In Mark Borchardt’s 1999 film “American Movie: The Making of a Northwestern”, he described America as “a Christian-coated ethical arena”, which I thought was very apt, and it reflects my opinion in the subject, at least within the USA. Any person who grew up in America is basically an instilled Christian, unless the person has directed himself through a path of faith that conflicts with it.
As such, I have to consider myself a Christian (regardless of my philosophical apostasy), because the culture of Christians has been so deeply ingrained in me from birth. Americans seem to be following a reverse causation. Americans say something is “the Christian thing to do”, but in fact, it is Christians behaving because it is the American thing to do, selectively quoting passages from scripture in defense of America’s cultural values and attributes. No doubt something analogous occurs in other nations in which the ethics are Christian-coated.
Christianity is no longer a faith nor a theology. It is a social covenant, in which people are bound by a mutually-understood trust and honor and law, which has evolved within or in spite of a continuing chain of dogma and indoctrination that can still be associated with a root Christianity.
That’s certainly an interesting hypothesis, and I can understand and appreciate the logic behind it. But I’m not sure it’s a fact, or even an idea that applies to most folks who call themselves christian on this planet.
I hate the comments we get here sometimes like “As a Christian, I of course believe …” and what follows is not something that all Christians at all times have believed.
The majority view for the last 17 centuries means squat. The battles between Christian groups over major points during the early centuries were nasty. We don’t need to return to that.
The Mormons are a clear example of a Christian group that has beliefs that vary quite far from the majority. So?
You’re a Christian if some aspect(s) of Christian belief form a core component of your belief system and identity. Don’t have to be all Christian beliefs (esp. since there is no such thing) nor exclusive.
So, the Christian Gnostics were Christian. So they weren’t Roman Catholic or anything. Who cares?
*I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.*
what part of that is not supported by the bible?
To quote:
“Now as I said in my opening sentences, I’m an apostate. Not of hell. I was never a hell practitioner. But I am an apostate of Catholicism. I was also once a heretic and may still be a schismatic of the Roman Catholic Church. (When I left the Catholic church for a non-denominational Christianity I became a heretic and a schismatic. When I stopped being a Christian, I stopped being a heretic and started being an apostate. I’m not sure if that still makes me a schismatic.)” - Self-Proclaimed Antichrist
This goes around in a circle. We have a very well-established definition of what “vegetarian” means. We don’t have a similarly clear definition of what “Christian” means.
“Accepts Christ” is about as far as an objective standard can go, and “Declares that they accept Christ” is better, because it doesn’t require mind-reading.
But “Accepts Christ” is inside-talk, and I’m not even sure it means the same thing to all of you who declare yourselves to be Christians. What exactly does it mean?
The problem is the bible, the New Testament, says so many different things. In one place it talks about honoring and accepting God the Father. In another it says if you have two coats and your neighbor has none, you should have one coat. Most christians tend to take the version which requires the least amount of actual work. If you doubt this, I only have to offer the fact that large cities like Chicago and New York have to have coat drives every winter. Kind of an odd phenomena for countrya that has 60% or more people who “self identify” as christian.
But that doesn’t really mean anything. It is like saying Portugal is the best country in the world because, Portugal is so awesome. All of the words in that sentence can be found in the dictionary. The sentence is grammatically correct. But the sentence is completely non significant as an actual standard to determine the relative value of Portugal in comparison to other countries.
Give a concrete definition…and we, here, will all be able to post exceptions. It may, in fact, be meaningless. I’ll accept that. There are so many different kinds of Christians, the word is as elusive as “honest.” What, exactly, defines an “honest person?” Good luck!
Isn’t this pretty much why paganism died? If I understand correctly, it was pretty much impossible to get into “heaven” those days. Didn’t really matter how good a person you were, you were pretty much fucked once you died unless you were a king or some part of monarchy.
Monotheism came along and was much more inclusive. And made it much easier to get into the pearly gates. Therefore, people were eager to convert to this new idea of religion.
