Atheists vs. Non-Christians

So, I promised an answer to the question; ‘which is better a non-christian theist, or an atheist christian?’

Thanks to everyone who has commented - though, after I’ve read all your answers, it makes it harder to write my own answers, because a lot of the points I was going to make have already been covered. So I guess that means we’re all pretty smart huh? (great minds and all). I’ve put together a bit of an answer. I don’t think it covers everything mentioned in the comments, but I might reply to anything I missed at a later date:

Obviously an atheist christian is going to fit well outside of the traditional christian box (and so would make for interesting conversations). So far that some would argue that they aren’t christian, and hence are unsaved. But this perspective isn’t really that useful in answering the question, because under it the non-christian theist is also going to be saved. So I’m going to come at it from a different angle.

Jesus came with a radical message of love and acceptance. He came to reconcile people, to each other, and to their maker. He argued the greatest commands were to love God, and to love man. So there are two aspects of being a christian; a relationship with natural, to other humans, and a relationship with the transcendent, to our father.

So an atheist christian will be able to follow half of these commands. Given that they are committed to following Jesus message, at the very least they will have a positive effect on the people around them, and the world in general.

On the other hand, we don’t know what the non-christian theist would be like. They are probably going to be quite nice, (and that’s the case for most people who I have met in that category). But, if they believed in a God who told them to do evil, then I would be very scared. Because if someone believes God tells them to do something, it’s hard to convince them to do otherwise.

I guess I have an aversion to theists (despite being one myself :P). When people start to get the idea that their ideas are endorsed by a higher power, there is a danger of slipping into arrogance, of betraying reason, of becoming inflexible and moralistic. The mantra “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”, kinda scares me. It would be ok if God actually did say it, but if he didn’t? The believer is wrong, and is probably not going to change the mind. So beware of the gods people construct. Be careful of those who give their reason away to a philosophy or ideology. Because that is dangerous.

So yeah. At the moment I guess I’d prefer a christian atheist. But I’d also be happy with a non-christian theist, provided they don’t have a scary God :).

It reads a bit confusingly in the context of your first post - I get the concept of a ‘Christian atheist’ (essentially a person who tries to act morally/lovingly and uses Jesus’ teachings as a model, while not believing in supernatural stuff), but your definition of ‘theist’ isn’t the direct opposite - (which would be someone who claims to hold Christian beliefs about God but doesn’t act in accordance with them) - you seem to be including all theists.

In other words: the ‘Christianity has these two main aspects thing’ is good, but I don’t think the two positions in the first post correspond to the two aspects of Christianity, because the terminology is a bit loose.

Sorry, nitpicking is done.

My thought was that a theist is someone who holds to the belief of a God, but not necessary the christian belief of God. Given that the theist also rejects christianity, that should put them in the ‘all theist’ box.

But, you are right, the definitions were a bit loose in my original question, which was vaguely intentional. I like it that way, because it gives a lot of freedom for people come up with different perspectives, and give a lot of interesting answers. So, while your answer may have been different to Kelly’s or Katherine’s, I found all three answers to have been a good read. :)