Protestantism might just be Christianity

[Mostrov]

Orthodox Christians as said before fall very much on the mystical side of the spectrum, as opposed to the Western trend towards Legalism. So many of these answers can be rightfully said to be unknown; they don't need to be answered as it is worked through God.

Well, what an unsatisfying answer. That's just basically stating those answers aren't important. It's too complicated for you to try to understand, just do whatever and hope to leave the woods all in one piece.

I am not Orthodox, so I cannot particularly answer - but there certainly are some questions that can be asked like that; whilst I am very much the sort who likes to count angels dancing on the head of pins others do not - for instance a question I could ask that I would think to be entirely valid, yet the Orthodox would dismiss is: Why did God create the Universe in the first place? Many of the questions you ask from that perspective are presupposing knowing the perspective of God, which as I gather isn't easy.

[Jumalariik]

Look at the definition of Catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22

I am well aware of both the Latin and Greek meanings, what I ask is how does your Church have any claims towards universality?

Right. the. hell. back. at. you.
1. The orthodox church is not universal. Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc does not sound all that universal, it sounds.... a bit nationalist... Also, the Orthodox church made Stalin a Saint, the Catholic Church supported Hitler. Guided by God are we?

[Kiruri]

I'm being serious, I wanna know

That first one is my serious answer. The second is Nyarlathotep's serious answer. If you look at my sig, you will see that this is a shared account between me and It.

Right.. well, perhaps I'm getting off topic here.. So I'll just stick to what I've been sticking with and carry on.

[Jumalariik]

Look at the definition of Catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22

I am well aware of both the Latin and Greek meanings, what I ask is how does your Church have any claims towards universality?

Also, considering that in the PBC "what we believe," it claims to be universal, your point neglects to even put that into consideration. If one Christian is not included in your definition, you are not able to be "universal." The OP is not a Christian, unless he understands that his Christian Protestant brothers are also Christians, otherwise, he is a splitter.

[Kiruri]

Well, what an unsatisfying answer. That's just basically stating those answers aren't important. It's too complicated for you to try to understand, just do whatever and hope to leave the woods all in one piece.

I am not Orthodox, so I cannot particularly answer - but there certainly are some questions that can be asked like that; whilst I am very much the sort who likes to count angels dancing on the head of pins others do not - for instance a question I could ask that I would think to be entirely valid, yet the Orthodox would dismiss is: Why did God create the Universe in the first place? Many of the questions you ask from that perspective are presupposing knowing the perspective of God, which as I gather isn't easy.

Well, isn't that what the bible is for? Getting insight on God's perspective of things?

[Jumalariik]

Well, what an unsatisfying answer. That's just basically stating those answers aren't important. It's too complicated for you to try to understand, just do whatever and hope to leave the woods all in one piece.

I am not Orthodox, so I cannot particularly answer - but there certainly are some questions that can be asked like that; whilst I am very much the sort who likes to count angels dancing on the head of pins others do not - for instance a question I could ask that I would think to be entirely valid, yet the Orthodox would dismiss is: Why did God create the Universe in the first place? Many of the questions you ask from that perspective are presupposing knowing the perspective of God, which as I gather isn't easy.

Let me assume something, are you Russian?

[Reverend Norv]

Reverend Norv, I basically agree with your final paragraph: We simply have different definitions of "Christianity", and there is never much point in arguing over definitions. Sometimes people use the same word to mean different things, and that's fine.

On a bit of a tangential note, however, I wanted to address one of your points:

Historically, I believe that this is inaccurate. It is my opinion that between the Diocletianic Persecutions and the conversion of Reccared I, the thread of apostolic continuity was almost certainly lost in most of post-Roman Western Europe due to comprehensive social disruption and centuries of Arian persecution. Because the Western Church then carried Christianity north into barbarian lands as far east as Poland, it follows that almost the entire Roman Catholic Church does not, in fact, exist in the same line of apostolic succession as the pre-Diocletianic Church.

Even if that were true, it would not affect the Orthodox Church, and especially not those parts of her that are in the Middle East, or trace their origins to the Middle East.

No indeed; as I mentioned elsewhere, I am fairly confident that the Syraic Orthodox Church exists in unbroken apostolic succession, and I am willing to give a few other Middle Eastern churches the benefit of the doubt also. My point was to address the historical improbability of the OP's argument, which seemed to suggest that all churches - Eastern, Western, and even Anglican - that claim apostolic succession do in fact belong to an unbroken historical community, a line of consecration stretching back to Christ. That, in my view, is wildly implausible - and if we were to accept unbroken apostolic succession as the sine qua non of Christianity, then we could only be certain that the Syraics and a few others would qualify.

It is tangential to my larger argument - as I said, this question actually doesn't matter much to me, because historical community is fairly unimportant in my definition of Christianity. But you raise a sound historical objection, and you deserve an answer.

[Mostrov]

I am well aware of both the Latin and Greek meanings, what I ask is how does your Church have any claims towards universality?

Right. the. hell. back. at. you.
1. The orthodox church is not universal. Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc does not sound all that universal, it sounds.... a bit nationalist... Also, the Orthodox church made Stalin a Saint, the Catholic Church supported Hitler. Guided by God are we?

Considering I am neither, I am not particularly interested in what accusations you want to make towards those churches - although you do seem quite interested in perpetrating historical vendettas.
And you are guided by God? How do you know?

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches, as well as those with Apostolic Succession, can claim to have inherited the historical mantlet of authority within Christianity that allows them to arbitrate such concepts of universality. Where does your church claim to have its authority from?

[Constantinopolis]

1. The orthodox church is not universal. Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc does not sound all that universal, it sounds.... a bit nationalist...

Nationalism is a problem within the Orthodox Church in the present day, that is true, but it is a historically very recent problem (it only began in the 19th century), and the idea that national identity trumps the universality of the Church has been officially condemned as heresy.

The Orthodox Church is organized into 15 autocephalous jurisdictions, each with a given canonical territory. Some of those territories coincide with the borders of present-day countries (making the jurisdictions in question "national churches"), and some do not.

Also, the Orthodox church made Stalin a Saint

You must be joking. The Orthodox Church did no such thing.

Maybe you are referring to the fact that some people in Russia started a campaign to have Stalin made a saint a few years ago? Yeah, they did. And, predictably, it went absolutely nowhere.

[Reverend Norv]

I am not Orthodox, so I cannot particularly answer - but there certainly are some questions that can be asked like that; whilst I am very much the sort who likes to count angels dancing on the head of pins others do not - for instance a question I could ask that I would think to be entirely valid, yet the Orthodox would dismiss is: Why did God create the Universe in the first place? Many of the questions you ask from that perspective are presupposing knowing the perspective of God, which as I gather isn't easy.

Well, isn't that what the bible is for? Getting insight on God's perspective of things?

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah, 55:8-9

Apparently not. Chapters 38-40 of Job are also a ringing warning against the presumption that we can ever see anything from God's perspective.

[Mostrov]

Well, isn't that what the bible is for? Getting insight on God's perspective of things?

Yes, but how do you interpret the Bible? Why is any one interpretation correct? The answer to that is that it must be guided by the Church and organisation, even Protestants admit as much as they claim that their respective Churches interpretation is correct. On the other hand, why is there disparity in interpretation, individuals will differ because they cannot have universal understanding so they must be guided by the Church.

Let me assume something, are you Russian?

Scarcely, a non-domiciled Brit is probably the best explanation. The nation is Soviet inspired, I am the personal opposite of my nation.

[The New Sea Territory]

A way he could have said that better would be "All Abrahamic Religions", because they are all very, very, very similar.

I am too tired to even begin debating such an oversimplification.

Sorry, let me exclude the Baha'i. Barring them, all Abrahamic Religions are very similar.

[Jumalariik]

1. The orthodox church is not universal. Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc does not sound all that universal, it sounds.... a bit nationalist...

Nationalism is a problem within the Orthodox Church in the present day, that is true, but it is a historically very recent problem (it only began in the 19th century), and the idea that national identity trumps the universality of the Church has been officially condemned as heresy.

The Orthodox Church is organized into 15 autocephalous jurisdictions, each with a given canonical territory. Some of those territories coincide with the borders of present-day countries (making the jurisdictions in question "national churches"), and some do not.

Also, the Orthodox church made Stalin a Saint

You must be joking. The Orthodox Church did no such thing.

Maybe you are referring to the fact that some people in Russia started a campaign to have Stalin made a saint a few years ago? Yeah, they did. And, predictably, it went absolutely nowhere.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=47878.135
I don't know when this was, as I remember that Stalin had "esteem" in the church under him, my point is that at some point, some churches made icons of him.

[The Flood]

I am well aware of both the Latin and Greek meanings, what I ask is how does your Church have any claims towards universality?

Right. the. hell. back. at. you.
1. The orthodox church is not universal. Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc does not sound all that universal, it sounds.... a bit nationalist... Also, the Orthodox church made Stalin a Saint, the Catholic Church supported Hitler. Guided by God are we?

The Catholic Church did not support Hitler. Stop spreading that dirty lie.

[Constantinopolis]

Orthodox Christians as said before fall very much on the mystical side of the spectrum, as opposed to the Western trend towards Legalism. So many of these answers can be rightfully said to be unknown; they don't need to be answered as it is worked through God.

That's not really what it means to say that we Orthodox are mystical. It's not that we refuse to answer questions, it's that we answer them in metaphor, and do not believe that a literal answer can be given.

The point is that because we have not yet experienced God and the spiritual world directly, we do not have adequate words and concepts in our languages to describe spiritual realities in precise terms. We can only describe them by comparing them with physical things that are familiar to us. In other words, we can only describe them in metaphor.

It's as if a man from the bronze age had a vision of the 21st century, and then was asked by his friends to describe what he saw. He would probably call airplanes "great metal birds" and so on - in other words, he would answer his friends' questions in metaphors, and no other kind of answer would be possible.

[Mostrov]

That's not really what it means to say that we Orthodox are mystical. It's not that we refuse to answer questions, it's that we answer them in metaphor, and do not believe that a literal answer can be given.

The point is that because we have not yet experienced God and the spiritual world directly, we do not have adequate words and concepts in our languages to describe spiritual realities in precise terms. We can only describe them by comparing them with physical things that are familiar to us. In other words, we can only describe them in metaphor.

It's as if a man from the bronze age had a vision of the 21st century, and then was asked by his friends to describe what he saw. He would probably call airplanes "great metal birds" and so on - in other words, he would answer his friends' questions in metaphors, and no other kind of answer would be possible.

Thank you for that eloquent explanation as always; I tried to surmise it, but given that I am not Orthodox it is a little tricky. Now I guess I should go back to being a grubby little Platonist playing in the dirt with my geometry and discovering God from first principles.

[Constantinopolis]

You must be joking. The Orthodox Church did no such thing.

Maybe you are referring to the fact that some people in Russia started a campaign to have Stalin made a saint a few years ago? Yeah, they did. And, predictably, it went absolutely nowhere.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=47878.135
I don't know when this was, as I remember that Stalin had "esteem" in the church under him, my point is that at some point, some churches made icons of him.

As I said, there was a (very small) movement in Russia a few years ago to have Stalin made a saint. Maybe it still exists, although I haven't heard anything about it in a while. The Church treated it pretty much like a joke and moved on.

As for icons, anyone can make any icon they like. In majority-Orthodox countries iconography is a very widespread craft, and there are literally thousands of little workshops making icons without any higher supervision. The Church does not control the making of icons. Did you notice that the very same link you posted with icons of Stalin also contains an icon of Martin Luther King? Needless to say, as much as I admire Dr. King, he's not a saint either.

[Kiruri]

Well, isn't that what the bible is for? Getting insight on God's perspective of things?

Yes, but how do you interpret the Bible? Why is any one interpretation correct? The answer to that is that it must be guided by the Church and organisation, even Protestants admit as much as they claim that their respective Churches interpretation is correct. On the other hand, why is there disparity in interpretation, individuals will differ because they cannot have universal understanding so they must be guided by the Church.

But the problem is, which church. Which church is the one that must guide? Who has the right answer, and how do I know they have the right answer?

[The New Sea Territory]

Right. the. hell. back. at. you.
1. The orthodox church is not universal. Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc does not sound all that universal, it sounds.... a bit nationalist... Also, the Orthodox church made Stalin a Saint, the Catholic Church supported Hitler. Guided by God are we?

The Catholic Church did not support Hitler. Stop spreading that dirty lie.

Sure, not Hitler, but it did support this guy:

Ante Pavelic

[Jumalariik]

Right. the. hell. back. at. you.
1. The orthodox church is not universal. Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc does not sound all that universal, it sounds.... a bit nationalist... Also, the Orthodox church made Stalin a Saint, the Catholic Church supported Hitler. Guided by God are we?

The Catholic Church did not support Hitler. Stop spreading that dirty lie.

It's not a lie, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

[Jumalariik]

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=47878.135
I don't know when this was, as I remember that Stalin had "esteem" in the church under him, my point is that at some point, some churches made icons of him.

As I said, there was a (very small) movement in Russia a few years ago to have Stalin made a saint. Maybe it still exists, although I haven't heard anything about it in a while. The Church treated it pretty much like a joke and moved on.

As for icons, anyone can make any icon they like. In majority-Orthodox countries iconography is a very widespread craft, and there are literally thousands of little workshops making icons without any higher supervision. The Church does not control the making of icons. Did you notice that the very same link you posted with icons of Stalin also contains an icon of Martin Luther King? Needless to say, as much as I admire Dr. King, he's not a saint either.

Fair enough. Until I can find a source for the canonization of Stalin under him, I will admit that I am wrong.
Thanks for proving me wrong, fellow Christian.

[Nation of God1]

An entire thread based on a logical fallacy...
Good job.

well then...

[Reverend Norv]

Yes, but how do you interpret the Bible? Why is any one interpretation correct? The answer to that is that it must be guided by the Church and organisation, even Protestants admit as much as they claim that their respective Churches interpretation is correct. On the other hand, why is there disparity in interpretation, individuals will differ because they cannot have universal understanding so they must be guided by the Church.

But the problem is, which church. Which church is the one that must guide? Who has the right answer, and how do I know they have the right answer?

God is the believer's guide. I don't see the point in coming to God through a church; on the contrary, one must come to the right church through God. Read the Bible. Learn the prayers of different denominations. Figure out what makes you feel peace, joy, or gratitude - for example, I like taking long walks. Go to church services at a dozen different denominations; look in your heart to see if the worship moves you. Above all, listen for God in all things. And when you feel God's presence - when you feel joy and gratitude, when you feel faith, and hope, and love - then you will know that you are right where you belong. That is how you find a church - by listening to the voice of God.

[Nephmir]

Okay, I hope you don't mind, but I picked out the parts of the OP that were relevant to the question you're asking and the response I have to it. I'd like to respond to it in pieces. I did indeed read the entire post, and it was an interesting read all in all. I like thought provoking questions such as this one.

It's just that they're doing themselves and Christians the world over a great disservice to say, "I'm a Christian but that Pope guy? Fuck him. Also? Fuck Mary. And Icons. And Peter. And anything looking like 'tradition'. Fuck it all."

I seem to recall that you reffered to protestants¹ as idolizers. Idolizers of the bible, of all things. Tell me- is following those that aren't God Himself and even praying to them in some practices not a form of idolizing? The Pope is not Jesus; correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall anyone ever saying that we had to follow the Pope to be saved.

In the time of the flood, those that entered the ark were saved from the waters. The next and final 'apocalypse' is said to be done by fire, as I understand it; and if the ark carried those that were righteous and godly through to safety, what will the next "arc" be? By using the Bible, we are building an arc with Jesus, so that when he returns he may bring us to safety or protect us from what is to come, so that we may follow God out of the world that will not be cleansed by water, but destroyed by fire.

What I'm saying is that only those who profess the one universal Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) are members of the Church of Christ. Only those individuals can legitimately bear the title of Christian.

The church² is another means for discovering Jesus; not Jesus himself. Being in a Church does not grant you the right to be titled 'Christian", rather, those that believe in and follow Jesus to God Himself and actively spread the word of God are Christian; for this is the very function of the church!

I can only hope that someone can figure out a way to break through my stubbornness and convince me that Protestantism is a part of Christianity. Until you can though, I'm convinced that a firetruck better fits the definition.

Of all places, why the NationStates forums?

¹I do not like to separate Christians into groups (or any religion, for that matter), and refrain from identifying said groups whenever possible. I personally see it as pointless and unnecessary, for a variety of reasons.
²I personally think that all of the churches are getting corrupt with modern culture; as such, I do not attend church, so I try my best to find Jesus in other ways.

[Nation of God1]

But the problem is, which church. Which church is the one that must guide? Who has the right answer, and how do I know they have the right answer?

God is the believer's guide. I don't see the point in coming to God through a church; on the contrary, one must come to the right church through God. Read the Bible. Learn the prayers of different denominations. Figure out what makes you feel peace, joy, or gratitude - for example, I like taking long walks. Go to church services at a dozen different denominations; look in your heart to see if the worship moves you. Above all, listen for God in all things. And when you feel God's presence - when you feel joy and gratitude, when you feel faith, and hope, and love - then you will know that you are right where you belong. That is how you find a church - by listening to the voice of God.

But with that ideology comes falling. If you look for a right denomination, following with your emotions and your interpretation of the Bible, you will soon be entranced by the agnostic/atheist or even humanist agenda.