You're viewing part of a thread.
That feels a lot like your personal interpretation. You do not get to decide how people who call themselves Christian define themselves.
Fables are worth listening to for the morals they include. Why wouldn't an ancient holy book be a moralistic guide to show the way to heaven, whatever that is which is not defined in scripture
I'm going to start calling myself "muslim" then, as "muslim" means "one who submits to God"
You go ahead and do that. Worth noting that Islam doesn't have a protestant reformation thats come in to say "f this the rules are whatever I want them to be personally," so it's basically still in its Catholic hegemony phase.
The protestant reformation didn't do that. In fact, it was the opposite. It was based on the Bible over everything and shedding the idea of a pope who can claim "the rules are whatever I want them to be personally"
But that's literally the second thing to happen in the protestant reformation. King Henry saw that Martin Luther guy and said "shit if he doesn't have to listen to the Pope, I don't either. Let's strait up rewrite the Bible motherfucker!" So that the parts he didn't like didn't apply. Are you gonna say anglicans aren't Christian?
The reformers did not rewrite the Bible.
Public education in US... Thanks for the correction.
Regardless... Mormons, JWs and Seventh Day Adventists get away with being Christian, so yah, I think you can get away with calling yourself a Christian and believing whatever you want.
Mormons and JWs are not Christian. The only ones who call Mormons and JWs Christian are themselves. Mormons and JWs are as Christian as the Chinese Communist Party is Communist. Even the Catholics agree that many Protestants are Christian but just in "imperfect communion" with them.
There are some fringe extreme SDAs who reject Christian doctrine, but most are Christian. Although I have sort of seen them grouped into the "borderline heretical" category.
JWs have their own "translation" of the Bible to fit their doctrine which basically every scholar rejects. Mormons have their third testament from a prophet- and is actually similar to Islam if you think about the circumstances (Prophet comes along hundreds of years later, claims Christians were doing it wrong and that he has an authoritative revelation, uses it to justify polygamy and political power, etc)
Protestant Christians do have varying interpretations of the Bible, but all agree on the Trinity, Biblical canon (which was the same as what the Catholics used before the council of Trent) and the core Gospel message which makes up 95% of things.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. You acknowledge that the Catholics don't have control over what is and isn't Christian, and that there are secta they'd deem as heretics at best or apostates at worst. That said there are many protestant denominations that won't. There are wildly different interpretations of the Bible, WBC for example says a bunch of things that most Christians would consider unchristian, but the same holy texts, are used as source material.
Similarly, the belief in things like miracles, transubstantiation, literally of the Bible, the invention of the bodily rapture.... Oh hey, and the trinity, let's not forget about the monophosotes (sure they haven't really been around for like a thousand years but...) What about the coptics? Are they not Christian cause their books are different?
The trinity is in the Bible. Not the word "trinity", but our understanding of it comes purely from the Bible. Which is why even most SDAs agree with it. Real presence (part of the doctrine of transubstantiation) and miracles are also biblical. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price aren't biblical. Just like how the Qur'an isn't biblical.
Muslim means "one who submits", so I could identify as a muslim even though I don't even adhere to Islam- it doesn't make me Muslim.