What is the minimum requirement to call oneself a "Christian"?

In My Humble Opinion
41

I take exception to your comments. I think they reflect one of the major problems with organized religion in general and with christinaity in specific. You seem like, overall, a decent person, a nice person.

But you want to separate yourself from people who do not think/believe as you do. That is not completely wrong. In fact, to separate oneself from flawed thinking is probably a good thing. The problem is their is no empirical justification of your beliefs. No proof, either in physical form, or, in logical cohesiveness and logical coherence. I, as an outside observer, can find fault with any christian definition of mercy, justice, fairness, etc. All of your definitions of these terms, I presume, are predicated upon the belief that your god is correct and you will adjust all of these terms to reflect that.

So, there is no physical proof nor any intellectual proof that your claims are correct. And yet, by your own admission, you wouldn’t share your life in the same way with someone who disagrees with your (unfounded and illogical) beliefs.

This does not seem, to me, to be a logical or intelligent position to take.

It only separates your POV from the real world. As long as christians are the dominant POV in a society I guess this separation has little reason to cause you to change or to amend your views. Probably even if you moved to a Muslim country where that POV is dominant your views would not change. But in either situation your POV is illogical and a barrier to clear and unbiased examination of ideas.

I am kind of tired of living in a society where the dominant POV in terms of god has such a shielding from any critical analysis. Doubly so where I am supposed to calmly and patiently “debate” with a POV that is so resistant to any truly critical, hard hitting criticism.

I detect no malice or ill intent on your part. And in a way that too is frustrating. If I am debating with someone who has an inflexible, unfounded POV I almost rather have them they take a bad attitude. Because ultimately this is a battle of ideas. Only one side is correct. Saying, well, it is all just opinion really only delays us from getting to the final answer.

EDIT: If my comments are too strong for IMHO I apologize. Let me say again I see no evidence of malice or ill will in your comments at all. I think you seem like a decent person. If my comments are too strong for this section of SDMB, I apologize.

42

People can self identify as whatever they want, but in order for it to hold validity for others, there has to be some reality behind it. Given the reality of religious practice in America, there are three types of Christians that I’ve observed:

  1. People who are Christian because they believe in God and were born into a Christian family, but are not observant.

  2. People who practice “churchianity”, they go to church regularly but are also non observant except for some selective ideas. Think the grandmother in Black-ish for those who watch the show, a lady who is violently opposed to homosexuality, doesn’t believe in evolution, but was perfectly happy to go fornicate in the Bahamas and still thinks it was an awesome achievement of some kind rather than an example of giving into weakness. These types tend to be militantly focused on the traditions and forms of the faith but don’t really seem to get it. Wear the cross, get your kids baptized young, invoke God at every opportunity, then treat other people like dirt, get drunk, and go have sex with random strangers. But at least it’s not gay sex, so it’s less of a sin!

  3. Born again Christians who do their utmost to practice their faith, learn about their faith, and spread their faith. Their character flaws are considered weaknesses, not something they celebrate or make excuses for. They tend to be even more talkative about religion than the churchianity types, which can wear thin on people, but I don’t mind because I know it’s coming from a good place.

I get along great with the 1s and 3s. The 2s are insufferable.

IMO, a person is a Christian if they try to live their live according to Christian values, We’re human, so we all fall short, but if someone is happily living in blatant sin and making no attempt to change, then they are as Christian as a guy claiming to be an environmentalist but who drives a Hummer.

43

It seems we have consensus that Jesus is some sort of special figure, more special than other wise/good people. We have almost universal consensus that Jesus was divine and resurrected, both. And while there is not consensus, a majority of christians are going to say you have to believe in Christ to get to heaven. Most of those will say it is the only way to heaven and that people who don’t believe in christ go to a hell that has suffering and torment, probably, with flames involved.

Well… why is this significant. I will not disagree with any of the above quotes. What I do not agree to is that they have any significance. “Christianity” is self defining within a very narrow parameter of standards.

In other words, self definition should never matter, for any situation or category, not only in religion but in all categories. What matters is how you beliefs effect your actions and if your beliefs don’t affect your actions then how you self identify is really only important to one and only one person on the whole planet (you).

44

Christians should try to emulate christ, just as hitlerites act angry and vicious like hitler, stalinists act bureaucratic and allknowing and muslims try to get a harem like muhammed did.

Actions and attitude!

45

“The minimum requirement to call oneself a Christian”

Neato discussion.

Literally the minimum requirement is being able to say or express “I’m a Christian” whether one means it or not, but I suspect the intent of the OP is more nearly about the minimum requirement to actually mean it. I’ve heard official-sounding definitions based on whether a person accepts Jesus Christ as their savior, but I think this sets the bar too high. I think a person who believes Jesus Christ is divine and has the capability of being a savior would be well justified in calling themselves a Christian whether or not the salvation actually worked. I think maybe the only way to know if a person actually did accept Jesus Christ as their savior would be to visit the afterlife with them and see if they received some kind of divine salvation, so by that criterion we can’t know whether there is a single Christian in the world.

I treat the question of whether a person is Christian, in my own mind, as whether they self identify, with a special provision that if they later say they didn’t mean it, it probably doesn’t count.

I do a lot of work with diversity, especially but not entirely in the workplace, and especially around LGBT people and issues. Religion comes up in all kinds of contexts. For example, should employees who claim Christian justification be allowed to interfere with the careers of employees who are LGBT? No, of course not, but what exactly should the rest of us do when they try? Is employing people who are LGBT a per se attack on Christianity? There has to be a working definition of who’s Christian for some of these conversations, and we have had struggles over the OP’s question. I just don’t think there is any workable criterion other than self identification.

I’m an atheist and antitheist, by the way. “Antithesis” means being glad there are no gods.

46

I’m not here to debate or play “gotcha”. I’m just an atheist wondering what people mean when they call themselves “Christian”-what they think the minimum requirement is to become one. I am not one, so I don’t think I am qualified to answer any of your questions, but since there don’t seem to be any official answers, I take people’s word if they say they are Christian…no matter how they behave towards others.

47

Okay, how about a direct answer, then? Yes, our hamburger-muncher can call himself a vegetarian.

No one else is obligated to, however.

48

We didn’t get a choice in Him being God. He just is. We do get to choose whether He’s our Lord. I think that’s the reasoning. That when you “accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior,” it’s swearing fealty. God will be powerful whether or not I accept him. The statement isn’t about God at all; it’s about the relationship I’ve chosen to have with him.

49

Strictly speaking, if I’m in a context that allows for such pedantry, I maintain that Christianity as usually practiced is henotheistic: That is to say, there are many gods, but only one of them is worthy of worship. Most Christians (by any definition) believe in the existence of angels, and believe that they’re immortal and have some sort of powers that normal humans don’t, and that means that angels match the definition of lower-case gods. A person might also believe in other such entities other than angels, such as fey, demons, or possibly aliens.

Of course, it’s possible that someone might believe that God (as manifested as Father, incarnate Son, and Holy Spirit) is the only person in existence other than humans. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who held that view, but I’m sure there are a few such folks out there somewhere. In such a case, yes, that person would be Christian and monotheistic.

50

Fair enough.

My scruples in the matter of gainsaying the stated religious affiliation of another person are my own, and I do not presume to hold anyone else to them.

51

And this would make that person a hypocrite, right?

(Of course, the “agreed” upon definition of a christian has no mechanism to judge on any standard, it is simply an idea inside someone’s head, an idea that requires no action. I think, however, most people would say being a christian - should - necessitate correct/moral behavior. But, interestingly enough, the strict definition of a christian precludes any such standard.)

52

Wow.

The Mafia is much more clear about their minimum requirements. (Note that I am neither a christian nor a made man)

53

Wrong.

54

No. If someone calls themselves a vegetarian and regularly chows down on burgers, they may be a liar or merely self-deluded.

If someone criticizes others for eating meat or preaches on the evils of eating meat and then chows down on burgers, then they’re a hypocrite.

55

Yes, but to make a claim to religious affiliation is more or less the same as making a claim to some superior moral code. Why else make a distinction?

56

oh

how can you eat meat regularly, and claim to be a vegetarian and not be a hypocrite?

57

Because you can be a vegetarian for amoral, non-judgmental reasons.

It’s like if someone called themselves a lawyer when really they are a paralegal . Is this person a hypocrite? Or are they simply using the wrong label to identify themselves?

58

Ok… yes, there are vegetarians who do it simply health reasons. I guess. I find it hard to believe that they don’t do it for at least 10% moral reasons, but, you make a good point. I was referring, however, to the people who do do it as a moral imperative, who, it seems to me, is why most people are vegetarians.

59

I consider myself environmentally conscientious. I try to reduce my carbon footprint by recycling, conserving electricity, and living simply.

But I fail all the time. Sometimes it’s just easier to put something in the garbage than snoop around for a recycling bin. Sometimes I may leave on an appliance just because I feel like it. Sometimes I’m too lazy to walk and I burn fossil fuels.

Am I a hypocrite?

A vegetarian who eats meat is only a hypocrite if they get up on a soap box and judge others for eating meat. Most vegetarians don’t do this. I’m guessing almost no meat-eating “vegetarians” ever do this.

60

Well, I was using it more as a hypothetical example than anything. Because this is IMHO and not GD I will refrain from going on my normal anti religious tangent.