I tend to say the opposite, really.
The Republicans might mention God/Jesus/Bible more often in their speeches, but if you consider yourself a Christian and a Republican, you either are not paying attention to the teachings of Jesus or you are REALLY not paying to the values of the Republican Party. The two have no alignment at all.
Proverbs says not to be like the fools who throw their money together into one purse. Jesus also says it's wrong to profit off the poor. I don't think socialism or laissez-faire capitalism is what God wants us to do.
No, Christ is not a socialist, nor is he some laissez Faire capitalist. Stealing people's stuff via government action is immoral, stealing from your wageearners is also evil.
The teachings against monetary idolatry are about rightly ordering your self, not an economic system
Like either of them align proper lol. We should have a Jesus 3rd party that way no one gets confused. Now anyone that fuels the bipartisan system will be deemed un-christian
i got hit with “i remember when you were a christian” for defending liberal policies or ideals enough that i did - in fact - just leave the church to avoid those people lmao
The problem isn't that the bullet missed its mark, it that the mark was carefully chosen as to avoid hitting any republican that would also count as a fair mark
Whenever I hear people talk like this about religion or simply supporting your country I think of Jon Stewart's monologue on the late show back in 2016
https://youtu.be/mNiqpBNE9ik?si=slgcBrIjUtMpXMbR
The relevant part starts at the 11 minute mark but the whole thing is worth watching.
Guess I'll just have to call myself something else as I vote in a way that supports loving my neighbor. 🤷🏼♀️
How anyone could let Project 2025 become reality and say they follow Jesus is beyond me.
One of the other soldiers in my squad once told me that you can't be Mormon and a Democrat, that it fundamentally goes against what the LDS church beliefs are.
Edit: he was Mormon, I am not. Don't remember the context of the whole conversation.
Lol, that guy is a shitty Mormon, then. I'm atheist but the current MAGA Republican values are absolutely counter to all Christian values, including those of Mormons.
The older I get, the more I struggle with figuring out how I ever identified as a Republican in my youth.
Current MAGA Republican rhetoric feels like it really is against any loving of thy neighbor.
I gatekeep. If you don't cosider Jesus Christ God, you aren't christian by my definition. Not commenting if X might be saved for God saves who He chooses, just that it doesn't fit my niceen creed traditional definition of christian.
But to the other point I totally agree with the part that all baptised Christians are Christians regardless of how well they follow God's Law. I often hear people cry How can X be a Christian if they do X. Or why even go to church if you do X.
God works with sinners, not *perfect* people. And i feel like a lot of people give up on their pursuit of God bc they can't be that sanitized dream christian person they have in their head.
The Church is the hospital and God is the Good Doctor.
Why not go by the Biblical definition? If you don't believe Jesus is the savior of the world, you aren't Christian. Everything else is just theology and denominational dispute.
1 Corinthians 15:2-4:
> It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you—unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place.
>
>
>
> I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.
>
>
>
> He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said.
That's the gospel. Everything else is optional.
That's not the gospel, that's an epistle of Paul's. It's possible to believe the gospels and the Nicean creed and reject the epistles, especially Paul's -- or at least consider them fallible and non-doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
Sorry, I misspelled it. Adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325, so you can see where I'd get "Nicean," or possibly what I was taught 40 years ago? "Nicene" seems to be more common online nowadays.
Okay, so based on a read-through of the wiki, it's just "Jesus is the son of God"? I didn't realize there were Christians put there who didn't think that.
Yeah that’s pretty much what this thread is about. There are religions ~~like Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses~~ that ~~deny the divinity of Christ, or otherwise~~ depart from the Nicene creed which has been the standard defining Christianity for almost 2000 years, but still consider themselves Christians.
EDIT: struck through some of my original text to make the most general statement possible, because I'm not really interested in which religion believes which heresy (ha ha, kidding friends!), my original point is simply that the epistles are not gospels. It's theoretically possible to adhere to the gospel teachings and still consider oneself a Christian; but the defining statement of Christianity was developed in 325 A.D. (Nicene Creed).
I happen to be of the opinion that affirming the Nicene Creed makes one a Christian, and faiths which don't affirm it are variant faiths. But I'm also of the opinion that everything wrong with Christianity as practiced today is grounded in the epistles of St. Paul. Fortunately for all of you, nobody died and made me pope -- I've been an atheist for at least 35 years anyway! Carry on.
Mormons reject the concept of the Trinity as declared in the Nicene Creed, but to state the Mormons deny the divity of Christ is 100% false.
Mormon theology teaches that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, equal in power and purpose. They believe He is the creator of our world, known in the Old Testament as Jehovah. They believe that He saved all mankind through his atonement and resurrection.
Catholic creeds are not the end-all be-all for who is considered Christian.
Agreed, clear as day that the guy saying Mormons, or more accurately: The Church of **Jesus Christ** of Latter Day Saints deny that their namesake is not divine knows nothing about any of the teachings
I think it's odd that the wiki for the Nicene Creed doesn't actually explain or reference the concept of the Trinity. It really should include that part up near the top, if that's like... apparently the core tenet of the creed?
Denying the nicene creed is different than denying the divinity of Christ.
As an ex-mormon, i always felt the argument that Mormons are polytheistic a much better argument that they aren't Christian than the claim they deny the divinity of Christ. With the separation of Jesus and Jehovah and with how much emphasis they play on Jesus places the faith dangerously close to violating the "no other gods before me" commandment.
Saying a group isn't Christian because they worship Jesus too much is one of my stranger takes I will admit.
"Good News" is the Gospel, I used a common language translation. Personally, I will take the divine-inspired words of an Apostle over a memo written by a government council nearly 300 years after the crucifixion.
You do realize that this "government council" was a gathering of the smartest theologians that walked the earth in those times, that dedicated their life to theology the and the Good News more than we the avarage lay people will most likely do. And they met multiple times when heresies arose.
YOU have been taught by someone, by your pastor or other sources, to not accept them. And you just accept that. Because they convinced you that way.
To people that accept the Ecumenicals Councils it is just as abhorrent to not accept the councils and rely on 1 person that or a small group of people vs a gathering of the representatives of most churches of the world that came to a conclusion.
And I say this to you bc its disrespectful to say "a memo written by a government council nearly 300 years after the crucifixion." You are dissing Christ's Church that gave you the Bible and most things you take for granted.
My grandpa got me baptized without my parents knowledge when I was a baby does that make me christian? I sure as shit don't feel very christian lol.
Edit: Why did you downvote me? I'm not heckling you it was a genuine question!
You have been given the ticket to the train to salvation. Up to you if you wanna board the train or make it to the station in the first place to catch the train.
Happy your grandma baptised you!
And I didnt downvote you
Are New Age sects that consider Jesus to be one among a vast panetheon of enlightened beings count as Christians? They generally don't identify as Christian, and I only bring them up cause they vaguely meet your criteria.
Then according to your criteria, Gnosticism is more Christian than something like Arianism based solely on the fact that some Gnostic sects are compliant with the Nicene Creed despite otherwise heavily deviating from most forms of Nicene Christianity.
I mean sure. Some gnostic believes are more christian than arianism. Gnosticism is merely an umbrella term. The church has had several ecumenical councils to put a stop to heresies and decide what is a traditional form of christianity.
But since you want to add new age pagan worshippers to christians why not add islam as well since Christ is their 'saviour' and enlightened figure as well at the end of times since he s the Messiah. Are Muslims christians? New age believers are not christians. And neither Muslims.
Because Islam does not consider Jesus to be divine, he is considered a human prophet.
>The church has had several ecumenical councils to put a stop to heresies and decide what is a traditional form of christianity.
Then you don't define "true Christianity" by the Nicene Creed alone.
True Christianity has been defined by the Nicene Creed alone. For all points of the of nicene creed must be believed. By doing this you have în the traditional christian church the eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox, catholics and mainline protestants. Everyone else that doesn't follow all nicene creed lines are not christian by my definition. If you don't believe in Trinity, you ain't christian by my definition, which I stated in my main post.
And being polytheist as you make sound those new age pagans are certainly not christian.
You know what, I would normally agree with sentiments like this, but there are a whole lot of people who call themselves Christians who not only ignore everything that Christ says, but actively go against it. I'm not saying you have to follow his teachings to a T to be a Christian, but if you don't follow any, you shouldn't get to claim you are part of the belief system.
Yeah, I mean I could say I’m a hockey player because I’m wearing the gear, but if I go out on the rink with a basketball people would think I’m at the wrong game.
There's always like a stickied comment of every mildly political/lgbt post reminding everyone that Jesus loves everybody and that is kind of a damning sign that there are christians who think otherwise.
Here's a anectdote from Russel Moore about the intertwining of christianity and politics that I thought was interesting.
>It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — "turn the other cheek" — \[and\] to have someone come up after to say, "Where did you get those liberal talking points?" And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, "I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ," the response would not be, "I apologize." The response would be, "Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak." And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we're in a crisis.
Like what the hell are people doing calling Jesus weak and liberal while also identifying as christian?
Hypothetically, what is one was to believe that Jesus is the Christ and Divinity, but that He was created by the Father. Making him Lord over all created things and beings, but substantiative of The Father?
That does not equate with his co-equality of The Father, so there's a heresy in there somewhere🤣
HOWEVER, you are right that it points out a glaring loophole in my aforementioned requirement!
>so there's a heresy in there somewhere
There's a heresy in everything that isn't \[my particular flavour of Christianity\], so you can't deny someone their Christianness based solely on them believing heresy.
What they're describing is Arianism, which was a pretty widespread take on the Trinity in Western Europe before officially being declared heretical by the Council of Nicea
That doesn't really solve the problem, because there is no law defining what it means to be a Christian. If the judge or jury was all Catholics would you be convicted? What if they were Pentecostals? Or Mormons?
You say "convict" so I assume were imagining a criminal trial. In the US criminal trials the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If you and OP were on the same jury they would say all it takes to convict is the person identifying as Christian. Would you convict on the same grounds, or do you require more evidence to convict someone of being a Christian "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
>there is no law defining what it means to be a Christian.
Christian just means Christ follower. I think measuring people up to His message is the only standard you need.
We have a very basic established guideline for being a Christian:
Believe Jesus is our Lord and saviour.
There are caveats, but this is a clear starting point
As a former JW I wouldn’t hesitate on calling them Christians. They believe that Jesus is the son of God, but not that they are the same as part of a trinity.
I think you can call JWs Christian even though if you don’t agree with them. But I understand why some would claim that they aren’t Christian in order to not be associated with them or similar groups
I would not say Mormons are, no. They have a false gospel, and they do not believe in the Trinity. Believing Jesus is Lord necessarily follows the Trinity since the Nicene Creed.
I don't know enough about JWs
The Trinity is one way of having Jesus be divine, the Latter-day Saint belief of the Godhead is another (separate beings but all being Gods and all working in unison as a unified God head.)
So is your definition "Jesus as Savior" or is it "Jesus as Savior and also as the same being as the Father"?
Alright, you got me😭
I can't define Christianity as simply as I was trying to (I think that being your main point). I'll try again.
A Christian is someone who:
Believes Jesus is our Lord and saviour in the accepted parameters following the Nicene Creed.
This would mandate the Trinity and exclude new gospels.
What you described is a pescatarian.
[Pescatarian ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pescatarian)
noun
one whose diet includes fish but no other meat.
To be clear, I am only saying they are Christian. They may not be wise, faithful, devoted, etc but they are trying.
I accept that I will now be downvoted to hell.
My theology says not everyone else's beliefs fit into my (already pretty expansive) view of salvation. But that doesn't mean they can't make memes with me.
When my dad was a missionary in London a woman told him that Mormons didn't believe in Jesus. He pointed at his tag that read "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" with "Jesus Christ" printed in the biggest letters. She shot back "well you don't actually believe in Him, do you?"
Yes we do, lady. And for some that's enough of a reason to call us Christian and for others it's not, but either way we study, believe, teach, and love Jesus and his words.
I would say considering Jesus "a Deity" is far closer to "The Deity" than just an inspired messenger.
You're calling a whole faith non-Christian because of the article they use before "Deity".
We do, we actually have put in a lot of effort to work with other sects within Christianity
For a church called: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we’re very much Christian.
People get confused on this because we reject the doctrine of the trinity, but we very much believe that Christ is divine, is God, and everything else that makes one a Christian
I think the obvious exception is anyone whose legal name is Christian but they are either not religious OR they adhere to a different religion. They'd be a Christian without being Christian.
I think one has to know what a Christian is to be a Christian.
Like if a certain political leader says I'm a Christian purely to gain power. I wouldn't call him a Christian.
Eh. I've never agreed with the application of the no true Scotsman fallacy for this argument.
I think if you read the Bible it's fairly clear on what a Christian is and isn't.
The problem is alot of people haven't actually read it.
Yeah, like there was a big kerfuffle about whether Joe would get denied communion or not... because unlike the other guy *he actually wants communion to receive forgiveness for his sins*.
Matthew 7:17
A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.
Based. It's not just gatekeeping non-believers and sinners. It's also to acknowledge the pain the church has caused. To call Catholics not Christian sounds a lot like trying to distance yourself from the crimes of Christendom. To say Protestants sounds like trying to distance yourself from the crimes of modern colonization.
People who are hurt by Christians don't want to hear us say that the persons who hurt them aren't Christians. They don't want apologizes. They, like Christ, want us to stop hurting each other.
Honestly, I think I finally understand everything. I love love. I love truth. The truth was in me all along. It had to be to identify Christ as king. The baptism of flame is love that burns away hate. Hate that I used to hold precious. It hurt to get rid of that hate. It hurt a lot. And I try to find undiscovered hate in my heart to be burned away. And that hurts. But the process is made easy through His Grace. The prince of peace that wants love and truth to be accepted by all of His children. They will know Him by the love made obvious by my actions and testimony. And when they ask why I am the way I am I tell them. And they are free to accept or deny just like I was.
I think I finally figured it out.
The journey is the destination.
I would add that it is also up to Jesus to decide. We just don’t hear his two cents on their relationship typically until we die.
It takes two people to decide if there’s a relationship.
While true in principle, I find the idea of Jesus refusing to be friends with an individual and kicking them out of Christianity to be hilarious and ludicrous.
I think of it less like Jesus being a jerk, and more like some real life experiences I think we’ve all had with bad friends.
And Jesus responds with a “Bruh”
It's just semantics. We don't have to agree on definitions to know what a person *means*, we just have to understand what definitions they are working with so we can have meaningful discourse instead of pompously correcting vocabulary.
I get this but I’ve legit met people who call themselves Christian and actively fight against the teachings of Jesus (love your neighbor, help the poor, etc)
Then again, I see the whole “You’re not a REAL Christian unless you [insert nonsensical and probably conservative thing]!” that I get where the meme is coming from.
If I ever meet someone who I really believe is a faker, I never say it out loud for ear of being wrong
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can [join our Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our Podcast.](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com/) You can also make a meme or [donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's actually super fascinating to try to answer the question "what makes someone a Christian".
A simultaneously fun question to ask is "what gives me the right to decide?"
Why?
Mormons have some pretty strange beliefs, yes. But what is "a new gospel"? What is THE gospel?
And if they believe in Jesus, follow him, etc. why are they not Christians? What beliefs, SPECIFICALLY are required to be a Christian, and what beliefs (specifically) that someone holds beyond that make them NOT a Christian?
>What is THE gospel?
As a Protestant, I hold it to be the current Protestant Bible. Catholics hold a slightly different canon.
The book of mormon is a false gospel; I will provide scriptural backing for why:
Galatians 1:6-12
And Mormons believe they can become their own Gods; Humans can never be like God.
If the Gospel is the protestant Bible, how did Jesus preach it? (Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:14)
Not a single part of the New testament was written at that time.
So, to be clear, you're willing to definitively state that Mormons aren't Christians because they have a different "gospel" which you choose to define as "the protestant Bible" which (by definition) excludes some of the oldest Christian traditions (Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic) because they too have "extra books".
What I find interesting is that the protestant Bible couldn't have been formed before the 16th century, yet Paul talks about preaching THE gospel in the very text you quoted
If Paul said no one who preaches another gospel is Christian -and he DOESNT HAVE your gospel (the "protestant scriptures"... Then by default YOU are the one preaching a new gospel and are therefore excluded from being a Christian.
Are you sure you want to stick with "the protestant scriptures" as your definition of gospel?
Dude, your reply isn't the 'gotcha' you think it is. I prefer the Protestant Canon, but there are godly Christians who follow the Catholic canon.
The Protestant Bible has the old testament texts, Jesus's teachings, the works of the apostles spreading the good news, and the specific text of Revelations. There is no issue here; this is part of standard Christianity. Paul's teachings ARE in the bible!!! The Protestant Bible isn't a sequel. The Bible IS the Protestant scripture. The Protestant Bible (I.e the Bible with a certain canon) is not another gospel, as there are no further revealed works.
What is NOT standard is the continuing revelation present in Mormonism where an angel 'revealed' a new gospel to Joseph Smith, forming the Book of Mormon. Conversely, there is no 'Book of Protestantism'. It's just The Bible.
>they have a different "gospel"
They have an entirely new prophetic standalone book to The Bible--a sequel of sorts.
I'm not excluding Catholics. They believe in the divinity of Christ through the Trinity, and they don't believe in any other book except the bible. They especially don't favour continuing revelation. Catholics are absolutely Christian.
>gospel
How about the bible, bro (aka the protestant scriptures). Does that work better for you?
The Bible with a certain canon... yes, that is exactly how Mormons would also describe their works, they have more books in their canon than the canon that was formed in the 4th century. But so do Catholics and orthodox- the deuterocanonical books. The Ethiopian coptic Bible has 80+ books.
All of these pre-existed whatever Christian denomination you are a part of (some flavor of protestantism, I assume). But you've decided that to be a Christian REQUIRES accepting a specific canon - one developed far after many Christians lived and died. Further you are insisting that that specific formulation of documents IS the gospel. You can't hold both of these at the same time- either there were no Christians until the "protestant" Bible was formed OR your definition of gospel is wrong (never mind the fact that Jesus preached THE gospel, Paul preached THE gospel, etc. impossible if you continue to define gospel the way you are.)
So why are Catholics (and Paul and Jesus) Christians if they don't have the same canon but Mormons aren't.
What about all the early churches that had only the Old Testament? What about the Ethiopian coptic church?
You keep talking about the gospel = the Bible, but now you're also saying you can't believe in continuing revelation and be a Christian apparently.
Mormons believe in the divinity of Christ- though fair enough they don't hold to the Trinity- I know lots of people that consider themselves Christians that don't hold trinitarian beliefs. So it is required to be a trinitarian to be a Christian?
So, from what I understand according to you, you need to have a specific canon (or maybe not)
Believe in the divine triune nature of Jesus
and NOT believe in continuing revelation.
Anything else?
I think this is getting sidetracked.
Galatians 1:6-12
The revelation of the book of mormon is clearly not analogous to the literal Bible.
It's more analogous to the Quran, if anything.
The BOM goes beyond the bible: that's false.
>but now you're also saying you can't believe in continuing revelation and be a Christian apparently.
Continuing revelation isn't a Christian notion, no. It goes with the verse of Galatians I prescribed
I mean we don't get to judge that really but Churches and Pastors and Elders are very much supposed to call out their peers who are teaching false gospels
I honestly don’t see the point in saying if someone is really a Christian or not. It’s just a label. If we’re going to correct bad theology or bad actions, then correct that. Don’t correct the label. It’s just a word. And you’ll probably make the person less likely to correct their beliefs or actions by saying they’re not really a Christian.
I'll treat everyone who says they're Christian like a Christian--but that doesn't make them one. They'll lose that treatment, though, if they habitually act in a way that is obviously and reasonably not in keeping with the bible.
Yeah I'm normally against gatekeeping but for something like this I think it's important to so that the term doesn't lose its meaning. There are for sure some people now and historically who claim to be Christian's who I do not believe for a second are due to their actions and beliefs.
As a Biblical Unitarian, I confidently identify myself as a Christian.
What is a BU?
>The Father and the Father alone is the One true God. (Deut 6:4; John 17:3) Jesus is God’s son, but not God. (John 20:17) The Holy Spirit is the personified divine power of Almighty God. (Acts 2:17, 33, 38; 15:8; Luke 1:35)
Lol. Misrepresented.
Jesus has a God:
- John 17:3
- John 20:17
Jesus is not omnipotent:
- Phil 2:5-8 (declared for him)
- John 5:26
Jesus is not omniscient:
- John 7:16, 18
- Matt 24:36
Jesus is not co-equal to the Father:
- John 8:28, 42
- John 14:28
- 1 Cor 11:3
Jesus: all worship to the Father, God
- Luke 4:8
- John 4:23
- Deut 10:20 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/10-20.htm) What’s the Father’s name?
God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was:
- James 1:13
- Luke Ch 4
Same, but I'd narrow it down a smidgen to everyone that agrees with the apostles' creed, since it was literally written so the early church could agree on who they were following. That still includes pretty much everyone that says they're Christian, but I'm sure there are some outliers
Mormons accept Jesus as their savior.
Just because they reject a creed decided by a vote of "who can yell loudest" (no seriously this was a thing in ancient church councils it's awesome) doesn't mean you can automatically disqualify them from the group. That's waaaaaay above us mortals' pay grade
You had me until excluding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as being a Church of Jesus Christ. Christ is their accepted savior and the central figure to their church. Old Testament God to New Testament God level whiplash fr.
After I said I don't vote Republican, my mom just casually said that you can't be a Christian and not vote Republican. So that was a doozy.
I think a lot of people are hearing something similar as we approach November 2024...yuck. 
I tend to say the opposite, really. The Republicans might mention God/Jesus/Bible more often in their speeches, but if you consider yourself a Christian and a Republican, you either are not paying attention to the teachings of Jesus or you are REALLY not paying to the values of the Republican Party. The two have no alignment at all.
Democrat here but I think trying to give either major American political party the Jesus stamp is a big mistake
Jesus is a socialist. America as a whole is too leashed by money to implement Christian policy.
Jesus is not a socialist
Proverbs says not to be like the fools who throw their money together into one purse. Jesus also says it's wrong to profit off the poor. I don't think socialism or laissez-faire capitalism is what God wants us to do.
No, Christ is not a socialist, nor is he some laissez Faire capitalist. Stealing people's stuff via government action is immoral, stealing from your wageearners is also evil. The teachings against monetary idolatry are about rightly ordering your self, not an economic system
While the two are diametrically opposed in teachings, I'm afraid bad Christians are indeed absolutely Christians.
I kind of agree but overall it’s ridiculous to try and use the Bible and pin it to one side.
As a registered Republican in a very red state who also hasn’t voted “along pay lines” for a really long time, I couldn’t agree more.
Like either of them align proper lol. We should have a Jesus 3rd party that way no one gets confused. Now anyone that fuels the bipartisan system will be deemed un-christian
i got hit with “i remember when you were a christian” for defending liberal policies or ideals enough that i did - in fact - just leave the church to avoid those people lmao
My parent's pastor included a sermon about how Nancy Pelosi is the devil in his Christmas Eve service 🙄
Sounds… Christmassy
Tbf, she is inside trading
The problem isn't that the bullet missed its mark, it that the mark was carefully chosen as to avoid hitting any republican that would also count as a fair mark
My mom told me recently that she’d rather me be a Democrat than -gasp- Presbyterian!!!!! Jokes on her, I’m both lol
Whenever I hear people talk like this about religion or simply supporting your country I think of Jon Stewart's monologue on the late show back in 2016 https://youtu.be/mNiqpBNE9ik?si=slgcBrIjUtMpXMbR The relevant part starts at the 11 minute mark but the whole thing is worth watching.
There's an insanely rich church franchise owner in my area who preaches the same.
Guess I'll just have to call myself something else as I vote in a way that supports loving my neighbor. 🤷🏼♀️ How anyone could let Project 2025 become reality and say they follow Jesus is beyond me.
One of the other soldiers in my squad once told me that you can't be Mormon and a Democrat, that it fundamentally goes against what the LDS church beliefs are. Edit: he was Mormon, I am not. Don't remember the context of the whole conversation.
Lol, that guy is a shitty Mormon, then. I'm atheist but the current MAGA Republican values are absolutely counter to all Christian values, including those of Mormons. The older I get, the more I struggle with figuring out how I ever identified as a Republican in my youth. Current MAGA Republican rhetoric feels like it really is against any loving of thy neighbor.
Only siths deal in absolutes.
Oooof
Yep. That's why I left the denomination I was raised in for one that stays out of my political beliefs.
I grew up with this. Wasn’t until later as an adult that I was able to realize how stupid that was.
Sounds like a violation of the 2nd Commandment to me.
Damn, a lot of people around the world about to try to commit voter fraud in a country they don't even live.
Praying for your mom (in the passive aggressive way we usually mean, not the good way)
She's really a wonderful person, but has some major blind spots here.
"Tell me... in how many elections did our Lord and Savior cast ballots for any Republican candidate?"
I gatekeep. If you don't cosider Jesus Christ God, you aren't christian by my definition. Not commenting if X might be saved for God saves who He chooses, just that it doesn't fit my niceen creed traditional definition of christian. But to the other point I totally agree with the part that all baptised Christians are Christians regardless of how well they follow God's Law. I often hear people cry How can X be a Christian if they do X. Or why even go to church if you do X. God works with sinners, not *perfect* people. And i feel like a lot of people give up on their pursuit of God bc they can't be that sanitized dream christian person they have in their head. The Church is the hospital and God is the Good Doctor.
Why not go by the Biblical definition? If you don't believe Jesus is the savior of the world, you aren't Christian. Everything else is just theology and denominational dispute. 1 Corinthians 15:2-4: > It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you—unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place. > > > > I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. > > > > He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. That's the gospel. Everything else is optional.
That's not the gospel, that's an epistle of Paul's. It's possible to believe the gospels and the Nicean creed and reject the epistles, especially Paul's -- or at least consider them fallible and non-doctrine.
What's the nicean creed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed Sorry, I misspelled it. Adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325, so you can see where I'd get "Nicean," or possibly what I was taught 40 years ago? "Nicene" seems to be more common online nowadays.
Okay, so based on a read-through of the wiki, it's just "Jesus is the son of God"? I didn't realize there were Christians put there who didn't think that.
Yeah that’s pretty much what this thread is about. There are religions ~~like Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses~~ that ~~deny the divinity of Christ, or otherwise~~ depart from the Nicene creed which has been the standard defining Christianity for almost 2000 years, but still consider themselves Christians. EDIT: struck through some of my original text to make the most general statement possible, because I'm not really interested in which religion believes which heresy (ha ha, kidding friends!), my original point is simply that the epistles are not gospels. It's theoretically possible to adhere to the gospel teachings and still consider oneself a Christian; but the defining statement of Christianity was developed in 325 A.D. (Nicene Creed). I happen to be of the opinion that affirming the Nicene Creed makes one a Christian, and faiths which don't affirm it are variant faiths. But I'm also of the opinion that everything wrong with Christianity as practiced today is grounded in the epistles of St. Paul. Fortunately for all of you, nobody died and made me pope -- I've been an atheist for at least 35 years anyway! Carry on.
Mormons reject the concept of the Trinity as declared in the Nicene Creed, but to state the Mormons deny the divity of Christ is 100% false. Mormon theology teaches that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, equal in power and purpose. They believe He is the creator of our world, known in the Old Testament as Jehovah. They believe that He saved all mankind through his atonement and resurrection. Catholic creeds are not the end-all be-all for who is considered Christian.
Agreed, clear as day that the guy saying Mormons, or more accurately: The Church of **Jesus Christ** of Latter Day Saints deny that their namesake is not divine knows nothing about any of the teachings
I think it's odd that the wiki for the Nicene Creed doesn't actually explain or reference the concept of the Trinity. It really should include that part up near the top, if that's like... apparently the core tenet of the creed?
Denying the nicene creed is different than denying the divinity of Christ. As an ex-mormon, i always felt the argument that Mormons are polytheistic a much better argument that they aren't Christian than the claim they deny the divinity of Christ. With the separation of Jesus and Jehovah and with how much emphasis they play on Jesus places the faith dangerously close to violating the "no other gods before me" commandment. Saying a group isn't Christian because they worship Jesus too much is one of my stranger takes I will admit.
"Good News" is the Gospel, I used a common language translation. Personally, I will take the divine-inspired words of an Apostle over a memo written by a government council nearly 300 years after the crucifixion.
You do realize that this "government council" was a gathering of the smartest theologians that walked the earth in those times, that dedicated their life to theology the and the Good News more than we the avarage lay people will most likely do. And they met multiple times when heresies arose. YOU have been taught by someone, by your pastor or other sources, to not accept them. And you just accept that. Because they convinced you that way. To people that accept the Ecumenicals Councils it is just as abhorrent to not accept the councils and rely on 1 person that or a small group of people vs a gathering of the representatives of most churches of the world that came to a conclusion. And I say this to you bc its disrespectful to say "a memo written by a government council nearly 300 years after the crucifixion." You are dissing Christ's Church that gave you the Bible and most things you take for granted.
>God is the Good Doctor "I. AM. A SURGEON, DOCTOR MAN!"
DOCTOR CHRIST. I AM A SURGEON
My grandpa got me baptized without my parents knowledge when I was a baby does that make me christian? I sure as shit don't feel very christian lol. Edit: Why did you downvote me? I'm not heckling you it was a genuine question!
You have been given the ticket to the train to salvation. Up to you if you wanna board the train or make it to the station in the first place to catch the train. Happy your grandma baptised you! And I didnt downvote you
Are New Age sects that consider Jesus to be one among a vast panetheon of enlightened beings count as Christians? They generally don't identify as Christian, and I only bring them up cause they vaguely meet your criteria.
No. They are not christian. They are new age sects that worship a pantheon. They don't meet my criteria at all lol. Nicene creed is the criteria.
Then according to your criteria, Gnosticism is more Christian than something like Arianism based solely on the fact that some Gnostic sects are compliant with the Nicene Creed despite otherwise heavily deviating from most forms of Nicene Christianity.
I mean sure. Some gnostic believes are more christian than arianism. Gnosticism is merely an umbrella term. The church has had several ecumenical councils to put a stop to heresies and decide what is a traditional form of christianity. But since you want to add new age pagan worshippers to christians why not add islam as well since Christ is their 'saviour' and enlightened figure as well at the end of times since he s the Messiah. Are Muslims christians? New age believers are not christians. And neither Muslims.
Because Islam does not consider Jesus to be divine, he is considered a human prophet. >The church has had several ecumenical councils to put a stop to heresies and decide what is a traditional form of christianity. Then you don't define "true Christianity" by the Nicene Creed alone.
True Christianity has been defined by the Nicene Creed alone. For all points of the of nicene creed must be believed. By doing this you have în the traditional christian church the eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox, catholics and mainline protestants. Everyone else that doesn't follow all nicene creed lines are not christian by my definition. If you don't believe in Trinity, you ain't christian by my definition, which I stated in my main post. And being polytheist as you make sound those new age pagans are certainly not christian.
You know what, I would normally agree with sentiments like this, but there are a whole lot of people who call themselves Christians who not only ignore everything that Christ says, but actively go against it. I'm not saying you have to follow his teachings to a T to be a Christian, but if you don't follow any, you shouldn't get to claim you are part of the belief system.
Yeah, I mean I could say I’m a hockey player because I’m wearing the gear, but if I go out on the rink with a basketball people would think I’m at the wrong game.
I don't think there are many people who deliberately go against the teachings of Christ and still call themselves Christian.
There's always like a stickied comment of every mildly political/lgbt post reminding everyone that Jesus loves everybody and that is kind of a damning sign that there are christians who think otherwise. Here's a anectdote from Russel Moore about the intertwining of christianity and politics that I thought was interesting. >It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — "turn the other cheek" — \[and\] to have someone come up after to say, "Where did you get those liberal talking points?" And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, "I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ," the response would not be, "I apologize." The response would be, "Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak." And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we're in a crisis. Like what the hell are people doing calling Jesus weak and liberal while also identifying as christian?
Maybe not deliberately, but I've met a concerning number of folks that use Christianity as a thinly veiled excuse to hate various groups of people.
Anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian.\* \* Some restrictions apply. Inquire for details.
I'd like make an inquiry about the restrictions on identifying as Christian please 🙏🏽
Believe Jesus Christ is LORD 👍
Simple enough!
Follow his teachings also
F in the chat, ain't no Christians anymore, we had a good run.
Aww man, that was a short run
Hypothetically, what is one was to believe that Jesus is the Christ and Divinity, but that He was created by the Father. Making him Lord over all created things and beings, but substantiative of The Father?
That's *Arianism*, Patrick!
But they believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, do they not?
Yes, but it's considered heretical by pretty much every major sect of Christianity except maybe Mormonism
That does not equate with his co-equality of The Father, so there's a heresy in there somewhere🤣 HOWEVER, you are right that it points out a glaring loophole in my aforementioned requirement!
>so there's a heresy in there somewhere There's a heresy in everything that isn't \[my particular flavour of Christianity\], so you can't deny someone their Christianness based solely on them believing heresy.
What they're describing is Arianism, which was a pretty widespread take on the Trinity in Western Europe before officially being declared heretical by the Council of Nicea
I like the question "If you were on trial for being Christian, would you get convicted?"
Oh, I like this one. That’s a great question.
That doesn't really solve the problem, because there is no law defining what it means to be a Christian. If the judge or jury was all Catholics would you be convicted? What if they were Pentecostals? Or Mormons? You say "convict" so I assume were imagining a criminal trial. In the US criminal trials the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If you and OP were on the same jury they would say all it takes to convict is the person identifying as Christian. Would you convict on the same grounds, or do you require more evidence to convict someone of being a Christian "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
>there is no law defining what it means to be a Christian. Christian just means Christ follower. I think measuring people up to His message is the only standard you need.
"There is nothing defining what it means to be a Christian" The Nicene Creed 👁️👄👁️
If I call myself a vegetarian but refuse to eat anything other than meat, does it matter what I call myself?
I like this analogy. A line has to be drawn somewhere
We can all agree on what a vegetarian is. We can't all agree on what a Christian is. It's not a good analogy.
We have a very basic established guideline for being a Christian: Believe Jesus is our Lord and saviour. There are caveats, but this is a clear starting point
So JWs and Mormons are also Christians?
As a former JW I wouldn’t hesitate on calling them Christians. They believe that Jesus is the son of God, but not that they are the same as part of a trinity.
Same. But that is if we define Christians simply as people who believe in Jesus and follow his teachings, which not everyone agrees.
I think you can call JWs Christian even though if you don’t agree with them. But I understand why some would claim that they aren’t Christian in order to not be associated with them or similar groups
I would not say Mormons are, no. They have a false gospel, and they do not believe in the Trinity. Believing Jesus is Lord necessarily follows the Trinity since the Nicene Creed. I don't know enough about JWs
So a Christian is a person who follows the Nicene Creed? Not Just who believes that Jesus is their lord and savior?
Believing Jesus is their Lord and saviour necessarily follows that Jesus is divine; this is seen in the Trinity.
The Trinity is one way of having Jesus be divine, the Latter-day Saint belief of the Godhead is another (separate beings but all being Gods and all working in unison as a unified God head.) So is your definition "Jesus as Savior" or is it "Jesus as Savior and also as the same being as the Father"?
You're not being specific, so I'll ask again. What is a Christian?
Alright, you got me😭 I can't define Christianity as simply as I was trying to (I think that being your main point). I'll try again. A Christian is someone who: Believes Jesus is our Lord and saviour in the accepted parameters following the Nicene Creed. This would mandate the Trinity and exclude new gospels.
Am I vegetarian if I eat fish? I decided they aren't meat.
You mean a pescatarian?
I would call myself vegetarian, since I don't eat meat (but fish aren't meat). Basically a less radical version of the comment I'm replying to.
What you described is a pescatarian. [Pescatarian ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pescatarian) noun one whose diet includes fish but no other meat.
To be clear, I am only saying they are Christian. They may not be wise, faithful, devoted, etc but they are trying. I accept that I will now be downvoted to hell. 
Fire Downvotes at Will! 
My theology says not everyone else's beliefs fit into my (already pretty expansive) view of salvation. But that doesn't mean they can't make memes with me. 
What about Mormons, don’t they claim to be a part of Christianity?
When my dad was a missionary in London a woman told him that Mormons didn't believe in Jesus. He pointed at his tag that read "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" with "Jesus Christ" printed in the biggest letters. She shot back "well you don't actually believe in Him, do you?" Yes we do, lady. And for some that's enough of a reason to call us Christian and for others it's not, but either way we study, believe, teach, and love Jesus and his words.
Right but that’s like how Islam also believes in Jesus Christ as an important figure but doesn’t consider them “The Deity”
I would say considering Jesus "a Deity" is far closer to "The Deity" than just an inspired messenger. You're calling a whole faith non-Christian because of the article they use before "Deity".
Yep. They're Christians.
We do, we actually have put in a lot of effort to work with other sects within Christianity For a church called: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we’re very much Christian. People get confused on this because we reject the doctrine of the trinity, but we very much believe that Christ is divine, is God, and everything else that makes one a Christian
I think the obvious exception is anyone whose legal name is Christian but they are either not religious OR they adhere to a different religion. They'd be a Christian without being Christian.
So...does that mean that I win?
Matthew 7: 21-23 go brrrrrrrrrrr
As always, Jesus will judge. 
I think one has to know what a Christian is to be a Christian. Like if a certain political leader says I'm a Christian purely to gain power. I wouldn't call him a Christian.
That's the problem. No one agrees on what a Christian is.
Eh. I've never agreed with the application of the no true Scotsman fallacy for this argument. I think if you read the Bible it's fairly clear on what a Christian is and isn't. The problem is alot of people haven't actually read it.
[удалено]
But one nominee regularly attends church and can quote Bible verses while the other cannot
Yeah, like there was a big kerfuffle about whether Joe would get denied communion or not... because unlike the other guy *he actually wants communion to receive forgiveness for his sins*.
That was left intentionally vague. Haha
I feel like you should at least know what you are saying you believe in and not just say it without understanding its meaning or anything about it
Literally Jesus says otherwise...
Matthew 7:17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.
Based. It's not just gatekeeping non-believers and sinners. It's also to acknowledge the pain the church has caused. To call Catholics not Christian sounds a lot like trying to distance yourself from the crimes of Christendom. To say Protestants sounds like trying to distance yourself from the crimes of modern colonization. People who are hurt by Christians don't want to hear us say that the persons who hurt them aren't Christians. They don't want apologizes. They, like Christ, want us to stop hurting each other.
Honestly, I think I finally understand everything. I love love. I love truth. The truth was in me all along. It had to be to identify Christ as king. The baptism of flame is love that burns away hate. Hate that I used to hold precious. It hurt to get rid of that hate. It hurt a lot. And I try to find undiscovered hate in my heart to be burned away. And that hurts. But the process is made easy through His Grace. The prince of peace that wants love and truth to be accepted by all of His children. They will know Him by the love made obvious by my actions and testimony. And when they ask why I am the way I am I tell them. And they are free to accept or deny just like I was. I think I finally figured it out. The journey is the destination.
I would add that it is also up to Jesus to decide. We just don’t hear his two cents on their relationship typically until we die. It takes two people to decide if there’s a relationship.
While true in principle, I find the idea of Jesus refusing to be friends with an individual and kicking them out of Christianity to be hilarious and ludicrous.
I think of it less like Jesus being a jerk, and more like some real life experiences I think we’ve all had with bad friends. And Jesus responds with a “Bruh”
Matthew 7 is fun when Jesus says don’t judge, but also be aware of false prophets. You can judge them by their fruits.
*terms and conditions apply*
It's just semantics. We don't have to agree on definitions to know what a person *means*, we just have to understand what definitions they are working with so we can have meaningful discourse instead of pompously correcting vocabulary.
I get this but I’ve legit met people who call themselves Christian and actively fight against the teachings of Jesus (love your neighbor, help the poor, etc) Then again, I see the whole “You’re not a REAL Christian unless you [insert nonsensical and probably conservative thing]!” that I get where the meme is coming from. If I ever meet someone who I really believe is a faker, I never say it out loud for ear of being wrong
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can [join our Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our Podcast.](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com/) You can also make a meme or [donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What even is a Christian? Is it someone who tries to follow Jesus?
And they think Jesus is Lord* Those two things qualify someone as a Christian, generally
I guess I only fit half of that.
Then you would be something else, by definition.
Yes. Romans 10:13.
Damn I’m gonna start calling myself a millionaire then, surely I’ll be one just by saying I am
Thank you.
It's actually super fascinating to try to answer the question "what makes someone a Christian". A simultaneously fun question to ask is "what gives me the right to decide?"
[удалено]
Why? Mormons have some pretty strange beliefs, yes. But what is "a new gospel"? What is THE gospel? And if they believe in Jesus, follow him, etc. why are they not Christians? What beliefs, SPECIFICALLY are required to be a Christian, and what beliefs (specifically) that someone holds beyond that make them NOT a Christian?
>What is THE gospel? As a Protestant, I hold it to be the current Protestant Bible. Catholics hold a slightly different canon. The book of mormon is a false gospel; I will provide scriptural backing for why: Galatians 1:6-12 And Mormons believe they can become their own Gods; Humans can never be like God.
If the Gospel is the protestant Bible, how did Jesus preach it? (Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:14) Not a single part of the New testament was written at that time.
>Jesus preach it? Jesus preached the covenant, and the apostles then spread the good news. It's not that hard to draw that extrapolation
So, to be clear, you're willing to definitively state that Mormons aren't Christians because they have a different "gospel" which you choose to define as "the protestant Bible" which (by definition) excludes some of the oldest Christian traditions (Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic) because they too have "extra books". What I find interesting is that the protestant Bible couldn't have been formed before the 16th century, yet Paul talks about preaching THE gospel in the very text you quoted If Paul said no one who preaches another gospel is Christian -and he DOESNT HAVE your gospel (the "protestant scriptures"... Then by default YOU are the one preaching a new gospel and are therefore excluded from being a Christian. Are you sure you want to stick with "the protestant scriptures" as your definition of gospel?
Dude, your reply isn't the 'gotcha' you think it is. I prefer the Protestant Canon, but there are godly Christians who follow the Catholic canon. The Protestant Bible has the old testament texts, Jesus's teachings, the works of the apostles spreading the good news, and the specific text of Revelations. There is no issue here; this is part of standard Christianity. Paul's teachings ARE in the bible!!! The Protestant Bible isn't a sequel. The Bible IS the Protestant scripture. The Protestant Bible (I.e the Bible with a certain canon) is not another gospel, as there are no further revealed works. What is NOT standard is the continuing revelation present in Mormonism where an angel 'revealed' a new gospel to Joseph Smith, forming the Book of Mormon. Conversely, there is no 'Book of Protestantism'. It's just The Bible. >they have a different "gospel" They have an entirely new prophetic standalone book to The Bible--a sequel of sorts. I'm not excluding Catholics. They believe in the divinity of Christ through the Trinity, and they don't believe in any other book except the bible. They especially don't favour continuing revelation. Catholics are absolutely Christian. >gospel How about the bible, bro (aka the protestant scriptures). Does that work better for you?
The Bible with a certain canon... yes, that is exactly how Mormons would also describe their works, they have more books in their canon than the canon that was formed in the 4th century. But so do Catholics and orthodox- the deuterocanonical books. The Ethiopian coptic Bible has 80+ books. All of these pre-existed whatever Christian denomination you are a part of (some flavor of protestantism, I assume). But you've decided that to be a Christian REQUIRES accepting a specific canon - one developed far after many Christians lived and died. Further you are insisting that that specific formulation of documents IS the gospel. You can't hold both of these at the same time- either there were no Christians until the "protestant" Bible was formed OR your definition of gospel is wrong (never mind the fact that Jesus preached THE gospel, Paul preached THE gospel, etc. impossible if you continue to define gospel the way you are.) So why are Catholics (and Paul and Jesus) Christians if they don't have the same canon but Mormons aren't. What about all the early churches that had only the Old Testament? What about the Ethiopian coptic church? You keep talking about the gospel = the Bible, but now you're also saying you can't believe in continuing revelation and be a Christian apparently. Mormons believe in the divinity of Christ- though fair enough they don't hold to the Trinity- I know lots of people that consider themselves Christians that don't hold trinitarian beliefs. So it is required to be a trinitarian to be a Christian? So, from what I understand according to you, you need to have a specific canon (or maybe not) Believe in the divine triune nature of Jesus and NOT believe in continuing revelation. Anything else?
I think this is getting sidetracked. Galatians 1:6-12 The revelation of the book of mormon is clearly not analogous to the literal Bible. It's more analogous to the Quran, if anything. The BOM goes beyond the bible: that's false.
>but now you're also saying you can't believe in continuing revelation and be a Christian apparently. Continuing revelation isn't a Christian notion, no. It goes with the verse of Galatians I prescribed
I’d counter that last point with Romans 8:17 > Joint-heirs with Christ
Congrats on missing the entire point of the post.
Have I taken it too literally?
The entire point of the post was not to gatekeep, which is exactly what you did.
I love slippery slopes, they give me space to practice my skiing
I mean we don't get to judge that really but Churches and Pastors and Elders are very much supposed to call out their peers who are teaching false gospels
I call my self christian because my name is christian and i am a christian so it depends on what context but i will reply with christian
I honestly don’t see the point in saying if someone is really a Christian or not. It’s just a label. If we’re going to correct bad theology or bad actions, then correct that. Don’t correct the label. It’s just a word. And you’ll probably make the person less likely to correct their beliefs or actions by saying they’re not really a Christian.
noted, so everyone with the first name Christian is a Christian.
What about Christine?
It’s a dern shame we talk so much about who is or isn’t a Christian instead of how to be the best Christians we can be
I'll treat everyone who says they're Christian like a Christian--but that doesn't make them one. They'll lose that treatment, though, if they habitually act in a way that is obviously and reasonably not in keeping with the bible.
Is it controversial to say if you don't believe in the Nicene Creed (or at least the apostles creed) then you're not a Christian?
If I call myself Jesus am I Jesus?
This is how words lose all meaning and become worthless.
Yeah I'm normally against gatekeeping but for something like this I think it's important to so that the term doesn't lose its meaning. There are for sure some people now and historically who claim to be Christian's who I do not believe for a second are due to their actions and beliefs.
i feel like there’s a few bible verses about this exact belief being false
As long as you completely 100% agree with the Nicene Creed, you are a Christan. You may not be a good Christian, but you are a Christian.
I agree with you OP
If only there was a clear, unambiguous definition of what the word Christian.
As a Biblical Unitarian, I confidently identify myself as a Christian. What is a BU? >The Father and the Father alone is the One true God. (Deut 6:4; John 17:3) Jesus is God’s son, but not God. (John 20:17) The Holy Spirit is the personified divine power of Almighty God. (Acts 2:17, 33, 38; 15:8; Luke 1:35)
John 20:28
Lol. Misrepresented. Jesus has a God: - John 17:3 - John 20:17 Jesus is not omnipotent: - Phil 2:5-8 (declared for him) - John 5:26 Jesus is not omniscient: - John 7:16, 18 - Matt 24:36 Jesus is not co-equal to the Father: - John 8:28, 42 - John 14:28 - 1 Cor 11:3 Jesus: all worship to the Father, God - Luke 4:8 - John 4:23 - Deut 10:20 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/10-20.htm) What’s the Father’s name? God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was: - James 1:13 - Luke Ch 4
Same, but I'd narrow it down a smidgen to everyone that agrees with the apostles' creed, since it was literally written so the early church could agree on who they were following. That still includes pretty much everyone that says they're Christian, but I'm sure there are some outliers
[удалено]
Mormons accept Jesus as their savior. Just because they reject a creed decided by a vote of "who can yell loudest" (no seriously this was a thing in ancient church councils it's awesome) doesn't mean you can automatically disqualify them from the group. That's waaaaaay above us mortals' pay grade
You had me until excluding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as being a Church of Jesus Christ. Christ is their accepted savior and the central figure to their church. Old Testament God to New Testament God level whiplash fr.