It’s a nice trick equating the two. My view lets each person define for himself or herself what his beliefs are and how to label them – which is exactly what people do every day. No one looks to an authority or definition to decide whether they can call themselves Christians or any other religious category.
You’re not “disagreeing with my definition” because I have posited no definition that can be enforced on anyone. You are imposing your definition on other people, each of whom has the right to define for themselves how to label their belief systems.
To the OP, no, you’re not a Christian. Being Christian isn’t a matter of belonging to a congregation.
To me a Christian is a person who believes, and acts accordingly, that Jesus Christ was God come to earth as a human being, in order to redeem us from our sins. One can come to that faith at the last minute, at the point of death even, and be received into Heaven.
I like being a member of my church(I’m an Episcopalian) but the ritual, dogma, and so on are not what makes me Christian, just makes it easier for the person I am. It’s easier to believe in a group. Someone that’s a member of a different denomination is just as much a Christian, it’s just that the way they do things makes it easier for their faith to hold.
I know several who say they don’t believe in a god. And I suspect many more don’t actually believe in a god even if they say they do. In this country you are classified as either Christian, Jewish (maybe), or other. The term is often used just to denote that you are not other.
The basic, fundamental idea behind Christianity is that Christ is God. Look. It’s right there in the name. Christianity. Without the belief in Christ, the person cannot be a Christian. And without the belief that Christ is some sort of spirit, Christianity loses all spirituality. People who don’t believe Christ is divine aren’t Christians, no matter what they call themselves.
If someone claimed that Jesus was a pedophile and that they believe in pedophilia, and that they are, therefore, Christian, I would suggest that they have considerably less authority than someone who suggests that they are Christian because they believe in the divinity of Jesus and follow his teachings as related in the Bible. I’m not sure that the sincerity of the pedophile is relevant here.
Different people can understand terms differently, but the word definition has a definition, too. Here’s one:
The most commonly agreed upon essential property of Christianity, that which uniquely defines it, is the the divinity of Jesus. For words to be meaningful, they must be interprettable by the speaker and listener in at least a similar way, and to use Christian as a synonym for ‘pedophile’ is to make language meaningless.
Words have meaning because they are agreed upon, it’s a consensus kind of thing. So, if you think Jesus was cool, and a great skateboarder, than that’s fine - I respect it; but if you don’t think he was divine, and you don’t do what he suggested, and you don’t think he rose from the dead, and you don’t believe in God - then I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is a good idea. It’s confusing at best.
Religious labels are rarely ever solely about dogma and belief, and sometimes they’re not about that at all. They’re also about family, history, tradition, and most of all, personal identification and affinity. They’re about group membership, a family, a clan, a tribe. Christianity is not just about spirituality. Sometimes, it’s not about spirituality at all; it’s about being part of a group that you identify with and that accepts you as their own, regardless of what’s going on inside your mind about specific beliefs.
I think it’s a lot easier to objectively be a Presbyterian than a Christian (maybe you get a membership card, I dunno). So, I’d say the OP is assuredly Presbyterian and a Christian in his own head, if he so desires.
Maybe for individual churches, but for Christianity as a whole? Christianity is a loose category of various denominations, under dozens of different cultural umbrellas. To what extent would a Catholic family in Mexico share traditions or clans with a Mormon family in Utah, or an Anglican family in England, or an Eastern Orthodox family in Greece? What do they have in common? Naught but dogma and belief, specifically the idea of the divinity of Christ.
Yes, a loose umbrella within which people seek out other fellow members. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Particularly, in a place where Christians are not a majority, people who claim the label “Christian” greet each other as fellow members, regardless of whether they’re particularly religious or not and they don’t quiz each other on dogma.
They have the shared label of “Christian,” which can be a stronger bond than any of the rest.
No, you’re not a Christian. Yes, you’re culturally Christian, or even culturally Presbyterian if you like. I’m a born-and-raised Atheist but I’m still culturally Christian.
I disagree. Christianity has very little to do with Christ beyond the name. It’s a brand name for a loose, inconsistant collection of religious dogmas and traditions, most of which originated well after Christ was around.
And the idea that it is important that Christ was divine is, again, just your opinion.
The guy claiming that Christ was a pedophile has as much evidence for his beliefs than the other guy does for claiming that he was divine, and is making a more plausible claim to boot. There is a far greater likelihood that Christ was a pedophile (namely, non-zero) than a chance he was divine; so if anything the guy claiming he was a pedophile has more “authority” in his claims.
My point has been that the word “Christianity” pretty much IS meaningless.
Then how can you say you hate all Christians (which you do repeatedly), when you refuse to allow for there actually be a definition? You are being hypocrytical. You do not define Christianity just by whether people call themselves Christians. When you use the word Christian, you are thinking about people with certain beliefs and practices which you happen to find abhorrent.
I know the sociological definition says that you are what you say you are. But everyone has an idea of what a Christian is, and if you deliberately subvert that, you are trying to deceive, which means you are lying.
I suppose someone could also define a fish as being a motorcycle. Nobody has any authority to say that the word “fish” can’t mean “a motorized two-wheeled vehicle.” However, most sensible English-speaking people will agree that the logical and common definition of a word is what the word means, and so most people will agree “Fish” means a fish, not a motorcycle, and my daughter’s pet is a fish, not a Harley.
So it is with “Christian,” which means “someone who adheres to a faith centred around the existence of the Abrhamic God and the divinity of Jesus Christ.” Go ahead and argue that it means something else all you want; to a reasonable observer, that’s what it means.
So a person who is a member of a Christian religion is not necessarily a Christian because a fish isn’t a motorcycle. Is a whale a fish?
Or is your argument that the definition of a sensible English-speaking person is someone who agrees with your definition of Christianity? Is that something which you can back up with evidence?