Do CC Christians accurately portray Christian positions?

[Symmetry]

So anyway, if anyone cares to read the OP:

Now personally, I wouldn't nail down Christians as a unified group. Even within the CC Christian community I've seen posters talk about "Catholics or Christians", where I would generally think of Catholics as Christians. Back in the 17th century, Protestants used to label Catholics as atheists, and to a certain extent vice-versa.

Now I think that atheists are a pretty diverse group. No set of dogma- however much the evolution threads play out, for example, not all atheists believe or care about evolution, and not all Christians are creationists. Even within evolutionary theory, there are diverse views, and I doubt many would consider themselves Darwinist as if he was the be all and end all of evolution.

So, do Christian posters portray Christian thought correctly, or are there some who misrepresent Christian positions on confession, infant baptism, the hierarchy of the church, contraception, and missionaries, for example.

Can any Christian honestly say that they portray Christianity correctly? Surely nobody's that perfect.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hint: the following quote alludes to one of the main problems with the OP's message.

First we must realize that all actions arc performed by individuals.
A collective operates always through the intermediary of one or
several individuals whose actions are related to the collective as the
secondary source. It is the meaning which the acting individuals and
all those who are touched by their action attribute to an action, that
determines its character. It is the meaning that marks one action as the
action of an individual and another action as the action of the state or
of the municipality. The hangman, not the state, cxccutcs a criminal.
It is the meaning of those concerned that discerns in the hangman's
action an action of the state. A group of armed men occupies a place.
It is the meaning of those concerned which imputes this occupation
not to the officers and soldiers on the spot, but to their nation.-1f we
scrutinize the meaning of the various actions performed by individuals
we must necessarily learn everything about the actions of collective
wholes. For a social collective has no existence and reality outside of
the individual members' actions. The life of a collective is lived in the
actions of the individuals constituting% body. There is no social
collective conceivable which is not operative in the actions of some
individuals. The reality of a social integer consists in its directing and
releasing definite actions on the part of individuals. Thus the way to
a cognition of collective wholes is through an analysis of the in-
dividuals' actions.

[Symmetry]

BBS, do you really want to dedicate yourself to a few oblique quotes, some demands for answers, and the few odd hominem? Come back to the fold and maybe your every post won't have to be so contrarian.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, do you really want to dedicate yourself to a few oblique quotes, some demands for answers, and the few odd hominem? Come back to the fold and maybe your every post won't have to be so contrarian.

I love being contrarian! Ideas and opinions should be challenged. Maybe you're being fussy for no good reason? I dunno! There's a problem with your message, so I wondered if people could figure it out if I just gave hints instead. Usually, it's no fun to give away the answer because it prevents people from thinking for themselves.

[PLAYER57832]

You answered the real question in your OP, but did not provide it as an option.

The first question is "what is Christianity?". There is little agreement on that even among those who claim the faith. Some even question the divinity of Christ, other key aspects.

Even if you narrow the definition down to, say those who believe that Christ was a real person, truly the son of God, a person who died on the cross and through that act provided for the redemption of all who believe in him now.... you get a wide bredth of diversity.


In the US, there is a strong contingent, for example, who basically advocate a "prosperity gospel". Basically claiming that the earthly goods some recieve are just and more or less proof of their superior actions (though most draw the line at saying "more faithful, but they see money as its own justification). To contrast, Christians in many other places believe more in "help your neighbor and we all prosper" type theology.

In the US, it gets further complicated by politics. The far right has for a long time catered to the more extreme positions in regards to family planning issues, homosexual condemnation, etc. ... and targeted those as the "front" issues, allowing the politicians to slip in economic policies that if observed up front, initially would never have been accepted. Its taken about 40 years for labor unions to become the "enemy", for example. Yet, now, even union card-holders will vote for the Republicans, sometimes because a particular politician is claiming to be pro-union and sometimes becuase they have been schooled to look at the moral issues over and above everything else.

That distorts the view of Christianity in the US extremely.. becuase so much discussion today is not at all about what Christ really taught or the words in the Bible, it is about what is politically expedient and "practical" for hte moment.

[pimpdave]

[PLAYER57832]

What are "Christian positions"?

The missionary position, of course... the only legal one for many years.

[PLAYER57832]

So anyway, if anyone cares to read the OP:

I guess my earlier response was not truly an answer.. here goes.

Now personally, I wouldn't nail down Christians as a unified group. Even within the CC Christian community I've seen posters talk about "Catholics or Christians", where I would generally think of Catholics as Christians. Back in the 17th century, Protestants used to label Catholics as atheists, and to a certain extent vice-versa.

Now I think that atheists are a pretty diverse group. No set of dogma- however much the evolution threads play out, for example, not all atheists believe or care about evolution, and not all Christians are creationists. Even within evolutionary theory, there are diverse views, and I doubt many would consider themselves Darwinist as if he was the be all and end all of evolution.

Evolution is a theory based on evidence and fact that can be proven to anyone, if they are willing to investigate. The difficulty is that most people don't have the time to investigate and the move to make "the masses" distrust science has born great fruit. That people don't choose to take the time to investigate, though doesn't put it into the realm of faith.

Ironically, the origins of the Earth were never really a big part of the Judeo-Christian traditional debate. That God made the Earth, etc is absolutely a fundament, but the timeline was largely considered unspecified.

So, do Christian posters portray Christian thought correctly, or are there some who misrepresent Christian positions on confession, infant baptism, the hierarchy of the church, contraception, and missionaries, for example.

There is vast disagreement on all of those points. Whether the portrayal is "correct" or not depends on your viewpoint.

For example, I was taught that infant baptism only became truly prominent, essentially universal during the middle ages, as a result of very high infant mortality. However, a scholar I spoke with not so long ago stated that there is evidence of infant baptismal fonts (the basin) and baptisms from the first century of Christianity.

When you get into icons and such, then you get into a lot of esoteric debate. The Greek Orthodox church (as I understand it) is similar to Islam in not wanting to protray images the savior and sometimes even of any human. On the other side, you have Roman Catholics who see real and true power in objects of faith in a way that many Protestants and evangelicals consider almost "magical", even somewhat pagan. Each of these issues and many more have all been sources of great debate and division within the church.

And, those are just the "recent" debates. Some debates are even outlined within the Bible.

Can any Christian honestly say that they portray Christianity correctly? Surely nobody's that perfect.

[/quote]
Even beyond the "nobody's perfect" bit, the church has been many churches within one from the beginning. The disciples themselves often argued vehemently about various points. In my church, we have studied the "7 original churches" mentioned in the Bible. Each of them differed greatly. So, from the start it has been almost impossible to talk of "one church" or "one faith". Yet... we are all to be united under Christ and a belief in him.

[Symmetry]

I can agree with that. The Pauline epistles would not have been necessary if different churches within early Christianity were not in some way differing from one another- they correct as much as encourage.

[pimpdave]