Quote:
Originally posted by DSTRen13
This isn't a theology board, so I apologize in advance to everyone for this major hijack,
|
My apologies as well.
Quote:
|
but I was raised in a Christian church where many of the members (including myself) did not accept trinitarian doctrine. (Today, I am Unitarian Universalist, if anyone cares.) For most of my life, I've been surrounded by people who only consider very select Protestant denominations to be "real" Christians - Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and my own church (since we rejected the Protestant label) were not allowed in the club. So I am very sensitive about both of these issues. If someone believes themselves to be Christian by their own standards, what do you really care? I mean, do you really know what Christianity was truly intended to be - does anyone today, for that matter?
|
Yes, people can disagree on what Christianity was intended to be, or is now. But that was not my point.
My point was that words have meaning -- generally ascribed meaning. Otherwise, they are a useless form of communication. Since at least the Fourth Century (if not earlier), the generally-agreed upon "definition" of what makes one "Christian" has included trinitarian belief.
Many people (and faith traditions) do not share this belief and still call themselves Christian. That's their prerogative, and my point is not that I have a problem with that. My point is only that just because one describes one's self as Christian doesn't mean that the majority of Christians in the world would recognize the person as a Christian.
Some may say that's intolerance or exclusivity. I don't think it is, necessarily at least.
Hybrid Mode
