But none of those examples (except for the Muslim and Shinto ones) are even remotely similar. And Muslims could fairly reasonably claim to be Christians, even though they don’t.
The point about beliefs is that we cannot accurately know what people believe, so we to some point have to take them at their word. So yes, I can say I believe in tarot, or Jesus, or some god. That doesn’t mean that particular statement is accurate, but if I say I am a - generic - Christian, there really isn’t much point in arguing with me unless I also say something that contradicts it - for instance - that I don’t believe Jesus was a real person (and even then, I could probably make a fairly decent, though unconventional) argument. It would only really get problematic if I stated that Jesus’ ideas were all wrong.
No, it isn’t. Unless you’re being insincere or deliberately deceptive, like the Jews for Jesus.
Except for “hypnotist,” “saint” and “superhero” – which are all basically matters of opinion – the rest of those things have objective definitions that can be tested. That isn’t true for religious beliefs. They can’t really be tested. And they cover broad, almost undefinable, categories of beliefs.
Christianity is whatever people claiming to be Christians say it is, because being Christian is an act of self-identification. More specific claims can be tested – such as a claim that one is a Roman Catholic in communion with the Catholic church, or a claim that one is a temple-permitted member of the LDS, or a claim that one is a citizen of a certain country. Those kinds of claims are defined by some recognized authority that dispenses such qualifications.
Identity is flimsy that way. The people we call Byzantines considered themselves “Romans,” even though they were Greek-speaking and lived far from Italy. At that place and time, they were Romans, by self-definition.
What you claim as your identity, religion-wise, has to be taken at face value, especially broad categories of large religious groups. There is no universally recognized test for a Hindu, or a Christian, or a Jew, or a Buddhist, etc. And many, many people claim such identity based on cultural, social, and family reasons, having nothing to do with belief or dogma. And no one has the authority to strip them of their buttons based on dogmatic examinations.
Uh-huh. And you’re the identity police, are you? Going to issue articles of faith certifications to everyone who claims to be Christian?
You are certainly not a Presbyterian as that is understood by members of its congregation, regardless of your being on the roles as a member because you once were. Presbyterians require believe in divinity and a the matters recited in the apostle’s creed. This isn’t really a big deal as a lot “members” are in the same situation more or less openly.
There are countless denominations of the Christian church and you could probably find one with the same theologic points that you adhere/don’t adhere to.
I note that you clipped my quote; the full thing speaks to what is wrong with your analogy, which is why you clipped it I’m sure.
A velociraptor was a biological species, a creature with objectively real characteristics. Christianity on the other hand is a loosely connected collection of fiction, with nothing objective or consistent about it. Saying that something is a velociraptor - unlike saying that they are a Christian - does give you quite a bit of objective, definite information about them. “Christian” at best gives you the ability to guess about probable characteristics they have.
Ah, I get it. Your opinion of what a Christian is (“somebody who says they are”) is correct; mine (“somebody who believes in the story of Jesus”) isn’t?
And I’m the “identity police”? As long as I disagree with your definition?
But there are objective characteristics to a Christian.
In order to be a Christian, you have to:
[ul]
[li]Believe that God exists[/li][li]Believe that Jesus exists[/li][li]Believe that Jesus is God (and something about a holy spirit or something)[/li][/ul]
The word “Christian” is just a label. If you know all the relevant properties, what questions does the label answer that the individual properties answer themselves?
According to you. Someone else could define “Christian” differently, and they’d have just as much (as as little) authority as you do on the matter. For example, someone could go the “Jesus was a great moral teacher” route, reject all the supernatural aspects, and call themselves Christian and mean it.
