C.S. Lewis used to refer to something he called "Mere Christianity": as I understand it, Christianity stripped down to just the essential beliefs and propostions; all of which must be accepted in order to accurately refer to oneself as a Christian. What I want to ask the Christians on this forum is whether or not there actually exists such a thing. Is there some minimum set of criteria below which a theist would not be considered a Christian? Or is the label totally subjective?

I'm not posing this as some sort of atheist "trap". I genuinely want to know where people (Christians in particular) think the line between "Mere Christianity" and "That's Just Your Own Private Version Of Theism" is drawn.

Just accept a guy called Jesus into your life. After that, you're free to do anything you like. Right?

JayWilson wrote:Just accept a guy called Jesus into your life. After that, you're free to do anything you like. Right?

But we only "know" Jesus Christ through the New Testament. Would a Christian have to believe in his divinity (a la Lewis' "trilemma)? Maybe he only spoke with divine authority? Maybe he was just a nice guy?

How little of the miracle stories surrounding this figure does a Christian need to believe? Does a Christian need to accept them all? Some of them? Can you believe that they are all bullshit and still be a Christian?

What about the teachings of Jesus? How accurately are they reported?

What about the writings of Paul of Tarsus? How little weight can someone give those and still be a Christian? Seeing as he never met the historical Jesus, can a Christian say "Well that's just Paulie's opinion"?

Revelations? Does a Christian have to believe that it is literal prophecy? Complex metaphor? Or merely a testament to the awesomeness of 'shrooms?

How "moderate" can someone's Christianity get before it ceases to be Christianity?

A nearby congregation was in the local paper because of a spat between the minister and the church leaders over one of the organisations she was renting out the church hall to. The reporter interviewed her and she outright stated that she didn't believe any part of the supernatural stuff about Jesus. Her beliefs were probably best described as deist but thought that Jesus' teaching were worth following to lead a good life. She would no doubt be considered a heretic by many denominations but then again there are about 20,000 different christian sects just because they don't agree on the doctrine.

Edit I found a later story where she had been given the sack. Supposedly for financial reasons:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-shore-times/2294246/Minister-hits-out

The problem is that the teachings of Jesus are interspersed with, and justified by, claims of supernatural happenings. If one is willing to accept that an account has been edited to include miracles, how can you be sure that the "teachings" are authentic as well?

Essentially, does the sentence "I am a Christian" have any meaning at all?

A follower of Christ is the LOOSEST definition for a Christian. A more accurate definition of a "mere" Christian would be "A follower of Jesus who recognizes Jesus as Lord and Savior and that Jesus died upon the cross for humanity's sin, and 3 days later rose from the grave." Traditions and all the churchy stuff was added on later or carried on from Judaic principles.

willhud9 wrote:A follower of Christ is the LOOSEST definition for a Christian. A more accurate definition of a "mere" Christian would be "A follower of Jesus who recognizes Jesus as Lord and Savior and that Jesus died upon the cross for humanity's sin, and 3 days later rose from the grave." Traditions and all the churchy stuff was added on later or carried on from Judaic principles.

Hey Wilhud9

As a genuine question, is there no way you could see it that a "Mere" Christian could take the fourth option of Lewis' trilemma and not think of Jesus as a liar,lunatic or lord but a legend? Does something stop you from consigning the resurrection as as much a part of the "churchy stuff" as the magic tricks?

There are a number of friends of mine (here in the UK so they are of a pretty standard CofE wishy washy type) that ascribe to none of the supernatural stories but self identify as Christians. They tend to think the bible a compendium of important moral lessons and the Christ figure someone worth following the teachings of, perhaps even to aspire to being as Christians.

Just for clarification, I tend to think of the NT as being a compendium of stories tied into the life of one literary figure. I do however think that there was a historical Christ figure that died on the cross and bore a legend to his followers and rose to the current mythology.

Bribase wrote:

willhud9 wrote:A follower of Christ is the LOOSEST definition for a Christian. A more accurate definition of a "mere" Christian would be "A follower of Jesus who recognizes Jesus as Lord and Savior and that Jesus died upon the cross for humanity's sin, and 3 days later rose from the grave." Traditions and all the churchy stuff was added on later or carried on from Judaic principles.

Hey Wilhud9

As a genuine question, is there no way you could see it that a "Mere" Christian could take the fourth option of Lewis' trilemma and not think of Jesus as a liar,lunatic or lord but a legend? Does something stop you from consigning the resurrection as as much a part of the "churchy stuff" as the magic tricks?

There are a number of friends of mine (here in the UK so they are of a pretty standard CofE wishy washy type) that ascribe to none of the supernatural stories but self identify as Christians. They tend to think the bible a compendium of important moral lessons and the Christ figure someone worth following the teachings of, perhaps even to aspire to being as Christians.

Just for clarification, I tend to think of the NT as being a compendium of stories tied into the life of one literary figure. I do however think that there was a historical Christ figure that died on the cross and bore a legend to his followers and rose to the current mythology.

If the evidence was against the resurrection of Christ than yes I could believe He was a legend. But being that we have evidence for a historic Jesus, I do believe we are left with Lewis' options for Jesus.

willhud9 wrote:

Bribase wrote:

willhud9 wrote:A follower of Christ is the LOOSEST definition for a Christian. A more accurate definition of a "mere" Christian would be "A follower of Jesus who recognizes Jesus as Lord and Savior and that Jesus died upon the cross for humanity's sin, and 3 days later rose from the grave." Traditions and all the churchy stuff was added on later or carried on from Judaic principles.

Hey Wilhud9

As a genuine question, is there no way you could see it that a "Mere" Christian could take the fourth option of Lewis' trilemma and not think of Jesus as a liar,lunatic or lord but a legend? Does something stop you from consigning the resurrection as as much a part of the "churchy stuff" as the magic tricks?

There are a number of friends of mine (here in the UK so they are of a pretty standard CofE wishy washy type) that ascribe to none of the supernatural stories but self identify as Christians. They tend to think the bible a compendium of important moral lessons and the Christ figure someone worth following the teachings of, perhaps even to aspire to being as Christians.

Just for clarification, I tend to think of the NT as being a compendium of stories tied into the life of one literary figure. I do however think that there was a historical Christ figure that died on the cross and bore a legend to his followers and rose to the current mythology.

If the evidence was against the resurrection of Christ than yes I could believe He was a legend. But being that we have evidence for a historic Jesus, I do believe we are left with Lewis' options for Jesus.

A false dichotomy. Jesus being an actual historic person has no bearing on legendary aspects being attached to him.

klazmon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Bribase wrote:

Hey Wilhud9

As a genuine question, is there no way you could see it that a "Mere" Christian could take the fourth option of Lewis' trilemma and not think of Jesus as a liar,lunatic or lord but a legend? Does something stop you from consigning the resurrection as as much a part of the "churchy stuff" as the magic tricks?

There are a number of friends of mine (here in the UK so they are of a pretty standard CofE wishy washy type) that ascribe to none of the supernatural stories but self identify as Christians. They tend to think the bible a compendium of important moral lessons and the Christ figure someone worth following the teachings of, perhaps even to aspire to being as Christians.

Just for clarification, I tend to think of the NT as being a compendium of stories tied into the life of one literary figure. I do however think that there was a historical Christ figure that died on the cross and bore a legend to his followers and rose to the current mythology.

If the evidence was against the resurrection of Christ than yes I could believe He was a legend. But being that we have evidence for a historic Jesus, I do believe we are left with Lewis' options for Jesus.

A false dichotomy. Jesus being an actual historic person has no bearing on legendary aspects being attached to him.

Perhaps I should have said being that we have evidence for his crucifixion and lack of a producible body...

Are you asserting that there is historical evidence of Jesus' existence or evidence for the resurrection?

I searched for any entries of yours in the insanely long and drawn out stickied thread on the subject but couldn't find anything. I'm not suprised, I wouldn't wade into that.

I'll bite though, what is your evidence for either?

willhud9 wrote:

klazmon wrote:

A false dichotomy. Jesus being an actual historic person has no bearing on legendary aspects being attached to him.

Perhaps I should have said being that we have evidence for his crucifixion and lack of a producible body...

You mean claims were made of no body being found. Claims written by anonymous authors many years after the claimed events. Even if it were true it wouldn't be evidence for a resurection.

You know, I'd like to see an answer to the original question myself. Many times, out here in the southeastern United States, one is asked "Are you a Christian?" Those of us who have been, but are no longer often reply "Sorry, but not anymore." While a person may not believe in Christ or Christianity any longer, he or she may retain many of the teachings of Christ and take them to heart without attaching any supernatural reasoning behind it, aka "I'm good because I choose to be, don't care who is watching."

Christianity can't take any responsibility for the morality of people, since they are not the only ones who teach how to be "good people". So, can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in any of the legendary, mythical, magical, or otherwise attributed acts of Christ himself? What if you still essentially act like or could blend in with any other group of Christian people, minus the religious fervor?

Let me know if I'm drawing this conversation off-track, I'm just interested in the subject and the implications of some of these spin-offs you all have come up with.

willhud9 wrote:A follower of Christ is the LOOSEST definition for a Christian.

But not a particularly useful one.
Follower of Christ = Christian
Christian = Follower of Christ
It would seem to me that in order to be a "Follower of Christ" one would need to have some level of belief in the veracity of the Bible (our only source for his teachings).

A more accurate definition of a "mere" Christian would be "A follower of Jesus who recognizes Jesus as Lord and Savior and that Jesus died upon the cross for humanity's sin, and 3 days later rose from the grave." Traditions and all the churchy stuff was added on later or carried on from Judaic principles.

So Jesus' divinity and the Resurrection are non-negotiable tenets of Christianity?

BTW, this is not a thread for arguing the evidence for (or lack thereof) Christians' beliefs. It is about what the bare minimum of belief is in order to utter the sentence "I am a Christian." honestly.

For example, it is my understanding that if one believes that, "There is no god but God." and "Muhammed is the messenger of God." then one could honestly use the sentence "I am a Muslim." There is considerable latitude for the believer beyond that, but these two propositions are non-negotiable.

When asked if I am a Christian I respond by saying..."I'm trying to be."

Lion IRC wrote:When asked if I am a Christian I respond by saying..."I'm trying to be."

All that can reasonably be expected of you I suppose. I understand that the boss is big on forgiveness...

So what's your opinion on this topic? Is there some belief that you hold, without which you could not consider yourself a Christian? You say that you "try" to be a Christian. How would you distinguish this from my atheistic attempts to be a nice person?

This is going to be a good thread. I can tell.

Nicko wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:When asked if I am a Christian I respond by saying..."I'm trying to be."

All that can reasonably be expected of you I suppose. I understand that the boss is big on forgiveness...

So what's your opinion on this topic? Is there some belief that you hold, without which you could not consider yourself a Christian? You say that you "try" to be a Christian. How would you distinguish this from my atheistic attempts to be a nice person?

I think an honest desire to follow the Two Great (and equal) Commandments Jesus gave is the bare minimum.
a) Love God.
b) Love your neighbor.

Do you mean...how would I distinguish myself from someone who did "b" but not "a" ?

Lion IRC wrote:When asked if I am a Christian I respond by saying..."I'm trying to be."

Do or do not; there is no try.

Ephesians makes that clear with a side dash into Romans (None righteous etc...) Trying would be works of the flesh. One can only come to him by faith --- which is given by God. I want to know why he took mine away.

Edit: Corrected 'works or the flesh'

It is also interesting to note that one cannot come to the Father except that the Spirit calls them. (Yes, we get the alcohol jokes, they are so 2kX)

sennekuyl wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:When asked if I am a Christian I respond by saying..."I'm trying to be."

Do or do not; there is no try.

Ephesians makes that clear with a side dash into Romans (None righteous etc...) Trying would be works or the flesh. One can only come to him by faith --- which is given by God. I want to know why he took mine away.

Interesting idea. But, did God take your faith away or was your faith diminished by what would ultimately amount to natural causes?