If you were a Christian...

[Peter Kirby]

...what kind of Christian would you be?

And, please, answers like "the very drunk and confused kind" are not welcome. If it is so opposed to your character that you cannot imagine yourself ever as a proponent of some form of Christianity, you needn't attempt to answer the title question.

Yes, there are a lot of missing variables to determining the answer, most particularly how you would have come to believe "in Christ" in some way. Please fill in these missing details as you see fit.

Thank you for your time.

best,
Peter Kirby

[BeHereNow]

...what kind of Christian would you be?

And, please, answers like "the very drunk and confused kind" are not welcome. If it is so opposed to your character that you cannot imagine yourself ever as a proponent of some form of Christianity, you needn't attempt to answer the title question.

Yes, there are a lot of missing variables to determining the answer, most particularly how you would have come to believe "in Christ" in some way. Please fill in these missing details as you see fit.

Thank you for your time.

best,
Peter Kirby

I'd try harder to understand the cultural context under which Christ lived and strive to follow his teachings. I'd probably lean more toward mystical and gnostic types of Christianity, but I don't know of any specific denomination names. The idea of walking in prayer would appeal to me.

[Seasanctuary]

This is a difficult question for me. There's a charm to the kind of Christian I was when I was younger. In those days, I had a kind of innocence. The Bible was understood to mean this, the requirements of salvation were that, the only alternative was not doing what God commanded out of laziness or love of doing naughty things.

There's a clarity and a sense of community in having all of that. There's joy and promise of Heaven with the avoidance of Hell in being in the body. I wanted to do the right thing. To find out what was true. To learn my lessons and sing hymns.

Of course, all that changed as I slowly took notice of other people in the world. The disputes among Bible-believing Christians, the alien religions that were surprisingly familiar in form and justification, and meditation on eternal torment for the people in my class and on the street with their peccadilloes. It was an increase of awareness that broke my former illusion.

I would like to live in a world once again where God is good and understood.

I doubt that will ever be the case. I can't be that kind of Christian again, for I have looked beyond the garden and can never return to ignorant bliss.

So perhaps I would be a liberal Christian, sifting through the myriad of doctrinal permutations held by faithful believers. Still, the doubt would remain that I'm just constructing an unnecessary religious facade to justify my pre-existing values. You see, I'm quite interested in truth but very wary of proposed solutions. I've seen a thousand truth-pedallers and each as honest as the next.

Yes, it is a difficult question. I don't know the answer asked, but I've found some value in the consideration.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Maybe a Mormon. Even if their beliefs are beyond wierd, they do seem to have an enviable social cohesion and organization. They seem to really believe in what they're doing. Plus they're fastest growing out of all the Christian branches AFAIK.

[C. D. Ward]

It's an interesting question and nice to see you again, Peter!

I'm of two minds on this; so-called "liberal" Christianity seems to me to have little to recommend it over "no religion". Why bother? However, fundamentalism truly baffles and dismays me. I would probably stay somewhere in the middle; orthodox, but not evangelical. I was raised RC, but find the Orthodox church to be more faithful and true to orthodox doctrine as well as having a profoundly moving liturgy, so I'd probably gravitate to that.

On the other hand, although I currently find its doctrines intellectually and morally repulsive, Calvinism has a certain appeal, from the standpoint of orthodoxy and unwavering logical coherence. Depending on my conversion experience, I suppose I could go that way too...

[Sacrificial Ram]

...what kind of Christian would you be?

And, please, answers like "the very drunk and confused kind" are not welcome. If it is so opposed to your character that you cannot imagine yourself ever as a proponent of some form of Christianity, you needn't attempt to answer the title question.

Yes, there are a lot of missing variables to determining the answer, most particularly how you would have come to believe "in Christ" in some way. Please fill in these missing details as you see fit.

Thank you for your time.

best,
Peter Kirby
Hum. I would be one of ones that think that 'Logos' meant that you lived the word that Jesus preached, rather than those words that were preached about Jesus.

[steamer]

I believe I'd be pretty much the same kind of person that I am now and would be forever struggling with what the bible is supposed to mean. What can be taken as truth, what is false or parable? Wether god really exists or if he is really a mental construct in my brain would probably forever haunt me.

[Fideist345]

...what kind of Christian would you be?


Hi Peter! Haven’t seen you around in quite a while. Am I allowed to post here? I’m not really a theist at this stage, but neither am I an atheist. I suppose I’m an “other.”
I’ve tried Christianity as both a moderate and a liberal (many would say ultra-liberal). It only works for me on a social level, so perhaps I’d be a secular Christian?