This post was mentioned on Reddit by jk3us: Names are interesting. Groups give themselves names, or have names given to them, to be distinguished from others. The term “Christian” arose in the [Church at Antioch](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage…

The symbols, rituals, artifacts and traditions of Christianity are NOT NEEDED to be a Christian.

Now that you’ve mentioned this discussion, I do remember it (long ago). However, in my study of religion, I have found that that a religion is defined by its beliefs and practices, without any comment on whether any of these are necessary. Even something like Hinduism or Buddhism, which highly variable (and many would argue it lacks any kind of centre or orthodoxy), can still be seen as a single religion in spite of its multiple actually practiced fragments.

I checked my profile, and I’m listed as Christian. But my tagline under my profile image is “Zero point Calvinist”, so I have my individuality. I just put it in a different place.

I don’t know about your Facebook friends, but I have plenty who put verse references as their religion. I think that’s the funniest. Little codes for true believers to see and recognize. That’s the mark of a real Christian.

Perhaps worse, in many parts of the US the term “Christian” is viewed as simply a traditional status. People who haven’t been to church in years and have no real influence of the Bible on their life claim to be “Christian” because they were baptized into the church or their parents were Christian. I talked to one girl recently who said she was a Christian because she occasionally visited a church, but her parents where Buddhist because once a year they visit a temple. In neither case was the religion any more than a country club they belonged to.

Personally, I cling to the term “Christian” because it contains the name of our savior. Literally the term references a follower of Christ, and therefore actually an equivalent term if the word “Christian” itself it confusing to our audience. Terms like “Bond Servant”, “relationship”, or “Savior and God” are intended to indicate that the relationship is more than a casual one. Referring to oneself as a “born again” Christian, or “nothing but the blood” are intended to point to the core of what makes one a true Christian, faith in Christ for salvation. People will ask me if I think this or that group are “Christian”, and the answer is always that those who accept Jesus sacrifice alone as the fully sufficient answer to our sin problem are, and those who add anything to it might not be. Because the term has become diluted, these clarifications are often necessary.

Regarding Christianity as “religion”, it was actually a discussion here on ZFT that convinced me that Christianity is not actually a “religion” as most people use the term. The symbols, rituals, artifacts and traditions of Christianity are NOT NEEDED to be a Christian. The only thing that IS needed is an acceptance of the gospel of Christ as factually true combined with a decision to accept it. Accepting the authority of Scripture and integrating into the body of believers are also important, but possibly not vital to being “Christian”. No other symbol, ritual*, artifact or tradition of Christianity is needed to be “Christian”. As a result, Christianity is not technically within the bounds of how most people define religion.

* (The closest thing here are communion and baptism, done as a remembrance and as a symbol of a change that has already occurred. Both SHOULD be done, but one can definitely be a Christian without doing either.)

Thank you ,Tuesday read your great Rant: Republicans and Democrats Both Trying to End Last … blog ,your blog have a lot of very important knowledge and information for personal health insurance companies ….

On Monday I read your Rant: Republicans and Democrats Both Trying to End Last … site ,giving me a good experience of all the information and news at your flood insurance gov site….