I’ve always assumed that a Christian is someone who sees Jesus of Nazareth as a superhuman being, worthy of worship. Not just a swell guy and a mensch.
What about Unitarians? I’m no expert, but I understand Unitarians can embrace the teaching of Jesus without accepting him as a god. Splain me.
“Harry Potter is a wizard.”
That is, “Harry Potter” is the name of a fictional character in a series of popular novels, and that character is a member of the imaginary class of people known as “wizards”, who (in the context of these fictional narratives) are able to use “magical spells” (reciting “Dog Latin” whilst waving around “magic wands” that have been constructed in certain specified ways) to affect the world. Like, they can straight up kill a motherfucker, even.
(Of course it would certainly be possible to write a series of books about a character who maybe has magical powers, but maybe he doesn’t really have magical powers, there are actually mundane explanations. In fact, that sort of thing has been done many, many times over. But that’s not the Harry Potter novels. In the Harry Potter novels Harry Potter is, no doubt about it, a wizard.)
Anyway, saying that the fictional character, Harry Potter, in the context of the eponymous books–in that fictional “universe”–has the power to do this and that is perfectly sensible. (“Oh, I love the Harry Potter books. Of course I don’t believe he can fly around on a broomstick or do magic, or any of that; I just enjoy them as the story of a young boy with profoundly psychotic delusions who has created a whole hallucinatory life for himself in response to severe and prolonged childhood abuse” would be…well, it’s a free country, but it would be a weird reading of those books, that’s for sure.)
Saying you believe that Harry Potter is a real person, and really has magical powers, is consistent. (Albeit totally unsupported by any actual evidence, and frankly daft.)
Saying that Harry Potter is a fictional character, and that of course “wizards” don’t exist in the real world, but that you nonetheless admire Harry Potter’s (fictional) personality traits–pluckiness and bravery and loyalty to his friends and so on–or that you like the moral and emotional message of those books (e.g., “love is stronger than hate”) is perfectly defensible as well.
Saying that Harry Potter is a fictional character, and does not really exist, but also that Harry Potter is “really” a wizard, doesn’t make any damned sense.
And saying I don’t believe Jesus really existed or exists, but I do believe he is “the Christ”–that is, the Son of God is like that last example. Being a “Christian” is saying that Jesus of Nazareth (a person who putatively actually lived at one point) is “the Christ”. “Jesus of Nazareth” could be a “moral exemplar” in the same way “Harry Potter” can be a “moral exemplar”, regardless of whether either of them ever actually lived. But it’s weird and misleading to claim to be a “Christian” (“one who believes Jesus of Nazareth is ‘the Christ’, that is, ‘the Son of God’, however ‘Son of God’ is defined”), while also believing that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character.
Those sound like the same kinds of Christians that frequently argue that Catholics are not Christian. I wouldn’t give people using such nonstandard definitions much weight.
Do you mind if I ask where you come from?
To specifically address this paragraph: It makes perfect sense to drive a split between “Jesus” and “Christ” because it’s perfectly plausible that there really was someone named “Jesus” (or Yeshua or whatever) but that the person in question was not “the Christ” (that is, the “Son of God”); and even that the historical Jesus of Nazareth never even claimed to be “the Christ” (that is, the “Son of God”).
(It’s also possible that the historical Jesus of Nazareth might conceivably have claimed to have been “the Messiah”, in the sense of “the Lord’s Anointed” and a descendant of King David and fulfiller of Old Testament prophecy, but NOT to have been “God Incarnate” or anything like that. And of course you could still accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who really lived, but that he was incorrect in his alleged Jewish messianic claim.)
I don’t believe in George Washington Who Chopped Down the Cherry Tree. George Washington is a historical figure, and I certainly believe in his existence, but pretty much all educated people know that the whole “chopping down the cherry tree” story is bunk. Thus, just as George Washington Who Chopped Down the Cherry Tree drove his little axe into the trunk of the tree, I would “drive a split” between the name “George Washington” and the title “Who Chopped Down the Cherry Tree”.
In this case, though, given Mr. X’s beliefs as described in the OP, whoever is calling Mr. X a “Christian” is the one using nonstandard definitions.
We certainly can and should reject that part about “…it is obvious that he worships Satan” as being arrant nonsense, just as we reject a claim that “Catholics are not Christian”.
I’m a wizard with magical powers. I can boil some water, and turn eggs into hard boiled eggs.
Feel free to believe whatever you like and call yourself a Christian if you want. Who’s going to stop you?
Amen, brother. I’ll add my Agnostic/Atheist opinion.
Throughout my life I’ve encountered two kinds of “Christians” (regardless of denomination):
and
My 2¢.
This really the only correct answer.
To my ears it doesn’t sound like a religion at all; just an admiration and respect of some guy. Sort of like if I thought Lincoln was a good guy and we should all try to live the moral lifestyle that Lincoln did. I don’t think anyone would call that a religion.
Missed the edit window: Even less than that. The OP is unsure if Jesus is even a real person; he just believes the New Testament is a swell book for moral principles. Being a fan of a book is not a religion.
Most people would consider Quakers to be a Christian denomination. But you are not required to profess a belief in Jesus to be a Quaker. At the congregation I attended for awhile, there were non-believers like myself. I don’t know if they were dues-paying members, but they were regularly attendees who enjoyed the fellowship and the social activitism of the church.
In order to be a Christian not only do you have to believe that Jesus is real, but you have to believe that his forgiveness is your only way into heaven. Now that’s if you want to BE a Christian. As is popular, if you merely want to call yourself a Christian, you don’t have to believe none of that stuff.
I think in some time periods people would fight to the death over the answers to such questions.
Some Christians aren’t biblical literalists, if that helps.
OP here. Just to clarify, this discussion concerns a hypothetical Mr. X and not what I may personally think or not think.
I dunno, was it “I’ll kill you because you believe differently than I do” or “I want your stuff and/or your land and I need an excuse, so you believing differently than I do will suffice.”
I think that you need to have faith in Jesus to be a Christian, but (and this is the key point) faith and belief are two very different things. One can have faith in someone or something that one doesn’t believe in, or vice-versa.
Example 1: When I first heard that Marvel was going to be making a movie pitting Captain America against Ironman, I knew right away that Captain America was going to be on the “right” side of that fight. Because I have faith in Captain America. This, despite the fact that I am fully aware that Steve Rogers is a fictional character, who inhabits a world very much unlike the real world in many ways, and I know that Chris Evans can’t really do the things Captain America does.
Example 2: Many Christians believe that Satan exists. Does Satan have faith in God? Clearly not. And yet, he certainly believes that God exists.
Now, it’s impossible for any mortal to tell for sure whether another mortal has faith. But from the description in your OP, it sounds quite likely that Mr. X does have faith in Jesus, despite not believing in him.
For me, it is immaterial whether Jesus was a singular immortal being, or whether everyone in the graveyard got up in protest at his crucifixion. (Matthew 27:50-54) And it matters not whether he gained his inspiration through careful study or through some deeper connection to his deity-father. The important thing is what I have learned from his life and teachings fits with my conscience in a way that no other philosophy does. So I try to live by those values, and I call myself a Christian.
Religious leaders - especially in the USA, but throughout the ages, and all over the world - have tried to assign their own requirements upon salvation. Fervor/belief, attendance, donations, being born again, being obedient to an appointed leader, all of these are earthly methods of control invented by those who would profit from religion. If you read the New Testament, Jesus was very clear about how those who go to Heaven will be selected: it will be upon the sole basis of how you have treated the least of G_d’s children. Love thy neighbor as thyself. That is the request that he made of us. He offered no “outs”, no exceptions, no Old Testament loopholes. Those who have used their talents to help the least of these will ascend.
So my advice to anyone who is struggling with these questions is to read the New Testament for yourself. And be wary of anyone quoting Old Testament passages at you. Always ask them: “If Jesus came to save us from the darkness, isn’t the Old Testament a description of what people believed when they were in the dark? Did Jesus not ask us to replace all of that with love for our neighbors?” Then leave them to ponder the answer in solitude.
In fact, the connection between ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ is a relatively recent development, and may actually come down to issues of translation—as the story is told in this article, there’s no English verb ‘to faith’ to match the Greek ‘pistis’, and hence, ‘to believe’ was substituted, but that word has since undergone a shift in meaning, from originally something like ‘to prize’ or ‘to hold dear’, to nowadays ‘to hold that something is factually the case’, or something like it.
And there is also a tradition, albeit a minority, that explicitly separates religion (or religious practice) from the having of a certain metaphysical conception of the world (as including God or gods, for example), known as ‘religious fictionalism’. From the same article:
Under such an understanding, there would not be any problem with being Christian and not believing in the existence of Jesus Christ. Of course, that understanding is not widespread among those calling themselves ‘Christian’ today, so whether one would encounter great acceptance with that crowd seems dubious.
However, one outcrop of this is Progressive Christianity, a postmodern Christian movement where the matter of the truth of biblical accounts is essentially suspended. One of the movement’s leading figures, Gretta Vosper, who’s an ordained minister with the United Church of Canada, is a self-professed atheist. So it seems that with this crowd, there wouldn’t be much of a problem for Mr X to call himself a Christian.