What is a Christian? (inspired by "Is a Christian Required to Abandon Science?")

[B.S. Lewis]

I've become increasingly convinced that a person can rightfully call himself a Christian without believing in God at all, or believing in a deistic God at most. And I don't feel it's stretching things, in fact I think it's just as justified as any common use of the term Christian.

Most Christians are de facto deists. They adhere to a certain moral code because it describes a society they think they would like to live in. They believe in a spirit realm and the literal truth of the Bible only because they don't think about it deeply. Some may not think about it deeply because they're not cognitively well-endowed (and therefore aren't capable), but the vast majority don't think about it because they just don't care. They keep God in their back pocket maybe, as an authority to appeal to if their moral vision of society is too severely challenged; but on a day-to-day basis they don't care about him. They certainly don't pray, unless they're in trouble or want something really bad; and even then they don't put much faith in it, they still try to get the job done by themselves. I mean, some people choose to play the lottery, but they're not stupid--they still go to work.

I really think Fundamentalists are an abberation: they are the handful of people who are of normal intelligence, who do think deeply about the dogma, and who still choose to believe it all. But you have to admit, people who do all three of those are rare.

Demographically and historically speaking, all of us in America and Europe are Christians. So I think a "Christian" is just someone who embraces and retains some part of that heritage (especially if it is also a strong family heritage--as in my family). It's not uncommon for people from other cultures to come to America and stop practicing their religions altogether, but still identify themselves as Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/etc without hesitation. We don't think these people are disingenuous. Why would we think Christians who do the same thing, are?

You can post your jokes, but hopefully I'll get some serious responses from atheists and theists alike...

[Alexander Pink]

I think a Christian is someone who accepts that Jesus Christ is their lord and saviour, and that he died for their sins. The resurrection seems to be at the heart of what it means to be christian and what it takes to get into heaven.

[911]

Even Christians as someone said in a post in these here forums; Christians themselves admit to having different levels of faith.

They say things like: "Your faith is not strong enough, you cannot or must not do this or that."

They also generally think that their "clergy" (correctly or otherwise) has stronger faith.

I met an Irish (I can't really remember) once and he was like: "I am Catholic but... "

So there're levels of Christian Faith.

The other is: Those theologians type can debate all they want about what this part of Bible means and what that part of bible means; as for me, I am a Christian that's all. I do not want to be involved in all that controversy.

I am a Christian if:
I go to church (well at least if I still think going to church is a good idea even if I have stopped going)

I pray to God (well at least if I still think praying to God is a good idea even if I don't anymore)

I read the Bible (well at least if I still think reading the Bible is a good idea even if I don't anymore)

So there are what Christians themselves term as nominal Christians but Christians nonetheless. We then have a continuum.

Some people still refer to western countries as Christian countries.

I would say that while it might be true to call some Arabian countries Muslim nations; to call some of those heathen western nations as Christian is a laugh.

This holds true for all religious believers and not just Christians.

[Barbarian]

I think a Christian is someone who accepts that Jesus Christ is their lord and saviour, and that he died for their sins. The resurrection seems to be at the heart of what it means to be christian and what it takes to get into heaven.
By that, you exclude Rationalist Unitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian) from Christianity, because they do not accept Jesus as their lord and saviour:
God is one being Who consists of one person—the Father. Jesus is not the Son of God, but merely a "good and wise man" who taught others how to lead a better life.
<snip>
[Rationalist Unitarians] took a highly intellectual approach to religion, rejecting most of the miraculous events in the Bible (including the virgin birth.)

[Alexander Pink]

By that, you exclude Rationalist Unitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian) from Christianity, because they do not accept Jesus as their lord and saviour:

indeed I do, I don't think it appropriate that anyone can just claim to be a xtian in particular, it seems pretty evident that the resurrection is at the heart of the religion. Multiple points in the bible point this out as the way into heaven.

[Barbarian]

indeed I do, I don't think it appropriate that anyone can just claim to be a xtian in particular, it seems pretty evident that the resurrection is at the heart of the religion. Multiple points in the bible point this out as the way into heaven.
Well, okay, they are indeed a bit off the map with their insistence on naturalism trumping traditions of miracles and all that. I should have chosen a less exotic example. You are also right about the fact that you cannot stop some random guy from claiming to be a Christian, no matter what he believes - even I could claim I am a Christian, being sure there are no gods whatsoever, and touting that as my particular Christian belief, and all you could do is point out that our interpretations differ, and my claiming to be a Christian does not allow anyone to extrapolate from me to you.

But, I still have a question. Allegedly, Christianity has produced more than 33.000 sects during its history; I doubt that number, it seems too high to me, but if there were only ten sects, or even two, that would already mean someone thinks he is a Christian without actually being one. How do you know it is not you who does this?

[Neverhuman]

A christian is an insane person.

[911]

A christian is an insane person.

Christians > Let's see 2 billion plus

You > 1

hmmm insane = abnormal

abnormal = depart from the norm

hmmmm,,,,,,, :cool:

[Barbarian]

Christians > Let's see 2 billion plus

You > 1

hmmm insane = abnormal

abnormal = depart from the norm

hmmmm,,,,,,, :cool:
We need a word for illnesses caused by meme-infections, but it must be something else than 'insane'. I, for one, do not think Christians are insane.

But, insane does not equal abnormal either. It just so happens that insane people are usually a minority and henceforth abnormal. If everyone, or just 2 billion people started believing they are Napoleon or Julius Caesar, would that make such delusions normal? I do not think so. They would be insane, all of them.

[911]

We need a word for illnesses caused by meme-infections, but it must be something else than 'insane'. I, for one, do not think Christians are insane.

But, insane does not equal abnormal either. It just so happens that insane people are usually a minority and henceforth abnormal. If everyone, or just 2 billion people started believing they are Napoleon or Julius Caesar, would that make such delusions normal? I do not think so. They would be insane, all of them.

The word you are looking for - could it be "Religious?" Certainly in these here forums "Religious" = "something close to insanity" even if "religious" does not have that connotation outside these forums. :rolling:

[Barbarian]

The word you are looking for - could it be "Religious?" Certainly in these here forums "Religious" = "something close to insanity" even if "religious" does not have that connotation outside these forums. :rolling:
No, "Religious" is not the correct word either. It would need to include believers in astrology, tarot etc. as well. "Superstitious" comes closer, but still ...

[John A. Broussard]

If everyone, or just 2 billion people started believing they are Napoleon or Julius Caesar, would that make such delusions normal? I do not think so. They would be insane, all of them.
It's very difficult to disabuse some people from adhering to the ad populum fallacy. I've heard Christians say, substantially, "There are so many of us who believe in Christ, that Christ must have existed."

I know that, to a rational human being, such an argument sounds insane, but it's a common one used by people who are basically irrational.

So, to answer your question, "If everyone, or just 2 billion people started believing they are Napoleon or Julius Caesar, would that make such delusions normal?" for those who believe that numbers make a difference, the answer is "yes."

[Barefoot Bree]

This is more GRDish than EoGish. Off you go.

[John A. Broussard]

No, "Religious" is not the correct word either. It would need to include believers in astrology, tarot etc. as well. "Superstitious" comes closer, but still ...
Somewhere, some wise-headed individual said, "Superstition is other people's religion."

[Barbarian]

Somewhere, some wise-headed individual said, "Superstition is other people's religion."
Does this apply to those for whom all religions are other people's religions?

[B.S. Lewis]

By that, you exclude Rationalist Unitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian) from Christianity, because they do not accept Jesus as their lord and saviour:

Wow, that's an excellent point...if I had thought about it a little more, I could have shortened my whole post to, "Can Unitarians/Universalists rightfully call themselves Christians? I say yes." :)

[B.S. Lewis]

If everyone, or just 2 billion people started believing they are Napoleon or Julius Caesar, would that make such delusions normal? I do not think so. They would be insane, all of them.

If there was a massive event like that, then we would have to start measuring insanity by departure from the historical norm, rather than the current one. Nonetheless, he's right, insanity can only be measured by departure from some norm.

[Barbarian]

If there was a massive event like that, then we would have to start measuring insanity by departure from the historical norm, rather than the current one.
"How do you know they did not think back then that they were all clones of Julius Caesar? Were you there?"

(Descended with modifications from actual creationist argument often thrown at unsuspecting people.)

[John A. Broussard]

Wow, that's an excellent point...if I had thought about it a little more, I could have shortened my whole post to, "Can Unitarians/Universalists rightfully call themselves Christians? I say yes." :)
OK. I'll go for broke.

I believe that many of the statements ascribed to Christ (who may or may not have existed) have positive moral value.

Does that make me a Christian?

[luminous]

The label "Christian" has been stretched so far it has become practically meaningless.

I know "Christians" in Romania who've never read one book of the Bible, have gone to church only as kids taken by their parents, and who only believe in a vague idea of god. People who, if pressed, would have to admit that they don't hold any of the basic tenets of Christianity. They consider themselves Christian because they've been baptised as kids and they're family tradition is Christian.

I also remember a couple of co-workers who said they were Catholic. It turned out that they were "Catholic until they graduate highschool" because they didn't want to piss off their mom.

So whenever I'm asked what my belief is, I say Christian Baptist. Because frankly, "Christian" doesn't mean anything anymore. At least not to me.

But, I still have a question. Allegedly, Christianity has produced more than 33.000 sects during its history; I doubt that number, it seems too high to me, but if there were only ten sects, or even two, that would already mean someone thinks he is a Christian without actually being one. How do you know it is not you who does this? I don't agree with your conclusion. For example, there are evolutionary scientists who hold differing views on evolutionary theory and it's mechanisms. Are some of them not evolutionists?

Let's say I interpret Jesus' words that "if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you" (Matthew 5:30) literally, and someone else that holds exactly the same beliefs as me in all other areas interprets the passage in a non-literal way. Is one of us a Christian and the other not? Holding differring opinions within a belief system doesn't necesseraly mean that one is a real ________ and the other is not. It can be debated which beliefs or non-beliefs disqualifies someone from being a "Christian", but just because people claiming to be Christians hold differing views in certain areas or are in different "sects" doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one sect of "real" Christians.

[Jobar]

Barbarian, I have used the word 'deluded'. What you want is a word that means 'deluded by a bad meme', I think.

BS, this is not a common discussion, but we've touched on it before. I Am A Christian (Merged with 'Christian Atheists') (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=91730)
Let me repeat something I told Anitra in that thread:
I once read this little book called Zen Without Zen Masters. In it, there was a short tale, whose point I paraphrase here-

If we want there to be whatamores, there will be. But are we sure we want them?

Appropriately Zen-y, huh? I take it to mean- one of its meanings, anyway- that our languages are infinitely flexible. If we choose to make up a word, and apply that word to some (concrete or abstract) concept, then that word will represent that concept for us. If we regularly use that word for that concept, and can get others to use it, then in a way of speaking (;)), that word becomes that concept.

This whole tempest-in-a-teapot is caused because we have multiple people attempting to apply multiple meanings to a single word. For each individual, the meaning of the word is the meaning they give it, however unique or ideosyncratic that meaning may seem to others.

But! We can't all have completely unique and ideosyncratic meanings for every word; if we do, then words become useless for communication. There must be consensus for words to fulfill their primary function of conveying mutually comprehensible meanings.

Meanings can change over time, gain new connotations and denotations. Obviously, Anitra is attempting to bring about an expansion of the denotation of 'Christian' from the standard dictionary definition; according to my 1987 New Lexicon Websters, "the religion of those who accept Jesus Christ as God incarnate, are guided by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the fellowship of the Christian Church." At present, Mr. Webster denies the possibility of atheist Christians; of course I realize that dictionaries don't contain all meanings.

I come from a long line of Southern Baptists and Methodists. My parents are pillars of their church, and my maternal grandfather was a hardshell Baptist lay preacher. Anitra, I have little doubt that none of them would call someone with your beliefs a Christian. I would hazard a guess that 80% or better of church-going believers, reading the long threads here, would not accept you as a sister in Christ. (A guess, I repeat!) So it seems to me you shouldn't concern yourself with the fact that many unbelievers don't accept your self-identification; remember, most of us would be delighted to see your beliefs (and, more to the point, the lack thereof!) become part of mainstream Christianity. I'd expect that even Biff and Yahzi would be ecstatic if the beliefs you describe gained popularity, especially here in the US. Still, I am saddened to state that right now you and anyone with similar beliefs are a *very* small fringe; growing I hope!

Speaking for myself, even though I'm the descendant of hundreds of generations of Christians, there's no way I'd ever identify as a Christian, even as a 'cultural Christian'. I'm simply too aware of the holy horrors that shamble, shrieking and gibbering, down the corridors of history. But that doesn't mean that I'd oppose any movement to inject this outlook into mainstream Christianity. I'd view that as a possible mutation which might change a powerful and deadly memetic virus into something more benign.

We unbelievers aren't really your problem, here. It's the ones like Alexander Pink who will likely deny any right you have to call yourself Christian.

[southernhybrid]

I agree with the OP. Only conservative varieties of Xians believe in the personal transformation that ocurs by accepting Jesus as Lord, so that is a very limiting definition. There are countless varieites that have very different beliefs.

I also would not have a problem calling myself a cultural Xian if I was fond of Xian culture, but I'm not so I don't. The fact that some Xian groups have taken part in holy wars is irrelevant. I believe that many groups of Americans, including many in the current administration have done horrific things, but I still call myself an American. Xian and American are both identifying labels that mean many different things. Some are positive for humanity and some are not. If I say I'm an American, some will think I'm a person who loves freedom, is generous and cares about the well being of others. Others will think of a materialistic, narrow minded person that loves war. All of these attributes have evidence to support them. Why should Xians be judged by one set of narrow principles, when they have proven to be a very diverse group?
( Don't get all anal on me and say that an American is simply a citizen of the US of America. )

I think that men as despicable as Jerry Falwell and as admirable as Bishop Spong are both entitled to use the Xian label, although one is a Bible literalist and the other holds a very liberal interpretation of the Bible, hardly believing it was ever to be taken as absolute truth. Xianity has become too large, and to diverse to judge it on its negative impact alone.

[Barbarian]

I know "Christians" in Romania who've never read one book of the Bible, have gone to church only as kids taken by their parents, and who only believe in a vague idea of god. People who, if pressed, would have to admit that they don't hold any of the basic tenets of Christianity. They consider themselves Christian because they've been baptised as kids and they're family tradition is Christian.
Although living now in Hungary, I also come from Romania, and lived since in a number of Central European Countries (Czech Rep., Poland, Bulgaria ...) for shorter or longer periods. The phenomenon you describe is apparent in every one of these countries, and is responsible for the obviously inflated numbers of religious people as shown in statistics.
I don't agree with your conclusion. For example, there are evolutionary scientists who hold differing views on evolutionary theory and it's mechanisms. Are some of them not evolutionists?
We cannot tell, because there is no authority to tell, and being an evolutionary biologist is not something objective, like being a frog or a chemtrail. Popular vote would come close but would be uselessly split for borderline cases. Evolutionary biologists do not need to be right about disputed details of evolution to be voted in as such. They can be wrong on details.

For Christianity, this is not the case. The rules leading to salvation were handed down from an absolute source and today anyone misleading people about them is not a Christian but a tool of Satan, leading others into damnation. Consequently, only those Christians who are right about the salvation rules are true Christians.

These rules must be clearly stated. The rule is either that something has to be believed in some way, or that it is unimportant. Conflicting beliefs can't be true, only immaterial, and that in the best case only. You presumably don't assume that hell is both inexistent and a place of torment: only one can be right, or neither but a third variant (potentially including the immateriality of belief about hell), and those believing otherwise are wrong and in danger of damnation unless they mend their ways. The same applies to salvation by faith, by works, by both or by neither but God's grace and the whole heap of soteriology.

The issue, therefore, is the following: if we define Christianity to include many people, we must cut back on the number of rules of salvation dramatically. Trinity, God-nature of Jesus etc. most likely go out for not being common. In addition, as we enlarge the scope of Christianity, the immaterial rules become sins because they are not just simply non-pervasive but actually conflicting with the remaining rules - I cannot really see how the commandment to pray in secret and not to judge anyone can be reconciled with a Christianity consisting of more than, say, 50 people. On the other hand, if we allow a lot of rules to be valid, then True Christianity shrinks and lots of people who think they are True Christians are left out; and you may be one of them.
Let's say I interpret Jesus' words that "if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you" (Matthew 5:30) literally, and someone else that holds exactly the same beliefs as me in all other areas interprets the passage in a non-literal way. Is one of us a Christian and the other not? Holding differring opinions within a belief system doesn't necesseraly mean that one is a real ________ and the other is not. It can be debated which beliefs or non-beliefs disqualifies someone from being a "Christian", but just because people claiming to be Christians hold differing views in certain areas or are in different "sects" doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one sect of "real" Christians.
This would be true if Christianity was a man-made philosophy. As it denies being such, claiming instead to be handed down either once or continuously from god, this is not right. The restricted version: some people are - by accident of birth - believing the correct version, the others go to hell. The enlarged version: almost everyone goes to heaven, except those who hurt other people for not conforming to their extra, made-up rules.

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, I have used the word 'deluded'. What you want is a word that means 'deluded by a bad meme', I think.
I am having a hard time with the appropriate word. I used the term 'meme-infection' for it in the past but it is just not expressive enough.

I would hesitate using the word 'delusion' because I cannot come up with a good definition of it, and it also has bad connotations, If either one of these issues would go away, I would use it.

Also, I think that the fact that said meme prevents the infected person from realizing he is infected is more important than being deluded, because if we define 'deluded' as believing in something that is not true, then all of us are deluded in this or that way about something. For this reason I consider the self-defense mechanisms of the religion meme to be a better indicator of something wrong going on. As an example, I believe if I ever was a practicing Christian, hearing the line about 'god sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself and save us from himself' would have been enough to deconvert me, and I am astonished how anyone can continue being a Christian after encountering it. Most likely, judged from experience, this belief of mine is wrong, the meme prevents Christians from thinking about these issues too much and IMHO that is what is wrong with them, not the part about believing in the resurrection or immaculate conception.

[B.S. Lewis]

I agree with the OP. Only conservative varieties of Xians believe in the personal transformation that ocurs by accepting Jesus as Lord, so that is a very limiting definition. [....] The fact that some Xian groups have taken part in holy wars is irrelevant. I believe that many groups of Americans, including many in the current administration have done horrific things, but I still call myself an American.

This is exactly what I was trying to articulate. I don't always like what America does, but I don't hesisitate to call myself American, because it is a major part of my identity. After all, I've always liked all my neighbors, and they're good tax-paying Americans.

Same thing when I say I'm Christian. My identification only extends to my church and my pastor and my Christian friends. My pastor expresses a lot of respect for other religions, despite holding evangelical beliefs. He never, ever prays for the troops that he does not also pray for Iraqi civilians, and for forgiveness for our nation for any wrongs we've done in Iraq.

So people should not think they can pin down a person's entire worldview from the simple statement, "I'm a Christian." It doesn't mean I approve of the Crusades and the Inquisition, it only means I have enjoyed the little slice of Christendom--or of America, or of whatever else--that I've personally experienced.

[B.S. Lewis]

Bishop Spong

Uh, despite the tolerance I'm espousing in this thread, I must say--this guy is full of it. Well-intentioned, but still full of it. MOST of the Bible was written with the intention that it would be taken literally. Any idiot can see this, so there's no way that this guy--with a divinity degree--doesn't.

Anyway, not to derail the thread completely.

[Malintent]

BS,

You can call yourself a christian all you want, it wont make it so. If you fail to stone gay people, go to church every Sunday, hold Jesus true to your heart, etc... You ain't no damn Christian. You are just another dumb ass American like me that thinks he can invent his own religion, then call it something that others will recognize.

There are thousands of religions that "shall not kill". I guess they are all really christian and not Budist, Jewish, etc...

Sorry, that argument just pisses me off. Your argument is as valid as me saying that if there are a couple of lines in some bible that you don't believe in, then you must be an Atheist.

[B.S. Lewis]

Well, since it says this in your profile--

If I say something that can be taken two ways, and one of those ways makes you feel belittled, or offended… I meant the other thing.

--I'll keep looking for another way that I can take your post. :confused:

matt

[B.S. Lewis]

Well, since it says this in your profile--

If I say something that can be taken two ways, and one of those ways makes you feel belittled, or offended… I meant the other thing.

--I'll try to do so. Although might'n it be better if you simply said things so that they could only be taken one way?

Your argument is as valid as me saying

And your argument is about as valid as me saying "if you don't assasinate infidels, kidnap reconstruction workers, call for the destruction of Israel, etc...you ain't no damn Muslim."

I'm sorry if you've had some bad experiences with Christians on one extreme of the spectrum, but do try to realize that your experience has been limited and is not representative. Failing to do so is what creates prejudices.