Theoretically, you could be both Atheist and Christian

[Taverner]

That is, if you take Christian at its meaning: to be like Christ. You don't have to see him as God, or even believe the stories in the bible. Taking on a Christian Philosophy would make you a Christian.

What do you think?

[ingac70]

1. I guess so...

Jesus' message got fucked up when people started worshiping him and taking the word of someone who wasn't even there (Paul).

That said, what you described isn't too far off from Unitarianism.

Thomas Jefferson is an example of what you stated.

[Taverner]

3. Yes Jefferson was a Deist.

And if I remember correctly, he compiled his own bible (not such a crazy idea, considering what we call the bible was put together by Roman Imperialists seeking to keep hold of a dying empire) omitting everything except a few books.

Considering Jesus never said "I am God, worship me" or "Believe in the Trinity" - all of this was added around 100 years after, there should be more Atheist Christians out there :)

[damntexdem]

19. They think so:

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/

[ingac70]

28. Thanks so much for that link!

:hi:

[Deep13]

73. Jefferson's deism was a rejection of religion.

In those days few could conceive of how the universe came into existence without a first cause, so deism became the default position of skeptics. Had Jefferson known about Darwinsim and modern cosmology, it is reasonable to suppose he would have taken the extra very small step an renounced all supernatural influences, if he did not anyway.

[Dorian Gray]

2. "Christian" is such a vague word....

It doesn't tell you much about the person, though it denotes "believer." But "believer" in what, exactly.

I suppose you could semantically make that argument. I identify more as Catholic than as Christian, though if someone were to ask me if I were Christian, I'd say "Yes, of the Roman Catholic variety."

I've never heard someone say "I'm a Christian" in response to a question about what faith they are. It's usually "Methodist/Lutheran/Episcopalian/Baptist" type answer.

[Taverner]

5. What would you call someone who follows the teaching of Karl Marx?

Or a follower of John Maynard Keynes?

And despite Clinton being the most Keynesian President for quite some time, I don't think he'd ever consider the Economist a God, but I might be wrong...

[Dorian Gray]

17. You are right about the Marxism stuff

but the problem is that you'd have to have atheists willing to call themselves Christians, and because of the connotations that word has to them, I can't see many atheists embracing the dual label.

[uberllama42]

31. Marx, FWIW, disowned the "Marxist" movement

Didn't stop some of the worst atrocities in history being committed in the name of Marxist dogma, though.

[Taverner]

34. Makes me wonder what Christ would say, if he indeed existed, about Christianity

[unpossibles]

71. "you did WHAT in my name?!?!"

maybe followed by "you people really weren't paying attention, were you?!? And please get that cross out of my face!"

;)

[heidler1]

7. This poses the question, which has the best shot at getting into Heaven ?

The avowed Christian who ignores following the beatitudes or the Atheist-humanist who sees hope for mankind in living his/her life by the beatitudes? Of course this is presuming that there is a Heaven.

If there is no after life, which is my view, which of the two life styles would lend its self to personal contentment and happiness?

[Taverner]

8. And which life style would lead one to being the "salt of the Earth"?

Which lifestyle flavors the world around them in a pleasant way?

I too don't believe in any Deity, afterlife or anything beyond the natural. I don't even think Christ ever existed.

However, millions believe he existed, and many philosophies have been designed around creating a perfect ethic. This pursuit should not die with the death of God.

[heidler1]

13. The ultimate fake-ry is to pretend personal goodness while aiming at the eternal afterlife.

To me this fits most people's in practice lifestyle subterfuge to a tee. Most humans can not or do not even try to get this.

You would think that if this God they believe in knows all, fooling their God is impossible. So the facade turns out in appearance to be only an act for seeking favors or advantage over other people. True virtue is very rare IMO.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Both, of course! nt

[Dorian Gray]

18. Personally,

I believe the latter. But that is just my belief, and I can't truly say I know the answer. I would certainly much rather spend eternity in heaven with atheists who did much for their fellow human kind than asshole Christians who look out only for themselves. Yuck.

[kwassa]

4. "christian" has many, many meanings.

Different Christians might strongly disagree with your definition.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrdefnresp.htm

Definitions of "Christian" -- the current status:

Many, perhaps most, Christians believe that their personal definition of "Christian" is the correct one.
We have listed over 40 different definitions of the term "Christian" in this section
These definitions differ significantly from each other; many are mutually exclusive.
Each definition has been developed by one or more sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful persons. Most or all of them probably believe that their definition is the true one.
According to the ARIS study in 2001, 76.5% (159 million) of American adults "said" that they are Christian.
Many people who consider themselves to be Christians do not recognize others as Christians.
Some definitions are quite inclusive and include approximately 160 million American adults -- over 70% of the population. Others are so restrictive that they might only include a few tens of thousands of adults (perhaps 0.02% of the total number of adults) in the U.S. as Christians.

[Taverner]

6. Let me put it this way...no disrespect to Christians but

I'm an Atheist, but I do follow a lot of Christ's teaching. First shall be last, etc...

My depiction of Christ? The musical Godspell. I consider that musical to be closer to a real Christ than any "bible"

[kwassa]

9. That's fine, not that I know "Godspell"

I pretty much agree with your definition of Christian, though I also have a broadbased nonliteralist belief in God.

At a church I attended in the early '90s in LA, we sometimes had celebrity guests sing solos with us choir members. Carl Anderson was a terrific singer who sang with us, and the only reason I bring it up is that he originated the role of Judas Iscariot in "Jesus Christ Superstar". Best live singer I ever heard.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Well, of course, based on that same bible...

But I agree -- maybe it's growing up at a particular time, but the sort of hippie Godspell Jesus has always appealed to me.

[More Than A Feeling]

10. I see what you are getting at, and at some level it makes sense, however...

If you don't believe the stories in the bible, how do you know what "christ" would be like? It seems that would lead to cherry-picking, and if you know enough to be able to cherry-pick, why would you need the bible in the first place? The only reason I could see for doing this would be if you wanted to be a part of a christian community, but were afraid that it would lead to trouble if you just joined them as an open atheist.

I guess if you wanted my advice, I would say that if you admire what ethics you can discern in the bible (after having cherry-picked and eliminated the repeated threats of hell and all that), you might be able to simply live them without identifying them as the property of jesus or buddha or anyone.

[Taverner]

11. Christ is a concept, not a real person

We can't verify that he even existed, let alone what he said and didn't say (would the Gospel of Thomas be included? The Apocryphon of John?) so I take the attitude that the concept of Christ as changed just as much as Christianity has. The one thing that Christ today and Christ of the gospels (both cannon and apocrypha) had was the idea of an absolute ethic. Of course, many religions have this. But the character of Christ as teacher, rebel and ethicist, although not novel, is one that he has seemed to fit into.

By my logic, the musical Godspell is just as accurate of a portrayal of Jesus as any other source.

[More Than A Feeling]

12. What does an "absolute ethic" mean to you?

[Taverner]

21. Good question

An absolute ethic can refer to a framework (as is often the case in Modern Christianity) or absolute rules that cannot be changed (as is often the case in Fundamentalist Christianity).

[More Than A Feeling]

29. I find the use of absolute to refer to a framework unhelpful and confusing,

in part because its not very common, but mostly because I just don't see the connection that makes such a word appropriate. Can you explain more?

[Taverner]

33. I don't subscribe to an absolute personally

But Christianity does, at least on some level

[BurtWorm]

45. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

Those are not the words of a rebel.

[laconicsax]

16. Nope

The most fundamental beliefs in Christianity are that there is a god and salvation comes through faith in that god. Rejection of theism is an embracing of reason over faith. As there is no evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure, considering oneself to be 'like Christ' necessitates faith in his existence. To reject theism (presumably through reason) but accept the existence of an individual based on faith is intellectually dishonest.

Not knowing your personal beliefs, I'm asking the next question hypothetically. If you are willing to put faith in the existence of Jesus, but not in any sort of god, what would your reasoning be?

[Taverner]

22. "considering oneself to be 'like Christ' necessitates faith in his existence"

Not necessarily - one could try and be like the Zeitgeist of Christ, rather than an actual historical figure. And one could be an Atheist, argue that Christ did at one time exist, and try to be like him, yet still not believe in a god.

[laconicsax]

23. I suppose

The linchpin is that any argument that Jesus existed would have to be made without any real supporting evidence. If however, someone were to regard him as an allegorical character and go from there, my question would be why focus on him, rather than adopt the philosophies of Judaism, the scriptures of which the allegory was based. It's much easier to simultaneously be Jewish and an atheist since a large part of Jewish philosophy is that the scriptures are meant to be interpreted rather than taken literally and you don't need to believe in a god to derive meaning from them.

[Taverner]

24. Because Christianity isn't just an amalgam of Judaism

There is also Greek Mithras-ian stuff there, Persian Zoroastrianism and even a touch of Buddhism.

Christianity was kind of the Esperanto of religion.

[Random_Australian]

20. Ah, isn't a christian someone who believes in Jesus' divinity, not someone

who is like christ?

In other words, if you use the word christian in that sense, you are not describing their religious beliefs at all, and the word is generally used to do so, right?

[Evoman]

25. My grandpa is a moral person.

And I don't call myself a Juanist because he taught me to be a moral person. In what other case do we ever name ourselves after people we are like, or people who teach us. I also don't call myself a Mr.Walkerist after my grade two teacher.

[PassingFair]

26. I like John Stuart Mill and Seneca, but I don't call myself a..

Millasenecist, or whatever.

[skater314159]

27. Definately!

If a person wants to follow the teachings and social justice precepts of Jesus (love one another, treat persons with equality, care for the poor and weak in society, stand up to oppressive occupation governments seeking to subvert the political autonomy of people, and take a stand against violence) it is NOT necessarry for them to be a "Christian" or even any sort of theist.

I don't see where/how this is shocking to people.

[anacreon]

30. I'm going to vote no

You can be an atheist who believes and follows many of the teachings of christ, but that does not make you a christian.

To be a Christian, you have to believe in god and christ. That is the basis of the religion.

That is what makes it a religion.

Actually, the only requirement for a membership in the christian club is the belief that Jesus is the son of god and that he died for your sins.

Without that belief, though, you are not a Christian.

[Meshuga]

32. You are what you say you are

But there are Christians believers who will not accept this definition. But if an atheist calls himself a Christian, he has to have the thick skin not to be judged as a believing Christian of any other spectrum since he/she is choosing a label that carries other definitions.

If you say that you are an atheist who follows the "ethics of Jesus" it would cause less confusion than to call yourself a Christian since people would assume that you are a believer.

[trotsky]

35. Of course, even the good things that Jesus allegedly taught...

were practiced and taught by lots of people hundreds and thousands of years before his time. There is no need to single that character out as someone who is worthy of emulation. There are hundreds of wonderful examples of humanity for us.

[Meshuga]

37. True

Why wouldn't a "Christian Atheist" call him or herself a "Buddhist Atheist" instead? Why single out Jesus as the only person worthy of emulation? The atheist could pick a more recent figure to emulate and become a "Gandhist" instead.

[TechBear_Seattle]

36. EVERYONE is an atheist (more or less)

"We are both atheists. I simply believe in one fewer god that you."

[Nihil]

38. FWIW, I agree with you.

By living your life in the manner that Christ suggested, you would indeed
be a "Christian" in the true sense of the word. Unfortunately, if this would
include his (/His) views on honouring "God the Father", it would clash a bit
with the "Atheist" side of your character (almost said "beliefs" there ...).

I think I follow what you mean (indeed, I view "living as Christ" as being
far more important than "turning up to church each Sunday") but there will
still be a wiggle space for the more literal self-identified "Christians"
to pick holes with your attitude.

:shrug:

IMO "Do the Right Thing" is about the simplest interpretation of any religion
or system of law I've encountered and saves a lot of waffle.

[varkam]

39. It all depends on how you define Christian.

A good number of people, though, see being a Christian as a mix between works and faith and that you need both in order to be a Christian.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. That's simply untrue. That's not what Christian means.

It doesn't mean "someone like Christ"; it means "someone who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God".

You can't do that if you're an atheist.

[Meshuga]

42. Coming to think of it...

I agree with you.

Even if being "Christian" means "someone like Christ", didn't Jesus believe in God? And what about the "Kingdom of Heaven"? What would that part of Jesus' teaching mean to a supposedly "atheist Christian"? Shouldn't a person believe in God (like Jesus believed in his father) in order to be "Christ-like"? Being an atheist goes against the preaching of Jesus since God seemed to be a huge component of his message. Perhaps I am missing something since I've had a few beers (while watching the NFL Championship games) but isn't God and "His Kingdom" part of Jesus' core message?

[moobu2]

41. Yes you can be culturally christian

And not believe in all the silly fairytales. You could be a muslim atheist and a jewish atheist as well.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

43. Of the three varieties you mention, I am the first and my boss is the third.

There must be quite some people of the second one too, but they're smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

[BurtWorm]

44. Being Christian implies believing in Christ--i.e., that Jesus of Nazareth was anointed by God.

Which means there's not likely to be a Christian who is an atheist, if "Christian" really means something.

However, as Christian also means "one who calls or considers oneself a Christian," you're right. There could be someone who considers himself or herself a Christian who actually does not believe in God.

I don't know where people get the idea that "Christian" means "one who imitates or emulates Christ." And what would that mean, really, anyway?

[Nihil]

46. You have two contradictory halves to your title

> Being Christian implies believing in Christ

A reasonable opinion in this discussion thread followed by ...

> --i.e., that Jesus of Nazareth was anointed by God.

... fabricated bullshit from the early so-called Christian era.
And you have conjoined the two believing that it justifies your view.

:crazy:

> I don't know where people get the idea that "Christian" means "one who
> imitates or emulates Christ." And what would that mean, really, anyway?

It would mean that they walk the walk rather than just talking the talk
(or, worse still, blindly believing others who only ever talked the talk).
Really.
:eyes:

[Meshuga]

47. FYI:

The word "Christ" is the Latinized/Anglicized version of the Greek translation for the Hebrew word "moshiach", the root for the word "moshiach" means "to anoint".

If a person believes Jesus to be "The Christ" then this person believes Jesus is the "anointed one".

I don't see the contradiction in Burtworm's title. Or I might be missing something.

And to be Christ-like wouldn't the person need to be a theist since Jesus was a theist himself?

(Edit: fixed spelling)

[BurtWorm]

48. You read me correctly Mr. Wiggles (though you got my name horribly wrong!)

:evilfrown:

I was in fact referring to the messianic meaning of "Christ."

[Meshuga]

50. Oops... Sorry man!

It was a typo, I swear! (lucky me that the "T" and the "R" are pretty close on the keyboard so I can use that excuse). I made the proper change because it did come out horribly wrong.

[BurtWorm]

51. Th'art forgiven.

:hi:

[Nihil]

52. Thanks but that wasn't the bit being questioned :-)

> If a person believes Jesus to be "The Christ" then this person believes
> Jesus is the "anointed one".

Being "anointed" merely means having undergone a particular ceremony.
As Jesus was of royal blood, it is perfectly understandable that he would
have been anointed as a baby. This did not make him God-like - the compilers
of the canon did that with their petty bigoted editing.

Technically, I am also an anointed one as I have undergone ceremonies
that include that as part of their ritual (baptism & confirmation).
In the same way, I can claim that I am *a* Son of God (as can any male
who believes in a Creator) but it would take some later revisionist to
make these facts into the sort of storyline mentioned in BurtWorm's title:

>> Jesus of Nazareth was anointed by God

FWIW,
> And to be Christ-like wouldn't the person need to be a theist since
> Jesus was a theist himself?
... I agreed with that contradiction in my earlier reply in the thread!
I was commenting on BurtWorm's incongruous (to my mind) title rather than
arguing that the OP was 100% accurate.

:hi:

[Meshuga]

55. Then you are the messiah

You are Christ, since you were anointed. :-)

With all joking aside, when BurtWorm wrote his post he was merely stating an example of what many Christians believe:

"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." -- Acts 10:38

You shouldn't questions BurtWorm, you should question the bible, the people who created Christianity, and the Christians who believe in this. If there are contradictions he is not the one creating them.

Going back to who should use the term "Christian", Christianity was not created by Jesus. He was just another Jewish person who, like others in his time (i.e, Bar-Kokhba), was considered to be the Jewish messiah (in the Jewish context) by Jews who practiced Judaism. These Jews were not Christians, they were Jews who thought Jesus was the Jewish messiah much like some members of Chabad believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was the messiah. These members of Chabad are Jews, and not "Rebbeists" or "Schneersonists". :-)

Paul came in and broke with Judaism, creating a new context for Jesus and the followers of this religion became the early Christians.

Coming to think of it, in my opinion, the term "Christian atheist" is meaningless. Why not an atheist call him or herself a Buddhist or a Hillelist or a Gandhist or whoever fits the profile with an "-ist" as the suffix? I can understand an atheist saying he is culturally Christian since he/she celebrates Christmas, Easter, etc. but that's about it.

[BurtWorm]

49. I find that when people claim to walk Jesus's walk

they're actually only walking a walk they impute to Jesus. The left is as guilty as the right on this score. They want just as much to exclude from "Christian" those who don't walk their kind of walk.

I have to conclude that "Christian" doesn't mean what lefties or righties think it means exculsively, but includes both. Which is why I think the best definition of "Christian" is "one who considers oneself a Christian."

[Nihil]

53. That is often true enough

> I find that when people claim to walk Jesus's walk
> they're actually only walking a walk they impute to Jesus.

I would go further and say that if someone claims to walk Jesus's walk,
they are probably focusing more on their own appearance than on the
actions of the person they claim to be following.

> I have to conclude that "Christian" doesn't mean what lefties or righties
> think it means exclusively, but includes both.

Agreed (and not only because no-one is likely to get any particular group
of either to agree withing the group over what they think it means!)

> Which is why I think the best definition of "Christian" is "one who considers oneself a Christian."

I still veer away from you on that point though as I am sure that GWB
considers himself to be a Christian but I sure as Hell don't agree with
that wide a definition ...

:shrug:

[BurtWorm]

54. Why can't George Bush be a Christian?

[Nihil]

56. What's a rhetorical question?

:-)

By his deeds shall a man be known. YMMV

[Meshuga]

57. Does deed matter?

According to the Bible (and not to wishful personal opinions), Bush is a Christian and if he believes in Jesus he has nothing to worry about, his ass is saved no matter how fucked up he is:

"... knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ ... for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:16)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8)

"I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." (John 11:25)

"... whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:15-16)

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

Jesus died for GWB's sin. Bush believes in Jesus therefore he is Christian, and according to the Bible, he is saved. Bush is doing as Jesus commanded. His sins are washed away by his belief in Jesus as the savior. Saying otherwise would go against the teaching of Jesus and the bible:

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." (Romans 5:8)

[Nihil]

59. Yes, deeds matter to me but apparently not to you. Fair enough.

> Bush is doing as Jesus commanded.
> His sins are washed away by his belief in Jesus as the savior.

Suddenly I realise why Bush has been elected President of the USA twice.

Our opinions differ. Thanks for the conversation.

[Meshuga]

60. What makes you come to the conclusion that deeds don't matter to me?

I wasn't talking about my opinion, I was talking about the bible's opinion. And I am not a Christian therefore I don't follow the gospels since to me they are inconsequential.

So I don't understand why you are trying to say that deeds don't matter to me. Unless I pissed you off for whatever reason and now you are attributing this to me out of frustration and without using any logic. But I am truly confused since I didn't have any intention of pissing you off or of attacking you or of annoying you.

[Nihil]

62. Merely the sequence of comments

> I don't understand why you are trying to say that deeds don't matter to me.

.56> By his deeds shall a man be known. YMMV

.57> Does deed matter?

I had stated my view (i.e., a man's deeds are more important than his words)
but understood that other people might have a different opinion (YMMV).
Your response was to question whether deeds mattered ... and to apparently
answer that question with bible quotes suggesting that deeds didn't matter.

Don't worry, you didn't piss me off - I simply backed off from this one. :hi:

[Meshuga]

65. You simply twisted my words

Is this what Christ would do?

You used only my title (ignoring the rest of my post) because it was convenient for you to create your context and twist things to get out of the discussion. How pathetic!

Suggestion: If you can't counter people's arguments it is better for you not to respond at all rather than lowering yourself to this level.

[Nihil]

67. No, I took your words as stated ...

... but incorrectly ascribed them to being your belief rather than
a theoretically objective post intended to provoke debate.

> You used only my title (ignoring the rest of my post) because it was
> convenient for you to create your context and twist things to get out
> of the discussion.

And you accuse *me* of twisting words?

I clearly recognised the rest of your post as I responded with
>> ... and to apparently answer that question with bible quotes
>> suggesting that deeds didn't matter.

... and, as I said above, I read your post as using the quotes and
supporting phrasing as expressing your belief rather than simply taking
an opposing view in a debate.

> How pathetic!

For someone who claimed that they didn't intend to attack me or
piss me off, your phrasing could be improved.

> Suggestion: If you can't counter people's arguments it is better
> for you not to respond at all rather than lowering yourself to
> this level.

In addition, for someone who is offering me "suggestions", you would
do well to read my posts rather than just write derisive replies.
(BTW, I don't think that your level is that low really :P )

> Is this what Christ would do?

I didn't realise He used the internet so I have no idea whether He
joins in discussions or simply ignores flame bait.
If you see him, ask him.
:hi:

[BurtWorm]

61. You completely missed Mr. Wiggles' point. And you shut down any possibility of getting it.

Not very Christian of you. ;)

[Nihil]

63. There's a reason for that ...

> Not very Christian of you.

... I'm not very Christian (according to your definitions :P )

I'm also not that interested in tag-team posting hence my "shutting down"
(as you view it) or "backing off" (as I viewed it). Your opinions are worth
exactly as much as mine so I left it as a simple difference of opinion.

Thanks for the chat though. :hi:

[BurtWorm]

64. Why, if you're not Christian, do you take "Christian" to be a positive term?

Why not neutral?

[Meshuga]

66. I think Nihil is saying he is not a Christian according to your definition

However, he is not a Christian by his own definition either. I wonder if he things his own conduct is Christ-like in any way?

[Nihil]

69. I am not a Christian by most people's definition FWIW ...

... but there are still people who consider me to be a Christian by
their own reckoning.

For example, the view of the Catholic Church is that I am a Christian
(specifically a Catholic) by virtue of having been baptised RC and
confirmed RC, having 'merely' lapsed for several decades.

There are others who have used the term "Christian" as a compliment
for my behaviour at different times. From them, I view it as praise.

Some people have also (equally mistakenly) called me a "Christian"
intending it to be perjorative or insulting but, as this has only
happened on anonymous discussion fora where I have not known anything
about the background of the people involved, it doesn't concern me
too much.

> However, he is not a Christian by his own definition either.

As a general rule you are correct.

I try to live by the precept "Do the right thing" so some of the time
this will coincide with the "Christian" way to do something yet at others
it doesn't.

I've learned quite a bit over the years not only about Christianity
(and its various flavours) but also about a host of other beliefs and
"attitude systems" (for want of a better phrase) and one aspect of
that which is decidedly non-Christian is that I don't view any one
approach as being above the rest (though paradoxically, I do view
some as being too extreme to take seriously). I read the R/T forum
here from time to time as it often broadens my outlook or fills in
some detail that I had previously missed.

> I wonder if he things his own conduct is Christ-like in any way?

No. As stated above, on a day-to-day basis, I don't.
I know most of my failings and though I might try to make a daily
advancement in addressing them, I know full well that the gap between
my conduct and "Christ-like" conduct is large indeed.

It would appear that as I misjudged your views in the other sub-thread,
you have perhaps misjudged mine? Or maybe I simply haven't been clear
enough. Either way, I hope this post closes the gap a bit.

(Edit for typo)

[Nihil]

68. It's a purely subjective view drawn from personal history & experience.

Most of the people that I consider Christian are admirable (at least most
of the time) and display the humanist properties ascribed to Christ.
They may or may not be regular churchgoers. Most of them don't share
some of the more extreme (IMO) views in scripture that have been posted
in this thread (e.g., any act is forgiven if the person claims to be
"saved") but I don't view that as a negative.

Yes, I have also known many who display the opposite characteristics yet
still call themselves "Christian" but, strangely for me, I've chosen the
optimistic view that the former group are more representative of the term
"Christian" than the latter.

Hence most of the time I view "Christian" as a mild positive term rather
than a strictly neutral or negative one. Hope this helps.

[BurtWorm]

58. Is there something about being "Christian" that disqualifies evil-doers from being among them?

Does that mean there are no evil-doers among Christians? It's that privileged a group?

[Zhade]

70. Since that's not the definition of Christian - no, you can't.

And even if it WAS, since there's no evidence Jesus even existed, how would you know what "being like Christ" means when the bible is so full of self-contradiction?

IOW, your premise is unsound.

[Deep13]

72. The Christian philosophy is that babies are born damned...

...and must have their souls redeemed by Christ's suffering and by living in preparation for the after-life.

What about that could possible appeal to someone who does not accept that the supernatural is real?