying that there are different definitions and that not everyone accepts the other definitions simply underlines the difficulty.So are we any closer to being able to say "What is Christianity?"

But again, that tells us nothing.What is a real Christian and how would that individual be noticed or identified?

Yet you have never even tried to explain what that means. How can someone acknowledge something that makes no sense or has a meaning?Consider "The hills are alive..." Well that too makes no sense but in that case there is an additional qualifier "...with the sound of music." which tells us we were right, the hills really weren't alive but rather there is the sound of music coming from the hills. And when we look a little further we realize that what we have is a signature song for a Broadway Play and the hills are simply a prop, a setting for the story.In the latter case we can see that "The hills are alive" has almost nothing to do with the hills or the state of being alive.So what does Jesus is alive mean?

It's interesting in that the Apostles creed makes no claim of a Trinity as in three in one. That is also true of the Nicene Creed but then there is the pesky Athanasian Creed.With the addition of the Athanasian Creed the non-Trinitarians were excluded from Club Christian.If we set a standard based on the first two creeds Christianity becomes quite broad.

How would such a persons behavior be visibly different if it is only attribution that distinguishes whether it is "Christian" behavior?

So it comes down to self-identification. Is that correct?So a Christian is someone who self-identifies as a Christian?

Well, I hope you continue to strive to communicate.Let me try.Calvin was one of the most non-Christ like figures I can imagine. He was exclusive while Jesus was inclusive, anti-Semitic while Jesus was a Semite, all around a very not nice person yet I think most people would say that Calvin was a Christian.There are many other examples, the Phelps family and Westboro Baptist Church come to mind but again, I think most people would consider them Christians even if only examples of Christianity at its worst.There are Trinitarian Christians and non-Trinitarian Christians and Creedal Christians and some-Creedal Christians and Christians that are declared to not be Christians based on some creed yet following other older creeds and anti-science Christians and pro-science Christians.There were the Puritans that could not get along with anyone anywhere in the world yet were Christians and the Amish that got along with everyone as long as they could be separate from everyone but still Christians and the Roman Catholics the certainly did not follow the teachings of Jesus in South America but were still Christians.So where is the line for the fifty percent? Are we, can we, be justified in simply denying that those whose behavior was reprehensible were "True Christians?" Are we not morally obligated to admit our collective and individual failures, acknowledge, confess and repent them, attempt to make amends and try to do better in the future? Can we absolve Christianity simply by claiming some are not really Christians?I am not trying to simply banter or deal in semantics. This is a serious question.Do we not have to acknowledge that Christians more often than not do not behave Christ-like?

The Athanasian Creed seems a product of the 6th Century politics about who would control the church and is an early example of "exclusion", of anathemas. But even in the major Apostolic Churches like the Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopal (CoE) chapters about the only time it comes up is on Trinity Sunday and it does not deal so much with who is a Christian as who will be saved.The concept of the Creedal Christian is also not really new, I've always identified myself as a Cradle Creedal Christian.Also, the definition of "scripture" has changed over time. It certainly didn't mean a "Bible" rather just any writing that was thought to be inspired. There were gospels and epistles and writings in circulation that did not make it into any of the various canons and even there the canons vary from the smallest (the Samaritan Orthodox canon that accepts only those books which might have been canonized at the time of Jesus life, the Pentateuch and excludes all of the New Testament ) to the Ethiopian Long canon that includes over eighty books.

Of course neither the Apostle's or Nicene creeds say anything about salvation or a requirement for salvation.

Does that even have any meaning or is it just another feel good bumper sticker like "Jesus is alive today"?

Then it should be possible to tell others what that meaning is I would think.

Did the Greeks have religions based on non-existent deities?Did the Romans have religions based on non-existent deities?Did the Norse have religions based on non-existent deities?Did the Germans have religions based on non-existent deities?Did the Egyptians have religions based on non-existent deities?Did the Babylonians have religions based on non-existent deities?Did the Celts have religions based on non-existent deities?Did the Hindus have religions based on non-existent deities?Why do you think Christianity could not exist if there was no God?

What does that mean? How is Jesus alive? How can we differentiate between Jesus being alive and Superman being alive?