I do not base my morality or anything else on Christian views
I was baptized and confirmed in a Prebyterian church.
I have not been to church in 10 years.
I have never officially left my church nor do I plan to.
I have not been asked to leave the church, and I would be disappointed if I was asked to leave.
While I am an agnostic (and an atheist in the same way as Bertrand Russell), I still consider myself to be a Presbyterian and I am an official member of a Presbuterian church.
In my opinion, no, and the rest of the list is not relevant to answer the question.
As far as I can tell, to have the label be useful, you’d have to believe that God is a personal god and that Jesus was at least a significant prophet or moral teacher to be a Christian. Though I might be persuaded to extend the label to someone who only “follows the teachings of Jesus”, but that does conflict quite strongly with non-belief in a biblical-style god or an afterlife.
For the record: I’m an atheist, anti-theist and as far as I can tell irreversibly a technical Catholic (baptized, you know).
You are a Christian if you call yourself a Christian; there isn’t any objective definition for the term. If someone tells you “I believe in Christian values”, does that actually tell you anything? No; it can mean anything from peace-and-love to kill-the-unbelievers to God-loves-profits.
You don’t sound different from many people I know who call themselves Christians. Of course some people have a very specific definition for what a Christian is, and they will also tell you their’s is the only correct definition.
Actually, I’d go so far as to say that’s the only real definition. After all, all Christian denominations follow the teachings of Christ, they just have somewhat different views on what those teachings are. And it still separates out people how aren’t theistic because the overwhelming majority of interpretations of Jesus’s teachings imply the existence of God, an afterlife, and other such things that atheists don’t believe in.
As such, as it applies to the OP, I get the impression that he does have those interpretations that Jesus teaches those things, and he doesn’t follow them. As such, I would think him labeling himself a Christian wouldn’t be meaningful. That said, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not still a member of that church, in the same way that one can be a member of the NRA and not own a gun, or a member of AARP and not be retired.
Then again, I’m not really sure how their membership works. Do they have an official roster such that you have to explicitly be added to be part and removed to not be part? Do they require that you carry certain beliefs to be an official member, such that the only reason you still are is that you haven’t expressed to certain people that you don’t believe those things?
But, really, since you don’t share the beliefs that the overwhelming majority of Christians do, particularly fundamental ones, I think it would ultimately be more confusing to people to tell them you’re a Christian. It’d be one thing if you held uncommon beliefs (eg, if you were antitrinitarian), but not believing in God is something else.
So many people define “christian” in so many different ways that an answer is difficult. However, most impartial observers would agree that a christian, in the broadest sense, is one who defines himself/herself as such. The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, whom many consider to be authoritative on ecumenical matters, give the following definition:
We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe that they follow Yeshua of Nazareth’s (a.k.a. Jesus Christ’s) teachings as they understand them to be.
Given the following statements;
I do not believe in God or Jesus’ divinity.
I do not base my morality or anything else on Christian views
I am an agnostic
I would say that you define yourself as non-christian and most people would accept that definition.
I suppose though, that using a slightly different definition of the word, one could say that since you hold a membership in a christian church, you could at least be considered a nominal christion…in the same way that if you hold membership in a Masonic lodge you could be called a Mason.
If there’s a team called the Velociraptors which anyone can join by claiming membership, then calling yourself a velociraptor makes you a velociraptor.
There appears to be such a team called the Christians. Well, there’s some evidence to support an assertion that such a team exists. I’m not interested in participating in that discussion here, myself, and it might even be hijacking the thread to do so, which I would consider rude.
OP, do you want to be considered a Christian? What prompts the question here?
ETA: It could be argued that a Christian is anyone who, using the Nicene Creed as a checklist, believes the individual items on that checklist. Under the circs, were I in your shoes, I would not feel comfortable representing myself as a Christian, regardless of what sects or denominations I was affiliated with.
And if for social, employment, or other reasons I found it advisable to avoid shouting about my non-Christianity from the rooftops, I would simply point to my Presbyterianism, and allow others to draw whatever conclusions they wished to draw.
Never heard of them. From whence do they derive said authority?
I’d say that the only authoritative body able to define a Christian is a Christian church, not some body called the “Ontario Consultants on 'Let’s ignore all religious views and be all happy tree fairy and declare that they mean nothing as long as you want them to.”
OK, that’s snarky. But how do some folks in Ontario get to tell Christians what it means to be a Christian? “You’re one if you say you are”? Surely it’s up to Christian churches to define what they are, not someone else.
Usually, yes. But if you don’t actually give a damn about Jesus or what you think he said, I think you can be disqualified for being deliberately confusing.
Am I also a Muslim if I say I am? What about a Shintoist?
Is religion really “whatever you say you are?” Is that not incredibly insulting to members of those religions?
What else can I be just by saying I am? A hypnotist? A Yale graduate? A Zimbwabean? A saint? A superhero? A Vietnam Vet? A woman? A black person? A dolphin?
In my opinion, you are what you actually are, not what you decide to say you are.
Sorry, should have contributed a link OCRT
What exactly do you mean "From whence do they derive said authority?"
I said “many consider [them] to be authoritative”. OCRT has been cited in Toronto Star and CBS News stories…at least two well-regarded news services apparently considered them authoritative enough to quote on matters of religion. I’ve also seen them cited in a number of religious essays and discussions. So I think it is correct to say “many consider them to be authoritative”.
I also see nothing wrong with their definition of “christian”. Since nearly every christian denomination has a slightly different definition, I’m not sure how any one church’s own definition could be used for discussion purposes unless everyone involved is on the same page. If it matters, the dictionary definition is very similar, to wit:
a. a person who believes in and follows Jesus Christ
b. a member of a Christian Church or denomination
It’s still self-defined.
For purposes of this discussion, you have defined yourself as “Candyman”; it would be improper for me, or anyone else to say you were not Candyman. In this case, you retain the right to self-identify, just as christians do.