[brightlancer]

> It's quite simply an Abrahamic religion based around following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

First off, that's not true.

Second, your argument is tautological: Daoism is a path based around following the tenets of the Dao; Confucianism is a path based around following the teachings of Confucius; Buddhism is a path based around following the teachings of Buddha.

Even if it were true, it wouldn't mean anything.

> There are plenty of different doctrines and interpretations but you can tell what is and isn't a Christian church.

Are Mormons Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so.

Are Catholics Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so (despite the Roman Catholic Church being the largest Christian church).

You're assuming agreement that does not exist.

> Same thing with Daoism. Daoism is both a religion and a philosophy with very specific teachings and traditions.

Christianity does _not_ have specific teachings and traditions.

Catholicism has very specific teachings and traditions. It's a huge church and they've got tons of groups and committees and panels to write books about what Real Christians™ must believe and how they must behave. And they kick out people who are vocal about disobeying.

But of course, non-Catholic churches have different teachings and traditions. Not that they agree, either. If you wander around the Southern US, you'll find tons of Christian churches that are each just a few dozen people, and their teachings and traditions can be unique.

So if Daoism is like Christianity, then there isn't agreement.

If Daoism has specific teachings and traditions, then how is that maintained? Who decides (or decided) what those teachings and traditions are?

[andsoitis]

> > There are plenty of different doctrines and interpretations but you can tell what is and isn't a Christian church.

> Are Mormons Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so.

> Are Catholics Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so (despite the Roman > Catholic Church being the largest Christian church).

> You're assuming agreement that does not exist.

These are all Christian denominations [0], i.e. distinct religious bodies within Christianity and identified by traits like doctrine. Various Christian denominations have good reason to seperate themselves because each have different doctrine around Trinitarianism, salvation, papal primacy, the nature of Jesus, etc. If you are cynical, you might say they each compete for mindshare and power within the Christian religion.

For instance, the Mormon Church (LDS Church) is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination in the branch of Mormonism. [1]

As a non-Christian, it might be easier to look from the outside in and not get distracted by the doctrine and authority differences.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_...

[Tao3300]

It seems weird to call Mormonism a Christian denomination because of the whole extra book where Jesus visits North America. That's a massive deviation. It's the same as saying Catholicism or Rastafarianism are denominations of Judaism. You're leaving out a lot!

Mind that I don't think Jesus talking to Native Americans, hying to Kolob, and sacral underwear are any more farfetched than anything in the King James, but I wouldn't call it the same thing except in the very loosest sense.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

Do Catholics or Rastafarians call themselves Jewish?

If a group self-identifies as Christian, they're probably Christian. At the very least, they're much more Christian than all the people that don't identify as Christian.

If a religious group is based on following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and claims to be Christian, I don't see how you could ever claim they're not without going full No-True-Scottsman.

[brightlancer]

> If a religious group is based on following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and claims to be Christian, I don't see how you could ever claim they're not without going full No-True-Scottsman.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word ¨is¨ is."

_Is_ the Catholic Church following the teachings of Jesus Christ? According to many Protestant churches, it is not.

(I'm ignoring for the moment that many Protestant churches don't define "Christian" as "following the teachings of Jesus Christ".)

Christianity isn't a membership club; individual churches usually are, but the religion as a whole is not. I can tell you who the Catholic Church recognizes as "Christian"; I can tell you who Protestant churches broadly recognize as "Christian"; I can tell you who the LDS and the Jehovah's Witnesses each recognize as "Christian"; they're not going to be the same.

And so I look at Daoism and I wonder, is there a chain of authorities all the way back to Laozi (Lao Tzu)? Is there a single, dominant sect with some/ many smaller sects? Are there multiple large, dominant sects? Who's defining what is and isn't Daoism?

[freedomben]

I think you're missing the points made earlier. The definition of Christian varies depending on who you ask. The word itself conveys nothing other than perhaps "worships Christ." All the rules added for what "Christians" must accept are disputed. If "worships Christ" is the definition, Mormons clearly are Christian (cue all the "but that's a different Jesus!" cries). If your definition is "believes what Pastor Johnson believes" then they wouldn't be. This is no different than any other ill-defined word.

[Tao3300]

No, I hedged for that in my language. You're attributing far too much certainty to me.