Different "denominations" of a Christian?

[Teckor]

I'd say no.

A Christian is literally a follower of Christ. So, if you follow what Christ said then your a Christian. It's that straight forward. Kinda like salvation, or getting to Heaven. Furthermore, I believe that there is no middle ground on whether or not your a Christian, you are or you aren't (and I'm saying this not as an angry person or anything demeaning), but there just isn't any real middle ground.

Here's what I think are the essentials of a Christian though:
1) Believe Jesus was the Son of God.
2) Believe Jesus died for our sins on the cross.
3) Believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

If there's anything else that's essential plz say so.

[falklands]

What I would say to the original question is Yes and No. All Christians, of course, are the one body of Christ. You're either a Christian or you're not. However, one cannot deny that different Christians hold vastly different beliefs, even though those beliefs are not essential to being a Christian. For example, compare the conservative Russian Orthodox church to the liberal churches you find in, say, California ;D. They are of course both Christian, yet there are great differences in their outlook on life, their outlook on how God's laws are to be followed, and in their theology in general. They are of course from different denominations, yet still Christian. Actually, the whole concept of denominations implies that there are discrepancies between those of the SAME faith. So my final answer would be "Yes."

[Geberia]

Yup, I agree with Falklands. Christians are Christians but we all differ in beliefs, so not one Christian is the same.

[gynovia]

same here.

[Teckor]

...... maybe i should have had a "yes and no" option too.....
very good point, but they are nonetheless a Christian, so why should they be called by any other name when they are that. Personally, it makes us look too divided and then we begin judging people by some of the not-so-important parts of the Bible, or parts that we shouldn't really worry that much about.

But true, there are differences among Christians, that is inevitable. But as mentioned earlier, I disagree with dividing them into denominations.

[falklands]

teckor said:

...... maybe i should have had a "yes and no" option too.....
very good point, but they are nonetheless a Christian, so why should they be called by any other name when they are that. Personally, it makes us look too divided and then we begin judging people by some of the not-so-important parts of the Bible, or parts that we shouldn't really worry that much about.

But true, there are differences among Christians, that is inevitable. But as mentioned earlier, I disagree with dividing them into denominations.

As I said, referring to Christians by their difference of beliefs is not going against the concept of unity in Christ.

[Teckor]

true, you definitely have a point, but honestly though, I don't like the idea.

[Armany]

I think that there are certain Christian denominations that have corrupted their theology to the point that they are misleading people. For example, the Episcopalian Church, I believe, has appointed a gay man as a priest. The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, the Episcopalian Church, in appointing a person that openly encourages and engages in sin (everybody sins, but openly living a life of sin is not good), has became an apostate denomination of Christianity. They still accept Jesus as the Son of God, but they are basically establishing the fact that homosexuality is agreeable with Christian theology.

At least I think that's the case with that denomination. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[bimbettes]

i think a christian is a christian is a christian but different denominations display their faith in different ways

[falklands]

bimbettes said:

i think a christian is a christian is a christian but different denominations display their faith in different ways

Yes, and some degrade their faith in different ways (example from Armany). Waittt... sorry, that was a bit too cynical. ;D

[ashbash]

denoms have their pros as well as cons
eg. having people in the same place with similar theology locks down fighting with one another over theology and they can concentrate more on growing with god. (imagine sticking episcopals, roman caths, baptists and pentecostals in the same church )
the problem comes when these denoms don't accept each other as christians and do the whole "you're wrong i'm right" thing

[Geberia]

Exactly, good point Ashbash. I do disagree with alot of the teachings of other denominations, you know that, but I think the important thing is that we all agree on those things teckor mentioned above.

[Geberia]

Oh, and a good example of this was when in the Bible the disciples were mad cause another man was casing out devils in THEIR name. Jesus said somehting like," Why are you mad? This man is doing good not evil. Let him be." (sorry rude paraphrase.) It's a good thing to remember.

[torc]

The faithful should not divide themselves, but because the Catholic church went insane in the middle ages, division was essential to keep the true matters of the faith alive. One of those is faith and not meaningless rituals. Since then, the catholic church has gotten better, but I still think there is too much reliance on ritual and tempered. I would like to see someone shouting "hallelujah" at a mass and not be stared to death by everone. I respect the knightly reverence, but nearly every mass I have been in felt so fake. Great organ, great choir, but I just don't see that sincerity that I like in most protestant churches.

We need unity, and that will require compromise on a few things, or we could jsut decide to keep our different churches solely as differign styles of wirship, and not as different "one and true" takes on the Bible.

[heartofgold]

Sorry, couldn't let this slide (I'll try and say something on the original subject at the end).

The faithful should not divide themselves, but because the Catholic church went insane in the middle ages, division was essential to keep the true matters of the faith alive.[

Um, if you read Luther's 90 (or was it 95? I can't remember. That's not good, it is late though) you won't read "Jesus is the Son of God." According to everyone here, that's whats necessary, believe Jesus is the Son of God and worship him. That's what the catholic church did.
Also, I wonder if the enlightened people of the church were Methodist, or Episcopalian, or Baptist....

One of those is faith and not meaningless rituals.

What are you talking about? Baptism? Communion? Pray expound. You're getting into a lot of other people if you think those are meaningless.

Since then, the catholic church has gotten better, but I still think there is too much reliance on ritual and tempered. I would like to see someone shouting "hallelujah" at a mass and not be stared to death by everone.

Then go to an African-American catholic church. They do exist. Not all Catholic churches are the same, they have different types of worship services. You want to jump around during Mass, go for it. Its just a matter of finding the right kind of church.

I respect the knightly reverence, but nearly every mass I have been in felt so fake. Great organ, great choir, but I just don't see that sincerity that I like in most protestant churches.

Well, like I said, since you don't seem to think Catholic Masses are sincere (or Episcopalian services for that matter, they're pretty identical), find a jumping Catholic Church.

We need unity, and that will require compromise on a few things, or we could jsut decide to keep our different churches solely as differign styles of wirship, and not as different "one and true" takes on the Bible.

That's true. We do need unity. That's what the Catholic Church is based on, that's why there are a billion catholics in the world. Not a billion divided people who are kinda hazy on what they believe, one billion Catholics.

OK, now for this subject. Yea, I thought thats what all this stuff was. Methodists are a denomanation, Baptists are a denomonation, and I think they're both Christian. That would make two Christian demonations, so there you go.

[awaz]

That is a very good point, who is to say which denomonation is the truth? A lot of denomonations and split orer very trivial issues, such as how to sing (with your hands up, or with your hands down).

[gynovia]

thats very true, and even within denominations theres differences. even with in the methodist, baptist, catholic church and so on.. people have different beliefs.

[Siko Michael]

Here's what I think are the essentials of a Christian though:
1) Believe Jesus was the Son of God.
2) Believe Jesus died for our sins on the cross.
3) Believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

I think if everyone would get just stick to this essential they would be alright. Denominational fighting is not fun, thats why i consider myself non-denominational....lol

siko

[Geberia]

It's kinda ironic....up here in NY churches that claim to be "non-denomintional" won't let Baptist missionaries like ourselves in because we're not "their type." Well, isn't that being a little denominational?

So up here the "non-denominational" churches are a denomination.

But I agree with siko, denominational fighting gets nasty and I'm gonna steer clear!

[Teckor]

.... wow, I missed alot in this thread.

First things first, the Catholic Church (or the Church of England) or even for that matter most "religious institutions" (that are similar to the previous ones) seem to have the major downfall of corruption. Sure they tend to work (or fairly well at first) but over time they tend to degrade and simply cause problems.

Secondly, a christian is a christian right? so why divide ourselves up? I dont know, jsut reminds me of the "United we stand, divided we fall" speech.

The only problem though is the fact that other "denominations" tend to say drastically different things or give that impression. Really kinda puts us in a tough situation that we just gotta ride through.

[torc]

Division was necessary to stop the indulgences and the ideas of pergatory. His 93 theses we meant to get he catholic church back on track.

meaningless rituals was a too-broad statement...allow me to revise. What I meant was that people taking the rituals as jsut rituals. Jsut drinking wine and eating bread and dunking people...So many people don;t care about the meaning behind them.

What I do not understand is the alst rites and hwo that supposedly cna save someone even if theiur soul is nto willing, and you need a prioest to hear confessions....praying to saints....all of that seems almsot anti-Christian to me.

Communion, baptism, and ritals based off of the Bible are what I would stress, not putting oil on people.

Now, as you can see, I am a gifted threadjacker.

To get back on track, we do need a unified church, for more than wars and muslims, apathy is what is killing us. We have 2 billion profession christians+....how many of them do you htink are actually saved? How many attempt at all to act out their faith? vertainly not 2 billion, or else the US and Europe would be a LOT cleaner morally.

[awaz]

Even though all these denominations have different ideals, they all still believe in the same generalized concepts. Right?

[Siko Michael]

Here's what I think are the essentials of a Christian though:
1) Believe Jesus was the Son of God.
2) Believe Jesus died for our sins on the cross.
3) Believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

Even though all these denominations have different ideals, they all still believe in the same generalized concepts. Right?

i would assume so. The basic three principles above, but then just about everything gets debated or the denominations disagree on.

siko

[heartofgold]

First things first, the Catholic Church (or the Church of England) or even for that matter most "religious institutions" (that are similar to the previous ones) seem to have the major downfall of corruption. Sure they tend to work (or fairly well at first) but over time they tend to degrade and simply cause problems.

Secondly, a christian is a christian right? so why divide ourselves up? I dont know, jsut reminds me of the "United we stand, divided we fall" speech.

Wait. "religious institutions," meaning churches that haven't split up yet, are bad. But you want to have all Christians join together? Isn't that bad?

Division was necessary to stop the indulgences and the ideas of pergatory. His 93 theses we meant to get he catholic church back on track.

Well, I'm debating indulgences and purgatory in the Christianity-Catholicism debate, so you can come there to talk about those things.

Wait. Back on track? Indulgences and purgatory had been taught since Christ, so I guess the church was never on track.

meaningless rituals was a too-broad statement...allow me to revise. What I meant was that people taking the rituals as jsut rituals. Jsut drinking wine and eating bread and dunking people...So many people don;t care about the meaning behind them.

Yes, non-catholics. You have no idea how much these rituals mean to Catholics. Baptism to everyone else is just a symbol, just a meaningless ritual. To Catholics its so much more. Communion to everyone else is just a symbol, just a meaningless ritual. To Catholics its so much more. These rituals are anything but meaningless to Catholics.

What I do not understand is the alst rites and hwo that supposedly cna save someone even if theiur soul is nto willing, and you need a prioest to hear confessions....praying to saints....all of that seems almsot anti-Christian to me.

Well first off, nobody can be saved if their soul isn't willing. I just had this debate. Last rites are in the bible (James 5:14) so I don't think its very anti-Christian.

Please tell me why confession would be anti-Christian. Why is confessing your sins to a priest anti-christian. That's like saying confession to anyone (including Jesus) is anti-christian.

Praying to the saints is another one in the Christianity-Catholicism debate. Go there if you want to talk about it (be there or be square).

Communion, baptism, and ritals based off of the Bible are what I would stress, not putting oil on people.

Well like I said. "Putting oil on people" is in the bible.

Oh, and sorry everyone that I keep butting in and defending Catholicism. Its just that everyone seemed to run away from the debate thread and just bash it behind my back. So I had to run after them. Its a weakness I have I'm sure .

[Siko Michael]

Please tell me why confession would be anti-Christian. Why is confessing your sins to a priest anti-christian. That's like saying confession to anyone (including Jesus) is anti-christian.

well your confessing to a *MAN* not the lord or god...so it does no one any good.

Praying to the saints is another one in the Christianity-Catholicism debate.

this is one thing ive never understood...since you are to reach god through Jesus Christ

Communion, baptism, and ritals based off of the Bible are what I would stress, not putting oil on people.

Well like I said. "Putting oil on people" is in the bible.

yes, oil IS important and IN the bible....whats the problem with oil on ppl?

Oh, and sorry everyone that I keep butting in and defending Catholicism. Its just that everyone seemed to run away from the debate thread and just bash it behind my back. So I had to run after them. Its a weakness I have I'm sure

i take you are a catholic or part of your family is since you defend it so well