Why are so many Christians unwilling to say they are Christians?

[Kenny]

There tends to be an association with Christianity and the republican party though there are Christians in political parties such as Democrats, Libertarians, Independents and other parties as well.

I would tend to agree. Even though there are Christians in every sphere, the tendency is to lean Republican because of its platform.
I'm actually an independent. But in Florida, that basically means you can't vote until the elections. So, to have a greater voice in the system, I registered into a party and the Republican platform lines up a little better to my values than the Dem's platform.

that doesn't mean that one is bad and the other good but rather the compilation of all the information leans more in one direction for Christians.

 

[Kenny]

The thing with the GOP is that they have been infiltrated by evangelicals, who can be quite extreme.

I think the statement here has a hue of personal viewpoints.

The word infiltrate is, "1: to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purposes"

That wouldn't really define it not to mention there are Christians in every political shere.

Extremism isn't really relegated to any particular group, Even feminists have extremists IMV.

No... it is more about simply people want a voice in the elections. There are different groups in the GOP. I believe there is even a LGBT group in the GOP

 

[Heyo]

I've noticed something on these forums. Those who are followers of Jesus, who believe that he is the messiah who died for their sins, come up with all sorts of novel labels rather than simply identifying as Christian.

Can someone please explain to me why?

I've noticed the opposite. "Christians" label themselves as "Christians", an utterly meaningless term (or, as you noticed, an even more fuzzy circumscription like "Jesus follower"). Why not be precise and state the denomination?
Can it be that, in the presence of atheists, they like the strength in numbers and only fight among themselves when we are far away?

 

[Wildswanderer]

must say though that I was never totally comfortable describing myself as "Christian" as I couldn't get to a belief in so many of the basics, like resurrection, virgin birth, the Trinity, and so on. Nevertheless I did so for convenience, and the Church didn't seem too worried about it. I decided that the "many roads to heaven" idea was likely correct, though my own version was "one road, many vehicles".

Don't the Methodist quote the Nicene Creed every Sunday? How could you participate if you didn't believe most of it?

 

[firedragon]

I've noticed something on these forums. Those who are followers of Jesus, who believe that he is the messiah who died for their sins, come up with all sorts of novel labels rather than simply identifying as Christian.

Can someone please explain to me why?

That's interesting. I have never noticed this.

 

[Alien826]

Don't the Methodist quote the Nicene Creed every Sunday? How could you participate if you didn't believe most of it?

Yup. I said the bits I believed and didn't say the rest.

I found the writings of Marcus Borg very helpful with all this. Essentially he divides the scriptures into "before Easter" (the actual life and teachings of Jesus) and "after Easter" (what came to be believed by the Christian community later). I can go into it more if you wish.

 

[pearl]

I found the writings of Marcus Borg very helpful with all this. Essentially he divides the scriptures into "before Easter" (the actual life and teachings of Jesus) and "after Easter" (what came to be believed by the Christian community later). I can go into it more if you wish.

I haven't heard that name for a long time. Many years ago I completed a two year Bible study, the 1st on Hebrew Scripture, the 2nd on Christian Scripture. Very interesting course, each chapter was followed by differing scholarly opinions. One was Dr Marcus Borg, on the 'historical' Jesus, 'The historical Jesus and the Christ of Christian experience.'

"When we combine the truly remarkable quality of his historical life with the conviction of his earliest followers that they continued to experience his as a living reality even after his death, its easy to see why they applied the most honorific titles and images known within Judaism to him. Similarly, within a few centuries, the most exalted concepts known to Greek philosophy were used to speak of him; only begotten Son of God, of one substance with the Father. These exalted claims do not go back to the historical Jesus himself they are true about the living Christ of Christian experience.
He directs us to the two primary concerns of his own tradition which are simultaneously the perennial human issues; the reality of Spirit, and the quest for compassion, peace, and community."

 

[Kenny]

I've noticed the opposite. "Christians" label themselves as "Christians", an utterly meaningless term (or, as you noticed, an even more fuzzy circumscription like "Jesus follower"). Why not be precise and state the denomination?
Can it be that, in the presence of atheists, they like the strength in numbers and only fight among themselves when we are far away?

I don't think so

 

[Psalm23]

I've noticed the opposite. "Christians" label themselves as "Christians", an utterly meaningless term (or, as you noticed, an even more fuzzy circumscription like "Jesus follower"). Why not be precise and state the denomination?
Can it be that, in the presence of atheists, they like the strength in numbers and only fight among themselves when we are far away?

In most cases I don't think so. It isn't the reason I call myself Christian.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've noticed something on these forums. Those who are followers of Jesus, who believe that he is the messiah who died for their sins, come up with all sorts of novel labels rather than simply identifying as Christian.

Can someone please explain to me why?

I agree with @Saint Frankenstein on this comment and with @Psalm23 . Also some people have a particular belief different from the mainstream that they feel is quite important, and they don't want to accidentally appear to sponsor a false doctrine.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yup. I said the bits I believed and didn't say the rest.

I found the writings of Marcus Borg very helpful with all this. Essentially he divides the scriptures into "before Easter" (the actual life and teachings of Jesus) and "after Easter" (what came to be believed by the Christian community later). I can go into it more if you wish.

I have no problem saying the entire Creed. I don't see any difference between what Jesus said about himself and others said later.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a product of a backlash against what they think organized religion is. They usually will say it's about a relationship with God/Jesus and not a religion with dogma and rites (which they see as man-made and not authentic). Yes, it's definitely an evangelical Protestant thing. You'll find it among "non-denominational" types mainly.

That's basically the few I've met like that.

 

[PureX]

For a while, I was a member of the United Methodist church. I had an experience that made me believe that something that could loosely be described as "God" existed. I decided that it would be a good thing to join a community of other "theists", but which one? I read something that suggested the dominant religion of my own culture was a good choice, because then I didn't have to become familiar with the cultural aspects of other religions. I shopped around a bit and found that the local Methodists weren't too fussy about what I believed, within reason, and so I joined them.

I must say though that I was never totally comfortable describing myself as "Christian" as I couldn't get to a belief in so many of the basics, like resurrection, virgin birth, the Trinity, and so on. Nevertheless I did so for convenience, and the Church didn't seem too worried about it. I decided that the "many roads to heaven" idea was likely correct, though my own version was "one road, many vehicles".

Eventually it all faded away, though I'm still not (quite) an atheist.

Religions and religious organizations don't know any more about 'God' than you do. And very often they exist more as a social and political mechanism than as a bonafide spiritual aid. So it's not unexpected that given the fact that you were looking for a bonafide spiritual aid, you were disappointed with what you found within modern organized religion.

I don't know if this will help you at all, but I look at it this way ... the existence of God is self-evident, but the nature of that God remains a profound mystery to me (and to all humans). I reason it like this:

That I exist is self-evident given the fact that I can think so. (... By my own agency.)

That you exist is self-evident given the fact that you think it so, and that I did not determine that. (... By your own agency.)

That something else besides you and I exists is self-evident in that we are both sharing the same "here", and yet neither of us made it so. (... By some agency greater than ourselves.)​

But what is this 'other agency'? Neither you nor I (nor anyone else) knows. We call it "God" and we make up stories about it so we can pretend that we understand it. (We fear what we can't understand, and thereby control.) But I find it's best just the be honest about it. God exists. But exists as a great mystery. The great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And in our ignorance, we are free to do with that mystery whatever we think is best. If that means dogmatic religiosity, then so be it. If that means dogmatic denial and atheism, then so be it. If that means something we find to be reasonable in between these extremes, the so be it. But however we choose to deal with and respond to this most profound mystery, it's going to determine who we are, and who we are becoming, and how we live in the world. So the decision IS important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would tend to agree. Even though there are Christians in every sphere, the tendency is to lean Republican because of its platform.
I'm actually an independent. But in Florida, that basically means you can't vote until the elections. So, to have a greater voice in the system, I registered into a party and the Republican platform lines up a little better to my values than the Dem's platform.

that doesn't mean that one is bad and the other good but rather the compilation of all the information leans more in one direction for Christians.

It's wild to me that a Christian would think that the Republican platform is more aligned with their faith than the Democrat platform.

So much for all that stuff about about feeding the poor, healing the sick, and treating foreigners in your land with compassion.

 

[Colt]

I've noticed something on these forums. Those who are followers of Jesus, who believe that he is the messiah who died for their sins, come up with all sorts of novel labels rather than simply identifying as Christian.

Can someone please explain to me why?

I call myself a "disciple" of Jesus because I believe in the original pre-cross Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus preached. The original Gospel is what got Jesus killed. Christianity evolved into a religion ABOUT Jesus but not the religion OF Jesus which he lived, taught and preached.

 

[pearl]

It's wild to me that a Christian would think that the Republican platform is more aligned with their faith than the Democrat platform.

Americanized Christianity?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Do you think it's because Christianity is becoming more of a political identity than a religious identity, at least in the US? Maybe people want to distinguish themselves from the politics? I don't know.

I stopped calling myself a Christian online shortly after Trump hoodwinked the Christian Right and took control of the Republican Party back in 2015. I was still a conservative evangelical Christian when he campaigned for the presidency for the first time, and then he was elected by the vast majority of Christians who I thought shared the same moral values and biblical beliefs as I did at the time.

These were the Christians who spent eight years vocally condemning Bill Clinton for his adultery and womanizing. Despite their moral outrage about him, they began to politically rally behind Trump, who rivals Bill Clinton in sexual deviant behavior and other biblical sins. They literally went from, "We're Christians, and we won't politically support a morally depraved man like Bill Clinton," to "I voted for a president, and not a pastor" while they attempted to justify their political support of Donald Trump. They didn't even bother to hide their blatant hypocrisy, and they never batted an eyelash at Trump's vulgar bragging about how he could get away with forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the ***** because he's a celebrity. And whenever Trump's morally depraved behavior was ever mentioned, their immediate defense of him was either his sins are between him and God, Christians should not judge him because God himself chose and ordained Trump to be the president, or they compared him to the biblical figures King David or King Cyrus.

 

[Kenny]

It's wild to me that a Christian would think that the Republican platform is more aligned with their faith than the Democrat platform.

So much for all that stuff about about feeding the poor, healing the sick, and treating foreigners in your land with compassion.

I don't think you really read my post.

Please take a step back from the mantras and labels and take a second look.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It's wild to me that a Christian would think that the Republican platform is more aligned with their faith than the Democrat platform.

So much for all that stuff about about feeding the poor, healing the sick, and treating foreigners in your land with compassion.

My experience with the Christian conservatives that I personally know concerning feeding the poor:

"If they don't work, then they shouldn't eat."

My experience with the Christian conservatives that I personally know concerning healing the sick:

"If they can't afford health insurance, then that's not my problem."

My experience with the Christian conservatives that I know or encountered online concerning treating foreigners in their land:

"No illegal immigrants in our country!" "Illegal immigrants, go back to Mexico or to wherever else you come from!" "Speak English!" "Stop taking jobs away from Americans!" "Build the wall!" "Close our borders!" "Make America Great Again!" "Vote Trump 2024!"

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I've noticed something on these forums. Those who are followers of Jesus, who believe that he is the messiah who died for their sins, come up with all sorts of novel labels rather than simply identifying as Christian.

Can someone please explain to me why?

The argument I might form, is that this is evidence of paganism starting to return at foundation level - freed now from being a 'state religion,' the public is allowed to explore the foundation. And in that foundation we see what I think are clearly pagan concepts - the idea of Jesus is that of the transforming diety. The old testament diety is instead, generally the idea of the unchanging god.

Shapeshifting/transforming/learning from crisis is what happens to the gods, widely in the pagan conception. I've went over all of this plenty of times before, I think. Jesus fills the role well: he doesn't take the sides you think he will, he is amorphous in character, he learns from lived experience.

Give it more time, and they will keep building it, and transforming it