Christanity is not a religion

It has a definite meaning: It means you believe Jesus Christ is the savior. There are different sects of the religion but they all have Christ as the central point.

Raees wrote: It has a definite meaning: It means you believe Jesus Christ is the savior. There are different sects of the religion but they all have Christ as the central point.

Raees, I accept it has a more accepted meaning. But that meaning is the accepted view outside of most of the sects of the religion you are describing, if I give you that terminology. You also likely accept that this whole religion is just a sect of Judaism or the first set of hoohaa that the first human came up with for the things he or she could not explain. I am not denying the tree.

Though a Catholic may call a Methodist a christian in some circumstances, in most cases they would simply call them wrong. Thus, I think that the sects are still better served and respected by using their real names that have the connotations of their subtle differences.

I say this because I respect them, yet I believe they are all about as true as the Disney fairy tails. Religion is a religion and then there are 1000s of sects. When I talk theology with religious, the word christian does not come up, but the other sects do all the time.

Haven't you heard... America IS a so-called "Christian Nation"....

on that note wrote:

Raees wrote: It has a definite meaning: It means you believe Jesus Christ is the savior. There are different sects of the religion but they all have Christ as the central point.

Raees, I accept it has a more accepted meaning. But that meaning is the accepted view outside of most of the sects of the religion you are describing, if I give you that terminology. You also likely accept that this whole religion is just a sect of Judaism or the first set of hoohaa that the first human came up with for the things he or she could not explain. I am not denying the tree.

Though a Catholic may call a Methodist a christian in some circumstances, in most cases they would simply call them wrong. Thus, I think that the sects are still better served and respected by using their real names that have the connotations of their subtle differences.

I say this because I respect them, yet I believe they are all about as true as the Disney fairy tails. Religion is a religion and then there are 1000s of sects. When I talk theology with religious, the word christian does not come up, but the other sects do all the time.

I grew up "Christian," and my Moms side of the family is heavily Catholic. I did "Bible Studies" and was an alter boy. Over the years I feel like Christianity is closely related to Catholicism, in which Christianity is a more Liberal form of Catholicism. More "laid back." Less strict, that's for sure, and the proceedings don't feel like long drawn out "rituals," like Catholics, and most Paganistic religions. Speaking of which, weren't the Romans Catholic? Weren't their crusades across Europe detrimental to Pagans? That's a whole other topic. IMO, Christianity deserves it's place as a religion just like any other, given the rediculous ones (IMHO) that are out there, ie; Scientology? Anyway, B.O'R has never had any influence with me. I scan right over articles that contain his name most of the time. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever WATCHED his show, lol .

Edit: I do agree with Raess that Christ is a central point of MOST religions. He's just called many names.

[lmgtfy:15gkgjnc]define christianity[/lmgtfy:15gkgjnc]

I accept that those that believe this stuff can call themselves anything they want. I will still primarily refer to people as accurately as I can in regards to religion. You are right, just not specific enough for me and some others, Bill O being one of them.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

I still contend that if you can view religion outside the constraints of a spiritual power, that political parties and religions are very similar, even down to people not practicing what they preach.

There are many who refer to themselves as "nondenominational christians" who choose not to align with established schism within Christianity.

Yeah, let's talk about them, that will be fun. This thread is already about how little substance we can give to a religion and still call it that.

What exactly is up in the air for the non-denominationals that the denominations have figured out and why is it undetermined? or is it more about not letting go of a religion in name but not really caring what the content is...so the details matter less than the badge. Because that is kind of how it sounds.

I believe that the badge is accepting Christ as your personal savior, and that in itself is the sole content to be considered and which is not dismissed lightly.

Raees wrote: [lmgtfy:34b99zko]define christianity[/lmgtfy:34b99zko]

I think this thread has gone off the deep end. And I thought I was a drinker. Sheesh.