Christians In Taiwan

[Joesox]

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Joesax, you think it is possible to identify an “orthodox” mainstream of Christianity, and have that be an objective observation rather than a statement of faith (or just a simplifying convenience). I disagree…
All right, the first two councils would give us the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, whose beliefs would be accepted by well over 90 percent of claimed Christians…
But the smaller or newer religions have a different sense of where the “mainstream” lies. Who’s to say which is right? A believer could, but an outsider?[/quote]
I think that smaller or newer religions/Christian demoninations are quite clear that they are not part of the mainstream, indeed perhaps that’s one of their selling points. Why start a new branch if it’s exactly the same as something that went before?

You seem to deny the utility of historically contextual biblical and theological scholarship. That seems a pity to me, since thinking Christians with scholarly integrity seem for the most part to me to be more tolerant and open-minded than, say, a Christian who only believes (swallows whole, without contemplation) what his leaders have told him/her.

But you are still holding onto the idea that I believe that ‘orthodoxy’ is something good and that unorthodoxy is bad. I say this clearly; I do not believe this and have not said that I do.

Insofar as some new, small religious movements may not have developed theologies and may not give much importance to contextual biblical study, then there may be a slight correlation between ‘orthodoxy’ and what I would deem better religious practice; that is thinking, conscientious study and practice.

But there are many great aspects of religious movements of all sizes and I repeat that if they help people live their lives in a useful way then what could possibly be wrong with that?

P.S. Regarding a useful (as opposed to completely objective, which as you have said would be very difficult) formal definition of Christian orthodoxy I would have to reread and read anew what others have written on that but yes, the first two councils would seem a good place to start.

[Screaming_Jesus]

You seem to deny the utility of historically contextual biblical and theological scholarship.

Oh no. It’s extremely useful. In fact, I couldn’t teach a class on Christian history without it. This utility comes at the cost of marginalizing some groups. We almost always pay this cost, but it makes me wonder sometimes.

That seems a pity to me, since thinking Christians with scholarly integrity seem for the most part to me to be more tolerant and open-minded than, say, a Christian who only believes (swallows whole, without contemplation) what his leaders have told him/her.

It’s entirely possible for a “non-mainstream” Christian group to nevertheless be overflowing with scholarly and moral integrity. The Quakers, which I believe you mentioned liking too, would be Exhibit A. They have a very different sense of where the “mainstream” of Christian tradition lies, and I think it’s just as much worth considering as the views of groups which are hundreds of times bigger. They even shed light on Jesus etc. which Roman Catholicism can’t.

But you are still holding onto the idea that I believe that ‘orthodoxy’ is something good and that unorthodoxy is bad. I say this clearly; I do not believe this and have not said that I do.

Okay, fair enough. I did assume that the terms were inherently evaluative.

[system]

an important part of being a christian is spreading the word… promoting your religion, if you dont you goto hell and have to take ox tail and goat gravey showers, mormon offshot groups are great, they murder people so they can find the way to zion… i know a lof of them sit around and watch the highlander dvd all day… but those keneu reeves movies where he has the leather coat and sunglasses… uh ohhh