Is there such a thing as a "Christian"?

[Moochie]

I see the appellation bandied about, but it seems to me that there are thousands of varieties of "Christians," let alone "believers."

I think it's time people professed what is actually in their minds about this, because it seems to me that many out there are toeing a line simply to conform to the community in which they live.

It takes courage, and a certain amount of value clarification, but the result can be tremendously liberating.


M.

[Marquis de Carabas]

There's thousands of varieties of beetles, too.

[bleep]

Much like race, religion is largely a matter of self-identification. For example, Webster's first definition of the term is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). I definitely think this is true of everyone who would call themself Christian, so it's an agreeable definition.

[CriticalSock]

I think one think I can guarantee though is that any definition of christian that you come up with will be "not quite right" for any christian that you try and pin it on.

[bleep]

Is there any Christian who wouldn't conform to the definition I quoted above? That's not to say they wouldn't disagree with that definition - I'm sure individual Christian sects have more detailed ones, but they would not say that that definition does not describe them.

[Moochie]

There's thousands of varieties of beetles, too.


True, I think, but what is your point?


M.

[boyntonstu]

Much like race, religion is largely a matter of self-identification. For example, Webster's first definition of the term is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). I definitely think this is true of everyone who would call themself Christian, so it's an agreeable definition.


Is a "Fairy" someone who professes a belief in fairies?

How about the many folks who believe in "Angels", are they as "Angelic" as a "Christian".

What does it mean to believe in the fictional "Jesus Christ"?

Is it the same as a belief in "Unicorns"?

[Moochie]

Much like race, religion is largely a matter of self-identification. For example, Webster's first definition of the term is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). I definitely think this is true of everyone who would call themself Christian, so it's an agreeable definition.

Possibly correct, yet when questioned by someone who's actually familiarized themself with the book, many if not most "Christians" haven't a clue.

This leads me to the conclusion alluded to in my post: many, if not most professed "Christians/believers" are simply or merely toeing the line in order to conform with prevailing societal norms. In other words, most folks aren't iconoclasts; ie, they lack the courage to overtly question perceived "leaders/authorities," whether they be their "boss," "religious leader," mayor, or the president.


M.

[Marquis de Carabas]

True, I think, but what is your point?


M.
That "there are thousands of varieties of X" is not a statement which casts doubt on the existence of X.

[CriticalSock]

Is there any Christian who wouldn't conform to the definition I quoted above? That's not to say they wouldn't disagree with that definition - I'm sure individual Christian sects have more detailed ones, but they would not say that that definition does not describe them.

Yes, that's a good enough definition for non-christians, but it wouldn't be good enough for any christian because it puts them in the same group along with all the other sects which they disagree with and hate with a passion.

[CriticalSock]

Hi Bleep and welcome to the forum by the way. (Where are my manners!) :)

[Fnord]

Defining a typical 'Christian' ...

Follows Christ's directives.
Reads the Bible.
Attends church.

(Choose any two.)

[Moochie]

That "there are thousands of varieties of X" is not a statement which casts doubt on the existence of X.


Sorry, too esoteric for me. Try harder.


M.

[Piscivore]

Possibly correct, yet when questioned by someone who's actually familiarized themself with the book, many if not most "Christians" haven't a clue.

The name only indicates they belive in Christ, it says nothing about their relationship to the bible. Time was, unless one was a priest, one was not allowed, and likely not even able, to read the bible. Didn't make one any less Christian.

[Moochie]

The name only indicates they belive in Christ, it says nothing about their relationship to the bible. Time was, unless one was a priest, one was not allowed, and likely not even able, to read the bible. Didn't make one any less Christian.

Good point, but I doubt that it applies today.


M.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Sorry, too esoteric for me. Try harder.


M.
No.

[Piscivore]

Good point, but I doubt that it applies today.


M.

Why shouldn't it? Why do you (or anyone else) get to define what "Christian" should mean to a Christian?

[Tormac]

I do think this is trickier than it may first appear.

For example with bleep’s first Webster definition (in post #3) “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ” you run into the issue of Muslims who will say that they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but defiantly don’t identify themselves as Christians. I believe it is an orthodox Muslim view that the Christians misinterpret what the prophet Jesus said and meant, while the Muslims correctly understand the existence of Jesus and his teachings.

Anytime you have groups that claim to know the mind of God, without being able to produce said god and have the deity speak for itself, it is very easy to start bickering over interpretations.

[Piscivore]

I do think this is trickier than it may first appear.

For example with bleep’s first Webster definition (in post #3) “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ” you run into the issue of Muslims who will say that they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but defiantly don’t identify themselves as Christians. I believe it is an orthodox Muslim view that the Christians misinterpret what the prophet Jesus said and meant, while the Muslims correctly understand the existence of Jesus and his teachings.

Anytime you have groups that claim to know the mind of God, without being able to produce said god and have the deity speak for itself, it is very easy to start bickering over interpretations.

Same goes for any word like that. "American" is going to mean different things to different people. That's why you let the people that call themselves "Christian" decide what it means.

[Moochie]

Why shouldn't it? Why do you (or anyone else) get to define what "Christian" should mean to a Christian?


I don't. Just how many "Christians" or believers in general have you spoken with?

I can only speak for my own community, but that's what I understand from my interactions with them. (Like family and neighbors sending their kids to religious schools, when they themselves participate in no religious observations whatever. This is commonplace in Australia.)

When questioned, only a very nebulous comprehension of their professed religion is displayed. It's like they're hedging their bets: they, themselves, don't believe, but they're sending their kids to church schools "just in case."

This sort of silliness is more widespread than you'd believe. Check out your own community. Maybe it's different where you live, but in Australia it's fairly common. That's why it's so difficult to get a handle on what it is that people actually believe.


M.

[Maia]

Is a "Fairy" someone who professes a belief in fairies?



Um.... well, no, not in Tennessee anyway. The Faeries (self-id'd, I might add) are the ones who live at Short Mountain (http://directory.ic.org/1068/Short_Mountain_Sanctuary_Inc), and they always show up at all the parties dressed in butterfly wings. :)

[Moochie]

No.

Maybe later?


M.

[Piscivore]

I don't. Just how many "Christians" or believers in general have you spoken with?
Hundreds, I'd guess, all across the spectrum.

I can only speak for my own community, but that's what I understand from my interactions with them. (Like family and neighbors sending their kids to religious schools, when they themselves participate in no religious observations whatever. This is commonplace in Australia.)

When questioned, only a very nebulous comprehension of their professed religion is displayed. It's like they're hedging their bets: they, themselves, don't believe, but they're sending their kids to church schools "just in case." This sort of silliness is more widespread than you'd believe.
I've met some like that. I'd even go so far to say that the majority of belivers I've met would fall under that description, to varying degrees. So what? It just means that religion isn't a signifigant part of their lives. It does not make them not Christian. There is no "threshold of involment".

I've also met some really nice Baptists for whom religion was absolutely central to their lives, so much so that they took the story of the Good Samaritan to heart and got our group out of a really sticky situation in East St. Louis one time.

I dated a Pentacostal girl for whom Jesus was so important to her life he got brought up in nearly every conversation, and knew the bible chapter and verse.

I've also spoken to Catholics for whom my previous posts more or less still holds true- it's the priest that's in charge of knowing the scripture and telling the congregation what's what. The congregants just follow along and say the prayers they're supposed to.

Check out your own community.
My community is likely a lot more diverse than many others. Not only because it is in America, where we get people from all countries, but Arizona gets them and people from all the other states as well, because of our climate.

Maybe it's different where you live, but in Australia it's fairly common. That's why it's so difficult to get a handle on what it is that people actually believe.
Exactly the point that needs to be made over and over. "Christian" does not refer to a single, monolithic belief system.

If you want to know what someone believes, ask them. Don't try to puzzle it out by decoding their label.

[Hokulele]

This sort of silliness is more widespread than you'd believe. Check out your own community. Maybe it's different where you live, but in Australia it's fairly common. That's why it's so difficult to get a handle on what it is that people actually believe.


It is quite different where I live. Out of all of the region of the United States, Hawai'i is arguably the most diverse culturally and as it pertains to religion. It is the only state where Christians do not form the majority of the population. Our Congresscritters are openly listed as being Christian, Buddhist, and Non-religious (I don't know if Mr. Abercrombie is a closest atheist, or if he just doesn't give a damn about any god-stuff). Because of this, those people I know who label themselves as being of a particular faith are generally active and knowledgeable about their religion. Of course, the vast majority follow the faith in which they were raised, but they are at least aware of the options, and many have attended services at other churches/temples/etc.

As always, there is more variation in culture and belief than some people like to recognize, and I always prefer to ask people what they believe and why rather than assume.

[AvalonXQ]

I do think this is trickier than it may first appear.

For example with bleep’s first Webster definition (in post #3) “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ” you run into the issue of Muslims who will say that they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but defiantly don’t identify themselves as Christians. I believe it is an orthodox Muslim view that the Christians misinterpret what the prophet Jesus said and meant, while the Muslims correctly understand the existence of Jesus and his teachings.

Right. So, perhaps a better definition would be: "Those who worship Jesus Christ as God in the flesh."
This distinguishes between those who simply follow the teachings of Jesus as a man or prophet (who tend not to identify as Christian) and those who follow his teachings as God (who do).
However, I think this definition still falsely identifies the Baha'i as Christians. Not sure what to do about that.
From "the inside", you're right that the definition member of my church family generally use for "Christian" is a whole lot narrower than this: a believing member of Christ's Church. Of course, this definition requires external judgment rather than just self-identification and so is much harder to use in practice.

[ponderingturtle]

Much like race, religion is largely a matter of self-identification. For example, Webster's first definition of the term is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). I definitely think this is true of everyone who would call themself Christian, so it's an agreeable definition.

I think comparison with race is apt, in that both are social labels and subject to cultural influences. But I am not sure that the self applied part is the most relevant in either case.

Someone can self identify as what ever race they want, but they will not be treated as a member of that race by others if they do not meet the physical and cultural traits that the other person views as associated with that race.

[Moochie]

Hundreds, I'd guess, all across the spectrum.


I've met some like that. I'd even go so far to say that the majority of belivers I've met would fall under that description, to varying degrees. So what? It just means that religion isn't a signifigant part of their lives. It does not make them not Christian. There is no "threshold of involment".

I've also met some really nice Baptists for whom religion was absolutely central to their lives, so much so that they took the story of the Good Samaritan to heart and got our group out of a really sticky situation in East St. Louis one time.

I dated a Pentacostal girl for whom Jesus was so important to her life he got brought up in nearly every conversation, and knew the bible chapter and verse.

I've also spoken to Catholics for whom my previous posts more or less still holds true- it's the priest that's in charge of knowing the scripture and telling the congregation what's what. The congregants just follow along and say the prayers they're supposed to.


My community is likely a lot more diverse than many others. Not only because it is in America, where we get people from all countries, but Arizona gets them and people from all the other states as well, because of our climate.


Exactly the point that needs to be made over and over. "Christian" does not refer to a single, monolithic belief system.

If you want to know what someone believes, ask them. Don't try to puzzle it out by decoding their label.


What I gather from your response is that it is not the beliefs people hold, but how they behave with others that stands out in your interactions with them, and that certainly jibes with what I have encountered.

Also, as far as I know, what religious beliefs people hold doesn't seem to have much, if any, influence on their behavior, unless the society they live in holds certain religious precepts paramount.

To get back on topic, I'm saying that it is difficult to determine what religion, if any, people follow/adhere to, because many appear to be simply following "tradition," rather than expressing any firmly held belief in a god and accompanying religious precepts.


M.

[AvalonXQ]

Also, as far as I know, what religious beliefs people hold doesn't seem to have much, if any, influence on their behavior, [I]unless the society they live in holds certain religious precepts paramount.

Having dealt with and befriended communities made up primarily of Christians and communities made up primarily of atheists, I can tell you that, in my personal experience, the former group were far kinder, more loyal, and just generally better people than the latter. I was not expecting this to be the case, but it was. So, my own anecdotal experience says what you believe (or don't believe) matters.

[Ravynn123]

I do think this is trickier than it may first appear.

For example with bleep’s first Webster definition (in post #3) “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ” you run into the issue of Muslims who will say that they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but defiantly don’t identify themselves as Christians. I believe it is an orthodox Muslim view that the Christians misinterpret what the prophet Jesus said and meant, while the Muslims correctly understand the existence of Jesus and his teachings.

Anytime you have groups that claim to know the mind of God, without being able to produce said god and have the deity speak for itself, it is very easy to start bickering over interpretations.

Yes Tormac you are correct in that Muslims only see Jesus Christ as a prophet of God and not the son of God. So even though we acknowledge his existence we do not see him as the son of God and therefor would not be considered Christians. :)

[Moochie]

Having dealt with and befriended communities made up primarily of Christians and communities made up primarily of atheists, I can tell you that, in my personal experience, the former group were far kinder, more loyal, and just generally better people than the latter. I was not expecting this to be the case, but it was. So, my own anecdotal experience says what you believe (or don't believe) matters.

I agree. But I do not believe in fairy tales.


M.

[AvalonXQ]

I agree. But I do not believe in fairy tales.

In my case, though, these experiences helped reassure me that Christianity isn't a fairy tale. Christ really does make a positive difference in people's lives.

[Third Eye Open]

All I can be sure of when someone tells me they are christian is that they believe in some kind of higher power, or mystical force in the universe. It doesn't even necessarily mean they believe in a personal god anymore.

[Moochie]

Yes Tormac you are correct in that Muslims only see Jesus Christ as a prophet of God and not the son of God. So even though we acknowledge his existence we do not see him as the son of God and therefor would not be considered Christians. :)


Although I didn't make it clear in my first post, I'd like to widen the discussion to all beliefs that are not supported by empirical evidence.

I have read a good amount of Buddhist literature, enough to help me make some little sense of the world in which I find myself. In general, many "practitioners" of Buddhism are also prone to belief in what we would consider "woo" concepts, such as karma and reincarnation. Karma I understand to mean "what goes around comes around," or somesuch. Reincarnation seems pure fantasy, except perhaps in the atomic sense.

I don't understand Buddha's "enlightenment," except perhaps as a kind of fatalism that accepts everything human flesh is heir to -- a kind of surrender to the inevitable.


M.

[Niggle]

Yes Tormac you are correct in that Muslims only see Jesus Christ as a prophet of God and not the son of God. So even though we acknowledge his existence we do not see him as the son of God and therefor would not be considered Christians. :)

Hmmm. Is this a widespread belief in the Muslim community? It sounds like Webster's may have to tweak their definition!

Oh, and, welcome to the forum! I look forward to reading your input to some of the religion threads around here! The fresh viewpoint would be welcome!

[Niggle]

This leads me to the conclusion alluded to in my post: many, if not most professed "Christians/believers" are simply or merely toeing the line in order to conform with prevailing societal norms. In other words, most folks aren't iconoclasts; ie, they lack the courage to overtly question perceived "leaders/authorities," whether they be their "boss," "religious leader," mayor, or the president.

Why does someone have to question other members of a group one belongs to in order to be considered a part of it? Or am I misinterpreting your meaning here?

[Piscivore]

What I gather from your response is that it is not the beliefs people hold, but how they behave with others that stands out in your interactions with them, and that certainly jibes with what I have encountered.
Well, I am a behaviourist.

Also, as far as I know, what religious beliefs people hold doesn't seem to have much, if any, influence on their behavior,
Right. Their "beliefs" are their behaviours. It doesn't matter what people say. A fellow can tell you all day that he doesn't believe in stealing, for instance, and then you find his hand on your wallet.

unless the society they live in holds certain religious precepts paramount.
Nonsense, people violate the precepts of their society all the time. Frequently, with enthusiam. Especially those that are merely religious (i.e. those with no civil enforcement backing them up).

To get back on topic, I'm saying that it is difficult to determine what religion, if any, people follow/adhere to, because many appear to be simply following "tradition," rather than expressing any firmly held belief in a god and accompanying religious precepts.
Right. And you can't know to what degree unless you ask. But it's not a reason to decide for them they aren't "Christian".

[Hokulele]

Right. Their "beliefs" are their behaviours. It doesn't matter what people say. A fellow can tell you all day that he doesn't believe in stealing, for instance, and then you find his hand on your wallet.


Whoops, how did that get there?

:whistling

[Niggle]

Having dealt with and befriended communities made up primarily of Christians and communities made up primarily of atheists, I can tell you that, in my personal experience, the former group were far kinder, more loyal, and just generally better people than the latter. I was not expecting this to be the case, but it was. So, my own anecdotal experience says what you believe (or don't believe) matters.

And Roadtoad can tell you horror stories of how he was treated by his own Christian communities when he was a Christian and needed help (he's talked about it on several threads here). Your anecdote is just that, I'm afraid, and can't really be used to draw general conclusions.

I think part of the problem is the huge variety of Christians claiming the label and trying to do so exclusively (as you do to here when you start splitting hairs about who is and isn't a Christian in your eyes). It creates an "Us vs. Them" mentality that only hurts their reputation in the eyes of outsiders.

[Piscivore]

In my case, though, these experiences helped reassure me that Christianity isn't a fairy tale. Christ really does make a positive difference in people's lives.

I would say it is more accurate to state "what some people believe about Christ has helped them make a positive difference in their own or others' lives."

And in some cases, the opposite. See: Phelps, Fred.

[Ravynn123]

Hmmm. Is this a widespread belief in the Muslim community? It sounds like Webster's may have to tweak their definition!

Oh, and, welcome to the forum! I look forward to reading your input to some of the religion threads around here! The fresh viewpoint would be welcome!


Thank you for the welcome. And yes this is a wide spread belief at least to Sunni Muslims. I can't speak for other sects of muslims.

[Hokulele]

And Roadtoad can tell you horror stories of how he was treated by his own Christian communities when he was a Christian and needed help (he's talked about it on several threads here). Your anecdote is just that, I'm afraid, and can't really be used to draw general conclusions.

I think part of the problem is the huge variety of Christians claiming the label and trying to do so exclusively (as you do to here when you start splitting hairs about who is and isn't a Christian in your eyes). It creates an "Us vs. Them" mentality that only hurts their reputation in the eyes of outsiders.


Actually, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if AvalonXQ's observation is true. A lot will depend on the age of the atheists in question. On this forum, you probably have a higher average age amongst the atheists than in real life. Many (but not all, of course) young people who call themselves atheists do so out of a sense of rebellion, whether it is rebelling against something specific, or out of a general sense of wanting to be "cool". Many older people who call themselves atheists do so because after much thought, that is the label that best matches their understanding.

In other words, some people are atheists because they are snots, but I do not know of anyone who is a snot because they are an atheist.

[Moochie]

Whoops, how did that get there?

:whistling


Too much exposure to the Peter Popoffs of this world, I reckon.


M.

[Niggle]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if AvalonXQ's observation is true. A lot will depend on the age of the atheists in question. On this forum, you probably have a higher average age amongst the atheists than in real life. Many (but not all, of course) young people who call themselves atheists do so out of a sense of rebellion, whether it is rebelling against something specific, or out of a general sense of wanting to be "cool". Many older people who call themselves atheists do so because after much thought, that is the label that best matches their understanding.

In other words, some people are atheists because they are snots, but I do not know of anyone who is a snot because they are an atheist.

That's an interesting thought. Kinda feeds back to Moochie's original premise, too. "I want to be rebellious, so I'll call myself an atheist" vs. "I want to go along with everyone else, so I'll call myself a Christian."

Moochie, is there an age differential to this attitude you've noticed? Are younger people more likely to be these "Christians in name only" that you've noticed?

[Monster Machine]

I think part of the problem is the huge variety of Christians claiming the label and trying to do so exclusively (as you do to here when you start splitting hairs about who is and isn't a Christian in your eyes). It creates an "Us vs. Them" mentality that only hurts their reputation in the eyes of outsiders.

It would be nice if they addressed themselves based on the denomination to which they belong, ESPECIALLY during discussions.

"I'm a baptist christian. I will never lose my salvation."

"I'm a free methodist christian. I can lose my salvation. Oh, and I don't drink."

"I'm a lutheran christian. Where did I put my glass of wine?"


I think only non denominational chrsitians should call themselves just christian. IMO, of course.

Monster

[Hokulele]

That's an interesting thought. Kinda feeds back to Moochie's original premise, too. "I want to be rebellious, so I'll call myself an atheist" vs. "I want to go along with everyone else, so I'll call myself a Christian."


There is also the point that AvalonXQ is a Christian being treated kindly by Christians and less so by atheists. I wonder if his experience would be different if he were a Hindu, Muslim, or atheist?

[AvalonXQ]

There is also the point that AvalonXQ is a Christian being treated kindly by Christians and less so by atheists. I wonder if his experience would be different if he were a Hindu, Muslim, or atheist?

It may have more to do with Californian Christians being nicer than normal Californians.

[Hokulele]

It may have more to do with Californian Christians being nicer than normal Californians.


There are normal Californians? I learn something new every day. ;)

[AvalonXQ]

There are normal Californians? I learn something new every day. ;)

There are traits that are normal for Californians. "Solipsistic" comes to mind. "Superficial". "Amoral".
I didn't like it there.

[Hokulele]

Methinks you either didn't spend enough time there, or you spent time in the wrong parts of California. It is big enough to contain pockets of just about everything, including what you experienced. After having spent many years traveling to various parts of the state in various roles, I will state with a great deal of confidence that there truly is no such beast as a "normal" Californian.

Your mileage clearly varied.

[AvalonXQ]

Agreed. I was confined to the Bay Area only.
I concede I have no basis to generalize beyond there.

[Darat]

Possibly correct, yet when questioned by someone who's actually familiarized themself with the book, many if not most "Christians" haven't a clue.

...snip...

For most of Christianity's existence (and by that I mean everyone who called themselves a Christian for a thousand and odd years!) having familiarity with the Bible was not seen as necessary and indeed it would have been considered almost, if not actual, heresy for a lay-person to have such knowledge.

[Thunder]

knowledge of the Bible????

can read Latin???

heretic!!! burn him!!! burn him!!!!!

:D

[bleep]

Yes Tormac you are correct in that Muslims only see Jesus Christ as a prophet of God and not the son of God. So even though we acknowledge his existence we do not see him as the son of God and therefor would not be considered Christians. :)Tormac raises a good point though: under the 1st definition in Webster's, you would be considered a Christian, as would adherents to the Bahá'í Faith. So clearly that definition needs some revision lol. Perhaps it should add the following stipulations:
1. A Christian must believe that Jesus Christ is the son of god.
2. A Christian must believe that Jesus Christ's died for mankind's sins.*

*Exactly what that means is debatable - some sects reject the concept of original sin altogether. But it is a good general guideline.

Perhaps it is best to accept religion as an organic construct without hard boundaries that delineate different beliefs.

Btw thanks for the welcomes all :)

[Darat]

Tormac raises a good point though: under the 1st definition in Webster's, you would be considered a Christian, as would adherents to the Bahá'í Faith. So clearly that definition needs some revision lol. Perhaps it should add the following stipulations:
1. A Christian must believe that Jesus Christ is the son of god.
2. A Christian must believe that Jesus Christ's died for mankind's sins.*

*Exactly what that means is debatable - some sects reject the concept of original sin altogether. But it is a good general guideline.

Perhaps it is best to accept religion as an organic construct without hard boundaries that delineate different beliefs.

Btw thanks for the welcomes all :)

The CofE has had Bishops that wouldn't be classed as Christian under this definition....

[Darat]

It would be nice if they addressed themselves based on the denomination to which they belong, ESPECIALLY during discussions.

"I'm a baptist christian. I will never lose my salvation."

"I'm a free methodist christian. I can lose my salvation. Oh, and I don't drink."

"I'm a lutheran christian. Where did I put my glass of wine?"


I think only non denominational chrsitians should call themselves just christian. IMO, of course.

Monster

Even then it is problematic - there's a Christian Member, cj.23 who has in his signature his denomination "...I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts..." but is quite reluctant to being tied down to saying that his Christian beliefs include the entirety of the "Thirty-Nine Articles" (one of the core doctrines of the Anglican church). cj.23 is a very thoughtful, intelligent and interesting contributor to the Forum so even when a Christian is happy to self-label, the label they choose may not be that revealing.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if AvalonXQ's observation is true. A lot will depend on the age of the atheists in question. On this forum, you probably have a higher average age amongst the atheists than in real life. Many (but not all, of course) young people who call themselves atheists do so out of a sense of rebellion, whether it is rebelling against something specific, or out of a general sense of wanting to be "cool". Many older people who call themselves atheists do so because after much thought, that is the label that best matches their understanding.

In other words, some people are atheists because they are snots, but I do not know of anyone who is a snot because they are an atheist.

Actually, that's an interesting thing anyway, because I don't think the rebellious teenage stereotype is only about being cool.

It's more like the age where you start noticing that the world doesn't match all those lies you've been told as a child, and mostly you're still being told. You increasingly can't reconcile the sanitized ideal world you've been taught, with the real world and all the stupid things which work just because they've always been done that way and everyone does them.

E.g., you're told that you don't have to march with the group in lockstep and that "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" but then you notice that that's what the adults _do_. They do countless stupid social rituals just to assure the rest of _their_ group that they belong there and, yes, they too would jump off a bridge if it came to that.

E.g., you grew up told that honesty and integrity are all that. But then you notice that not only RL is uglier than that, but the same people who told you that _worship_ some liars and cheats.

E.g., you're told that clothes don't make a man, or that it's OK to be different and to be yourself, but then daddy puts on a uniform every morning (e.g., a suit and tie). Because he wouldn't want really to be seen as too different or as himself. RL tends to be more unforgiving in that aspect.

E.g., you're told that you're special and that it's who you are or do, not what you own... but, yeah, it's funny how RL doesn't really work that way.

There are thousands of little things that adults do, and which go right against everything they taught you as right.

And eventually that cognitive dissonance ends up in a crash of your old model, and rationalizing all the stupid stuff around you as right. It's the way it's always been done, that's what works, it must be right, only losers and misfits question it. Right?

But at any rate, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the teenage critiques of society. Maybe they don't have a better solution than the status quo, but they all too often do have a point. And if religion happens to be one thing they rebel against... well, they probably do have a point there too.

[Monster Machine]

Even then it is problematic - there's a Christian Member, cj.23 who has in his signature his denomination "...I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts..." but is quite reluctant to being tied down to saying that his Christian beliefs include the entirety of the "Thirty-Nine Articles" (one of the core doctrines of the Anglican church). cj.23 is a very thoughtful, intelligent and interesting contributor to the Forum so even when a Christian is happy to self-label, the label they choose may not be that revealing.

It's unfortunate how even when someone designates themselves as such, they still want to pick and choose what they believe in. I believe if you claim a religious sect, you should take it all, good with the bad. If you don't agree with everything, then you should just call yourself a christian that attends an anglican church.

Monster

[Moochie]

That's an interesting thought. Kinda feeds back to Moochie's original premise, too. "I want to be rebellious, so I'll call myself an atheist" vs. "I want to go along with everyone else, so I'll call myself a Christian."

Moochie, is there an age differential to this attitude you've noticed? Are younger people more likely to be these "Christians in name only" that you've noticed?

Because I'm older, I've tended to notice it in older people (40+). From what I've seen and read, there seem to be some prominent atheists who think that many professed Christians are simply "winging it," like in the example I gave earlier, of non-practicing parents sending their children to Christian schools "just in case."

I guess what I'm thinking is that the reported numbers one sees in the media regarding religious affiliation can't really be trusted, whatever country they're for. I think those who make the loudest noise about the issue are those who have the most to lose: established churches and the clergy. I think that most people haven't actually devoted a great deal of thought to what they believe, and so will "go with the flow" in whatever community they live in.


M.

[Moochie]

For most of Christianity's existence (and by that I mean everyone who called themselves a Christian for a thousand and odd years!) having familiarity with the Bible was not seen as necessary and indeed it would have been considered almost, if not actual, heresy for a lay-person to have such knowledge.

I suspect that this is correct. Cutting out the "middle-men" (and they're mostly men) would spell doom for the enterprise.


M.

[Hokulele]

Actually, that's an interesting thing anyway, because I don't think the rebellious teenage stereotype is only about being cool.

<snipped supporting arguments to save space>




I agree, I was simply offering a data point that would explain the public impression that atheists are snots that shows it isn't necessarily based on atheism itself.

But at any rate, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the teenage critiques of society. Maybe they don't have a better solution than the status quo, but they all too often do have a point. And if religion happens to be one thing they rebel against... well, they probably do have a point there too.


This is a very valid point. The only reason I brought up age is that teenagers who are rebelling against something, even if it is for valid reasons, are more likely to be snots about it than teenagers who aren't rebelling against something, for example, those who are atheists because they were brought up that way. Teenagers are often right about things, but are unfairly dismissed due to their age.

Now get off my lawn, YOU DAMN KIDS!

[Piscivore]

Actually, that's an interesting thing anyway, because I don't think the rebellious teenage stereotype is only about being cool.

It's more like the age where you start noticing that the world doesn't match all those lies you've been told as a child, and mostly you're still being told. You increasingly can't reconcile the sanitized ideal world you've been taught, with the real world and all the stupid things which work just because they've always been done that way and everyone does them.

E.g., you're told that you don't have to march with the group in lockstep and that "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" but then you notice that that's what the adults _do_. They do countless stupid social rituals just to assure the rest of _their_ group that they belong there and, yes, they too would jump off a bridge if it came to that.
Holden Caulfield ruined it for everyone. :)

E.g., you grew up told that honesty and integrity are all that.
My kids weren't. I've told them that as teenagers, I expect them to lie to me, but to have the respect for my intelligence to put some effort into it.

But at any rate, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the teenage critiques of society. Maybe they don't have a better solution than the status quo, but they all too often do have a point. And if religion happens to be one thing they rebel against... well, they probably do have a point there too.

This is a very valid point. The only reason I brought up age is that teenagers who are rebelling against something, even if it is for valid reasons, are more likely to be snots about it than teenagers who aren't rebelling against something, for example, those who are atheists because they were brought up that way.

My daughter is rebelling by trying to be Mormon.

[sphenisc]

... but I do not know of anyone who is a snot because they are an atheist.

That would be the atheist bogeyman.

[Hokulele]

That would be the atheist bogeyman.


I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that there are people who are snots specifically because they are atheists? I would argue that although atheism may be what they are primarily snotty about, their snottiness is a character trait, not a relic of a worldview.

[sphenisc]

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that there are people who are snots specifically because they are atheists? I would argue that although atheism may be what they are primarily snotty about, their snottiness is a character trait, not a relic of a worldview.

Possibly UKcentric pun : bogey = snot = nasal mucus

Citation :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_and_Dom_in_da_Bungalow#Bogies

[Hokulele]

Possibly UKcentric pun : bogey = snot = nasal mucus


:D

Yup, that is a language barrier issue. I have always heard those referred to as "boogers".

I apologize for ruining the joke.

[Lothian]

I saw Celebrity big brother last night (don't worry I am getting counselling).

Lady Sovereign (a singer) was discussing Stephen Baldwin (an actor) with another housemate after he had made a long 'grace' before tea. She asked "So, is 'e a real Christian like, all homophobic and stuff?"

[Darat]

I saw Celebrity big brother last night (don't worry I am getting counselling).

Lady Sovereign (a singer) was discussing Stephen Baldwin (an actor) with another housemate after he had made a long 'grace' before tea. She asked "So, is 'e a real Christian like, all homophobic and stuff?"

I'm still trying to get over your confession but I shall struggle on... I am surprised she had such an in depth knowledge of the faith.

[Moochie]

Is this thread going off topic?


M.