Der Trihs, “to be made straight” would not have had a meaning relating to one’s sexual preference when the Bible was translated into English.
You can certainly argue over what makes a good or devout Christian, but the word “Christian” means belieivng in God and Jesus Christ and, to at least some limited extent, following some interpretation of the teachings of Christ, which by the way was primarily about worshipping God, not just being nice to everyone. I’m not making value or moral judgments here, just pointing out that that’s what the word means.
If “Christian” meant “being modest and generous and turning the other cheek” then it would have no meaning as a word except as a synonym for “nice person.” You would be defining in millions of Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and atheists as “Christians” with such a definition. I am sure they would all be very surprised at being told they were Christians.
The word “Christian” has a pretty specific meaning, and it’s kind of silly to say an atheist is a Christian just because he’s a nice guy. If the term “Christian” is that broad it doesn’t even need to exist. Why should an atheist be called a Christian? What would the point of the word be?
If he professes to follow the teachings of Christ with respect to how he treats his fellow man, I see no reason he is not just as much of a Christian as the man who believes in the divinity of Jesus but eschews the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount.
Except, by the definition of the word, the christ-believer is a christian and the atheist ain’t. Period.
You could accurately say that the atheist is behaving in a more christian manner, but that doesn’t make him a christian. Any more than my acting like a child makes me younger than I am.
I don’t accept that. There is not a definition of the word 'Christian" that all who call themselves Christians can agree on. You may have your definition, but there are many who will disagree with it, and still call themselves Christians.
It is a meaningless word. Period.
Right; that’s mostly because they want to exclude other christians from the term, in their pursuit of divisiveness and exclusivity. However, amongst all the wide and varyingly exclusive definitions, you’ll find that the criteria I state is common to all of them. They just want to tack on “except Catholics” or “Except Mormons” to the standard definition, to suppor their predjudices and hatreds or whatever.
And if you don’t like to accept the definition, then fine, don’t. You don’t have to accept the moon landing either. There’s nothing stopping you from being wrong about whatever you like.
If it’s meaningless, why does everyone keep using it? I’d say this cements your position as being wrong.
There is no commonly held definition of ‘Christian’. Everyone who uses the word defines it differently. That is why it is meaningless, and why you are wrong to suggest otherwise.
Having concluded that you have an obviously incorrect definition for the term “meaningless” (allow me to introduce you to my friend, “excluded middle”), I have no interest in wasting words on discussing this with you further.
As I said, there’s nothing stopping you from being wrong about whatever you like. Have fun.
Concession noted.
You are a funny, funny man.
The one in the dictionary seems quite logical to me. You’re making a litany of logical errors here. “Christian,” like many words, can have different meanings depending on context. In some contexts it means “our particular sect,” but it’s very apparent, if you read the OP, that the OP was asking whether he was a “Christian” in the strict, literal sense of the term; a person who believes in the Abrahamic God and that Jesus of Nazareth was His son.
Mormons are Christians, even if some bigots say they are not. It does not matter if Catholic or Baptist fools say “Mormons are not Christians.” They are free to choose not to accept Mormon beliefs, but it is objective fact that Mormons are, in the strict sense of the term, Christians. (Assuming they’re not ex-Mormons who’ve chosen to stop believing in God.) They meet the fundamental parameters of that term. So are Catholics and Methodists and Baptists, Christians all.
The OP is not. An atheist isn’t a Christian, by definition.
I see no reason why not, if he says he is. If a self described Christian can side-step the teachings of Jesus to sell all that you own, love your enemies and not resist an evil person, I see no reason why he could not also decide that it is not necessary to believe in god or the divinity of Jesus. You may disagree with his claim, but then many people question the legitimacy of self-described Christians who treat the teachings of Jesus as optional. All that is necessary to be a Christian is to call yourself one; the judgements of others about one’s faith are irrelevant.
It’s got nothing to do with the judgments of others; the guy himself says he’s not a believer. And so, even though I do give a lot of credence to self-identification (as I’m not a mind-reader), in this case he’d simply be incorrect to label himself as one.
Look at it this way. We have a definition for what it is to be a cat. If a thing that meets the definition of a cat acts in a way unlike a cat, it’s still a cat. However, if something that’s not a cat acts like a cat, it doesn’t automatically become a cat.
It works the same with anything else we have a definition for. For example, “Christian”.
In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman makes a very convincing case that Jesus did not claim to be the son of the God and that his earliest followers did not believe Jesus to be the son of God. In another of his books, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Professor Ehrman discusses many of the different sects that sprang up around Jesus of Nazareth. Many of the people of these sects did not did believe in the Abrahamic God and/or that Jesus was his son. Is it your position that all these people were not Christians?
But he wouldn’t be a Christian. I don’t see any reason why you CAN’T adopt many of the everyday moral positions of Christ with respect to how you treat your fellow man (you would be missing quite a lot of what Christ taught, but I’ll go with it for now) without believing in God, but that makes you a good person, not a Christian. Christians do not have a monopoly on being nice people.
I guess an interesting side question is, why would you want to call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in God and Jesus Christ? Just what’s the point of that? While you’re at it why not also call yourself a Muslim? A Zoroastrian?
That is precisely my position. In the sense the word is meant today, Christians as we now define them might not have much existed at all.
i suppose it is as pointed as calling yourself a Christian, yet opting out of all the teachings you find inconvenient, like selling all you own, loving your enemies and not resisting an evil person. Why is that not pointless also?