Differences

[Alvis]

Christianity is a behemoth of an animal, over two billion people identify as Christian.

Of those 2 billion, they can be categorized in several rather divergent traditions:

1. Roman Catholic
2. Eastern Orthodox
3. Protestant
3a. Bible Student Movement (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses)
3b. Miscellaneous Non-Trinitarian (e.g. Christadelphians, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, Oneness Pentecostals)
4. Anglican
5. Oriental Orthodox
6. The Assyrian Church
7. Restorationist (LDS)

And that's hardly exhaustive: post-Reformation non-Roman Catholic Catholic groups (e.g. Old Catholics) such as the Union of Utrect, many of whom are in communion with the Anglican Communion now.

Then of course the term "Protestant" is such a massive catch-all, most Protestant denominations today don't have any real connection with the Historic Protestantism of the Reformation, and can include everything from Lutheranism to the Millerite splinter groups, including the Jehovah's Witnesses. In some sense even the Latter-Day Saint movement can kind of be linked into the broad, highly diverse Protestant umbrella.

You get all this, and with so many voices competing to be heard as de facto Christian, and it's going to look like one big confusing mess.

The whole two billion of us can't even agree on what it means to follow Jesus and His teachings, let alone actually do that very thing.

-CryptoLutheran

And somehow, you're ok with that?


I find the inconsistencies to be damning evidence against the faith, not for it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And somehow, you're ok with that?

That people are fallible and disagree with one another doesn't shipwreck my faith. Correct.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zoness]

Christianity is a behemoth of an animal, over two billion people identify as Christian.

Of those 2 billion, they can be categorized in several rather divergent traditions:

1. Roman Catholic
2. Eastern Orthodox
3. Protestant
3a. Bible Student Movement (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses)
3b. Miscellaneous Non-Trinitarian (e.g. Christadelphians, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, Oneness Pentecostals)
4. Anglican
5. Oriental Orthodox
6. The Assyrian Church
7. Restorationist (LDS)

And that's hardly exhaustive: post-Reformation non-Roman Catholic Catholic groups (e.g. Old Catholics) such as the Union of Utrect, many of whom are in communion with the Anglican Communion now.

Then of course the term "Protestant" is such a massive catch-all, most Protestant denominations today don't have any real connection with the Historic Protestantism of the Reformation, and can include everything from Lutheranism to the Millerite splinter groups, including the Jehovah's Witnesses. In some sense even the Latter-Day Saint movement can kind of be linked into the broad, highly diverse Protestant umbrella.

You get all this, and with so many voices competing to be heard as de facto Christian, and it's going to look like one big confusing mess.

The whole two billion of us can't even agree on what it means to follow Jesus and His teachings, let alone actually do that very thing.

-CryptoLutheran

Fair enough. It's a double-edged sword. At least people are able to have discourse within Christianity to discuss the big questions. The divides show how different human opinion and thought can be.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Fair enough. It's a double-edged sword. At least people are able to have discourse within Christianity to discuss the big questions. The divides show how different human opinion and thought can be.

I think what's rather remarkable is that in spite of how many of us there are, and how fractured we are into different groups, traditions, and denominations, the vast majority of us are still able to come together, point to the Nicene Creed and say, "This is what we believe, this defines our faith." And in this Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, etc can and, indeed, do recognize our common, catholic Christian faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alvis]

I think what's rather remarkable is that in spite of how many of us there are, and how fractured we are into different groups, traditions, and denominations, the vast majority of us are still able to come together, point to the Nicene Creed and say, "This is what we believe, this defines our faith." And in this Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, etc can and, indeed, do recognize our common, catholic Christian faith.

-CryptoLutheran

And for many christians, that's not good enough and you aren't a "true" christian unless you're born again. So those creeds mean nothing in the end at determining one's christian standing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And for many christians, that's not good enough and you aren't a "true" christian unless you're born again. So those creeds mean nothing in the end at determining one's christian standing.

And then there's Darwin Fish, a self-proclaimed preacher who teaches that his tiny little sect is THE (or one of THE) true church around. And accuses anyone who disagrees with him on even the most minute, trivial of matters of being a hell-bound heretic.

Personally I consider Mr. Fish's little sect irrelevant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alvis]

And then there's Darwin Fish, a self-proclaimed preacher who teaches that his tiny little sect is THE (or one of THE) true church around. And accuses anyone who disagrees with him on even the most minute, trivial of matters of being a hell-bound heretic.

Personally I consider Mr. Fish's little sect irrelevant.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm pretty sure Darwin Fish is an atheist and a troll, Crypto.

I'm talking about ordinary, bible thumping, protestant christians, usually either baptist or non-denominational. Would you like names, not that it would help you? since they're people I know personally?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm pretty sure Darwin Fish is an atheist and a troll, Crypto.

That's a good guess, but actually no.

I'm talking about ordinary, bible thumping, protestant christians, usually either baptist or non-denominational. Would you like names, not that it would help you? since they're people I know personally?

And, again, why should that be relevant? I can name people I've known too, but what does that have to do with anything?

Why should their fringe opinions have any relevance on my being a Christian?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alvis]

That's a good guess, but actually no.

I doubt that.

His name alone is troll worthy.

And, again, why should that be relevant? I can name people I've known too, but what does that have to do with anything?

Why should their fringe opinions have any relevance on my being a Christian?

-CryptoLutheran

Why shouldn't it?

It has everything to do with it. Would you call yourself a Nazi? Probably not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It has everything to do with it.

How?

Would you call yourself a Nazi? Probably not.

You're right, I wouldn't--and don't--call myself a Nazi.

That probably has something to do with the fact that I'm not a Nazi as I don't subscribe to the tenets of National Socialism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alvis]

How?



You're right, I wouldn't--and don't--call myself a Nazi.

That probably has something to do with the fact that I'm not a Nazi as I don't subscribe to the tenets of National Socialism.

-CryptoLutheran

Because you're playing a game of "I will choose make up my own version of christianity." You both claim to stand for truth, you and the evangelical movement. They hold to the bible much more literally than you do. You both cannot be right. You both cannot call yourselves christians, so either they castigate you or you them. Truth is mutually exclusive in this case.

If there was a robbery and it was done by one person and I say I saw it and the robber was a man was wearing a red sweater and you say you also saw it and he was not a man at all, but a woman, wearing green... we both cannot be right.

This is why to most christians in that group, you cannot be a "true christian" because you are a Lutheran. You label them as "fringe" groups and they label you as "not born again." You both think you're right yet you both cannot be. This happens with the charismatics vs the non-charismatics, the calvinists vs the non-calvinists, the catholics vs the protestants, etc.

Truth is exclusive by nature.

You are calling yourself something that you are not. You mock these christians as "fringe" groups and crazies but they do the same with you, but with different terms. It's clear that you're both something very different from each other and they cannot be reconciled. I cannot call myself a Nazi because I don't share their ideology. So you can call yourself a "true christian" even though you don't really believe as they do? That seems rather dishonest.

To them, and much of evangelicalism, unless you have undergone the born again conversion experience, you're going to hell. This is what they teach. So why align yourself with such a group when you obviously don't share their views?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Because you're playing a game of "I will choose make up my own version of christianity." You both claim to stand for truth, you and the evangelical movement. They hold to the bible much more literally than you do. You both cannot be right. You both cannot call yourselves christians, so either they castigate you or you them. Truth is mutually exclusive in this case.

If there was a robbery and it was done by one person and I say I saw it and the robber was a man was wearing a red sweater and you say you also saw it and he was not a man at all, but a woman, wearing green... we both cannot be right.

This is why to most christians in that group, you cannot be a "true christian" because you are a Lutheran. You label them as "fringe" groups and they label you as "not born again." You both think you're right yet you both cannot be. This happens with the charismatics vs the non-charismatics, the calvinists vs the non-calvinists, the catholics vs the protestants, etc.

Truth is exclusive by nature.

You are calling yourself something that you are not. You mock these christians as "fringe" groups and crazies but they do the same with you, but with different terms. It's clear that you're both something very different from each other and they cannot be reconciled. I cannot call myself a Nazi because I don't share their ideology. So you can call yourself a "true christian" even though you don't really believe as they do? That seems rather dishonest.

To them, and much of evangelicalism, unless you have undergone the born again conversion experience, you're going to hell. This is what they teach. So why align yourself with such a group when you obviously don't share their views?

So I shouldn't call myself a Christian because I'm not a non-denominational, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, American-style conservative that believes in demon-aliens? Even though I confess the historic faith as confessed in the ancient Ecumenical Creeds, which the overwhelming majority of Christians continue to do?

You're going to have explain to me how that makes any sort of sense at all.

(You'll note, by the way, that I've never accused non-denominational, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, American-style conservatives of not being Christians)

This comes across, everytime you attempt to argue along these lines, as basically, "You don't fit my stereotype of how religious people are, and that damages my worldview, now change so I can feel comfortable in my prejudices again."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alvis]

So I shouldn't call myself a Christian because I'm not a non-denominational, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, American-style conservative that believes in demon-aliens? Even though I confess the historic faith as confessed in the ancient Ecumenical Creeds, which the overwhelming majority of Christians continue to do?

You're going to have explain to me how that makes any sort of sense at all.

(You'll note, by the way, that I've never accused non-denominational, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, American-style conservatives of not being Christians)

This comes across, everytime you attempt to argue along these lines, as basically, "You don't fit my stereotype of how religious people are, and that damages my worldview, now change so I can feel comfortable in my prejudices again."

-CryptoLutheran

No, but they accuse you of not being one.

You're basically saying you can have your cake and eat it too. I can be a christian, they can be a christian, apparently everyone can be one... according to you, despite the fact that you agree on NOTHING. Then why call yourself something that bears no resemblance to what you actually believe? See the Nazi example. It makes little sense.

You're a fool if you think these people somehow either don't exist or are a small minority. You must not read anyone's posts here but your own. I don't have to go more than a few threads or replies before I see them on here. The world must look different from your rose-colored view.

Perhaps you can explain how you are the same as the evangelicals despite disavowing basically everything they believe and stand for? And you can't say, because I believe in God, since nearly every person on the planet believes in some sort of deity (atheists aside).

I just think you're not being very honest here, since you're trying to say you're one of them, when you're not. Why are you so hung up on a title, a religious label?

 

[Tzaousios]

I honestly don't recognize my faith any anything you've presented. So you're either only using Calvinism and Westboro Baptist types as your measuring stick or you're being disingenuous.

Bingo! This is even more true considering the fact that not too long ago Alvis was doing the same thing by holding up the most extremist versions of Evangelical Protestant Creationism as the measure of all interpretations.

 

[simplegifts]

What are the differences between Islam and christianity? I know they differ on the nature of God and the purpose behind the death of Jesus but what else?

They seem much more alike than different to me.

The GOD of Christianity is about love and all about fogiveness.

The Quran has 2 parts the first part is peaceful. The second part is about retaliation, how to fight against the Kufr, how to punish and subdue them.

Christianity's perfect example is Jesus loving caring and kind, more interested in spiritual wellbeing then the riches of this world.

Mohammad was a horrible sinful man. A sexual pervert who made up Quran verses to cover his lustful desires of many wives, grown and child, even a daughter-in-law or niece [can't quite remeber]. So Mohammad's life it is all about the gains to make in this life, how much booty to give and take in war.

Even if Jesus were made up, a myth, he would be the example to follow.

A good read - The Life of Mohammad. It has opened the eyes of many Muslims, now ex-muslims.

Inoculating Against Islam
Political Islam

 

[Alvis]

The GOD of Christianity is about love and all about fogiveness.

The Quran has 2 parts the first part is peaceful. The second part is about retaliation, how to fight against the Kufr, how to punish and subdue them.

Christianity's perfect example is Jesus loving caring and kind, more interested in spiritual wellbeing then the riches of this world.

Mohammad was a horrible sinful man. A sexual pervert who made up Quran verses to cover his lustful desires of many wives, grown and child, even a daughter-in-law or niece [can't quite remeber]. So Mohammad's life it is all about the gains to make in this life, how much booty to give and take in war.

Even if Jesus were made up, a myth, he would be the example to follow.

A good read - The Life of Mohammad. It has opened the eyes of many Muslims, now ex-muslims.

Inoculating Against Islam
Political Islam

Love without hatred and righteous judgement is mushy sentimental crap, not the way the God of the bible actually is.

"God is a God of wrath, people. He's a God of anger. Now does that sound like a poorchoice of starting points for the gospel? Think about it. The bad news has to come before the good news, doesn't it? It's kind of like going to the doctor...and having the doctor say to you - I have bad news; you have a fatal illness that has killed many people. But, I have good news, a cure has been found and I have it right here. See the good news means nothing without the bad news. Right? You have to diagnose the disease before the cure means anything.

The bad news is - God hates. The good news is - God loves, but you have to start with His hate. First the diagnosis then the cure."

The Wrath of God

Mohammed was a demonic pervert, yes. His religion is false, but his ideas about God were biblically sound.

 

[Tzaousios]

Love without hatred and righteous judgement is mushy sentimental crap, not the way the God of the bible actually is.

I am hearing echoes of Blueforest/Patroklos in our midst.

 

[simplegifts]

What's the best translation for readability? I understand that might not be the same thing for study or intense theological debate but I intend to do honest side-by-side research of both without bias from my past.

You could go to BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and see many different translations. Some translations are thought for thought and some are word for word translations. You could choose for yourself which is easiest for you.

This page BibleGateway.com - 183 online Bibles in 73 languages, in text and audio format. has a list yuo can click on and see a explanation of the various translations.

I grew up using the NIV. When I am studying I use King James, a greek translinear - Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software and the the Blue Letter Bible website- Welcome to BLB v3 .

 

[simplegifts]

Love without hatred and righteous judgement is mushy sentimental crap, not the way the God of the bible actually is.

"God is a God of wrath, people. He's a God of anger. Now does that sound like a poorchoice of starting points for the gospel? Think about it. The bad news has to come before the good news, doesn't it? It's kind of like going to the doctor...and having the doctor say to you - I have bad news; you have a fatal illness that has killed many people. But, I have good news, a cure has been found and I have it right here. See the good news means nothing without the bad news. Right? You have to diagnose the disease before the cure means anything.

The bad news is - God hates. The good news is - God loves, but you have to start with His hate. First the diagnosis then the cure."

The Wrath of God

Mohammed was a demonic pervert, yes. His religion is false, but his ideas about God were biblically sound.

No not necessarily. I know of many who have started with the Gospel that has changed so many lives.

Of course God hates sin!! Who ever said he didn't? But he cares enough about people to lead us on a path of righteousness through the examples of sinners and consequences in the Bible.

Giving his incarnate word to die for our sins. That is a whole lot of love in my view.

 

[dlamberth]

You're basically saying you can have your cake and eat it too. I can be a christian, they can be a christian, apparently everyone can be one... according to you, despite the fact that you agree on NOTHING.

But they DO agree on something that's totally central to all of the different Christian sects and that's Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

.