I hate to pull out the dictionary card, but the definition of who is a Christian is conflated with many historical disputes over it, and the fact that the people calling themselves Christians cannot themselves agree on what makes one a Christian (e.g. the whole “are LDS members Christians?” debate).
Merriam-Webster says:
Nothing about the person having to believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God. I would say that anyone claiming that the teachings of Jesus Christ should be followed is a Christian (which, of course, could include Muslims).
Forgot to say: my question to the OP would be, what do you think of the teachings of Christ? If you think they are worthless, misguided, or otherwise irrelevant, then I would say you’re not a Christian. If you agree that Christ’s teachings are valuable to you, then you are a Christian.
To determine the answer to the question “Are You a Presbyterian”, a simple answer will be found in what you thinks of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
I do not base my morality or anything else on Christian views
QUOTE]
wasn’t jesus’s teachings all about “TRUTH” and against deceiet and all that.
Surely it is deceiving to members of your church to make out you belive in something when actually you dont!
Someone could be a mass-murderer and then claim to be a pacifist when clearly they are being Untruthful
this discussion is a complete no-brainer.
You are not a christian!
There’s a lot of talking at cross purposes in this thread (not that that makes this thread any different from all the others in GD, but I digress).
A group of people can be thought of in at least the following two ways: (1) A group defined by each member’s claim of membership in that group (let’s call this a “Type 1 Group”) and (2) a group defined by non-members who determine whether a person is a member of the group or not based on one or more objective characteristics (a “Type 2 Group”).
“Tea Partiers” and “Buffy fans” are Type 1 Groups. “Brunettes” and “left-handed people” are Type 2 groups.
Much of the discussion above is really about whether “Christians” is a Type 1 Group or a Type 2 Group. The “you are a Christian if you say you are” crowd are saying it’s a Type 1 Group, and those who think you must believe certain things to be a Christian are saying it’s a Type 2 Group.
Hence–talking at cross purposes. Maybe people can address the point directly by arguing for their position on what type of group “Christians” really is.
Would not a Buffy Fan be someone who both enjoys the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer and engages in that enjoyment in a social system? I would argue that “buffy fan” is a Type 2.
But once you go down that road, at what point do you change from “following his teachings” to “doing what you feel like, with out-of-context Bible quotes to justify it”?
Historically, this constitutes a significant portion of the world that has been identified as and has self-identified as “Christian.” Who gets the authority to Scotsman them out of the group?
But at that point Christianity stops being a religion and starts being a social club. The thing that differentiates religions from other social groups are the beliefs–the faith, the dogma, the spiritual rules and regulations. If we throw all those out in the name of inclusion–what is left? Nothing. Your position is that Christianity, by itself, is essentially meaningless, nothing more than the sum of it’s members. And if you ask me, that position is offensive to the Christians themselves–I don’t think many Christians would describe their religion as nothing more than a trumped-up social club.
I would imbue the term with something, some sort of faith-based belief that allows it some sort of respect as a religion, and if that means that some people who describe themselves as Christians are not actually Christians, so be it. The alternative is the idea that Der Trihs presents–that the whole thing is a sham, a corporate umbrella that does nothing more than reflect its coalitions’ wants, and I refuse to believe that unless I absolutely have to.
Christianity is not only a religion. It is also an affinity group or identity group, in addition to whatever else it may be. In fact, its status as an identity group may be even more important than whatever else it might be.
Indeed a social club has more power to define its membership because in a social club, there is a hierarchy, there is a rule-making body recognized by the membership, and there is an explicit process for seeking, granting, and revoking membership.
Some religious groups, specific ones, do do this – the Roman Catholic Church can do this, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can do this. But Christianity as a whole cannot. It’s not an organization; it’s an identity.
That’s up to each person claiming membership in the group to decide for himself or herself that the boundaries are.
Get an organizational body that asserts the authority to define who is “actually” Christian, and institute a process for admitting and rejecting members that the bulk of people calling themselves Christians recognize, then you can have this exclusive definition. As it stands “Christian” and “Christianity” don’t necessarily refer only to those who adhere to any one Christian’s idea of what constitutes proper Christian dogma.
)