so philosophically speaking, you are defining a christian as someone who has performed a ritual
No, a Christian is someone who has the Holy Spirit. Although Christian traditions differ in the definition of what exactly baptism is.
Often though, it appears the general understanding is that in the process of baptism, a person receives the Holy Spirit, which then enables them to understand the Bible (and everything else) properly. As such, baptism is considered to provide an instantaneous and enormous qualification - a qualification that is impossible to obtain by study, prayer, meditation, penance, sacrifice or any other activity.
The best comparison I can think of is that of receiving a college degree and obtaining all the necessary knowledge and skills from one moment to the next - without ever going to college.
In other words, an outsider is faced with a cultist / mystical requirement, which, for all practical intents and purposes, cannot be fulfilled.
nevertheless one can still place such practices in a philosophical framework (such as jnana, karma or bhakti for example)
Perhaps if one apriori values them more than the magic (!) of baptism.
I guess the same way that one would address the possibility that one is completely wrong about anything ... namely to the degree that it is practically possible or pertinent to one's sense of self and action in the world.
For instance one may prepare for the possibility that they are wrong about the weather by bringing a coat ... they would be less likely top do that in summer ... and they would be even more less likely to make clothing arrangements in preparation for the possibility that they are mistaken about their gender.
IOW its the nature of specialization or having passed certain epistemological hurdles that addressing the possibility for error becomes more fine tuned
Still, it seems it comes down to your own trust that you are not (fully) insane, nor that God is insane, and that God means well with you, forever and ever (and this not in the sense of "The best that could happen to Jews is that the Nazis killed them, the Jews should realize this and be thankful").
What if God indeed is that moloch, the petty tyrant as presented by mainstream Christianity?
What if it indeed is justice and love for God to torture His children in hell for all eternity?
Then you have a god that can't even come a standard of normal human behavior for a start.
Yes, I have heard this many times. And many times, Christians will reply that this is merely human reasoning.
You seem to have an immense trust (or at least you present your arguments that way) that what is common sense to you, it also common sense in God's eyes and that God actually approves of your common sense.
How can such - albeit to our common sense, absurd, but no less popular - notions be dismissed with any certainty?
If you want to accept that god is greater than one's self, and not merely in the sense of having stuff (ie not just in terms of opulence, but also intelligence, empathy, etc) then it doesn't really pay to take such views too seriously
But for that, one first needs to have unflinching trust in one's own sense of morality, intelligence and so on.
I don't have that.
Ever since I can remember, people have been beating it into my head that my sense of morality is wrong, low, inferior.
actually my experience with christians is quite the opposite. IOW if someone is acting in an ungentlemanly manner, they will describe their actions as "unchristian". IOW there is a primary focus on being cultured and good.
I have a different experience of Christianity, though.
If you have a clear idea of what it is, placing a value next to it is not difficult.
In my mind, that doesn't follow. I'm not saying that what you're saying is wrong, just that I don't see the connection.
