I wouldn’t be a Christian

[Brian37]

I recently heard an atheist asked whether they’d be a Christian if they woke up one day and believed in Jesus, The Bible, and so on. They said yes they would, because a Christian is someone who believes those things to be true.

I’ve always stated I wouldn’t be a Christian, even if I became convinced that it contained truth. But perhaps this is a contradiction. By the above definition I’d be a Christian, but I would call the whole thing morally corrupt, and I’d want no part of it; just as I wouldn’t vote for the Tories, but I still accept they are real.

I expect this comes up so rarely that there’s not even a particular term for it. I’ve heard of maltheism in general, and that’s rare enough, without a belief that a specific religion is true to rebel against.

What would I be called?

Far too often both theists and atheists get stuck on specific labels in human history.

If one is to take a generic approach, regardless of the pet deity and naked assertion asserted into the gap as a starting point, it would still fail morally.

I don't care if one is inserting Allah or Jesus or Yahweh, or even Jefferson's deist version of a god as the starting point.

It fails morally in all forms because the buyer of the claim has already assumed the claimed version is all powerful, and all knowing, and all loving.

In reality, regardless of the name one gives such a claimed being, at least in the west, if one has multiple kids, as parents, we don't get to cherry pick which kids we protect from harm, if we have the power to do it, and fail to protect them, we can have our kids taken away at a minimum, and or arrested for neglect or abuse.

The truth is our morality as a species is not handed down to us from above, in any language, in any old writing. It would be a horrifying reality if such a claimed being were real. It would put humans in the position of being mere property, props, toys or lab rats.

[brewer]

Wouldn't you be a heretic?

Side note: When I read the title immediately I hear the scarecrow from the wizard of oz. (If I only had a brain)

I suppose yeah, I’d be a heretic. But don’t Christians and the like accuse other actual worshipping Christians of being heretics because they’re not doing it right?

Congratulations, you've just started your own schism. Where do I send the required money?

[robvalue]

I suppose yeah, I’d be a heretic. But don’t Christians and the like accuse other actual worshipping Christians of being heretics because they’re not doing it right?

Congratulations, you've just started your own schism. Where do I send the required money?

Oh yeah! My branch of Christianity is to totally reject everything in all other branches of Christianity. Just like all the others I suppose.

[brewer]

Congratulations, you've just started your own schism. Where do I send the required money?

Oh yeah! My branch of Christianity is to totally reject everything in all other branches of Christianity. Just like all the others I suppose.

Gosh, I think you now need to decide if your going to create a new god head (starting something completely new) or just a church with a new twist on the same old thing.

[Drich]

I recently heard an atheist asked whether they’d be a Christian if they woke up one day and believed in Jesus, The Bible, and so on. They said yes they would, because a Christian is someone who believes those things to be true.

I’ve always stated I wouldn’t be a Christian, even if I became convinced that it contained truth. But perhaps this is a contradiction. By the above definition I’d be a Christian, but I would call the whole thing morally corrupt, and I’d want no part of it; just as I wouldn’t vote for the Tories, but I still accept they are real.

I expect this comes up so rarely that there’s not even a particular term for it. I’ve heard of maltheism in general, and that’s rare enough, without a belief that a specific religion is true to rebel against.

What would I be called?

Here's the thing big thinker..

We according to Christ and the bible do not get to award ourselves with such a title.

Only the religious claim christianity.

Jesus was not fond of religious people.

To object to religion and traditional beliefs as a means to salvation is following in the foot steps of Christ Himself.

If you learned the truth of Christ and accepted it you would be a believer not much different than me.

As I am not religious either. I go to church I believe in God but not the traditions and repetitions of religious worship. For those who need it, fine.. for those who don't, can live a life after Christ without it.

That is what bible christianity is all about. freedom from the law/religion as a means to be judged righteous before God.

Without Christ we must follow the law to be found righteous and everyone without Christ will be judged by this law... with Christ Christ blood covers the demand for restitution the law requires, so then you find rightness before God through christ and not through following the points of the law.

[Minimalist]

Why would you ever want to be anything like dripshit, Rob.  Seems like a lose-lose.

[The Valkyrie]

The comment I always make is that if I were provided with overwhelming evidence, I would be forced to believe in their god but I wouldn't worship it.

Conclusive proof of the Abrahamic deity would also pretty much proof that many of the events depicted in the bible were true, and NOTHING can get me to worship the monster that is the god of the OT.

[Drich]

Why would you ever want to be anything like dripshit, Rob.  Seems like a lose-lose.

Well not burning up in hell is a good motivator if nothing else... That and I do pretty good under the lord as a servant slave, better than most do on their own.

---

The comment I always make is that if I were provided with overwhelming evidence, I would be forced to believe in their god but I wouldn't worship it.

Conclusive proof of the Abrahamic deity would also pretty much proof that many of the events depicted in the bible were true, and NOTHING can get me to worship the monster that is the god of the OT.

which is fine.. to each their own.

my dad and uncle once ganged up on a 16 year old and beat the holy hell out of him. busted his scooter ripped his shirt and blacken both eyes and bloodied his nose. To me and every other 8 year non white kid my dad and uncle were heros. To the 16 year old and his little gang and to the 16 year old parent (who also was dragged out of his house and nuts kicked in my dad and his brother were monsters. just like God is to you..) probably for the same reason. In that God kicked the shit out of your dad and your brothers in the bible... never mind the reason because to you no one has that right to ever to that unless you first approve.

 for me I was 8ish and this 16 year old who looked like johnny from the karate kid kicked the living shit out of me nearly every single day of my life for almost 6 months.. cops were called parents were warned and this bastard did not care. he'd stop for a few days and then beat me more for ratting him out. there was this little mexican kid down the street who also got it. the white kids all worshiped him though. So my father got his brother to simply watch his back (kept the gang of his buddies from jumping my dad) and he kicked the hell out of him in front of his little gang of kids.

The point? a father watch out for his and his own... If you can only see wrong in what God done then you are not of him or belong to him. You belong to God's enemy . That can change... but only if you can get over your sense of right and wrong being better/more important that what God has established.

[Dr H]

I recently heard an atheist asked whether they’d be a Christian if they woke up one day and believed in Jesus, The Bible, and so on. They said yes they would, because a Christian is someone who believes those things to be true.

I’ve always stated I wouldn’t be a Christian, even if I became convinced that it contained truth. But perhaps this is a contradiction. By the above definition I’d be a Christian, but I would call the whole thing morally corrupt, and I’d want no part of it; just as I wouldn’t vote for the Tories, but I still accept they are real.

I expect this comes up so rarely that there’s not even a particular term for it. I’ve heard of maltheism in general, and that’s rare enough, without a belief that a specific religion is true to rebel against.

What would I be called?

The definition of "Christian" is so subjective that even Christians can't agree on it.  Many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians, Catholics disagree.  A bit rarer but still extant are Catholics who consider Protestants non-Christian heretics.  I had an extended argument with an apologist, an evangelical Protestant, who was willing to accept all Catholics and Protestants as Christian, but not Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses; I've spoken with Mormons and JWs who insisted that they are Christians.  And on, and on.

To me, anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ qualifies as a Christian.   A fuzzier area might be those who follow teachings ascribed to Jesus, but don't necessarily insist on his divinity -- I might term those "secular Christians".

Ultimately, in these days of identity politics, I think that what you choose to identify as, is more or less what you are, at least socially speaking.

So make up something cool-sounding.

[The Grand Nudger]

Took all of two pages for a christer to threaten every living non-christer soul with burning up in hell.  I remember some other asshole who swore to me that hell was just a separation from god.