Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Christians Decline Sharply in America


Grandpa Greenman

Recommended Posts

PA

Yes, "having" is a bit vague. "Living according to," however, makes the problem more urgent. Suppose that a person has accepted and implemented, so fas as they were able, the teachings imputed to Jesus of Galilee, and strove to correct their behavior if and when they found themselves to have fallen short. It is not obvious that that isn't living a Christian life, and it is hardly an abuse of the language to call a person who lives a Christian life, knowing of the Christian origin of their perspective on life, a "Christian."

Then by the same standards I declare any atheist who grew up in a society that evolved from Christian morality to also be "Christian"! If you agree with this proviso then I suppose I can't disagree.

Of course, that makes YOU a Christian also, does it not?

Why not? Actually, I'll think you'll find that Buddhism is often described as a middle way that balances asceticism and hedonism

Last I checked Buddhism was a way of looking at the world in which.....

*Suffering exists

*Suffering is a result of attachment

*Attachment can be relieved

*There is an 8-fold path that addresses this further

I have NEVER (and yes, capitalising doesn't make my point) seen a Buddhist argue that the result of suffering due to attachment can be fixed through hedonism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect there was a bit of a political strategy in Obama's 'opposition' of same-sex marriage in 2008. I think many left-wing democrocrats realized hat his position on this issue was far from cast in concrete and that many of his policies were still progressive anyway so as to make him an excellent candidate. As I said, I think his 'oppositon' to same-sex marriage was to consolidate the vote from the conservative fringe of the Democratic Party, espeically in the Southern states.

Wishy washiness, for whatever reason, is not a trait I can admire.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishy washiness, for whatever reason, is not a trait I can admire.

I have to agree with you, Michelle! When it comes down to it, I simply don't trust people who flip-flop back and forth on certain issues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

I have to agree with you, Michelle! When it comes down to it, I simply don't trust people who flip-flop back and forth on certain issues.

My way right or wrong, no chance for evolution of ideas in the face of evidence there then.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you, Michelle! When it comes down to it, I simply don't trust people who flip-flop back and forth on certain issues.

I am as much wary - if not more - of people who can't change their minds. That is, only Obama himself knows he was for or against gay marriage prior to the 2008 campaign. Publicly Obama has evolved towards full acceptance of gay marriage, privately perhaps it was already clear for him. At any rate, It was less clear in 2008 if the Conservative fringe of the Democratic party would be able to cast their ballots for a pro-gay marriage President. In 2012 this was no longer an issue.

Edited by samus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My way right or wrong, no chance for evolution of ideas in the face of evidence there then.

Br Cornelius

To set the record straight - I don't agree with this statement. I just can't stand people who try to ride the political fence on certain issues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but I am a big supporter of practicing celibacy if you can't afford to take care of the children you produce. Just goes with personal responsibility. Who would do that to a child - bring it into a world and not be able to provide for it? Seems very cruel to me - Just my opinion.

We are talking about human beings? Kind look like bonobo chimps? I think the reality of the situation hasn't really sunk in for you.

Getting your info from MSNBC? TIt for Tat! LOL!

No, I don't have cable or satellite, most of my national news come from PBS.

IMO, It also involves the human rights of the unborn "sentient" child, and the father.

I am a conservative who believes that women shouldn't be having children they can't afford, and I have very little sympathy for others who expect me to pay for their lack of personal responsibility. And it might surprise you that I also have no problem with most contraceptives, as long as I'm not expected to pay for it. I do know a lot of conservatives that feel the same way. Just want to set the record straight.

What about the born child in a dysfunctional family, who wasn't wanted in the first place. Contraceptives do fail. What about society's responsibility to the child who grows up in poverty. Conservatives think they shouldn't have to pay for contraceptives and they don't want to pay for the poor children. You end up paying anyway one way or another for your high moral horse. Prisons cost money to run.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a conservative who believes that women shouldn't be having children they can't afford, and I have very little sympathy for others who expect me to pay for their lack of personal responsibility.

People that harp on about the 'sanctity of life' and want abortions toend tend to have this kinda disturbing mindset.Ie, they want abortions tostop but don't want to deal with the issues that would result. As is often the case the sanctity of life only seemsto apply until the person is born at which point you couldn't care less about the life you claimed was so sacred before hand.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA

Then by the same standards I declare any atheist who grew up in a society that evolved from Christian morality to also be "Christian"! If you agree with this proviso then I suppose I can't disagree.

What same standards? Your concession omits two crucial elements which I have mentioned. The first and clearer is self-identification. If a person prefers not to be associated with Christianity, then politeness alone urges respect for their choice. The second is the "living according to," rather than lesser feats like "having" morals that may display Christian influence, or accidents of birth leading to Christian influence on thought.

Of course, that makes YOU a Christian also, does it not?

I sometimes woder, hypothetically, if I were ever judged by Jesus, as Muslims and Christians alike predict that I shall one day be, then how much of a quarrel would Jesus actually have with me? My life is so settled and boring that he could hardly find that much seriously wrong with me.

Apart from that, I acknowledge being culturally Christian, and my debt to Christian influences in my ethical thought. I am also culturally Greco-Roman pagan, with Celtic refinements, and acknowledge my debt to those pagan influences on many of my thoughts, too. My guess is that Christians and pagans are equally happy that I don't try to pass myself off as either one of them.

I have NEVER (and yes, capitalising doesn't make my point) seen a Buddhist argue that the result of suffering due to attachment can be fixed through hedonism.

That wasn't the claim of yours upon which I commented. It's interesting in its own right, but it has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Worse, neither your original comment, nor what I wrote about it, nor this latest diversion gets us one step closer to understanding Christian adherence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about human beings? Kind look like bonobo chimps? I think the reality of the situation hasn't really sunk in for you.

Will copy, paste, and reply to this in another thread so we don't keep going off topic, which I think the Mods frown upon. I don't want to get in trouble. :)

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=281662

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my thread and I am not worried about it. ;) A decline in Christian control would have social ramifications in issues of women's rights, abortion, and marriage equality.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey 8,

Interesting back-and-forth with you and PA, good discussion on both sides. PA has made two comments that I do agree with in the general sense, although I think your more recent discussions here are going into the specifics of what they actually mean (bold mine):

If you don't believe in Jesus at all but were baptised as a Catholic, you can be a Catholic but you CANNOT be a Christian.

they don't believe in Christianity but were baptised Catholics - they can be "Catholic" and the Vatican may agree with them, but they cannot be "Christian"

Although I don't think it's entirely out of bounds for a Christian to call themselves such if they only are following Jesus' ethical teachings, I think it's a stretch to leave the label without some sort of qualifier if they don't believe in the supernatural/magic parts. Maybe I'm uninformed on this, but it was my assumption that the vast majority of the 2 billion self-identifying Christians do believe at the very least in a spirit and that Jesus was resurrected; I think numbers like that give the people who, at the very least, believe those two things a pretty legitimate claim to the identifier.

I was also a little confused, or was ignorant about the beliefs of historical Christians, when you replied to the first quote from PA above with, "This is what being a Christian meant for a thousand years.". My question is what you thought PA's, 'if you don't believe in Jesus at all', meant, if anything, in the context of your reply? If I rearrange the two sentences, it seems strange to me that people who were baptized yet didn't believe in Jesus at all should be correctly termed 'Christians'. I meet both of those conditions actually, even if I wanted to self-identify as a Christian (as, I acknowledge, people in those thousand years had very strong incentives to do), I am not a Christian-with-no-qualifier today, in my view; regardless of my personal preference there as far as where I draw the line, has the term 'Christian' changed meanings historically? Was there really that large of a population of baptized Catholics who let on that they don't believe in Jesus at all who were nonetheless considered to be Christians? If you know, is it the position of the RCC today that if you are baptized you are a Christian no matter what your actual beliefs?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then by the same standards I declare any atheist who grew up in a society that evolved from Christian morality to also be "Christian"! If you agree with this proviso then I suppose I can't disagree.

Of course, that makes YOU a Christian also, does it not?

I wonder if saying you are an American Atheist Lesbian Progressive would save you from Al-Quida when they say, "You're American? You are a Christian then... Die Christian...(Chop!)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder though, are they being true to themselves and their religion? I'm asking this as someone, who just doesn't know how it goes. I have read where some churches try out new and contempary ideas, and I find that a bit not like them. (That is me and not that dependent on anyone else considering it. *shrugs* ) and I would think churches would want to stick to what they know.

Many churches try out new things. But ultimately they are all running off he same outline. Some have tried to "Fast Food" religion, but the message is all the same. At least until you get something like the Universalists, who mingle mangle a bunch of stuff together. Which I guess is a blend/hybrid religion, but it totally drops the Foundations of what makes each religion individual, and instead adopts teaching only about the most superficial things, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings.

If you take Salvation, the Holy Spirit, Communion, Baptism, Resurrection... Out of Christianity, what really is left over? Pot lucks and standing around talking nicely to each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly fruitless promises, Liberalism has consistently delivered on it promise of social progress.

Currently conservatives are more liberal than any conservative in history - because they are living with the fruits of liberalism. Do you really want to go back to a time when black men and women and even children were your chattles ?

Br Cornelius

Yet poverty is still the same as 100 years ago. Riots still rage in racially charged regions. Babies are aborted by the truckload. Dependence on the government is at an all time high.

Yes sir, that there is Progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet poverty is still the same as 100 years ago. Riots still rage in racially charged regions. Babies are aborted by the truckload. Dependence on the government is at an all time high.

Yes sir, that there is Progress.

Solving all of humanity's problems won't be done overnight though. If ever. Delusion is not what progress means.

Considering all the advancements Liberalism has brought to Western societies - as pointed out by Br Cornelius - perhaps then you could tell us how greatly the Conservatism ideology has benefited us all, besides promulgating the status quo and less gov involvement?

Edited by samus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LG

Although I don't think it's entirely out of bounds for a Christian to call themselves such if they only are following Jesus' ethical teachings, I think it's a stretch to leave the label without some sort of qualifier if they don't believe in the supernatural/magic parts.

I don't think that's a practical criterion for a movement with about 2 billion self-described members, spread across the globe, and now coming to the end of its twenieth century of contentious existence. I believe that all the mracles attributed to the earthly Jesus were real things, generally performed by early leaders, that were interpreted as magical-supernatural events, and possibly improved in the retelling, too. Does that disqualify me or not? Do you think something like my view is all that rare among high-school educated Christians?

Maybe I'm uninformed on this, but it was my assumption that the vast majority of the 2 billion self-identifying Christians do believe at the very least in a spirit and that Jesus was resurrected; I think numbers like that give the people who, at the very least, believe those two things a pretty legitimate claim to the identifier.

No problem if somebody believes that, and identifies themselves as Christian - they're Christian by me. Then again, I believe, based on Paul, that I am reading a ghost story, and I also believe that it is more likely than not that Paul's Jesus was a real man who had recently died. Isn't that a resurrection, at the very least in spirit? Younger Pliny attributes numinousness to the ghost of a dead man - that's an aspect of divinity. Am I then, as PA inquired, a Christian after all?

The prominence of the idea that what you believe alone determines your qualification for the label is a new compared with the long history of the religion.

What do we do about the Christians who came between those who stopped believing what Paul taught them when he died (that is, that he might not die), around 60 CE, but stayed in the faith, and the Protestants who read Paul as saying that belief in the parts that didn't fail to happen is enough, say around 1560 CE? Do we pretend that there were no Christians for 1500 years? (My "1000 years" referred specifically to the predominance of the sacramental efficacy theory, which I think took some time to develop and become domiannt.)

If not, then here's another belief that dates from that time span and is professed by the majority of Nicene Christians (Catholics + Eastern Orthodox + Oriental Orthodox and some others): Jesus Christ is actually and literally present in the bread and wine consecrated by a priest ordained by a bishop who stands in apostolic succession to the original First Century apostles. If we're going by a show of hands, then since most Protestants don't believe that, they wouldn't be Christians. Don't even think about asking whether Jesus' mother is bodily in Heaven - also a belief attested from early within the 1500 year gap and professed by a majority today.

If I rearrange the two sentences, it seems strange to me that people who were baptized yet didn't believe in Jesus at all should be correctly termed 'Christians'.

My poistion is that a necessary condition to call somebody Christian is that they agree, or you are willing to justify calling them mistaken about their own religious views. Somebody can be baptized as an infant and literally believe nothing at all about Jesus as an adult, but the situation PA brought up was adults who were baptized whenever and also continue to profess membership in a Christian church. They obviously believe something about Jesus as adults, but apparently not enough of the things which PA believes for their Christianity to "count."

has the term 'Christian' changed meanings historically?

I think so. It is churning even as we speak - the Reformation is hugely influential, but the majority still participate in sacramental, apostolic succession churches.

Was there really that large of a population of baptized Catholics who let on that they don't believe in Jesus at all who were nonetheless considered to be Christians?

I don't know how many of the infant-baptized were ever asked; since usually there would be no reason to ask unless they taught or otherwise actively participated in something suspected to be "heretical." Spanish Jews who converted to Catholicism as adults and were suspected of secretly remaining Jews would be an exceptional case. But generally, "Don't ask, don't tell" is the flavor of the thing. The church's position is that its teachings are true; who really cares what anybody personally thinks? It would be like me asking for your "beliefs" about the Pythagorean Theorem - either you say it's true, or else you're wrong. So why would I ask?

If you know, is it the position of the RCC today that if you are baptized you are a Christian no matter what your actual beliefs?

The RCC, like all Nicene Christian churches, professes a single universal church - that's what "Christianity but not necessarily Roman Catholicism" would refer to. You are a member of that universal church, to the satisfaction of the RCC, if you were ever validly baptized (validity being expansively defined, and including some exceptions for martyrs, etc.). The Nicenes also place the role of judgment of all people, members and non-members alike, in Jesus personally, and PA did acknowledge that much.

The problem with the ideal answer, "you're a Christian if both you and Christ say you are," is that Jesus isn't dispensing judgment publicly until he returns (whether he also judges you privately before then is yet another thing they disagree about). That return appearance could take a while, and people want to use the term "Christian" here and now.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA

What same standards? Your concession omits two crucial elements which I have mentioned. The first and clearer is self-identification. If a person prefers not to be associated with Christianity, then politeness alone urges respect for their choice.

So an atheist who identifies a cultural link to Catholicism is a "Christian", while an atheist who does not identify such a link is just an atheist? I can't agree.

The second is the "living according to," rather than lesser feats like "having" morals that may display Christian influence, or accidents of birth leading to Christian influence on thought.

I see no functional difference between "having" cultural morals and "living according to" cultural morals.

I sometimes woder, hypothetically, if I were ever judged by Jesus, as Muslims and Christians alike predict that I shall one day be, then how much of a quarrel would Jesus actually have with me? My life is so settled and boring that he could hardly find that much seriously wrong with me.

Apart from that, I acknowledge being culturally Christian, and my debt to Christian influences in my ethical thought. I am also culturally Greco-Roman pagan, with Celtic refinements, and acknowledge my debt to those pagan influences on many of my thoughts, too. My guess is that Christians and pagans are equally happy that I don't try to pass myself off as either one of them.

That wasn't the claim of yours upon which I commented. It's interesting in its own right, but it has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Worse, neither your original comment, nor what I wrote about it, nor this latest diversion gets us one step closer to understanding Christian adherence.

I acknowledge your acceptance of the role Christianity played in history and therefore the effects on your moral compass. But at the end of the day you are not a Christian. If you were born into a Roman Catholic family and were baptised then you still would not be Christian. You could identify as Catholic, but you cannot claim the mantle of "Christian".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They obviously believe something about Jesus as adults, but apparently not enough of the things which PA believes for their Christianity to "count."

Isn't this the crux of the argument that begun this discussion? The self-identification of belief in a phone poll compared to the actual view of the Roman Catholic Church? To the Vatican, whether someone self-identifies as Catholic is irrelevant to whether they are actually considered such. And vice versa.

And no, it isn't "obvious" they believe anything about Jesus at all. They literally said they don't believe in Jesus. Their identification as "Christian" is purely due to their culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a practical criterion for a movement with about 2 billion self-described members, spread across the globe, and now coming to the end of its twenieth century of contentious existence. I believe that all the mracles attributed to the earthly Jesus were real things, generally performed by early leaders, that were interpreted as magical-supernatural events, and possibly improved in the retelling, too. Does that disqualify me or not? Do you think something like my view is all that rare among high-school educated Christians?

I understand your point, but despite the different interpretations and denominations there does seem to be some requirements at its core, namely the main one, the resurrection. If someone was to tell me they were a Christian, I would assume they believe in an afterlife, a supreme God, salvation, and that Jesus rose from the dead; I'd call a belief that excludes any one of those something like 'Christ-based', not 'Christian'. Believing in miraculous healing, walking on water, dinosaurs on the ark, god hates gays, etc, is all optional equipment. I agree, things like salvation and rebirth and 'sacrifice' and such are ripe as symbols and metaphors for all kinds of things in life, but I don't think that most Christians believe those are just symbols.

If not, then here's another belief that dates from that time span and is professed by the majority of Nicene Christians (Catholics + Eastern Orthodox + Oriental Orthodox and some others): Jesus Christ is actually and literally present in the bread and wine consecrated by a priest ordained by a bishop who stands in apostolic succession to the original First Century apostles. If we're going by a show of hands, then since most Protestants don't believe that, they wouldn't be Christians. Don't even think about asking whether Jesus' mother is bodily in Heaven - also a belief attested from early within the 1500 year gap and professed by a majority today.

Interesting, I'll have to look into sacramental efficacy theory, never heard of it. I was just thinking about transubstantiation and was going to use it as a different example, but to the point of who's 'Christian', do Catholics, at least nowadays, believe that Protestants are not Christians? Do Protestants feel likewise about Catholics and their Mary-fetish? I probably shouldn't ask so generally, of course there are some/plenty who probably feel that way, but I was just curious if that attitude is stated or reflected in the church leadership for instance.

My position is that a necessary condition to call somebody Christian is that they agree, or you are willing to justify calling them mistaken about their own religious views.

I would agree that a Christian would need to call themselves a Christian. If I was to disagree that someone was a Christian, it wouldn't be because I think they are mistaken about their own religious views, it would be that they don't meet the definition of the word. Not just as I define it, but what most people in the world believe the word to mean, including 'Christians' themselves. I have trouble coming up with a for instance where I would ever care enough to mention my opinion on whether someone meets the criteria, but I still think there is some.

You are a member of that universal church, to the satisfaction of the RCC, if you were ever validly baptized (validity being expansively defined, and including some exceptions for martyrs, etc.).

It's kinda creepy to involuntarily be considered a member of a church, reminds me too much of the ghoulish proxy baptism of the dead by some Mormons.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Yet poverty is still the same as 100 years ago. Riots still rage in racially charged regions. Babies are aborted by the truckload. Dependence on the government is at an all time high.

Yes sir, that there is Progress.

Poverty the same as 100 years ago ? are you sure about that Diechecker.

I think your indulging in that hyperbole thing again.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA

Most points not already covered in earlier posts are covered in my reply to LG, below. A few that aren't and are peculiar to your remarks:

And no, it isn't "obvious" they believe anything about Jesus at all.

They believe that what claims to be his church is worth retaining an affiliation with, according to your report. How is that not something "about" Jesus?

Their identification as "Christian" is purely due to their culture.

Religion is an apsect of culture. How does your estimate of their purity about that help us?

I see no functional difference between "having" cultural morals and "living according to" cultural morals.

I do. Throughout this discussion, you have repeatedly deployed line-drawing arguments to complicate needlessly an attempt to apply the ordianry and usual English word that refers to what 2 billion people and two thousand years of their heritage have in common. Yes, there are isolated anomalies at the boundary. That's how natural language works.

With respect to the specific proposal to use a belief criterion: that fails to describe most of the 2 billion and most of the two thousand. It also defeats the possibility of a voluntary adherence, since belief is an involuntary state, both in psychology and under "irresistable grace" doctrines.

Ironically, when you get stuck on other occasions, you play the "faith is not really belief" card. Fine. Maintaining loyalty to the mystical body of Christ despite personal doubt is exactly keeping faith. Your couple maintains faith with Christ's movement despite their personal doubts. They aren't just Christians, they're potential saints (speaking of ideas that divide the 2 billion).

you cannot claim the mantle of "Christian".

That's not your call. It's as simple as that.

LG

I understand your point, but despite the different interpretations and denominations there does seem to be some requirements at its core, namely the main one, the resurrection

Fine, but as I mentioned, I do believe in the resurrection event (in the sense and with the level of confidence explained). That would also be a similar way that I believe in Jesus' mother's resurrection. I wouldn't rule out somebody seeing my ghost shortly after my time comes. The main difference, then, would be that I find those things uninformative and probably irrelevant about the constitution of the universe, the fate of the human species, and my personal destiny.

As to your choice of terms, that's fine. But given my goal of having one word that encompasses the 2 billion living people with an interest in being counted in, and all those who came before them to establish their heritage, and given that there actually is a fine English word that is used for just that purpose (even though, nothing new, some factions within the 2 billion would like the global word to apply exclusively to themselves), I'll pass on inventing a new word or phrase.

I don't think that most Christians believe those are just symbols.

This simply restates that finding something that 2 billion people all understand the same way, much less something they all believe in, far exceeds the difficulty that is ordinary and reasonable to endure just to use some one signle term that encompasses all of them.

ETA This really is an odd dispute, to my mind. I define and use a term in such a way that no person can object if it is applied to them (a feat in itself), and the only objection I hear is grousing that it might apply to somebody else whose beliefs or behaviors aren't up to the grievant's own personal ideal of a Christian. WTF?

BTW, I don't think any symbol is "just" a symbol to human thinkers. Am I still in?

do Catholics, at least nowadays, believe that Protestants are not Christians?

Depends on the Protestant. By RCC standards, the Anglican Communion (the largest Protestant denomination worldwide) is not only composed of Christians, but the church itself is in apostolic succession. Roughly, then, Anglicans are "as Christian as" the Russian Orthodox, say. For individuals, the RCC usually accepts what most people call baptism or christening as valid. As to the status of unbaptized people, that's really up to Jesus. The RCC is concerned with membership in a hypothetical entity, the universal church, not how English speakers use an ordinary adjective, much less how factions within the universal church view other factions.

Do Protestants feel likewise about Catholics and their Mary-fetish?

That also depends on the Protestant. The Anglicans retained many of their "Lady Chapels," for example. It is not really a "fetish," neither as a term of art, nor as a dismissal of the substance of the thing. There is a large body of beliefs at stake in the dispute, both directly (So what did happen to Jesus' Mom?) and indirectly (the teaching authority of the apostles and their successors, apart from their effectively undisputed prerogative to have canonized scripture).

Not just as I define it, but what most people in the world believe the word to mean, including 'Christians' themselves.

As I said, if we put it to a show of hands, then the Protestants are out. In the final slapdown among the apostolic succession churches, it will be a long night of counting, but there is a distinct possibility that the Catholics all by themselves have a majority. The Archdiocese of Chicago can be counted upon to discover a few extra ballot boxes if it gets too close.

It's kinda creepy to involuntarily be considered a member of a church, reminds me too much of the ghoulish proxy baptism of the dead by some Mormons.

Me, too. BUT (gratuitously using capital letters is all the rage these days) secular citizenship often works much the same way - circumstance of birth is a common criterion for that.

And finally, it is almost as creepy to me that somebody who keeps faith with a church, regardless of their belief, would be denied membership in the community by one faction, despite being recognized by their own faction which is at least the plurality and very possibility the majority of the community in question.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA

That's not your call. It's as simple as that.

Perhaps I cannot stop someone from identifying as Christian, but I can point out that not following Jesus is an indicator that one is not following Christ and therefore can't claim to be a follower of him. But you are absolutely right, it's not my call. Only God can ultimately decide a person's salvation status :)

Depends on the Protestant. By RCC standards, the Anglican Communion (the largest Protestant denomination worldwide) is not only composed of Christians, but the church itself is in apostolic succession.

When I used to live in Sydney the churches I attended were all Anglican. Now I live in rural Australia and Anglican churches here are still very much "high church" (complete with incense and robes and prayer books and the like). I prefer less ritualistic forms of worship and so I attend the Presbyterian church up here (though we had a Men's Convention up this way a few months back in which the keynote speaker was actually the former Anglican Archbishop of Sydney). But whether I attend a particular human denomination I don't think of myself as "Anglican" or "Presbyterian", just simply as "Christian". You've probably read me say this before, but to be exact I guess I would have to label myself a non-denominational Conservative Evangelical Bible-believing Protestant Christian (were I to be called up for a poll I guess I'd have to answer simply "protestant" or "Christian").

Random aside - my brother's friends came to visit us for a day, up from Sydney (they're now my friends too, I think we got along quite well). Turns out that by complete random coincidence the woman friend who came up here is the daughter of the Anglican Arch-deacon of my part of the world. She's personally an atheist but isn't anti-religion or anything like that.

See, told you it was random :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from that, I acknowledge being culturally Christian...

Just what is "culturally Christian", eb?

The society I grew up in was predominantly CoE, but my family was not religious and I had no experience of religious worship as a child, or even through my entire life to date. I am intellectually aware of what such worship entails, but have never been 'embraced' by it. The morality of the society I grew up in - well, could that be described as "Christian"? I have no doubt Christianity has embraced/adopted certain moral values and made them 'their own' - but that does not make those moral values particularly 'Christian'. Just as an adopted child is not genetically the child of his/her foster parents, those moral values are not genetically those of Christianity.

Given this, I can only envisage that "culturally Christian" is someone who embraces those values as being 'Christian' (I do not) and perhaps also grants or acknowledges Christianity as being the 'foundation' of the society they developed within. I hold neither of those criteria to necessarily be true, and I suspect many who are not 'religious Christians' would do the same. So, would this not make someone who is "culturally Christian" the same as a 'nonpracticing Christian'?

And if you do not self-identify as a nonpracticing Christian then perhaps referring to yourself as 'culturally Christian' is a misunderstanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA

I mentioned the Anglican Communion to LG not because of your history with it, which I do remember, but because some of his questions concerned matters where the relationship between the RCC and the Anglican Communion is "exceptional" and so worthy of mention.

Only God can ultimately decide a person's salvation status

That's a different issue from whether somebody is fairly and usefully described as "Christian" during this life. Not even all conservative Protestants conflate the two issues:

Let me guess. Robert Schuller and Billy Graham aren't Christians, either.

Leo

Cultural Christian was not my coinage, so I recommend Googlebing for guidance on its usage and etymology.

As you've probably noticed by now, I defer to just about all self-descriptions that aren't blatantly misleading (and I haven't come across any self descriptions that are foolproof against misleading somebody). If the shoe fits wear it, and if not, then wear something else instead.

Edited by eight bits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.