by Barry Hardee
I’m admitting something that most Christians never dream of saying out loud — I’m jealous of atheists. How could you not be jealous of a position of rationality and enlightenment? My jealousy on this particular occasion though is restricted to the area of language.
Definitions
a-theism: without a belief in a deity or deities
I know there are debates about implicit and explicit atheist positions, but if someone claims to be an atheist people know what is being communicated. The simple beauty of this is that atheism by definition not only excludes the Christian God but Allah, Thor, Shiva, etc. and an atheist isn’t forced to qualify himself in relation to any deity. (One exception appears to be FSM.)
Christian: a follower of Christ
The term Christian on its face value would seem to have a straight forward definition, but a visit to different churches would quickly dissuade you from such a naïve conclusion. The tent of Christendom seems to be quite large when considering the diversity of those who call themselves Christian. Consider we have John Hagee and John Paul II, Bishop Tutu and Bishop Spong, Ken Ham and Ken Miller, and even Fred Phelps and local favorite John C, lol. The fluidity of the term Christian is shining proof of Wittgenstein’s view of language. Most evangelicals follow the motto of: in essentials, unity; doubtful matters, liberty; and in all things, charity. The problem is that Christians seem to have very different views of what makes up an essential.
So What?
Most atheists would probably claim that this just another nail in the coffin of the religion of Christianity. Personally I think the differences of definition tell us more about language, epistemology and human culture than about the existence or non existence of the Christian God. Still what does this have to do with atheists? Having grown up as many of you did in the evangelical world; I have heard the debates and disagreements over who qualifies as a “true” Christian.
The reason this issue is still important to atheists, is that the clearer the lines are defined with our debating opponents, the less apt we are to make poor assumptions or chase rabbits trails in arguments. I’ve also seen instances where atheists have chided a person who claims to be a Christian but doesn’t hold to biblical literalism, seemingly questioning the credentials of the person as a true Christian.  The reason I think that Christians have such a tough time coming to an agreement on the definition of Christian is that they come to the table with many assumptions, hidden and in plain sight. Atheists don’t have a dog in the fight, and would seem to be a perfect group of people to define such a slippery term.
My simple question is this: from the viewpoint of an atheist, what is a Christian?
I would like to attack from a different angle though. Using Occam’s axe, not razor, cutting through the history of dogma and ritual, how would you know you’ve become a Christian. This isn’t a trick but a thought experiment. What is the simplest core set of beliefs/actions you would have to believe/follow to give yourself the specific label Christian, and not deist or occasional church attendee? My interest is to see how similar the answers from atheist community will be to such a debated question.
I think a Christian is anyone who sincerely believes themselves to be one.
When I was a xian I thought it was someone who believed in what I considered the essential doctrines of xianity (virgin birth, resurrection, that Jesus is the son of god/god himself, etc.).
Now I take it for granted that there are thousands of varieties of Christians, and all of them think they are right.
I usually break them down into Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Liberal Protestants, Fundamentalist Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons — all of them being a subset of “Christianity.”
There is no “True Christianity,” only interpretations.
Even the early church had disagreements about what “True Christianity” was — they argued about faith vs works, the role of the law, the trinity, whether Jesus was God, circumcision, dietary restrictions, the 2nd coming of Christ, free will or predestination, gnosticism, etc… yeah, pretty much everything. ;)
I think a Christian is anyone who sincerely believes themselves to be one.
My problem with that is that there are many people who make up some completely different belief, or group of beliefs, and call it “Christianity” for some reason — maybe they still believe that Christianity is the only way, or simply want acceptance from current Christians.
For instance, suppose a guy says “Oh, I don’t believe Jesus was the son of God, or indeed anyone special. But I’m a Christian”. Is he? To me, that makes as much sense as “I eat meat, but I’m a vegan.” :)
One could still follow Jesus without thinking him the son of god, thus being a Christian. People became Marxists just because they thought he had some good ideas, not because they thought he was the son of god or indeed anyone special (generally).
I see someone already covered my point farther down, so don’t mind me.
I agree with Daniel. I take people at their word when they say they are a “Christian.” I usually follow up with questions about their particular flavor, but generally I think people get to self define.
What is so terrible frustrating about this, however, is the fact that mostl Christians tell me they know the one “True” flavor. (The exception being very liberal protestants who seem to think all religions are right but just different.) Somehow they never can quite explain why theirs is better than any other though.
I literally think of this as a flavor choice. Some people like chocolate, others vanilla.
Except of course that there is actual proof that things like ice cream exist.
The Gospel according to Ben and the Gospel according to Jerry?
LOL YES!
“I think a Christian is anyone who sincerely believes themselves to be one.”
This is indeed the only diagnostic that makes any sense. If you think you are one, you are one. Anything else is splitting hairs.
This is an interesting question. I look forward to hearing the response.
Very interesting and thought provoking.
To me, i would say i would know I was christian if I firmly believed that christ was god incarnate and had decided to follow him and his way, committing my life to him. I don’t believe it requires a belief in the literal inerrancy of the bible, the trinity, sacraments, etc. Not sure if a literal belief in the resurrection would be required but probably, since most Christians believe in this.
I come from a Pentecostal background originally, but I would have to say that to be a “True Christian” you would need to believe that Christ was the son of God (ie. God in human form, the incarnation), that he died on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind, that he resurrected bodily and later ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father (who is actually himself). It also helps if you believe he might be coming back any day now.
I know this is from a literalist perspective but I can’t help but wonder why someone would consider themselves a Christian if they didn’t literally believe at least that. What would be the point?
Wasn’t there some guy who decided to be a Christian Atheist? http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/06/11/can-you-be-an-atheist-christian/
Atheist Christian, my bad.
Following the teachings seems to define what Christianity can be for this guy. You don’t have to believe the supernatural stuff, and then again, why Jesus? Or why just Jesus? Fill your mind with the teachings of everyone who had something good to say about life and kindness and etc. If you don’t believe in magic, why pertain your philosophy to Jesus Christ in particular?
I think a “true Christian” is anyone who goes over the line there. The rest of how they interpret the bible is immaterial, it’s whether they believe Jesus is the son of god and died on the cross to be everyone’s savior, if only they would believe that in their heart. If you don’t believe that “in your heart” business, you aren’t a Christian. Whatever you make of the rest of the bible is no different than making it up as you go along. It’s the sin/savior/rise from the dead part. It’s not how you act, it’s the belief that it’s true.
If you think the bible is really interesting, or the story of Christ inspiring, I think you are not a Christian unless you really believe it happened and why it happened, for the sins of mankind. I thought Charlotte’s Web was really inspiring, but I don’t believe in my heart that a spider saved a pig’s life by writing words in her web at the fair, so wouldn’t go around calling myself a Charlottian.
I think it is as simple, linguistically, as atheism – we do not believe in god. There are a lot of fine points you have to discuss with the individual, and myths, labels, agendas, non-agendas. We don’t have sects or churches to help distinguish one atheist from another, although some of us try to align with or philosophize what differences there may be and what someone with this attitude wants that differs from another attitude, as if there is a guidebook on how to best express one’s disbelief in the supernatural, and you either follow it to the letter or go make your own club of non-believers and publish a different set of behaviors and rules. I do not agree with labels within atheism, and so far, my observation of labels seems divisive, and it need not be so.
There are obviously some wackadoo hardcore biblical literalists in Christianity, and some more liberal, moderate, easy-to-talk-to, mostly rational Christians; beyond that I’m not sure what kind of Christians there are and whether it’s helpful to know, as a group, what you want and what you believe additional to the salvation part. You group yourselves because you reject something about some other church’s master list of instructions, you’ve done a very human thing, which is to observe something in the church you don’t like and make a new one. Part of this grouping has to do with the cultural imperative among the religious (apparently) to attend weekly meetings of like-minded people. And yet it’s possible to be a Christian rogue, abstain from church attendance, to not be “watered down” and corrupted by groupthink, follow the lord all by yourself. Do you go to the church because you agree with it, or to learn what you should think and follow?
We do not believe in god. There’s a lot more to it than that, and at the same time, that’s all there is to it, but I don’t think that’s a really simple word.
Hey, Gruntled –
What about this – the Unity Church believes in Jesus as the Way-shower (Person who shows, not warm deluge of water). “I am naturally good because God’s Divinity is in me and in everyone.
Human beings are born with original divinity, not original sin. We are spiritual beings first and foremost, God’s most prized creation. We may forget this truth and ignore our spiritual selves. However, this does not change who we are. The Christ Spirit, the anointing of God in us, is our higher self.”
They call themselves positive, practical Christianity. I’ve heard others say it is absolutely not Christianity because they do not believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation – they don’t believe in original sin so no salvation is necessary. It’s a very positive-thinking kind of belief system. Would you consider them Christians?
I tend to stick with something vague, like “a Christian is a person who is engaged with the traditions of the Jesus movement.”
I think being an outsider makes it tougher, sometimes. For example, I have no reason to prefer the Orthodox creeds over the Arian ones. That makes describing the history of Christianity difficult, since words like “heresy” and “orthodox” are basically meaningless to me.
Anybody who believes in the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ and in the New Testament is Christian, I think.
Anybody who claims to believe in the least believable part of the New Testament (the divinity of Christ) but then denies (i.e. makes excuses for) other unbelievable parts of the same scripture might reasonably call themselves a Christian, but they are also being hugely intellectually dishonest with themselves in an attempt to rationalise a belief which is, at its very core, utterly ridiculous.
From my perspective a Christian is someone who believes the teachings of Jesus are more important than any other teachings, and can not be compared to others, replaced, criticized. Once you see Christ as no wiser than Socrates or Lao Tzu or Twain, I see no reason to call yourself a Christian.
I wanted to say you’d have to believe he was divine, but that’s just a matter of the strength of your Christianity. I could be a Marxist without thinking Marx was a God, but believing he was a God would certainly relieve me of the burden critically analyzing his ideas when I see conflicting arguments. Atheist Christians are the weakest Christians, because they rely solely on the words of Jesus to stand on themselves as the best way to live, without the backing of the Creator. Not an easy position once you start understanding how brilliant some of the other philosophers were in my opinion.
My own background is that of a man with an atheist father and Christian mother. Both were pretty pragmatic people; Mom’s approach was “if it’s not in the Bible, it doesn’t exist”, tempered with some common-sense. Dad rejected it all, having been one of the first Americans allowed in the city of Hiroshima in late 1945. (I asked him once why he didn’t believe in a ‘god’. He said, “Because I’ve seen Hiroshima.”)
In college, I studied religions alongside my requirements for an anthropology degree, and later for an advanced degree in history. What I learned was this:
Christianity is the ‘chicken’ of the religion world; the feelgood-religion of Western civilization. Apply whatever ‘secret sauce’ you’d like – by selectively taking ‘ingredients’ from the Bible and mixing them up to create a creed – throw it on the grill for a while, and you have another branch of Christianity. Tastes like chicken; philosophically-speaking. Mmmm-good!
Because you can create anything you want out of it (remember, Adolf Hitler was a Catholic; much of the Nazi creed and its ceremonies were lifted in whole or in part from Catholic dogma; the Wehrmacht had a thriving chaplaincy and the words “Gott Mit Uns” [God is with us] on their belt-buckles), the only way any of us outside the confines of the Christian maze can possibly cope is to simply accept the self-identification of people who call themselves ‘Christian’.
There are no real rules. No standards. No ‘head Christian’ (although the Pope would like to be) to tell us what-is and what-isn’t. Only the endless argument of people who justify the equally-endless monstrosity, perversity, and inhumanity committed in the name of the Founder, with the equally-lame and Nuremberg-like statement, “But, they’re not real Christians!”
Joseph Goebbels wrote a play about Jesus entitled “The Wanderer” – it’s still performed today in Germany, although the authorship is usually hidden by a pseudonym; Stalin went to seminary; Jim Jones was, by some accounts, a nice guy.
The fastest-growing group in America is that of non-believers. We’ve rejected religion in general – because it explains nothing and demands everything of its adherents – and Christianity in particular, because of the seemingly-endless contradictions, petty squabbles, and major depredations against humanity.
Inquisitions? That was a long time ago. Besides – they weren’t real Christians. Ovens? Those people weren’t real Christians, either.
Priests, buggering little boys? Yep – you guessed it.
Some of us stayed awake in class, folks. Regardless of whether your ‘emperor’ is Pat Robertson or Benny the Pope, he’s not wearing any clothes.
Christianity is the creation of Constantine; not because any of it is real – but because he wanted to save the Empire. In the end, the reasoned and educated among us are looking upon collective church apologists the same way a parent does a child, caught with his hand in the cookie-jar and making mile-a-minute excuses – with a mixture of humor and embarrassment for the little fellow, who is so clearly in over his head.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always thought that being a Christian implied being Christ-like, and following the examples he set through his (alleged) life.
Of course, that makes most pagans and heathens (of all stripes) far more Christian than most self-described Christians….
I think pursuing a completely objective definition of any word, let alone “Christian”, is pointless. Language is a truly subjective affair – it only works insofar as everybody involved agrees on the definitions. Unlike, say, physics, where everything works regardless of anyone’s opinions on the matter.
Thus, dictionaries are really just a report on the observed consensus of a language’s speakers. That’s as close as anyone can get to objective. So aside from language researchers, I don’t think any group of people is any better equipped to define a word than any other.
Being an atheist myself, as you say I don’t have a dog in the hunt of what does and does not make a Christian.
As such, for conversational purposes, I let the other person self-describe. I’ll ask them “what does that mean to you? How do you define ‘Christian’”?
But I don’t debate theological points from an ‘inside Christianity’ perspective. I don’t say “well, Romans 10 says this, while Deuteronomy 16 says that.” I’m just not having those kind of conversations, nor am I trying to play ‘gotcha’ and catch a believer in a contradiction. Those aren’t the kinds of conversations I want to have.
So I just let them describe themselves. I would assume the word Christian brings with it some level of belief that Jesus was a real person who really lived and was either God or godlike. But I’m still willing to listen to someone who says that they believe otherwise and yet still think of themselves as Christian.
Once I realized that the virgin birth and the resurrection were not true, I decided it would thereafter be horribly insincere to call myself a Christian. So that is where I drew the line regarding my own personal labeling.
I know that many Christians don’t require belief in these two miracles, and don’t even require belief in Jesus’ divinity. But virgin birth and resurrection seemed to me to be the cornerstone of the faith. Even though I was raised in probably the most liberal Christian denomination, never was there even a slight innuendo that these miracle stories were merely allegorical. Maybe if this had been suggested to me at the right time, I would have said “aha, of course they are non-literal” and proceeded to live a happy life as a wishy-washy theist. But alas, the breakdown of these two miracles was the end of labeling myself Christian…
The ‘Christian’ label is not a self designation, Christ is Christianity. Man is essentially a container for a certain kind and quality of life, either of the false and fallen (adamic) or the real and risen (Christ) kind. If one is truly ‘InChristed’ (if Christ be his or her very life, Col 3:4) then he/she will quite naturally express, manifest the same nature or ‘fruits’ thereof, every tree (JC saying ‘I am the true vine and we the branches) bearing its same ‘seed’ kind and not merely in the professing of it. JC saying ‘with your lips (lip service) you draw near, but your hearts are far from me’.
A Christian is one in whom the Life is manifested since Jesus (himself) is perfect theology.
All the best…to all.
John, that must be some wicked LSD you’re on, if you believe that tripe.
I genuinely and honestly believe that John C should be on Haliperidol or some other strong anto-psychotic medication. Sane and rational minds simply don’t operate the way his does.
Custy…they called Him crazy too. It’s a crazy kinda love man, yes It is! :)
Go. Take. Your. Meds.
P.M.S.L.
Wait, what?
I enjoyed the tone and delivery of your response to John’s psychosis.
Oh. OH! Haha, I just figured it out! (Sorry, no sleep, kinda have teh stoopid.)
I’m not exactly the bastion of sanity or rationality, and, uh, *I* think this guy needs some serious antipsychotics!
That… says something. I’m not sure what, but… something.
probably Lithium… ha!
When I was a Christian… I prided myself on how I was an ‘alien in this world’… so we’re probably only encouraging and confirming his dellusion. BUT… that’s his trip…and he’s not alone.
o well. fuck em. he loves the abuse… they are his ‘stripes for jesus.’
Oh. He’s the House Masochist.
What I’ve never been able to figure out is why these folks are so desperate to be “not of this world”? And then, why do they get so upset when “the world” just continues on without them? More importantly, if they’re so desperate to make an exit, why not just off themselves? They’d go to “heaven” and meet their “god”, the rest of us would have blessed silence…
Kitty, the truth of the good news (gospel) message is far better than we can imagine, so must of us simply don’t. But if we do…
John, I’ve read the “holy” bible. I was raised Catholic. Trust me, “The Bible” is nothing more than badly-written fiction, filled with archaic language, a plot that’s all over the damn place, and inconsistent characterizations.
In short, “The Bible” makes the “Twilight” saga look like Shakespeare.
Come to think of it, I could fall asleep on my keyboard and produce something more coherent than “The Bible”!
One more thing: Just what is the “good news” about being enslaved? What’s so freakin’ great about being trapped in an abusive relationship? Especially when the abusive prick in question doesn’t answer to, well… anybody!
The good news is that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day, and the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do and if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time… but he loves you.
And he needs money.
Respectfully, the light is exceedingly dim in unbelief JMW, there is no reward for it. And BTW there is no such thing as a ‘sky God’, that’s not what Christ modeled, is not the truth, actually quite the opposite.
All the very best.
You seem to have a peculiar fixation on correcting our metaphor, “sky god.” It’s all “sky god,” no matter that you call it INDWELLING. That kind is not true either, and is all covered under the term “sky god.” Try not to forget this, we’re not literally confused that we are denying the wrong god, and if we understood your goofy INDWELLING INCHRISTED, whatever you call it, then we would actually understand you. You are coming in loud and clear — NUTTY. Your clarifications are unnecessary.
Eh, don’t waste your energy, Kodie. This one’s a certified wackaloon. Better to just smile, nod, and then run like hell before he gets it in his head to sacrifice you to his so-called “God”.
Yea, I almost referenced you when I wrote that comment Kodie, I knew you would get a kick out of it, or something. That’s a common misconception, ie ‘sky God’. Take care.
I usually avoid him now, so he doesn’t do his socially awkward thing like say “hey girl” that he doesn’t know is so creepy and condescending. I think he thinks we’re all pals with him. I don’t know why he can’t seem to understand that nobody literally cares *where* the god is, that he isn’t in the sky or in your heart or in your frying pan or your jar of vegemite. It’s just a freakin’ metaphor.
I think George Carlin’s light burned pretty bright for a good while. And there’s no reward in being an honest citizen who doesn’t rob banks but that doesn’t make it a good idea.
“And BTW there is no such thing as a ’sky God’,”
Agreed!
It’s not a common misconception. Repeat, not a misconception. It is a turn of phrase. Nobody is confused about it but you. It’s a pet peeve of yours, a neurosis, perhaps, which you’ve contorted into “a common misconception,” an actual need to correct people from believing it literally.
If we heard about anyone else who watch us every second everywhere we will label him a pervert and call the cops.
But you of all people on earth need watching Yoav! It’s common knowledge. Psst…He’s told me what you’ve been up to lately, let’s just say…your secret’s safe with me, shhh :)
I’m just messin’ with ya friend, all the very best.
DO NOT WANT.
I can haz restraining order?
I hate it most when you think you are witty.
Nothing worse than a wanna-be comedian.
What’s funny is that if God DID reveal some secret things to John about my life that no one else knows, then that would be some evidence in his favor. Which of course never happens unless it’s using standard cold reading techniques.
God knows the future, but he can’t even prove himself by telling people the past.
Looking for a ‘sign’ D? Ha j/k. How do you know he hasn’t already? Perhaps I’ve heard a number of things in my spirit about you, your journey?
There is no ‘end run’ around faith, around love, that’s the only way to the Father, he wants to be trusted, believed, known intimately. The cost? All.
I’m just wating for John to come out one day and say “Checkmate Atheists!” And then it will all make sense…
Either that or he truly thinks that his personal Sky God turned him into a blessed, scared Troll and was given the humble task of tending to all of us lost sheep. Personally, I would like to thank John for watching over our sheep-souls. Without a Troll to watch over the sheep, we know the Great Blobfish would swallow us whole and expel us into the deepist pit of the ocean for eternity.
A+ Carlin reference.
John C – Please try reading that out loud to someone else and seeing if that makes sense to them because. It seems like your translator isn’t picking up English correctly.
Back On Topic:
“Most atheists would probably claim that this just another nail in the coffin of the religion of Christianity. Personally I think the differences of definition tell us more about language, epistemology and human culture than about the existence or non existence of the Christian God.” That follows my logic but then you stop where I would keep going. Culture and religion change as does humanity which proves to me that there is nothing divine in nature about the ____________ religion.
WMDKitty, can you please explain your comment? I actually thought John C’s comment was the best one so far. Actually, the entire question was articulated in such a way as to encourage the types of comments I’ve read so far.
The problem is that the term “Christian” is a man-made term. Even the early followers of Jesus didn’t place a label on themselves. Instead, it was the people who didn’t understand what these people were talking about. If I remember correctly, I don’t recall God or Jesus labeling those who followed them. It was the “unbelievers” that did the labeling.
So if man came up with the term, then man can define the term. Of course as evidenced by the comments here so far, anything defined by man is considered “relative”. And as we all know, anything that’s “relative” is purely based on one (or more) person’s opinion/belief/experience.
That’s why I think John C’s explanation is the best so far, because he doesn’t try to define the term from man’s point of view. He is trying to define it from the Bible’s point of view. Now whether you believe in God, Jesus, or the Bible is not the issue here. The root of the term “Christian” is already associated with God, Jesus, and the Bible; therefore, naturally the definition would have to be based on that as well. But, I also have to say, since God or Jesus really didn’t “label” those who followed him, it will still be very difficult to accurately define it (if it can be done at all). The best that can be done is to take the term, and its preconceived roots, and try to come close.
I think John C’s attempt at that is pretty good.
Thanks for the kind words Quadj but be careful friend, any minor hint of agreement with me causes one to be instantly branded and banished! lol :)
Now now, John, you know that’s not true — you’re still allowed to post here, even though you never contribute anything meaningful beyond a WTF moment. Really, I’m assuming if Daniel didn’t find you, at the very least, amusing, you’d have been b& long ago!
You must be new here. Welcome!
Now, what, exactly, did you want me to clarify or explain?
Can you please explain the following comment:
“John, that must be some wicked LSD you’re on, if you believe that tripe.”
It just didn’t seem fair to brush off his comment without an objective, concrete reason why. Your comment just seemed more of an emotional opinion instead of something of substance that may enlighten all of those reading these comments.
We’ve been listening to John’s ramblings for a very long time. It’s always the same. :)
I do understand people who “flame” comment blogs. I’ve experienced that before on other sites that don’t have anything to with religion at all. However, I did read your biography (or “Journey”), and I got the impression that no matter what your belief is, you are always open to new bits of information that may help uncover the truth.
Now whether I agree with John C or not, his post was 1) relative to the topic, 2) contain information that could be researched if I so desired, 3) and tried to summarize into an answer to the original question. That to me would be important enough to “consider”. (What I mean by that, is think about it a little bit in relation to what you believe and see how it fits or if it’s something to dig around a little more on.) If you have an open mind, isn’t this what a person is supposed to do?
As for WMDKitty’s comment, with all do respect, I would classify it as a “flame” comment, because there really wasn’t anything to it at all. That is why I asked if he could explain his comment instead of just throwing it out there.
Do you agree or am I expecting too much?
That’s because the Truth is unchanging, is a constant thankfully.
If it was his first comment, I’d agree. But since there are about a thousand comments by John that all say pretty much that no matter what the question, I disagree in this instance. :)
I like John, but I don’t understand why he hasn’t learned how to communicate with non-believers about religion. We’ve tried repeatedly to explain why his comments only make us laugh, but he doesn’t get it.
At this point, he isn’t even trying to make his beliefs make sense. He’s content to play the “my gnosis is bigger than your gnosis” card.
@Quadj — I’m honestly not sure if John is ON drugs, desperately in NEED of drugs, or if his thoughts are just naturally that disjointed.
If he’s on drugs, he needs to quit.
If he needs drugs, he should take his damn pills. Yes, I know, some pills are fuckin’ HUGE and near impossible to choke down, but they’re really for the better.
If he’s just… that disconnected with reality, there’s nothing I can do beyond recommending that he see a mental health professional. (No, pastors, priests, and the like don’t count.)
He said once that he starved for an amount of time and then the hallucinations came and hasn’t been the same since. I believe he’s also said there is a family friend who wrote to him her (I think it was a she) concerns about his rowdy lifestyle before he came to believe his delusions, and she had them too, or at least encouraged him toward these thoughts, as formerly, he claims he wasn’t “InChristed” and was kind of a normal guy, the kind of person he now considers as too earthly because they are suppressing the light and love and knowledge and truth, ad nauseum.
@Kodie — Perhaps that fasting triggered a psychotic break?
Easy. John is a regular poster, and always posts the same god-babble bullshit. I learned while I was still lurking that:
a) It’s always the same old shit.
And:
b) John is certifiably bat-shit insane.
Kitty, I assure you that I am neither insane nor am I taking any (legal or illegal) drugs or medications of any sort.
But certifiable? Hmm…lol, warmest regards.
If you’re not on drugs, you SHOULD BE, because no SANE PERSON would actually believe (let alone spew forth) the inane babble that you do.
(And this comes from someone who IS medicated for psych issues.)
Yeah, it’s everyone else who is insane. You’re the only one who isn’t.
At least I can admit that I’m not exactly sane….
Kitty, I’m not buying it, actually, truthfully you are just fine, there is nothing wrong with you. I see you in truth, in beauty for the person you really are, can be, were intended to be. I think you’re really cool, candid, transparent as your heart shows (pain and all) in all your posts.
All that’s lacking is for you to ‘step into’ that (higher life and reality), ie that ‘truth’ Itself.
Yeah, John, the clinical depression will just magically go away if I accept JEEEZUSSS.
Been there. Tried that. Didn’t work.
But the meds? They DO work.
Preach it Kitty! Been on and off them bad-boys for ten years, and they work a treat.
No, that’s not the ‘good news’ Kitty, not what I was referring to-
John C – no one here is holding out for your help or advice as to their personality assessments and what they’re missing. Delusional people aren’t the most reliable counselors.
Okay, so what’s this “good news” you keep whinging about, then, if it isn’t all about JEEEZUSS?
Not that it matters, I’ve heard it ALL before — “Jesus will HEAL you, if you BELIEVE!” “If you have FAITH, blah blah blah.” Worse yet, the barely hidden whispers of disabilities and disorders being a “punishment from GHAWD” for some indefinable “sin” either on the part of my (adoptive) parents, or on my part (while in utero).
I may have to deal with clinical depression on a daily basis, I may not have a perfectly working body or brain, but I make the best of what I’ve got, instead of wishing and hoping a Magickal Sky-Pixie will take pity on me.
Quite frankly, I find that I’ve become happier and healthier by accepting myself as I am, instead of trying to live up to an impossible (and ridiculous) ideal. You might want to try it sometime, if you can even FIND reality.
Why don’t I get my thetans audited while I’m stepping into that ‘higher life’ and what not?
Kitty, there are no impossible standards for ‘you’ to have to live up to, that’s religion, performance based, its dead, lifeless, Christ did it all, him saying on the cross ‘it is finished’. But what (exactly) was ‘finished’? Us, our old nature’s and self-opposing selves that are responsible for all our problems and pain.
In fact, in truth (in Christ) ‘you’ have died (this is the liberating secret) and now your life is hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3) and now its no longer ‘Kitty’ that lives, but Christ is now living His (incorruptible, eternal kind and quality of) life through you (Gal 2:20) and so this is why Paul shares that Christ IN you is the ‘mystery of the ages’ (Col 1:27). Crazy huh? God live in you? Yes, its called oneness, union life and its beautiful, liberating, light, easy, originally intentioned and love drenched. Christ who IS our life (Col 3:4).
So this takes us back to how this whole thread started (at least our discussions) when I opened up saying ‘man is essentially a container of sorts for a certain kind and quality of life, either of the false and fallen (adamic) or real and risen (Christ) kind’. We get to choose.
So the remedy isn’t some 12 step ‘make Kitty all better’ scenario (‘you’ died remember, Romans 6:6) or some life long anesthetizing medication but rather a complete doing away with (a crucifixion) of that old life & self and a whole ‘new creation’ in Christ. You dead to yourself (your old identity, who you thought you were) and Christ alive in you (Him living is life through you, even as you) that’s the ‘real’ Kitty (and the real me, etc). Who would you be if you weren’t who you thought you were?
I see you in the light of truth, and you’re absolutely beautiful. All the best.
“We get to choose.”
But if you choose wrong you get punished severely in this world and the next. Hooray for a pro-choice god!
John, shut the fuck up, and keep your schizophrenic delusions to yourself.
I’ve already told you that, instead of being a miserable conformist sheep, I’d rather be myself. And I seriously cannot comprehend just why you see that as a bad thing. Why do you want to enslave others to your delusions? Perhaps because you know you’re delusional, and need us to confirm and reinforce your delusions, hmm?
I’ve heard some of your story, but you’ve never heard mine. Maybe there is a ‘reason’ for my hope, my faith? Maybe I’m not delusional, maybe I’m overjoyed, ecstatic, am like the man who JC says ‘found a treasure (Christ) hidden in his field (within himself) and goes and ‘sells all’ that he has in order to buy (inherit) that ‘field’ where the treasure lies’? Hmm…maybe Love knows you are hurting, in great pain and turmoil, longs to set you free from it all?
Maybe he is here right now Kitty? Maybe.
John, stop taking the brown acid, it’s not good for you.
Goodnight Kitty…
I could have sworn he was asking the ATHEISTS what our definition of christians were…is there something you want to confess John? C’mon…you know you wanna be an atheist!
:)
Christian to me is a person who believes in the divinity of Christ to the point where the feel their life must emulate him. Said Christian is also obligated to ‘save’ others in lieu of Christ doing it himself. A vessel for this triune god.
I missed the second part of the question:
I knew I was a Christian when I believed that Christ died for my sins and he was god. I never had a doubt about it. At the beginning. What started my deconversion was when I had questions about inconsistencies, I got unsatisfactory answers.
If this Christ fellow wants me to be “saved” he can damn well do it himself, instead of sending mere humans to do his work!
I agree. Learned it the hard way…after too many visits to too many people. What an ass I was…..
As far as I’m concerned, Christianity (and its kissing cousin, Islam) is all about control.
I’m in agreement with Daniel. Christians are those who describe themselves as Christian. Of course, these folks are distributed along a bell curve in relation to the common traditions, documents and communities. As such the outliers at some point may best be categorized as something else.
It’s tough to pin down something that has fractured into thousands of different groups. And personal motivation is not always straight forward. For instance, when I was in outside sales I knew agents who serial-joined churches in order to work the congregations deceptively.
A lot of these definitions exclude Arianism from any consideration of Christianity, but there was *so* much debate early in history about the subject from within the community we now think of as Christian, I don’t think that’s a very good distinction. I would say a Christian is one who defines as a Christian, and spends a good deal of time and energy figuring out what Christ means to them and lives a life under an interpretation of the importance of a Christ figure.
I don’t think specific doctrinal litmus tests are really required, even the “resurrection happened” style of litmus test, or whether “christ” had to be physical or mystical or *whatever.* I think self-definition plus a significant expenditure of time and energy on the subject and a purposeful patterning of one’s life after an understanding of Christ is sufficient to qualify as “Christian.”
I think this is what separates, for example, an Anglophile from an English person, a sense of what makes a person fanatical without the substance, a wannabe, a poser. I think it’s all well and kind to let people define themselves, but I think this is too much allowance. A furry is not a real wolf or tiger. I don’t think I’m pulling a “no true scotsman” here, I just think the term ought to be reserved for true belief. An art historian is not an artist. A guy wearing a jersey is not necessarily part of the team, even if football is his whole life.
Anyone who models themselves after someone else’s life or teachings may call themselves a disciple or something, I think disciple is accurate and doesn’t necessarily apply the belief in a supernatural event to the following or the teaching or philosophy or lifestyle.
You’re right that saying “I love football” doesn’t make you a football player. But it *does* serve as a perfectly acceptable definition of a football *fan*. For some people, Christianity just *is* discipleship under a certain paradigm. “Belief” in a literal, or even a figurative, interpretation of scripture may not be necessary to all kinds of Christianity. I rather like having a criteria that counts interest level or enthusiasm.
This seems to be a rather useless question, really because the definition of what it means to be a Christian is going to be defined by the person who believes they are a Christian. You pretty much already addressed that very issue in your post. When I was a Christian I knew why I was. Whereas if I turned to my left in church and asked the person sitting next to me why they believed they were a Christian there would be some variation. And on and on and on it goes.
Christian – One who suffers in various forms along a spectrum of severity from the Jesus delusion.
This spectrum includes a variety of strange activities that range from ‘casting demons out of VCR’s’ to forcing the attendees at a public school basketball banquet to bow their heads and pray to nothing. The victims of the Jesus delusion frequently dismiss scientific research unless it saves their lives and even then, there are some that will reject it on the basis that their deity must decide if they live or die. This Jesus deity is constantly present – including while they bathe and while they sit on the ‘crapper’. Most are certain that their delusion guards them from the gates of hell and that those who refuse to share their delusion will fry for eternity. Strangely, when these folks are in charge of a country or a government, history informs us, that all hell breaks loose.
I cannot speak as an atheist, because I am not one.
However the question posed is “What is the simplest core set of beliefs/actions you would have to believe/follow to give yourself the specific label Christian?”
I would have to go back to the origin of the word to see what it really means. In other words, when did people begin calling themselves (or others) “christian”.
According to Acts 11, the disciples (or followers of Jesus) were first called Christians by the people outside their faith. Plain and simple, it was a statement of fact. These followers of Jesus spoke like, acted like, taught like… Christ. They were “Christ-like”, hence the name Christian.
I think for someone to be a Christian, they should sound like, look like, be like Jesus, in such a way that they can forgive as He did. They can love as He did. They can teach as He did. etc. You get the picture.
For someone to call themselves a “Christian”, I think it is presumptuous.
I think it hinges on the interplay between self-definition and community-definition, which can be applied to who you are at all, not just who you are religiously. There’s your idea of yourself and others’ ideas of you, which all influence each other constantly.
Sometimes one perspective is obviously advantaged over another, but even then, enough disagreement can cause it to crumble. For instance, if I believe I’m a boy, but my family, my friends, and my doctor all swear I’m a girl, then what am I? Everybody involved is forced to redefine or reevaluate somehow.
On that basis, I’d say a Christian is anyone who:
A) identifies as such
B) is identified as such by others.
Do the others have to be Christian? I think it lends a slightly stronger basis to the argument, but it’s not necessary. But if either of these fail, then it shouldn’t count. In other words, if my church calls me a Christian and I don’t call myself one, then I shouldn’t be considered a Christian. Likewise, if I call myself a Christian, but NOBODY else thinks I qualify, then I shouldn’t.
The question may arise as to how many others have to concur, but that’s too quantitative for this comment. :)
I think I would be a Christian if I accepted the following as true, not false: Jesus Christ existed, 100% no doubt. He was the son of God. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. The bible is divinely inspired.
However, since the first references of Jesus Christ were written decades after he died, I find the idea that the man Jesus Christ existed a debatable reality. He may well be a conglomerate of prophets wandering at that time.
I also do not believe, even if he existed, that he was the divine son of a virgin. That particular mythological arch is too common, too well-known. It was recounted long before any conception of Jesus came on the seen, in Egyptian mythology and other cultures. The simplest and most likely explanation is that he happened to be the monotheist deity that caught fire.
But the thing that precipitated my defection from Christianity and all religion, the original thing that made me even question the existence and circumstances of Jesus Christ — that’s the bible.
The God I was taught about was loving, generous and kind. He accepted us, faults and all. He loved us. But the bible shows not only an inconsistent, unkind deity, it’s also rife with political motivations. Even the most cursory glance at the history of the bible shows that, as a religious document, it is suspect.
Translated from language to language to language (and I’m just talking about the original ones, up to the first English translation), losing something essential in each translation? An accurate translation is one of the hardest things things to achieve, there’s always little nuances and tidbits lost from the original document. Furthermore, it’s well known that the bible came of age, so to speak, during massive religious upheaval in England and Europe. Of course the translators, those silent nameless monks and the kings and popes who directed their work, would slip in their political and religious beliefs.
Even if they didn’t intend to, even if they worked with the best of intentions (which is a lot to assume every time, given the number of translations there have been), their beliefs would edge subconsciously into the work with their choice of words.
A simple example. In French, pomme de terre translations (literally) as apple of the earth. It is not, as we know, an apple, though. Pomme de terre is French for potato. But if you didn’t know that, you might be confused to read pomme de terre — what is an apple of the earth? What does that look like? Is it like other apples, but grows on a bush, or like little squash out of the ground?
I’ve been told the bible is divinely inspired, and God guided their hands and the translations. But if this is true, and it’s solely God’s work, why are each of the voices different? Why does Mark sound so different from Luke? To which I am informed, well, God wouldn’t take away their personality. They still had free will, they still had their own voices.
I hear that argument, and for half a second, it almost makes sense. Then the obvious realization comes: If they still had free will and their own voices, then they could still alter God’s Divine Word, whether consciously or subconsciously.
To be the divine word of god, the bible must be consistent in voice, tone and message. It is not. Furthermore, it’s patriarchal and repressive, a tool that has been used throughout the centuries to subjugate those who threaten or do not fit the current religious mold.
“The simplest and most likely explanation is that he happened to be the monotheist deity that caught fire.”
Even if there is three of him.
–With a pantheon.
With at least four major deities (God, Jesus, the “Holy Ghost”, and Satan), then you have the lesser gods and goddesses (Mary, the saints…), and a whole host of messenger spirits (angels).
Yeah… that’s monotheistic…. *rolleyes*
Lana, if you haven’t read it yet, I would recommend Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, about how the Bible is most definitely a human document. Here’s a choice quote (emphasis mine):
Barry I do have a question for you. Someone might have asked this already but I really don’t want to read all 70 comments answering your question. Is the God you worship the same God that those of Islam worship? I know that both yours and the Islamics holy books are based on the OT God. The Islamic claim that your holy book has been corrupted and that is why their religion came about. That is the basically what I understand as the reason that the the angels spoke to Muhammad. If s/he is the same God why is it so important to make sure that s/he is seen as a different God?
I’m not Barry, but I’ll take a stab at it from an insider perspective.
They are the “same” god insofar as both religions would say that there is only one ultimate reality/being to which the cosmos, including humans, owes its own existence. Members of both faiths call that reality/being “God.” Not all Christians and Muslims would agree with this, but it’s factually true: both are worshiping the God of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Obviously, a majority (I think) of Christians and Muslims would argue that the other is not worshiping the true god but rather a false God. That’s because Christians worship Jesus as God, which Muslims reject.
I wouldn’t use the word “based,” I don’t think. Christianity is based on Jesus. The OT is viewed as a precursor to him. Jesus is the reason that both Christians and Muslims feel the need to differentiate (as well as the subsequent doctrine of the Trinity).
From my viewpoint, a Christian is someone who believes Christ was a supernatural sacrifice, and who thinks that sacrifice is somehow useful in their existence, either on a daily or long-term basis. The Bible is used by believers as a lens to interpret the world in light of that idea; how they grind that lens determines where they end up on the theological spectrum.
I am very much in agreement with Bill and Siamang’s approach on this question.
We don’t need a definition of Christianity to establish “clear battle lines” in the theist – atheist debates. Christians have trouble defining the essence of Christianity because Christians have to believe in something that is not there, but have to pretend is. The Bible is an edited attempt at explaining history & existence with magic, hope & force. Different Christians balance reality with these constructions in different ways, and that will always muddy the definition of “Christian”.
I don’t have to define what a Christian is, since there is already a definition: the Nicene Creed. You believe that, you’re a Christian.
What about before that existed? Could anyone be a Christian before they created the Nicene Creed?
I am a Christian. Now I am not a Christian. Now I am. Now I am not. Now I am. Now I am not. Now I am …..
Look Bart, now I’m in America. Australia, America, Australia, America!
I’m on the East Bank. I’m on the West Bank! East Bank, West Bank.
…sorry, but I couldn’t resist the “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” reference.
“This is not that critical!”
As operative definition, I use “someone that believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.
Used that just a few hours ago.
Most of the people I happen to speak with are largely confused on whether they are Christians or not: I find it largely positive, it means that they don’t use it as identity and think for themselves.
When I ask “do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?” the overwhelming majority tells me ‘yes’, which always catches me by surprise, because they never tell me without hesitation “yes I am religious” or “yes I am a Christian”.
I really like that they don’t put labels on themselves, but then again this is Greece not US, most people are religious more for a matter of tradition that faith or politics, and even agree with me when I tell them so.
I am inclined to think that they answer “yes” very swiftly to the idea of belief in the resurrection of Jesus because much of Christianity pushes it as so incredibly important for salvation. Don’t believe that part and you’re fried. As I deconverted, I found it the hardest part to let go of, because it had been drilled in so deep that this one belief was my ticket home.
I’m not sure if this falls within the scope of the discussion, but can one be “culturally Christian” in the same sense that one can be “culturally Jewish” without necessarily being a devout, observant Jew? Such Jews are still considered Jews, no? I’m a nonbeliever, but I suppose I’m “culturally Christian” in that I was raised in a Catholic country, am familiar with the various Catholic rites, know a lot about the Gospels, recognize Biblical references in art and literature, get together with my family for Christmas, etc. Is there anyone who would consider me Christian, just by virtue of my upbringing?
I certainly don’t agree with those who would proclaim that the US is a “Christian nation” politically or Constitutionally, but is it a useful shorthand when talking about the (or a) predominant culture, the same way we talk about “Muslim countries”?
I think it’s absolutely possible from a sociological perspective, and I think that especially in America, there are loads of culturally Christians of the Evangelical stripe. Civil Religion is the proper term here.
But, I think there’s a very significant difference between cultural Christians and culture Jews: Christians do not share an ethnic history. We are (mostly) Gentiles from different countries, ethnicities, cultures, etc. We are connected only via our religion. OTOH, Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people, an ethnic group. Whether or not they share religious beliefs, they share an ethnic heritage.
In the same way, I am an American, as is Daniel Florien. We don’t have to share any religious beliefs in order to both be Americans.
I’m with Lana. I happen to think it’s ridiculous to take the ONLY “evidence” there is about Jesus seriously in the bible and then play pick and choose what else you want to believe.
Well, like Daniel and many nonbelievers, I was one. So I can answer from experience.
It’s not a trick, but it’s not a thought experiment, either. It stopped being that decades ago. Been through it already.
I certainly wasn’t the “occasional church attendee”. The church of christ had a service Sunday morning, a service Sunday evening, and another on Wednesday evenings. I went to all three. I think there is a tie-in there to the UF articles “3 Ways Christianity Prolongs Immaturity” and especially “How Christianity Suppresses Reason”. Stick with those who believe the same as you do*; get it reinforced all the time to hammer out the natural function of doubt, the mentally healthy awareness that you don’t know for certain; be somewhat isolated from those who would challenge your beliefs, either with insane rants or with implacable calm and reason.
“Deism” might have described my leanings before I converted as a teen, and my leanings after I couldn’t stand it any more. But the church constant “programming” grated on my natural leanings toward learning, questioning, being uncertain, thinking any deity would be a healthy force in the universe, not a control freak, and a feeling of having natural, innate ethics.
And during those three years? You mean besides the thrice-weekly church attendance and the constant programming and emotional “revival” of something that didn’t come naturally or it wouldn’t need constant revival and reinforcement? Horrible views of what human nature must be naturally like, with innate worthlessness rather than innate worth and ethics; horrible views of what correction and punishment had to whip it in line; nasty, rigid gender roles; a stunting of any maturation and flowering of humanity. The usual: punitive hell (forever, bwaaahahahaha!); heaven for the people who stayed whipped into line; the whole Jesus dying to set God’s fuck-ups straight, and both sky-daddy and zombie sky-son right there in your bathroom and bedroom, peeking into and micromanaging every aspect of your life. (Because God couldn’t make people in his own image, presumably an image that would learn how run its own life ethically.)
*Clearly it wasn’t a natural or healthy belief for me at all. (Probably not for anyone else, either.)
Uh, just look at John C. It’s clearly not healthy!
Actually, I’m perfectly healthy, mind, body and spirit. Am whole/complete in Christ. Love (God) has that effect on us ya know Kitty (if we’ll let Him) love’s us back to (spiritual) health and wholeness and Love love’s you more than you know (did ya get that? ha). All the best.
In what parallel universe are delusions of persecution, grandiosity, and a personal “god” considered “healthy”? Certainly not here in REALITY….
I don’t think the therm “Christian” has any meaning to an atheist. He is either religious or not.
And then some subgroups mostly split into Islam and the rest. Catholicm, Christian for me sounds all the same. For many years I actually thought it was the same.
And the funny thing is that I never thought Americas to be Religious. I mean they went to the moon how could they be religious?
But then the Dover and the ID people came in the news and podcasts I listened to and it was realy amazing that Americans actually believed. Even worse, that they actually believed in stuff like Satan and Hell… Very very wierd for me.
Olaf, the wingnuts aren’t in the majority, thankfully. They’re just the loudest and most obnoxious, and they embarrass us to no end.
“Most atheists would probably claim that this just another nail in the coffin of the religion of Christianity. Personally I think the differences of definition tell us more about language, epistemology and human culture than about the existence or non existence of the Christian God. ”
Generally, the point atheists make here is that if the Christian god really was communicating with his followers, then at least the sincerely faithful ones should all come to a consensus on what he wants them to do. The fact is that sincerely faithful and humble people come to a wide range of viewpoints on the same issues. Which would hint that they are going off their own personal opinions rather than all communing with the same source.
Unless that source were to have multiple personality disorder, which I suppose could happen if you’re three persons in one.
Christ is a figure, a character, with, at the very least, a common identity among Christians. My admittedly recursive estimation of a Christian would be one who follows the teachings they are aware of from, or attempts emulation of the properties they recognize in the character of Christ.
I am answering this before reading any of the other comments.
I’ve studied enough about the Bible, the history of it and the Christian movement that my answer might be different than some others.
There isn’t a church or sect of Christianity that I would look to for authority on this subject. I would read the works in the various New Testaments, the many books left out of the Bible and turn to modern scholars for dates and information that might help enlighten me on those and other books regarding Jesus. I would decide for myself what constitutes the closest thing to the truth and that would become the center for what books to accept and what practices to follow. (This might or might not include acceptance of the Old Testament and other books of the Jewish faith.)
That would in my eyes make me a Christian. And just for the record, if someone says they are Christian, and follow one of the many sects of the religion, I generally accept their word on it.
For what it’s worth, atheism isn’t all that clear cut in practice either. What kind of atheist are you? Do you like to antagonise or accomodate? Do you feel that there’s an atheist movement or that we should all go our own way? Should we herd cats or let them roam free? The OP kind of acknowledges this but goes on to suggest that the hair-splitting about religion is qualitatively different. I’m not sure I buy that.
People disbelieve in gods in different ways and for different reasons, don’t they?
The difference is that atheism has a very simple definition whereas religions do not. So whether you wish to antagonise or accommodate has no bearing on whether you’re a true atheist ™ or not. Major religions just don’t have this simplicity. A more appropriate comparison can be made with politics … what is a socialist, a conservative or a liberal democrat? These terms, like religion, do not have clear definitions of what it means to be a something. This is where the confusion lies.
I’d argue that hair-splitting about religion is quite different. Religion is a quality you hold, atheism is to not have such a quality. That’s simplistic, sure, but atheism isn’t really a collective in the manner Christianity is, nor is it a practice (unless someone chooses to make it so in their own life, but it’s not inherent). We do talk about the atheist community, and atheists often share certain beliefs, but those aren’t necessary. In terms of Christianity, or any other religion, there’s a specific something you have to adhere to (what that might be is rather complex, hence this whole topic), but if you don’t adhere to any of these things, don’t think of any deity as real or any religious creed as necessary, then you’re just not in any of those groups. Atheism itself does not have to be a group.
People do disbelieve in gods in different ways and for different reasons, absolutely, but I would argue that there’s no need to try to combine these people under one banner and then figure out what that banner might be. It’s a question that isn’t necessary. Pinning down what a Christian is would be important as a base for a debate, but we know all we need to about what ‘an atheist’ is from the word itself. Sheep do need to be herded, cats don’t, so why bother trying?
My definition of what I would accept as a Christian (before and after deconversion) would be pretty simple.
Someone must first define themselves as Christian. Furthermore, that person must consider Yaweh to be some sort of deity that they should “be on good terms with”. And finally, they believe that a historical figure who we call Jesus is the conduit through which they can “be on good terms” with Yaweh.
Of course, what it means to “be on good terms with” and how exactly Jesus serves as the conduit could vary wildly from person to person. My view of Christians excludes people who like the sermon on the mount, and therefore think that Jesus was a good moral philosopher, but don’t take him to be divine. I also exclude people who think he was “merely” a prophet and not a conduit to Yaweh.
I’m a bit fuzzy on people who believe that Christ is ONE conduit of many to god. At the very least, to be called a Christian, they should at least prefer using Christ as the conduit over alternatives. On the other hand, if they think Islam is also a way for salvation (or any other non-Christ centered religion for that matter), I’m not sure whether or not I would call them a Christian. This is a gray area for me.
Hi – kinda new here. Lurker. Part-time atheist.
Yes, a Christian is anyone who says they are. Believe them all, let God sort ‘em out.
“True Christian”® is a fudge that allows Christians to distance themselves from other Christians who embarrass the brand.
What amazes me are Christians who, without skipping a beat, list requirements like virgin birth, diety of Christ, divine inspiration of the Bible, literalism, inerrancy, etc., as if these characteristics were written by a big holy finger on marble tablets the day after Jesus died.
In fact, they were bought and paid for by Lyman Stewart, one of the founders of Standard Oil, which probably explains why many conservo-evangelical Christians favor oil companies and big business in general. Stewart commissioned the writing of the Fundamentals, which conservo-evangelicals Christians bought off the rack and have sold at half price ever since.
Bullwinkle is a d…
I once was a Christian, and I defined it (and still define it as) simply a belief that “Jesus died on the cross for my sins and is my savior and I should try to be more Christ-like”. It drove me nuts when other Christians said that Christians who:
*didn’t go to church,
*believed that homosexuality wasn’t a sin (like myself),
*voted for Obama,
*were pro-choice, and/or
*were any number of things that they didn’t believe
weren’t “true Christians”, because in my mind those were just side issues that were of personal choice and didn’t affect the person’s “salvation”. Really, in my mind, one couldn’t tell for sure if someone else was a Christian. However, I was willing to give someone who said that they believed the basic tenant (Jesus on the cross as savior) the benefit of the doubt, and say that they were Christians.
To me, it seemed as if everyone was just saying something different was a “true Christian”, and was calling other Christians non-Christians. It seemed counterproductive and divisive – one of the problems I see with Christianity, and only one of a bunch of reasons I no longer consider myself one.
And, that’s my Agnostic two cents.
I think a Christian is anyone who sincerely believes themselves to be one. Self-definition.