tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post5776018157554325877..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Is the exclusiveness of Christian denominations an issue for Mere Christians? Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-71014569060529386042013-01-30T04:32:04.267+00:002013-01-30T04:32:04.267+00:00@WmJas - " all real Christians should be acce...@WmJas - " all real Christians should be accepted as fully Christian -- which certainly seems to imply that being Christian is an all-or-nothing thing. Either you're fully Christian, or you're not a real Christian at all. "<br /><br />I would put it the way way about - If you are a real Christian, of whatever denomination then you are a full Christian, *potentially* - not limited by the denomination as such. <br /><br />I am trying to contrast this with the idea of one true Christian denomination plus various incomplete, variously-incomplete denominations. It is not the denomination that limits, so that it is really Christian. <br /><br />But, on the other hand, for particular people, in particular circumstances, a mismatched denomination may limit possibilities: because one way of living may be better than others for us here and now. <br /><br />So it is a good thing to have more than one real Christian denomination. <br /><br />I am talking of our circumstances now - the argument may not, probably is not, generalizable, to the whole history of Christianity. <br /><br />In other words, I feel that in these times and days, there is strength and advantage in a variety of Christian denominations - the effect of schisms is and was mostly bad, but not wholly bad; but anyway they cannot be undone, and there are potential advantages.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-34909114660910506132013-01-30T03:36:52.936+00:002013-01-30T03:36:52.936+00:00Bruce, I'm not insisting on precise clear-cut ...Bruce, I'm not insisting on precise clear-cut definitions. Personally, I tend to see Christianity as more of a "family resemblance" thing a la Wittgenstein, with various denominations being prototypically Christian to varying degrees.<br /><br />The idea that the distinction should be clear-cut came from what you wrote: that all real Christians should be accepted as <i>fully</i> Christian -- which certainly seems to imply that being Christian is an all-or-nothing thing. Either you're fully Christian, or you're not a real Christian at all. Your idea, not mine.Wm Jashttp://wmjas.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-57906374154897548172013-01-30T00:30:52.262+00:002013-01-30T00:30:52.262+00:00You simply can't pretend that if something is ...<i>You simply can't pretend that if something is not precise, objective and clear cut etc. then it has no validity...</i><br />The Catholic Church has been working for about 19 centuries on precise, objective and clear cut doctrine and morals. The problem is not that the guidelines are not clear enough; the problem is that man would believe anything instead of bending his will to God, in whatever denomination or non-denomination he happens to be.Sylvie D. Rousseauhttp://sylvietheolog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-88359336445609695982013-01-29T08:12:55.915+00:002013-01-29T08:12:55.915+00:00Wm - you are trying to do what I have just said sh...Wm - you are trying to do what I have just said should not be done - to *capture* the simple faith of simple Christians in precise intellectual distinctions. That kind of stuff is necessary for organizing a church but does not tell you whether someone is a Christian. <br /><br />In terms of definitions believing Christ is Lord and Saviour is probably sufficient and necessary - but of course that leads onto 'what do you mean by...' intellectuals questions, which in practice never stop, never terminate. <br /><br />You are making this into epistemology, the search for certainty of knowledge which is also objective (etc) and as you know that is a total and complete dead-end philosophically - real fly in the bottle stuff. <br /><br />You simply can't pretend that if something is not precise, objective and clear cut etc. then it has no validity - where did that demand come from? Who actually behaves on that basis?<br /><br />It is just inadvertent/ disguised nihilism. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-13709587824771700302013-01-29T05:56:47.556+00:002013-01-29T05:56:47.556+00:00I assume you accept that there are such things as ...I assume you accept that there <i>are</i> such things as pseudo-Christian denominations, that not every group that professes allegiance to Christ is in fact Christian. And when you say that every real Christian denomination should be recognized as <i>fully</i> Christian, you imply that the distinction between real Christians and pseudo-Christians is clear-cut and binary, with no room for a "somewhat Christian" gray area.<br /><br />It therefore seems fair to ask what your criteria are -- what specific non-negotiable beliefs, practices, or other characteristics define the borders of "real Christianity." Mormonism obviously makes the cut, and Islam and Unitarian Universalism presumably do not. By what principle do you separate the sheep from the goats?Wm Jashttp://wmjas.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com