Why does "religion" get such a bad name?

[Paprika]

When one of the groups identifies with both labels? Hardly.

That the label 'Christian' is incorrect doesn't change the fact that the groups have almost always been distinct, whether in Central America, Africa, or Asia, which is why you get lots of people from many cultures making this basic distinction between 'Catholics' and 'Christians'.

[One Bad Pig]

That the label 'Christian' is incorrect doesn't change the fact that the groups have almost always been distinct, whether in Central America, Africa, or Asia, which is why you get lots of people from many cultures making this basic distinction between 'Catholics' and 'Christians'.

Of course the groups have always been distinct. I'm disputing the accuracy of the labels, not the distinction between the groups.

[Paprika]

Of course the groups have always been distinct. I'm disputing the accuracy of the labels, not the distinction between the groups.

Then why on earth did you say that it was "hardly" a sound distinction? It is perfectly clear from the context which two groups the labels refer to.

It is a perfectly sound distinction between two groups with distinct sets of praxis and beliefs, and who don't tend to interact much with each other, and have historically tended to segregate.

When one of the groups identifies with both labels? Hardly.

[One Bad Pig]

Then why on earth did you say that it was "hardly" a sound distinction? It is perfectly clear from the context which two groups the labels refer to.

It is not a sound distinction because one of the labels applies equally to both groups.

[Paprika]

It is not a sound distinction because one of the labels applies equally to both groups.

The distinction is between two groups of people. You would be better served not quibbling 'but but but the labels of one of the group is inaccurate ' and instead considering the massive problem the obvious disunity of the church poses not least in the field of evangelism.

[One Bad Pig]

The distinction is between two groups of people. You would be better served not quibbling 'but but but the labels of one of the group is inaccurate ' and instead considering the massive problem the obvious disunity of the church poses not least in the field of evangelism.

Without both groups acknowledging each other as Christian, which would necessitate a change in labels, the disunity is going to persist.

[Paprika]

Without both groups acknowledging each other as Christian, which would necessitate a change in labels, the disunity is going to persist.

The labels - 'Christians' as opposed to 'Catholics' - are the inaccurate ones that are given by people that are virtually all outsiders.

How one groups labels the other is another matter altogether.

[Truthseeker]

The labels - 'Christians' as opposed to 'Catholics' - are the inaccurate ones that are given by people that are virtually all outsiders.

How one groups labels the other is another matter altogether.

I am surprised there are many people that consider Catholics to be not Christian. To be sure, it is theoretically possible that groups can be ranked from "Not at all Christian" to "100% Christian (or the closest to the ideal Christian group)." MAYBE Catholics are somewhat near the bottom for "Christian" groups, but maybe they should still be considered Christian.

[Paprika]

I am surprised there are many people that consider Catholics to be not Christian.

You misunderstand. These people are outsiders that don't know the technical definitions of 'Christians' that have been debated in theology.

It would be like if a person ignorant of Muslim theology and history labels the Shia "Shia" and the Sunnis and the rest "Muslims". I repeat, the label may be inaccurate but what is the point is the outsider's notice of the division between the groups, not whether the labels are completely accurate.

[Cow Poke]

In my case, with respect to the Catholic vs Christian issue, the persons making that distinction were the Haitians who had experienced some of each. They had experienced some bad aspects of the Catholic religion, and some good aspects of non-Catholic missionaries and aid workers, whom they called "Christians".

[One Bad Pig]

The labels - 'Christians' as opposed to 'Catholics' - are the inaccurate ones that are given by people that are virtually all outsiders.

How one groups labels the other is another matter altogether.

That IS how one group labels the other in my experience (Dominican Republic) and Cow Poke's (Haiti); I suspect it's much the same in South America in general.

[Cow Poke]

That IS how one group labels the other in my experience (Dominican Republic) and Cow Poke's (Haiti); I suspect it's much the same in South America in general.

In the case of Haiti, there's the element of Voodoo, which the Catholics supposedly mixed with Catholicism to control the people. (I don't know if that's true, but it was the reason given to me by the Haitians)

[Paprika]

That IS how one group labels the other in my experience (Dominican Republic) and Cow Poke's (Haiti); I suspect it's much the same in South America in general.

I read Cow Poke's post re: Haitians and Czechs as regarding labelling by outsiders, which matches my own experience in my country.

[One Bad Pig]

In the case of Haiti, there's the element of Voodoo, which the Catholics supposedly mixed with Catholicism to control the people. (I don't know if that's true, but it was the reason given to me by the Haitians)

I suspect the more likely scenario is that many converts, who may have been coerced into Catholicism, kept some of their native (voodoo) practices alongside it.