No, this is not flame-bait. No, this is not my feeble attempt at pigeon-holing Christians. And no, this post isn't meant to demean or offend in any way. I am honestly confused at what people take being a Christian to mean. I had thought that people were Christians if they:

a)Believe Jesus Christ was the one and only son of God who died for all of humanity's sins when he was crucified.
b)Believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead to ascend into Heaven where he remains today.

I took those to be the core tenets of all Christians (Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.). I figured the differences between the sects arose following the acceptance of those core beliefs. If I am incorrect, it's not my lame attempt at broad brushing but rather just pure ignorance on my behalf. But I do think that there is a definition to be had here, just like there is for atheist (either disbelief in God(s) or the belief that there are/is , in fact, no God(s)). That's not to say it can be a rather broad one, but it's not as though we can really call everyone a Christian, just as we cannot call everyone an atheist.

Now, over the past few months I've had conversations with Christians of various "flavors", if you will, both here and in the real world. I've found that many found my definition to be inadequate. So in retooling my thoughts, I ask the following: Am I a Christian?

Evidence for me being a Christian:
1) Though I don't think Jesus Christ was a man of morally impeccable character (after all, I always thought eternal punishment was just cruel), I do think many of his ideas were revolutionary for the time--and indeed our own--such as love, tolerance, understanding, turn the other cheek, etc. In fact, I try to live my life by these same principles. That's not to say I am necessarily moral, as I will admit that I have made mistakes in the past and will certainly make more in the future. That's not to say my justification for trying to be moral is God, because if you ask me, neither was Jesus'.

2) I think it is possible for the theology laid out in the bible to be true. That's not to say I believe it, but it is possible.

3) I enjoy going to church on occasion. I really do enjoy the sense of closeness and community that can be found there.

4) I have experienced what I would term "spiritual" experiences even after I became an atheist.

Evidence against me being a Christian:
1) I believe that no God(s) exist. Especially not in the way that he/she/it is typically defined in the Christian tradition.

2) I believe the universe to be wholly material. That basically means that I believe there are no such things as souls, ghosts, spirits, or an afterlife.

3) If God does exist, then I believe it is impossible to know he/she/it.


And this is neither for nor against, but a point of interest is that I am willing to revise my beliefs if presented with additional evidence (say, for example, God does an interview on Larry King Live or The Daily Show. I would take that as pretty strong evidence).

I realize that I'm not a Christian, but the point here was mainly to facilitate some discussion. The only reason that I'm interested is that I simply want to know. It's not so I can dig through the history books and find reprehensible characters with which to smear Christianity. It's not so I can tell people that they are, in fact, no Christians. No ulterior motive. No evil atheist posse agenda.

You are whatever you think you are. Are you asking us to help label you?

d1

I always understood a Christian to be someone who follows Christ's teachings. But those teachings are open to the reader's interpretations so I doubt you will be able to find just one definition of Christian.

You could ask a hundred different people and get a hundred different answers.

d1

Hello Varkam--
I'm sort of in the same boat, maybe not ready to chuck it all, but definitely dubious of most standard interpretations of Christianity. And I don't know what to call myself. Anyway, a article on Salon a couple of weeks ago dug into those exact questions--an interview with writer Karen Armstrong. The title is "Going Beyond God" and it wrestles with the question of whether a "personal" god is necessary for religious belief.

And that is not to say that being a Christian is better than being a Jesus-follower, or the reverse (though I am very tempted to fall on the side of "It's better to be a good person for your own reasons, than to claim faith in Christ and be an asshole", or, in other words, "It's better to live varkam's life of honest non-faith than Jerry Falwell's life of hate and hypocrisy").

The Jews had a term for the gentiles who followed the will of the Jewish God: "God fearers". These god-fearers weren't Jews, but they were recognized as moral, upright, and good people.

I know a great many atheists (and people of other faiths) who live more moral and ethical and world-loving lives than some so-called Christians. So, even if they aren't "Christian", who cares? They're good people, and I think God (I'm a believer) notices and is happy about that, even if God is never credited. Cuz that ain't what God is about, as far as I am concerned.

Since when is that a Christian trait? (or was that your point?)

If you answer YES to the following questions then you are a Christian:

Do you believe Jesus is the son of God? Do you accept Jesus as your savior?

If your answer is NO then you are not a Christian. You cannot be a Christian without faith.

these may be tenets of a particular sect of Christianity (or several sects)

They are not however definitions of a Christian

They may be definitions of a Catholic or a Presbyterian, etc.

but to be a Christian is to believe in Christ and to follow his teachings.

I'm A Christian. I am also an Episcopal. I believe the tenets of my faith.

But they are not requirements for someone who is not Episcopal.

I was a Christian before I joined the Episcopal faith.

I've been a Christian (raised R. Catholic, now Episcopalian) for my entire life. I'm not sure that accepting Jesus as my savior is in the least important. I'm not certain that I think Jesus' divinity is the central point in my belief, either. And I believe we are all sons and daughters of God.

I think the term Christian is mighty broad, myself.

and it amazes me when people try to pigeon hole Christians into a simple way of identifying them.

I have some similar views as you do regarding the divinity of Jesus. If he wasn't divine, does that truly change anything? His teachings still stand, and the view of a different relationship of humans and God still exists.

The term Christian is very broad.

:hi:

you found a Christian church you enjoyed. I would guess that you are no less a Christian than many people in those churches either now or at varying times of their lives. It ebbs and flows.

However, you might have to turn in your posse chaps if you start going to church.

Oh man. I so dearly want to make a snarky joke about exploding rubber chickens and holy water here and I'm just not pulling it together in my head. I'm afraid you're all on your own tonight.

And if he does defect, the sunday roast might just go like this:

Matariel: Hey, the roast is burning!
Defector: What? I only put it in ten minutes ago! Wow! Black smoke everywhere!
*oven switched off, windows opened to let some fresh air through*
*Matariel gets it out of the oven*
Matariel: Huh? The roast was replaced by a rubber chicken? But who would take a roast, and leave behind a rubber chicken? Who even uses rubber chickens? *creepy music starts*
*Defector goes deathly pale*
Defector: OH NO!

KABOOM!

of having to turn in my chaps. The question was more rhetorical than anything - I know I'm not a Christian.

Constantine, a demon horror movie. When I watch something like that I really underSTAND why some people are atheists.

But at least Keanu was eye candy. Except when he had worms coming out of his eyes.

the point, you may be interested in knowing that at least one of us atheists love that kind of stuff (me, though I must admit, not actually believing any of it is part of the experience), in fact my favourite ever movie had a big crucifixion scene, though not affiliated with any religion not internal to the story) and then there is the hallelujah chorus, someone else in A & A actually sang that as a performance piece, IIRC, and finally, personally, I love all that religious paranormal stuff, even more than science fiction. (Mind you, I don't believe when external, but internally to the film or book or picture I am happy enough to play along) nor is it limited to Christianity, but it is all cool. Original interpretations of angels are my favourite.

Just me blathering, late at night. :) I might edit in some pics.

Edit: worms from the eyes? Ewwwwwww!

Edit II: here is one I like (though you have to follow the link)

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/diablo-ii-collectors-edition/screenshots/gameShotId,17613/

Edit III: "It is time. Let us go, Adam's dark shadow; servant of the lilim" is from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_%28Neon_Genesis_Evangelion%29

Be sure to check out the screenshots of the angels down the side! (Someone went to a fair bit of trouble to be very inventive with them)

(they are babylonian 'angels' not Christian (poor translation), so that is why there names are like that)

Christian literally means "Christ-like".
Believing is good, but action is better. Anyone can believe in Jesus, but when you try to live your life by his example, to the best of your ability, you become a christian.

I think that's a big part of the hangup here at DU: the idea that merely belief is enough to be a christian. there's a passage that says "do you believe? well and good, but so do the demons." (my paraphrase) . The point is believing is a first step, but LIVING your life as christ would have, as much as you are able, is the beginning of being a christian.

And that is why may liberal christians on this board keep making the distinction between us and the "evangelicals". Oh, yes, they believe in the same deity that we do, but they are no closer to following christ's example even with that belief. As Jesus said, "by their fruits you shall know them".
So, in other words, when evangelicals spew hatred, intolerance and the opposition of compassion, they are living their lives DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the life Christ lived, and that is why liberal christians say that they are christians in name only.

for a secular example, I could completely understand medicine, and get a medical degree. But if I intentionally poisoned and killed, maimed and harmed every one of my patients, would I be FOLLOWING the oath I took as a doctor? Would I really be a doctor in anything but title only?

I think what a lot of critics of liberal christians fail to see when they say "hey, you and evangelicals both claim to be christian, so you're both the same"
is that being as christian is not simply being handed a cross necklace. Being christian is a LIFE lived in honor of Christ's teachings and example, to the best of the christian's ability.

When the evangelicals pride themselves on hypocrisy, judgement, intolerance and savor war and bloodshed, they are completely operating out of sync by 180 degrees of the example of Christ.

I hope that helps.

What I mean by that is, your culture and family is Christian, you celebrate Christian holidays and socialize at a nice church sometimes, but you don't personally have a strong belief.

Jesus will save you.....as a televangelist may tell you.

- people who call themselves Christians - who believe what you do - who would not want others to say that they are not.

There are other Christians who would say that you are not. (It may very well be that Baptists would not - for instance - if you didn't say that Jesus is your Lord and Savior or something or other).

Going by what some people have said here in other contexts - if you ever said that you were a Christian you are still a Christian.


AFAIC - if you say you are not - then you are not.

But the idea that if God exists, it is impossible to know God is a basic mystical concept, with one small variation-we'd add the words "totally" after "God". The fact that you've had what you term "spiritual" experiences indicates that you feel there is something about reality that you do not, at the present time, understand. That you would like to understand, I believe, is inherent in your post.

I am interested in your belief that the universe is wholly material. What are your thoughts on entanglement theory or entrainment? What do you think of the Erwin Schroediger's statement that the number of minds in the universe is one? Just curious.

unfortunately does not mean that I believe there is more to reality that I do not understand.

Wait, let me rephrase that.

There is a whole lot that I do not understand. I don't understand the intricacies of internal combustion engines. I don't understand how gene therapy is performed. I don't understand how a pizza is made and 45 minutes later gets to me still piping hot. There is a great deal more out there that I don't understand than the amount of things I feel comfortable saying that I do understand. Unfortunately, such ignorance is not evidence of the supernatural. I have no more reason to believe that the spiritual experiences I've had are a result of reality resonating with my soul than a sudden increase in the amount of endorphins or serotonin in my central nervous system as the result of a certain stimulus. In fact, I would argue I have more reason to believe the latter as the former is completely theoretical in nature. No one has ever shown the existence of a soul to be a fact; but I do know that I have neurons, synapses, neurotransmitters and a frontal lobe that could account for such experiences. Could I tell you how it happens? No. But I have a framework based in reality in which I can start to answer. (As a side note, the people who poo-poo the notion of reductionism--or that consciousness can be reduced to the level of neural activity in the brain--because it seems too...unmagical I suppose...simply do not grasp how awe-insipiringly complex our nervous system is).

And as for your questions: I am unfamiliar with entanglement theory, entrainment or Schroedinger's statement. You will have to enlighten me, I'm afraid.

are merely terms people use to describe that which they don't yet understand--I assume that you don't believe science has discovered everything :) I find it interesting what you say about neurons and synopses, etc-I just heard a lecture from a scientist about this who said to think that all experience is based solely on chemical changes within the brain is "so last week". The lecturer was the one who cited entanglement theory, etc. I will attempt to find some sources with more information.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

Here's two paragraphs from the article:

Schrödinger coined the term ‘entanglement’ to describe this peculiar connection between quantum systems (Schrödinger, 1935; p. 555):

When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives have become entangled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrainment

I chose to cite the wikipedia definition of entrainment, as most of the other sites I found that talked of it are sites that aren't scientific sites.

http://twm.co.nz/energ.html

This is a paper on the human energy field-I thought you might find it interesting to know about scientists who are studying it to discover if there is anything to the conept of "soul", etc. I cite one researcher from the paper-there are many others.

snip
Dr. Valorie Hunt - and colleagues at UCLA, published "A Study of Structural Neuromuscular Energy Field and Emotional Approaches", which is a study of the effects of Rolfing on the body and the psyche. She placed electrodes on the skin to record the low millivoltage signals from the body during rolfing sessions. Rosalyn Bruyere observed the auras and recorded her observations of both the rolfer and the patient. Breyere's observations were recorded on the same tape as the electronic data. She described the color, size, and energy movements of the chakras, and auric clouds, or HEF, involved.
Scientists then mathematically analyzed the wave patterns recorded by a Fourier analysis and a sonogram frequency analysis. The wave forms and frequencies reported by Rosalyn Bruyere correlated specifically with the colors reported. When Breyere saw blue in the HEF at a specific location, the electronic measurements would always show the characteristic blue wave form and frequency in the same location.
Hunt repeated this experiment with seven other aura readers. Each of the seven also saw auric colors that correlated with the same frequency wave patterns. In 1988, the results of their research showed these color and frequency correlations. Dr. Hunt says, "Throughout the centuries in which sensitives have seen and described the auric emissions, this is the first objective electronic evidence of frequency, amplitude and time, which validates their subjective observation of color discharge."
snip

You can take this for what it is worth, but I do think it shows that scientists in various fields are working to discover if there is anything to certain aspects of spirituality that have been talked about by spiritual people for years.

Some interesting stuff to be sure. I certainly don't believe that science has discovered everything (e.g. scientists still have no idea what the neural basis for consciousness actually is), but in my opinion there is no real reason to believe that--if given time--a physical investigation of our universe and indeed ourselves cannot. It often seems to me that many of the ideas regarding chakras and auras are an attempt to mollify our collective fear of the unknown.

My thoughts on entanglement theory: there is, undoubtedly, an argument going on currently within the scope of materialism that is just as vicious as the one between dualists and materialists has been. The premise that the brain is the basis for consciousness is accepted by both camps, but the argument centers on how the brain actually processes information it receives. One thought is that the brain processes information much like a computer, another is that the brain processes information in a way that relies upon symbolism, and entanglement theory seems to me to be another idea about how such information is processed. But this is still physical in nature. In fact, here is the first line from the link: Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. So I would say this could fit right in with a materialist perspective.

Entrainment: Again, things like pheromones and sunlight are physical in nature. They effect our behavior, even though we can't see them with the naked eye.

And about energy fields...I have no doubt things such as energy exist. Our bodies emit radiation. Whether or not the energy our bodies give off are "auras" or something else is beyond the scope of what I'm prepared to argue. But regardless of what you call it, it still seems to me to by physical in nature (as is evidenced by the examples you provided of people measuring light and other emissions coming from people). Weird? Sure. Supernatural or metaphysical? Nah.

I'll say again that science doesn't have all the answers. It doesn't have them right now. But arguing that since science doesn't know, then it must be chakras or what you will does nothing to evidence the existence of them. It's the good old argument from ignorance. It's the same as a theist saying "Well since science can't answer how the universe actually began, then it must of been God." No. It could be any vast number of things. That's not to say such things don't exist (or even that God(s) don't exist), but it's not a good argument to prove their existence.

First of all, I went to the time and trouble to find articles in English (and not German) about Schroedinger's ideas, as I didn't know if you were bilingual. I made sure that the other sources I found were not from "New Age" sites or anything like that. I was as polite to you as I knew how to be. If you read my opening line in that post, it was that perhaps the concepts of "supernatural" things were ideas given in the past to describe things that had yet to be explored and explained by science. To imply that I said "because science doesn't know it must be chakras or what you will..." is to my mind incorrect at the very least and impolite at the most. Or do you think that science should never explore such matters?

I didn't mean to be but I was in a rush and may have said some off-handed things - if that offended you then I apologize. In my post I said the following: It often seems to me that many of the ideas regarding chakras and auras are an attempt to mollify our collective fear of the unknown. Which is essentially in agreement with the opening line of your post.

I was not trying to characterize your argument in the final paragraph of my post - I should have made it clear that I was referring to a larger argument that is used to inject these ideas into mainstream discourse.

How's that for a definitive answer?

I think a Christian can be one who follows Christ's teachings. I would suppose that a belief in God goes along with that, but I suspect there are more than a few Unitarian Universalists, for example, who wouldn't suppose that at all.

Is there a reason it's important to you to be able to label your beliefs? Honest question here -- and just wondering.

it would be up to you to decide if you are a Christian though.

Since you don't believe in God. I can't see that there would be much reason for you to align yourself with Christianity, since it is ultimately a belief in God (whether you believe in the divinity of Christ or not, there generally is a view that God exists I think)

But then again, who am I to say?

on how you answer Jesus' question "Who do you say I am?" Matthew 16:15

The more traditional people who take the bible literally and believe every word would say you are not. Most of these people are also the same ones who are anti-choice, anti-gay, and so on. Many times they wind up being hypocrites who have no ability to look beyond the limits of the bible.

Now, I grew up baptist and used to call myself a christian. I was saved and baptized.

For the last few years, I haven't considered myself one because I honestly don't really understand it and I don't want a label associated with the brand of Christianity that is running this country. Am I a christian if I believe Jesus was the son of god and accepted him into my heart, but don't believe anything else in the bible?

When it comes to what is a christian and what isn't, there are a lot of contradictions to be found both in the bible and in the words and actions of people who call themselves christians. In the end, it's up to us to be honest with ourselves to see if that label truly applies.