Is this some sort of remnant of evangelical puritan protestant ideology?
I don’t understaun this.
If you ask me, it’d make as much sense as Orthodox and Christians… or Shia and Muslim…
I know not all Christians are Catholics but for feck’s sake…
They’re all Christians to me…
Edit:
It’s a U.S thing but this is the sort of things I hear…
https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html
I am a Catholic. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?
I now know more distinctions (apparently Catholicism requires duty and salvation is process, unlike Protestantism?) but I still think they’re of a similar branch (Christianity) so I just wonder the social factor
You are correct, Catholics are a subset of Christianity… But similarly how people assume a “doctor” is a medical practitioner, Christians has become the informal name for “Protestant” or “evangelicals”
Basically “Christians” tend to mean, anything not “Catholic” (which is old school, visibly indistinguible from others in the Christendom)
Wow. Zero information.
Basically “Christians” tend to mean, anything not “Catholic”
This is insanity. This is a purely American thing.
But if Eastern Orthodox counts as “Christian” while Catholicism doesn’t, that destroys the reasoning. If Eastern Orthodox doesn’t count, then you’re just referring to Protestants.
I don’t think there’s any explanation other than anti-Catholic bias, Protestants just want to claim their way of doing Christianity is the only way.
Platypuses and mammals.
Platypuses are mammals, but they’re weird enough that you can’t usefully generalise from them to anything else, to the point that lumping them in together could be actively misleading.
Same deal.
Platypuses are mammals, but they’re weird enough that you can’t usefully generalise from them to anything else, to the point that lumping them in together could be actively misleading
I would argue that they’re “lumpable” with other monotremes :)
Wait do you randomly drop “and platypuses” when you’re talking about mammals??
Kind Sir, please never drop a platypus. I thank you kindly.
(Insert smirk for my dumb joke)
Please never drop a platypus
for that could make it flat-ypus
Platypuses are mammals, but they’re weird enough
We probably wouldn’t consider them nearly as weird if they were more numerous than any other mammal species and lived all over the world. So their comparison to catholicism is weird.
I have never heard anyone say that. Presumably they say it because they don’t know any better.
I grew up going to various Christian schools as a kid. While it wasn’t a common viewpoint, I did hear of it from time to time.
The reason behind it, to my knowledge, was that Catholic practices would often be significantly different from other denominations’ practices. The biggest thing I can think of is the veneration of and praying to saints.
The biggest thing I can think of is the veneration of and praying to saints.
Which, ironically, is a core part of Abrahamic religions which was abandoned by Protestantism. I.e. Catholicism didn’t add minor gods, Protestantism removed them.
Fun fact: the “-el” at the end of all angel names (except Lucifer and Satan, I guess) means “god”. Not as in “from god”, but as in “the god of”.
Lucifer’s Hebrew name is Helel!
Well spotted
Genuine question (and I don’t know if you’ve gone down this rabbit hole) but does “el” in the context of Hebrew names refer to the concept of any god generically or was “el” the name of the one monotheistic god (before being combined with the monotheistic god with the other name) and the “els” in the names of the angels meant to be an attachment to the court of the one god in a similar way to “isra-el” being not another god but a kingdom/people bearing the name of the god it served (of course talking about biblical Israel and not the modern state).
The early Abrahamic and general Canaanite religions are super interesting, I absolutely recommend reading on them. Now, considering I’m neither a historian nor a linguistics expert, take anything I say with a grain of salt.
From my understanding and memory on the subject, “El” was used as the noun “god”, as the name of the Canaanite chief god, who would later be usurped by YHWH, and as a title of sorts, meant to indicate gods and important people supposedly affiliated with the pantheon chieftain. I believe the latter is related to the older Assyrian culture, it certainly follows the same pattern. The first and second cases weren’t widely concurrent, however - there is a clear trace telling us the original pantheon leader lost influence over time before being relegated to “just another god” and finally getting absorbed into the figure of YHWH, a bit like how Odinn slowly faded into the background of Nordic religion as Thor became the figure you’d pray to.In short: both of your scenarios are right, but at different points in history (except they weren’t monotheistic at first).
This is true about El.
I don’t remember if YHWH is associated with Assyrian culture though.
But if anyone is interested, I recommend reading Mark S. Smith’s The Early History of God. It’s very dry and dense, but extremely informative.
I didn’t mean to imply a relation between YHWH and Assyria, but rather link the Assyrian culture of appending god names to important figures’ names and the Canaanite culture of appending “-el” to indicate allegiance.
Me neither. Literally never seen or heard anyone say that.
It sounds super weird.
I’m guessing from the other comments in this thread that it’s just a USA thing. Super weird.
I think it has to be. In worldwide terms, Catholocism is the biggest Christian sect/denomination.
I was raised Catholic in a deeply Evengelical town. The little girls were saying out of the blue that I wasn’t Christian. I was like 8, they were like 6. They were absolutely parroting what their parents said, there’s no way the little girls I played with daily came up with that shit on their own, and since then I’ve noticed that’s one of the “protestant culture” things that gets passed around in those circles and occasionally escapes. That Catholics aren’t Christian because saints or whatever.
They get all wound up about the “pagan” elements of Catholicism then turn around and worship their dollar bill golden idols. Hypocrites!
But basically, Catholics get crapped on when there’s no other minority around and they are tired of talking about Jewish folks.
I don’t practice, I’m atheist, but in the USA from a culture perspective Catholics aren’t in the WASP good old boy group, even if you are otherwise white. And WASP types are happy to let you know it, although its less common than it was a few decades back.
Biden being Catholic, and JFK before him, is basically a dog whistle to certain rightwing groups to make them lose their shit, it’s just less obvious than, say, Obama being black esp if you don’t have a family background that would expose you to that stuff.
I’m aware of the history, but didn’t know it still lingered. Maybe it’s a regional thing. I haven’t run into this the metropolitan Northeast or metropolitan West Coast regions. But also I’ve been atheist my whole life, so the topic has seldom come up.
I’ve run into it when interacting with folks who grew up in the south. It seems moderately common there. With folks who grew up in the northeast, I haven’t seen this be a thing.
This is alive and well in west coast evangelical culture.
Catholics and Christians
The Orthodox:
I’ve heard of them as just lumped in with Christian crowd so what gives?
Because some sects of Christianity (mostly Southern Baptist) are fucking insane and spiteful.
I can maybe understand it if they’re talking about UUs. Speaking as one, we’re not entirely sure what the hell we are either. We’re in committee trying to figure that out. </self_deprecating_joke>
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912. I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.-Emo Philips
This is actually a shortened version of the original.
That type of specification would probably never happen.
Catholics see themselves as the root form of Christianity that other versions forked from. Whilst it’s not technically true, as there are many versions of Christianity that pre-date Catholicism, in most countries where the term “Catholics and Christians” is used, it’s accurate enough
Catholics are Christians, but Christians are not necessarily Catholic. For example, Orthodox Christians are not Catholic. Being Catholic requires, at the bare minimum, agreement with the Holy See and implicitly the dogma he endorses. Even this “minor” difference can be used to find non-Catholic Christians.
Precisely, Catholic ⊊ Christian.
The reason why this is the case has to do with the history of Christianity, specifically the various schisms throughout the ages as the Christian faith evolved. That’s an incredibly complicated topic which I’m not qualified to discuss.
Catholics are Christians, but Christians are not necessarily Catholic. For example, Orthodox Christians are not Catholic. Being Catholic requires, at the bare minimum, agreement with the Holy See and implicitly the dogma he endorses. Even this “minor” difference can be used to find non-Catholic Christians.
I know that, but if you ask me, it’s like saying Sunni and Muslim, one kinda emphasizes, if not “otherizes” (orientalize or occidentalize) the other… usually in a not good way…
One kinda emphasizes, if not “otherizes” the other… usually in a not good way…
Yeah. People have been killed over being Catholic in a non-Catholic Christian society and people have also been killed over being a non-Catholic Christian in a Catholic society.
But that doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t differentiate at all between the dogmas of Catholics and the wider practice of Christianity.
(orientalize or occidentalize)
I mean there are lots of non-Catholic Churches with European origins, for example Lutheranism and Anglicanism. So I think it’s a bit more complicated than “otherizing” with respect to that specific dichotomy.
Cocaine and crack are different, technically, but they come from the same shit.
That distinction comes from racism though, which is probably not too different than Catholics and Christians.
The distinction between cocaine and crack does not have anything to do with racism. It has to do with the way the drug is processed and consumed.
The criminal distinction is absolutely about racism as crack users are historically urban minorities while cocaine users are primarily wealthy white people so crack gets 10x harsher penalties when compared to cocaine. If we compare this to other drugs, would you consider weed edibles different from flower? They’re processed differently and consumed differently much in the same way.
Would you feel better if he said “it’s like squares and rectangles, but they’re still both shapes”. Hopefully that’s not racist, too.
Yes, in the context of the 1980s and 1990s when discussing the criminality of cocaine and crack cocaine use, there is a racial component. But it was you who took that leap here in this thread, not the person who made the comparison of two products derived by the same source (hence his point in the first place).
I still argue that it’s not a racial thing. You can find cheap cocaine in urban areas. And you can find expensive rocks in rich neighborhoods.
I don’t make any distinction between edibles and weed. I’ve known rich people who smoke tons of weed and poor people who love to make weed brownies.
I know rich people who have used meth and poor people who used ecstasy.
Where are mushrooms in your book? I know rich artists who swear by it and fast food employees who never go to work without tripping—and I don’t blame them.
The specific drug isn’t about race. The quality could be about income status, but there are plenty of poor white people using shitty drugs cut with law knows what.
some sort of remnant of evangelical puritan protestant ideology?
Yes. It’s weird.
Hundreds of years of infighting
Thousands really.
Protestantism hasn’t event existed for a thousand years. Heck, even the Great Schism between Eastern Orthodox and Romans Catholicism churches happened less than a thousand years ago (though that should become no longer true within our lifetimes).
Infighting, as in, within itself.
Sure, but this thread isn’t about infighting among Christians broadly, it’s specifically about the use of “Christian” and “Catholic” in a context where they seemingly mean different things.
To be honest I find most of this thread incredibly frustrating, because so many people are explaining Christian schisms to OP, as though they don’t already know about that. But that’s not what they asked.
I was responding to the thread not the OPs question. May be frustrating for you but that was the context for me.
It’s like progressives and liberals 1000 years from now
If any of this recognizably lasts 1000 years I’ll have a better opinion of it, ancient egypt is still smirking at us
I have to say, the conversations in this thread are both fascinating and informative, while being emblematic of the confusion division the question posed.
I find religion very interesting because it’s intertwined with history, but in terms of living, atheism is so much easier.
The Christians are just whiny Catholics. Protesting all day.
We’re talking about “orthodoxy” here. Wikipedia
In Christianity, one of the first creeds established was the Trinity; God is the one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How that works is a mystery unlike anything existing, although we try to illustrate and make parallels.
This is a sharp dividing line for calling anything “Christianity.”
Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet, but that does not make them christian, because they deny his deity. Mormons do not believe in only one god (ultimately), or in the Trinity as one, but instead separate see this link.
Both Catholics and Protestants believe in a true Trinity.
Mormons think we are all going to be gods, and that God was once a man on some planet like we were, and therefore there are literally billions of gods out there. Our God just happens to be the one relevant to us.
Source - Grew up Mormon, am not anymore
Whoa. I need to talk to some Mormons
Same with Jehovah’s Witnesses not agreeing with or affirming the Nicene creed. Generally any sect that denies the Nicene creed is seen as non Christian
As a former Mormon, the Trinity issue always seemed like a bogus distinction. I’m sure you can find plenty of sects you would label “Christian” that also believe God the Father and Jesus are separate, distinct entities
Growing up in a “non-denominational”, independent fundamental Baptist house I was always taught that Catholics weren’t Christians because they worship idols. Now that I’ve left the faith I would easily classify them as being Christian.
While I think many people actually do classify them as Christians they do have some significant differences in their beliefs and practices than most Protestant denominations; and being themselves the largest Christian denomination by far it can be useful in some analysis to treat them as a distinct entity (the answer to “percentage of global population that subscribe to a particular religion” is much more interesting when broken into “Christian Catholic: %” and “Christian Other: %”).
If anything Catholicism is much more traditionally Christian, as it’s the stablish status quo outside of the anglosphere.
That’s seen as a negative. “Holy tradition” is seen as an extreme departure, although most Protestants wouldn’t even know the term because opening the catechism is nearly as bad as the satanic bible (especially among evangelicals).
What does “non-denominational” mean? Isn’t Baptist the denomination?
In this context it was meant as a joke. Several Baptist institutions incorrectly label themselves as being “non-denominational” even though they are completely ideologically aligned with the independent Baptist movement.
All the non-denominational churches are just a denominational church in denial. Pentecostals use it a lot too, but it’s pretty obvious once you know
Oh shit! Independent Fundamental Baptist! I had to deal with living with that shit, too. At the end of the day, if the king james bible was good enough for Peter and Paul, it’s good enough for me. Also, rock music is the devil.
I went to Bob Jones. There was a kid there got in trouble playing the guitar cause what he was strumming had “that sound.” No lyrics, just him strumming it wrong was sinful. Ain’t no way that kinda teaching gonna fuck someone up for life.
I went to a small private Christian high school too. Our Junior year we did a “college tour” to check out Christian Colleges. We visited Bob Jones, and I was blown away. That place is fucking wild. I’m glad I settled on Penn State in the long run.
The same can be ansked about the Mormons. It’s Christians who have a weird obsession with deciding who gets to be Christian.
For me, if they believe in the divinity of Christ, they’re Christian.
Yes, but no true
ScotsmanChristian…
