What is a Christian?

@FMF

Here's another point along the spectrum: "He cannot have God for the Father who does not have the Church for Mother." This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church and has been since at least Augustine. It was re-iterated by Pope John Paul II.

You cannot see the forest due to the trees.

@Eladar

Christianity is diverse. If it were not, it would have died out a long time ago.

@moonbus said
@Eladar

Christianity is diverse. If it were not, it would have died out a long time ago.

I suppose that is how you would see it.

i can see the forest
and i can see the trees
i see the birds
and i see the bees
i see the big ole moosies
and the lil tiny fleas
tell me dear eladar
what is it you don't see?

@FMF

Apart from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the other well-defined mainstream branches are Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. These four denominations make up a pretty solidly defined core with a clear doctrine (although the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Roman Church still don't agree on the filioque).

Armenia was the first nation to officially accept Christianity as the state religion and traces its founding to the second half of the first century, having been founded by two disciples of Jesus. Also, the Thomas Christians trace their founding to an apostle, pre-dating the divisive issue of the filioque. If you are interested in the most likely historically original forms of Christianity, I suggest you look there, rather than rehashing 1700 years of acrimonious theological disputes among the four main, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran, branches.

Then there is a penumbra which includes such groups as Christian Scientists, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (formerly known as the Mormon Church), and Jehovah's Witnesses, which reject some tenets of the mainstream churches &/or add bits to the main doctrinal tenets.

Given that some denominations deny the divinity of Jesus and still call themselves Christians, whereas others claim that after Jesus died on Calvary he went to America and preached to the 13th tribe, I doubt you will hit upon one single, simple, definition which captures the entire spectrum and to which all people who call themselves Christians would agree.

@moonbus said
@FMF

Here's another point along the spectrum: "He cannot have God for the Father who does not have the Church for Mother." This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church and has been since at least Augustine. It was re-iterated by Pope John Paul II.

What “spectrum” is that platitude a “point” on?

@divegeester removed their quoted post

Observation.

@divegeester said
What “spectrum” is that platitude a “point” on?

The diversity which Christianity in fact exhibits.

@moonbus said
Here's another point along the spectrum: "He cannot have God for the Father who does not have the Church for Mother."

Yes, I used to - more or less - subscribe to that, in so far as I probably would have seen "Mother" as a metaphor for the Church I was part of.

The "spectrum" you mention has the proverbial 40,000 denominations along it, of which one or more are Catholicism or adjacent to it.

My OP, although it is a set of core beliefs that Eladar...

[who may be some kind of self-sanctified non-Christian mystic with the supposedly supernaturally-affected 'power' to interpret "meaningless" words]

...has dismissed as "fluff" and "gibberish", I think, sets out a pretty good and succinct basis for the vast majority of believers on the Christian "spectrum".

@divegeester said
What “spectrum” is that platitude a “point” on?

He's talking about the wide range - "spectrum" - of Christian groups and traditions. In this case, he is talking about Catholicism.

@moonbus said
Given that some denominations deny the divinity of Jesus and still call themselves Christians, whereas others claim that after Jesus died on Calvary he went to America and preached to the 13th tribe, I doubt you will hit upon one single, simple, definition which captures the entire spectrum and to which all people who call themselves Christians would agree.

Personally, in my view that is, and for what it's worth, denominations that deny the divinity of Jesus are perfectly entitled to call themselves followers of Jesus, and may well think and act in accordance with what they distill as being the significance of Jesus' life.

However, the bottom-line, minimal definition of what beliefs, if held, make it legitimate to call yourself a Christian - with a capital C - to my way of thinking at least, is laid out in the OP.

@moonbus said
I doubt you will hit upon one single, simple, definition which captures the entire spectrum and to which all people who call themselves Christians would agree.

I don't care really if my definition fits ll people who call themselves Christians, although I take your point.

Eladar has rejected the five core beliefs.

SeconSon has waffled away - motivated by a need to be partisan and contrary and defiantly feeble-minded, as ever - and so he has taken a position in which he denies that Eladar has rejected the five core beliefs.

At first, Suzianne seemed to agree but then later described the five core beliefs I laid out as "incorrect" because of my punctuation [see the previous page].

divegeester has implied that he believes the OP is correct by pressing Eladar to say why he thinks it is wrong. I don't think any other Christians have contributed.

@fmf said
I don't care really if my definition fits ll people who call themselves Christians, although I take your point.

Eladar has rejected the five core beliefs.

SeconSon has waffled away - motivated by a need to be partisan and contrary and defiantly feeble-minded, as ever - and so he has taken a position in which he denies that Eladar has rejected the five core beliefs. ...[text shortened]... essing Eladar to say why he thinks it is wrong. I don't think any other Christians have contributed.

The emphasis on belief is telling, for some Christians, don't you think? That opens up another can of worms: salvation through works vs salvation through faith. Some Christians will tell you that there is no salvation outside the Church (i.e., no salvation without belief in a set of propositions and membership in a specific community of believers), whereas others will tell you that God may extend his grace to those who do God's work (even without knowing that they do God's work and even if they never heard anything about the Gospels). A wide range indeed.

"What is a Christian?" is a question liable to lead to misleading or merely partial answers ("partial" in both senses: incomplete, and biased towards one particular party). "Who are Christians?" (emphasis on plural) would be my preferred formulation.

EDIT What strikes me about Christianity is how mental and cognitive it is. At one end of the range is Catholicism, with its massive edifice of theological speculations about the metaphysical nature of man and God and the Trinity and so on, at the other end there are Quakers who sit around and talk about their experiences -- and it's all so very mental and cognitive. It's all going on in their minds. Contrast this with pagan religions, such as Yoruba (arguably the most ancient religion still practised anywhere in the world today) which are non-cognitive; in pagan religions, it doesn't matter what one believes, it's all about participation in rites (which tend to be vigorous).