What do Christians believe?

[prisonchaplain]

To think that the purpose of the Christian Crusades was to rape, murder, pillage and steal, done "in the name of their religions", or that anyone would think that was desired by Christ is a conclusion that I don't even know how you got to, let alone could attempt to defend.

Peace.

Most of us are guilty of repeating "common wisdom" about other religions as if it were gospel. It's just so easy to dismiss the Crusades as immoral, and wholly evil--after all, it was them Catholics.

Mormons and Muslims are both victims of this. On a much smaller scale, some of my forefathers were jailed for "practicing medicine without a license" (praying for the sick to be healed). Rumors are an abundant and cheap currency, that often gets passed around as if it were pure gold.

Thanks for the reminder that most dramatic historical accounts have more than one interpretation, and that we do well to tread lightly and listen deeply.

Edited October 20, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[madeleine1]

In a time of indulgences and Inquisition, it isn't that hard to imagine that men would rape and torture in the name of God, in order to scare the Muslims out of the Holy Land.

If that is what you want to believe, that is what you are going to believe. But I'd say it says more about you than it does about Christians.

[rameumptom]

No, it says a lot about the Medieval period and the Crusades. I have a degree in history, and in studying the Crusades and the time period, we find that rape was a method used to strike fear into the hearts of the peoples of many areas. And yes, Christians of that time were involved in many atrocious things in the name of Christ. Now, this did not include the Pope. He sent a mandate to knights and lords everywhere to recover the Holy Land. The Popes did this to unite the constantly warring factions. It was better to put that energy towards recovering the Holy Land than to ruin the Christian lands. The Pope was smart in doing this, even though the land finally fell into Muslim hands.

But the Popes who invoked the Crusades did not have control over the troops that went east. Pope Innocent the III sent out the fourth and final crusade. Instead of attacking Jerusalem, the Crusaders actually sacked Constantinople - the capitol city of the Eastern Orthodox Christians! This occurred even though Pope Innocent set a ban on attacking any Christian states.

Speros Vyronis said this about the attack:

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians.

You can read more about it here at wikipedia:

Fourth Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, we can see that people do many things in the name of God and Christ.

[AnthonyB]

madeleine1,

Thanks for your response. Whilst I can concede that they may have begun with good intentions at some point during the odd 300 years people did realize that their results were terrible.

My personal response to the crusades is much more in line with the LDS then with yours. That may be my upbringing in a restorationist tradition (albeit a more moderate version then the LDS) or reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs etc.

I took note of PC's post but I still think they were a horific blot.

[prisonchaplain]

Here is a Catholic scholars take: The Crusades

[mordorbund]

So it turns out that Rhode Island is neither an island nor an independent nation, so my social cult got shut down pretty quickly. I have formed another group, with completely different beliefs from the previous one. There's no weird practices, rites liturgies to frighten outsiders.

We believe in God in a strictly monotheistic sense. His greatest desire for us is to socially progress towards harmony and unity on a global scale. This is achieved through "mutual ethical enlightenment". That is, the more individuals become "ethically enlightened", the more they'll behave in ways that does the most good for society. A person receives more enlightenment the more they partake of the divine nature of God (it is the heavenly gift). For the sake of this conversation, we do believe that Jesus was fully divine by the time he was baptized (at that time God accepts him as his Son). We reverence Jesus as the greatest example of ethical enlightenment and strive to be like him. We would like to build a communal society that helps us to practice the level of charity he taught and showed in his life, but we are by no means cut off from the outside world. We are not a social cult.

Are we Christian. We believe in Jesus. We believe him to be "divine". Is that enough?

[mordorbund]

I notice in this thread there have been some diplomatic posts essentially stating that we can't decide if a person is a "Christian" - someone who truly follows Christ; that is something that only Christ can judge. Fair enough. I think of that as the trivial solution.

What I'm wondering about is the belief system (and I think that was the point of this thread as well). If we take the creeds and tenets of a particular faith, what must be present for that system (or church) to be considered Christian? Even if it meets the minimum requirements, is there something that can make it fall out (like my previous social cult)?

[AnthonyB]

mordorbund,

I don't think you can come up with a single standard across the whole group of people who in some ways see themselves as Christians, however there are broad groupings I think that we can speak of having a shared view although some of the groupings do overlap.

Liturgical (eg Catholic, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic)

Liberal (eg scattered throught mainline Churches)

Evanglelical (Baptist, Pentecostal, many Independent churches and some scattered in mainline churches)

I'm sure I could come up with other groupings, problem is that there are overlaps and borderline areas on the edges of each group.

[AnthonyB]

Picking out the group I mostly identify with myself (Evangelicals), that some sort of personal comittment to Christ, attachment to biblical authority, committment to share the gospel and a basic set of core theological truths (salvation by grace, trinity).

I have often seen "the theif on the cross" used as almost the best and most normative example of Christian salvation, almost to the point that it should be referred to as "The Great Conversion". Usually in the discussion about the place of baptism in our covenant repsonse to Jesus, that the line the theif on the cross wasn't baptized so it can't be that important is used. However the theif on the cross would almost certainly had no idea about the trinity, but they generally don't draw the same conclusion.

[annewandering]

So it turns out that Rhode Island is neither an island nor an independent nation, so my social cult got shut down pretty quickly. I have formed another group, with completely different beliefs from the previous one. There's no weird practices, rites liturgies to frighten outsiders.

We believe in God in a strictly monotheistic sense. His greatest desire for us is to socially progress towards harmony and unity on a global scale. This is achieved through "mutual ethical enlightenment". That is, the more individuals become "ethically enlightened", the more they'll behave in ways that does the most good for society. A person receives more enlightenment the more they partake of the divine nature of God (it is the heavenly gift). For the sake of this conversation, we do believe that Jesus was fully divine by the time he was baptized (at that time God accepts him as his Son). We reverence Jesus as the greatest example of ethical enlightenment and strive to be like him. We would like to build a communal society that helps us to practice the level of charity he taught and showed in his life, but we are by no means cut off from the outside world. We are not a social cult.

Are we Christian. We believe in Jesus. We believe him to be "divine". Is that enough?

You mean are scientologists christian?

[mordorbund]

You mean are scientologists christian?

I'm intentionally creating hypothetical religions so that we can still remain respectful of other religions in discussing this. There's plenty of LDS on this board that would prefer to be recognized as Christians and I think we should grant other religions the same privilege - especially those that aren't represented.

I noticed you didn't answer the question. What is theologically required for a religion to be Christian? Must they believe in the divinity of Christ? The Trinity? or perhaps just accepting that Jesus is a spiritual Savior? What if he's just a temporal or moral Savior?

[annewandering]

I'm intentionally creating hypothetical religions so that we can still remain respectful of other religions in discussing this. There's plenty of LDS on this board that would prefer to be recognized as Christians and I think we should grant other religions the same privilege - especially those that aren't represented.

I noticed you didn't answer the question. What is theologically required for a religion to be Christian? Must they believe in the divinity of Christ? The Trinity? or perhaps just accepting that Jesus is a spiritual Savior? What if he's just a temporal or moral Savior?

Just was noticing it sounded like Scientology.

In answer to your question I think to be Christian you have to be a disciple of Christ. A follower of Christ. I do not feel you have to believe in any particular doctrine but just believe that He is the Christ.

Now if you want to talk doctrine etc well that is describing the kind of Christian not whether a person is a Christian.

[mordorbund]

Just was noticing it sounded like Scientology.

In answer to your question I think to be Christian you have to be a disciple of Christ. A follower of Christ. I do not feel you have to believe in any particular doctrine but just believe that He is the Christ.

Now if you want to talk doctrine etc well that is describing the kind of Christian not whether a person is a Christian.

It sounds like you were trying to avoid it, but now we have to talk doctrine to determine if a group is Christian (remember I am not talking about individuals, but group classifications). The only requirement to being Christian is that a religion claims that Jesus is the Christ. So we ask a follow-up question, what does it mean that Jesus is the Christ. The OmniSalvationists claim that the Christ atoned for all sinners, giving everyone entrance to heaven. The Salvationists claim that the Christ atoned for all sins, placing heaven within reach of everyone who believes on him. The Pathifists claim the Christ did not atone (such would be unjust), but heaven is available to everyone who follows his path. The Moralists claim that the Christ was indeed sent by God to teach us how to behave better, but it has nothing to do with an afterlife.

I've just created 4 different religions that on the surface claim that "Jesus is the Christ", but they all have different definitions of Christ. Should these all be classified as Christian? And I'll also point out that if OmniSalvationists or Moralists are right, it's not such a big deal, but if it's the other two then they should distance themselves so that Christ-seekers are aware that they won't find salvation in the other groups. And the easiest way to create that distance is to show that the other groups, while claiming to be Christian, really aren't because underlying the core doctrine is theology that is just too "other".

[AnthonyB]

mordorbund,

If you were visiting a church with an open communion table, where the invitation was that all who loved the Lord can partake would you?

(I wonder how an open communion church would react to LDS partaking of the Lord's super?)

[mordorbund]

mordorbund,

If you were visiting a church with an open communion table, where the invitation was that all who loved the Lord can partake would you?

(I wonder how an open communion church would react to LDS partaking of the Lord's super?)

If I was attending by myself, I probably wouldn't take communion even with the open invitation for all who loved the Lord. I think I would have some uncertainty if I was really supposed to be included in such. If I was attending with a friend who knows me, and he nudged me and told me to go ahead, I probably would. The difference being that someone who knows my beliefs of the Lord and the proper "requirements" (for lack of a better word) sees nothing amiss in it.

[prisonchaplain]

mordorbund,

If you were visiting a church with an open communion table, where the invitation was that all who loved the Lord can partake would you?

(I wonder how an open communion church would react to LDS partaking of the Lord's super?)

I'm trying to remember if the LDS fellow who attended my chapel services took communion or not. I offered it every week. I would usually announce that anyone who knew Jesus was in his heart, and had forgiven his sins, was welcome to the table--that it was not my role to "police" it. My guess is that in most "open communion" services no one would know if or ask if a visitor was LDS. Now, if elders came with their name tags on, that might be a bit awkward. I think I would offer it to them, and perhaps deal with a few angry parishioners in the week to follow.

[clint25n]

After listening to many debates on what defines Christianity, I've come to an understanding. It will never be possible for Mainstream Christianity and Mormonism to come to an agreement on whom are actually Christians for one good reason. Their terminology is almost completely different.

Example: I've had Mormons agree with me on the statement that we are saved through grace and faith in Jesus Christ. But when the meaning of each one of the terms "saved", "grace", "faith" and even "Jesus Christ" are all different from mainstream ones, then even when we agree on this statement, we actually still disagree.

A person could be raised up to believe that the color blue is actually called green. If you were to agree with them that green is the prettiest color, you would seem to agree, but only verbally. In truth, you would actually disagree, but walk away not knowing. You would both need to come to an authority on the truth to see what truth is.

In this same way, when a Mormon says we are Christian, he is correct in his own terminology and worldview, but when a Mainstream Christian says they are not, they are correct from their terminology and worldview. To truly be able to make the proper judgement and understanding, one must be rooted and grounded in the truth. You must be anchored to God's Word, which is the final authority on what Christianity means.

[Spartan117]

I'm trying to remember if the LDS fellow who attended my chapel services took communion or not. I offered it every week. I would usually announce that anyone who knew Jesus was in his heart, and had forgiven his sins, was welcome to the table--that it was not my role to "police" it. My guess is that in most "open communion" services no one would know if or ask if a visitor was LDS. Now, if elders came with their name tags on, that might be a bit awkward. I think I would offer it to them, and perhaps deal with a few angry parishioners in the week to follow.

Before I was baptized, the missionaries told me I could take the sacrament if I wanted. They said that since I hadn't made any covenants, I couldn't renew them, so it wouldn't mean anything if I took it. I didn't until I was baptized though. I've never thought about the sacrament or communion if I were to visit another a church.

[Maygraceabound]

You are Christian the moment you first believe. Mormons, Catholic, Baptist or no religion; it does not matter. All can be Christian. God is interested in your heart. I would add that most people who go to church are probably not Christian. Just my observation. It is not about the religion, it is about believing in Jesus.

[prisonchaplain]

You are Christian the moment you first believe. Mormons, Catholic, Baptist or no religion; it does not matter. All can be Christian. God is interested in your heart. I would add that most people who go to church are probably not Christian. Just my observation. It is not about the religion, it is about believing in Jesus.

I understand the sentiment, but struggle a bit. A person can have no religion at all, and still be a Christian? I take that to mean that this person belongs to no church, no congregation, no community of faith--they simply agree that Jesus...well, that Jesus what? Just what would "believing in Jesus" mean to someone with no religion and no community of faith?

And then, despite this seemingly low bar for salvation, to toss out the salvo that most who go to church are not Christians? Are you saying that most people who go to church do not believe in Jesus?

Guess I need your ideas fleshed out a little, cause I found them confusing.

[rameumptom]

I think there are two parts to this. We believe in the priesthood of all believers, or an individual relationship with Christ. One can achieve this in a church or on a mountain top. Mankind may be saved from death and hell through faith and repentance in this.

Then there is the formal priesthood. This provides the ordinances, covenants, and authority to not only organize the church of Christ, but also to help us receive higher levels of salvation. This cannot be found just anywhere, nor as an individual. God set up prophets, apostles, and other specific callings to provide for this (Ephesians 2:19, 4:11-16, Hebrews 5-7). The Mosaic covenant came via a prophet of God. The Noahic Covenant came through a prophet. The key revelations in the Bible came via prophets. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, who held the proper authority in the priesthood and was a prophet. Jesus also held the priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7).

To receive a fulness of salvation, what LDS call exaltation, one must have both the individual salvation through Christ, plus the covenants and ordinances commanded by Christ through those with the proper authority.

[Maygraceabound]

I understand the sentiment, but struggle a bit. A person can have no religion at all, and still be a Christian? I take that to mean that this person belongs to no church, no congregation, no community of faith--they simply agree that Jesus...well, that Jesus what? Just what would "believing in Jesus" mean to someone with no religion and no community of faith?

And then, despite this seemingly low bar for salvation, to toss out the salvo that most who go to church are not Christians? Are you saying that most people who go to church do not believe in Jesus?

Guess I need your ideas fleshed out a little, cause I found them confusing.

My wife and I go to a church of about 200. ( however church attendance is not required to be Christian )If you ask any of our members they would say that they are not religious. They would eve get offended with the notion. Jesus never wanted us to be religious. Religion takes the focus off Jesus and puts it on mans traditions and dead works. Mat:23-4 (paraphrase) religion ties up men with many burdens that they can not bare.

PC. It has never been about religion, it is about relationship. Jesus wants you in your heart not tied up in dead works and traditions. He wants compassion not sacrifice.

To follow Him you must pick up your cross daily. What does He mean by this? Your answer lies here.

So, religion will never define you as Christian. Your heart does. It is my observance most people in a religion today believe that if that are a good person and go to church then they are Christian. They may not be. Without Jesus, they are lost. However, all religions have some members that are Christian. They truely have a relationship with Jesus. Mormon, Catholic, Budist, Muslim etc all have some members who believe on Him. So they would be Christian.

PC Where is your heart?

Edited March 20, 2012 by Maygraceabound

[prisonchaplain]

My wife and I go to a church of about 200. ( however church attendance is not required to be Christian )If you ask any of our members they would say that they are not religious. They would eve get offended with the notion. Jesus never wanted us to be religious. Religion takes the focus off Jesus and puts it on mans traditions and dead works. Mat:23-4 (paraphrase) religion ties up men with many burdens that they can not bare.

PC. It has never been about religion, it is about relationship. Jesus wants you in your heart not tied up in dead works and traditions. He wants compassion not sacrifice.

To follow Him you must pick up your cross daily. What does He mean by this? Your answer lies here.

So, religion will never define you as Christian. Your heart does. It is my observance most people in a religion today believe that if that are a good person and go to church then they are Christian. They may not be. Without Jesus, they are lost. However, all religions have some members that are Christian. They truely have a relationship with Jesus. Mormon, Catholic, Budist, Muslim etc all have some members who believe on Him. So they would be Christian.

PC Where is your heart?

Like I said...I understand the sentiment. I grew up with this same idea that somehow "religion" meant Pharisaism or "man's efforts to seek God" or ritualism without Christ's true spirit, or other such things. In reality, religion is a community of faith. I would argue that to be a part of the Christian religion I must first be a Christian. Yes, for that I need a relationship with Jesus. However, I would argue against the distinctly American hyper-individualistic belief that true faith begins AND ENDS with one's individual experience with Jesus. Instead, my faith began with Jesus forgiving my sins and my embracing his love and his ways. What followed was my entry into the Christian community of faith, where I learned more of Jesus, through his Spirit active in fellow disciples.

My heart, to answer the question, is with Jesus AND His bride, the Church. In reality, it is my love of Jesus and his people that anchors me to the Christian religion.

We never should have made religion a dirty word. Good religion leads sincere seekers to the one true and living God.

[Maygraceabound]

Like I said...I understand the sentiment. I grew up with this same idea that somehow "religion" meant Pharisaism or "man's efforts to seek God" or ritualism without Christ's true spirit, or other such things. In reality, religion is a community of faith. I would argue that to be a part of the Christian religion I must first be a Christian. Yes, for that I need a relationship with Jesus. However, I would argue against the distinctly American hyper-individualistic belief that true faith begins AND ENDS with one's individual experience with Jesus. Instead, my faith began with Jesus forgiving my sins and my embracing his love and his ways. What followed was my entry into the Christian community of faith, where I learned more of Jesus, through his Spirit active in fellow disciples.

My heart, to answer the question, is with Jesus AND His bride, the Church. In reality, it is my love of Jesus and his people that anchors me to the Christian religion.

We never should have made religion a dirty word. Good religion leads sincere seekers to the one true and living God.

I am glad to hear this. So to answer your question "what do Christians believe", I would go with what you just posted. Sounds very good to me. Lofty debates and theology mean nothing if you take your focus off Him. It is not Jesus and. It is Jesus only.

God Bless You PC.

[Desertknight]

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead.

On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Amen.

That.