But they should understand that when they call themselves “Christian,” the rest of the world will presume that they believe that Jesus is the son of God, rose from the dead, etc.

It is a fact that the rest of the world does not presume this. Many people, including most who call themselves Christian, are aware of the rift in the Christian community. As a result Christians distinguish themselves with additional labels (Covenant Presbyterians, bible believing, etc.) The conservatives often argue that anyone who doesn’t believe everything they believe is not a real Christian. It appears that you are their ally in this?

Since I don’t feel that it is my job to tell self described Christians if they are really Christian or not, I instead take them at their word. Christians are people who say they are Christians. This population has some things in common, and many disagreements. Some significant subset Christians do not believe in the literal resurrection. Sorry if that messes up your definition.

As for why they would chose to follow Jesus rather than someone else, it is not so hard to understand. It is what they were brought up with, they are comfortable with it, it makes sense to them. The son-of-God business doesn’t need to have anything to do with it. They could certainly do a lot worse.

Gavin

There is a large population of people who do not really care if there is an afterlife, if Christ literally rose from the dead, etc. They are, however, quite interested in following Jesus’s moral teachings. What do you suggest they call themselves if not Christian?

Gavin

N.B. The word I was discussing was “Christian” not “religious.”

Claiming that Christianity is just about how people get along is stretching the definition beyond its useful boundaries.

Claiming that Christianity is just about the resurrection, the afterlife and other details of its supernatural world view is also stretching the definition. I don’t think that is what you are trying to do; you want to see the whole picture.

However, the Christian community is very split and trying to represent it as having one accepted definition is not accurate. For many Christians the final judgement is the only thing that matters, and rotten behavior is acceptable if you can bring one more soul to Christ. Others strive to follow the radical teachings of compassion and selflessness, and figure that what happens after death will happen (or not), and don’t worry about it. Since the former view is much more in line with our natural tendency toward arrogance and self-indulgence, it is hardly a surprise that it has garnered a large and loud-mouthed following.

It is unfortunate that these two groups do not have clearly different names. I’d suggest “believing Christians” and “following Christians,” but no one asks me. They are generally referred to as conservative and liberal.

You are clearly frustrated with the conservative Christians that you quote, but I doubt you have much argument with the large population of liberal Christians. You will disagree with liberal Christians about the supernatural, but since liberal Christians aren’t focused on that, its not a very serious disagreement.

Since liberal Christians have no means of reigning in their obnoxious brethren, you might do them a favor by not lumping them all together when you are only criticizing one faction.

Gavin

Perhaps this is easier in Europe, where the major battles between the secularand the religious have already been fought, then in the US where they appear to be ongoing.

Almost as important as the actual writings is the community that develops
within the system. These connections through time are what make the lives
of people meaningful, and these connections are maintained not only
through personal relationships, but through the common thread and
teachings over time. This is true of any community.

For people who follow such a system, it is very diffucult to live in the modern
world. For them the system works, especially in small communities. They
see their children influenced by outside elements from the media and other
cultures. They see that sometimes these influences do not incorporate well
into their system, and they react strongly. This is not unique to Christianity,
it is pretty much universal to any community. A way of living that is healthy
and harmonious in one system may not be in another. Certainly Muslims
have made similar claims recently.

Some balance needs to be struck. Cultural relativism is important for
maintaining respect between cultures, but there are aspects of culture
that do not transfer. How does a people maintain their cultural identity
(and this includes the majority religions such as Catholocism, not just
minority religions and cultures) while still respecting the culture of others?
This all in the environment of increasing globalism and transfer of ideas
via the internet. Are we moving toward a global culture and if so what will
it be like? Or are we moving toward strict isolation and insulation of cultures
in order to maintain individual identities?

Erin

What do you mean with this? You seem to speak about religious thinking in general, and in my opinion there are questions to which religious thinking is highly relevant. These questions are not usually subject to the categories of correct and wrong either.

Religious thinking and scientific thinking are complementary elements, if they come into conflict it is because one has overstepped it’s bounds. Science by itself tells naught about human life. About the world we inhabitate which is very different from the world that we meassure.

And I think if we want to soundly critizise those christians who run rampant in our territory, we should watch our own steps as well.

On those questions I prefer a-religious answers as well, I find my guidance in the words of Nietzsche and Camus, instead of the Apostles, but in these questions I couldn’t claim there was a clear cut wrong way to think about things.

This is quite seperate from the specific religious thinking that is running the US at the moment. On these issues I couldn’t agree more, including the problematic (nonsense) claim that there is a true religion somewhere that is different from the actions of the religious.

I think this says it all–and it’s so true. I was frankly surprised recently to find the current Pope in essence agree with that statement. In this sense: He was asked why be a Catholic. What’s the benefit? What recommends it over other denominations or faiths? Now, bearing in mind that the current pontiff was the head of what used to be the office of the Inquisition, I was expecting a really long-winded response laced with the sort of theological terms that no one outside a seminary would get.

Instead, his response was, basically, “I can think of two reasons: the example of the lives of the saints, and the art.”

It struck me as an extremely humble answer. And one that perhaps should be forwarded to Bill O’Reilly. How about instead of whining about the war on Christmas, you just show people some B-Roll of the Vatican’s artwork, some Da Vinci or Michelangelo, and wish everyone everywhere a Merry Christmas and be done with it.

Friedrich Nietzsche

That’s the crux of it, really. I have a lot of sympathy for those who practice a tolerant and loving version of Christianity, but when liberal theologians try to claim that the religious right has “got it wrong,” they lose me. If it were easy to agree on what Christianity is and how to practice it, then why do we have 2000 years of schisms, persecution of heretics, and religious wars?