Way of the Mind

Quite often, when a non-theist discusses religion and faith with Christians, he will criticize the behavior of one or more Christians he knows, either in the present or from history. The Christian’s reply to that will, almost always, be “Oh, those are not true Christians.”

Putting aside the fact that it’s a no true Scotsman fallacy (because one can always say that the more reprehensible examples aren’t “true ones”, redefining “true” as one sees fit), I want to examine the several ways in which someone (either a current non-theist, or a believer who wants to look at Christianity objectively) can know which of the many so-called “Christians” are the real thing. After all, without true divine intervention, how can someone objectively tell that “these guys” are “real” Christians, and that “those guys” are not?

Therefore, here are several possibilities to choose from. I’ll list them here, and also talk about the problems I see with each one.

1. Anyone who truly believes in God, and that Jesus gave his life for mankind’s sins: It’s the most basic definition of “Christian”, isn’t it? However, people can (and do) have that basic belief, and yet interpret it in completely different ways, and also act accordingly to it in completely different ways.
2. Anyone who says “I’m a Christian”: Many people in western societies describe themselves as “Christian”, but some do it out of tradition (especially in more Catholic societies), and some do it for some perceived gain (either political, or simply to be seen by others as “a moral person”). Besides, the problem of contradiction remains: many people have completely different ideas about Christianity, or interpretations thereof, and all of those call themselves “Christian”.
3. The more fundamentalist ones: “Fundamentalist” doesn’t necessarily mean “terrorist” or something like that; it just means that one believes in their faith completely, without exceptions, and that it’s the most important thing in their lives, being a part of every single decision. Some would say that only these are “true” Christians, and even some non-fundamentalist ones would like to have the “strength” to be like this (if only the world wasn’t so full of temptation…). The problem with this is: fundamentalist to what? To the Bible only? To tradition? To church authority? To their own interpretation? It’s obvious that this description is too vague, therefore, we need a more specific one, say…
4. Bible-only fundamentalists: These are the ones who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and the only source for their faith. Anything in the Bible is necessarily true, even if observation contradicts it; if the Bible and reality differ, then reality is obviously wrong. Any contradictions in the Bible itself are explained away as lack of understanding on the reader’s part, or by the reader trying to understand it with human logic and reason, when the Bible should be read with faith and the heart - to which, of course, there’s no such thing as “contradictions”.
   The problem here, which should be obvious to someone who’s actually read the Bible (something most Christians don’t actually do, except for Genesis, Exodus and the Gospels), is that the Christian Holy Bible is really full of atrocities - both commited by God (though apologists will say that, since God did it, it must have been good, since God is their only standard of “good”), and by the faithful - and, yet, the Bible praises those actions. From the genocide of several peoples just because they had the nerve of already living in the place that God “promised” to the Israelites, to killing people for homosexuality or for working on a Saturday, through the ideas that women were the property of men, slavery was acceptable, and many other examples, a true follower of the Bible would be the most intolerant, cruel, bigoted, hateful person alive. Fortunately, there aren’t many of those in western countries, because there’s still a separation between church and state, and murder is still a crime, even when using “but it’s right here in the Bible! I was only doing as God commanded!” as a justification. Still, doesn’t the Bible say that the law of God is infinitely more important than the laws of man? Therefore, true Christians shouldn’t mind going to prison for, say, killing anyone they saw working on Saturdays - much like suicide bombers don’t mind losing their lives, because they expect to go to heaven as a reward.
5. The most caring, loving ones: This is what many people do. After all, some very minor parts of the Bible say that “God is love”, and Jesus was certainly much nicer than anyone in the Old Testament (including God himself), or than anyone after him (especially the apocalyptic, sexist, bigoted Paul, whom any real “follower of Jesus” should despise). It makes sense, picking the people you really see as loving one another, doing good works, being honest, helping those in need, and so on, as the real Christians.
   The problem, which you may have already spotted, is exactly the opposite as the previous one. Where does these guys’ “Christianity” come from? Certainly not from the Bible - they are acting in opposition to most of it. They are unlike their God, famous for destroying entire cities (and once, the entire world) as punishment - many times, killing not only the sinners but everyone nearby. They’re also unlike the prophets, who are praised through the Bible as “God’s chosen”.
   The question is raised, then: how are they “real Christians”, if they’re the opposite of what most of the Bible praises? Aren’t they, in effect, creating their own religion, by using only the, say, 1-2% of the Bible that speak of love and forgiveness, and refusing all the rest? I see two possibilities, here: either they are real Christians, and therefore Christianity should admit that the Bible is not the word of God after all, but a book written by intolerant, prejudiced, hateful men… or, instead, they aren’t real Christians, and are simply good people - who would be good without their belief in God, anyway.
6. Those you agree with the most: It’s actually a variant of the above, really. It’s, of course, much too subjective, since people are all different - for instance, an intolerant person would like intolerant Christians, a charitable person would prefer charitable ones, and so on.
7. The majority: The idea, here, is this: “if most people who call themselves Christians are like this, then ‘this’ is what Christians are.” This is more complex than it seems, and is somewhat of a two edged sword. If you said “most Christians are good persons”, then you could logically imply that “the ones who aren’t good persons aren’t really Christians”. But what if the majority of them aren’t really good persons? Besides, it’s virtually impossible to “count” the Christians and determine which ones are the majority; if I attempted to do so now, it would probably be more stereotyping than anything.
   Still, I believe that, when some “Christian” claims something that 99% of the Christians in the world oppose, it’s perfectly fair to say “you’re not really representative of Christians / Christianity”…
8. The “worst” ones: To be fair, if you already have a bone to pick with Christianity (say, due to some bad experience), you may, erroneously, pick only the worst examples of Christians as representatives of them all. And that’s unfair: though I am nowadays an atheist, I had a Christian education, and during that education I met some wonderful, caring human beings, whom I respect and admire to this day. Not all Christians are like Tomás de Torquemada, Pat Robertson or George W. Bush, much like not all Muslims are like Osama Bin Laden.