The way I'd say it. If you believe in Christ as your Lord and Savior and the New Testiment as 100% truth then you are considered Christian. However if your theology does not see Jesus Christ as God and follow the new testiment then you are not Christian. Many religion's believe in Christ in many different ways. Even Islam sees the Bible as a Holy text (Still not entirely sure how, but my Muslim friends assure me that it is). But Islam does not see Jesus as God and do not follow Christ as their lord and savior.

Just because you believe in the Bible, even believing in someone named Jesus doesn't make you a Christian. if that were the case Sihk's would be Christian's, Muslim's would be Christian and most Jews would be Christian. Heck theirs even Athiests who believe Jesus was a living breathing man.

It's following the teachings of Christ as laid out in the New Testiment and believing in Jesus as your Lord and savior that makes you a Christian!

The Islamic faith is based on the stories of the Bible and it's teachings, most prominant prophets of the Christian and Jewish faith are prophets in Islam, Muhammed restored their teachings as well as producing the Qu'ran (I think). They see Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God.

The idea that if you believe in Christ and have faith in him as you describe above is why I have a go at anyone who claiming certain other Christ based faiths are not Christian. LDS being one which most people think is not Christianity.

Well thats because Christian's , Jews and Muslims all believe in essentially the same God. The God of Abraham. But does that mean all three are Christian? No since Jews and Muslims do not recognize Jesus as God or the teachings of the New Testiment.

As for the Church of Latter Day Saints or Mormon's they have the Book of Mormon which many Mormon's (Everyone I've met) believes supercedes the Bible. They believe in a totally different Jesus Christ then I do. However yes many do classify them as Christian because they believe in the Bible.

I once had an interesting conversation with a mormon, she was trying to convert me. I said to her does she believe in Jesus , she said yes. I said does she believe in the Bible she said yes. I then asked did she believe I was going to heaven she said yes. So then I asked her point blank, if this is the case why should I convert to Mormonism. She then told me about the Book of Mormon. However in the end she wasn't successful because she said the Bible was the word of God, I believed in the right God and was going to heaven so why would I need to follow some other book.

The Book of Mormon has also been proven false unlike the New Testiment. Archeologists have proven many of the places depicted in the book and many people and tribes did not exist. The Book also treats certain races and ethnic groups differently contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

The New Testiment is the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you have another book or another belief that contradicts the teachings of Christ then your not a follower of Christ.

I think Athieism is a belief that organised religion is detrimental to society, it's ironic that the proper 'hardcore' athiests are basically part of a religion themselves. (Not to insult all athiests though, as I have a friend who is an athiest)

Personally I am agnostic, but I have a problem with what you said. People who believe the universe was not created by a higher being do not believe it was created out of nothing, rather that it is unknown what came before. (In science matter and mass itself is just a concept, a force. And atoms themselves would not have mass, or be matter if it were possible to break them apart. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=74297 as such there was not neccessarily such a thing as density before the big bang)

Science is a subject that strives to disprove itself, should scientific study find that a higher being[s] exists and created the "big bang" or in some way created the universe as we know it, then that would then be the belief of science also.

No, they are not Christians but for a different reason they you stated. Jews and Muslims believe in Christ as many people do what they do not believe though is that Christ was the son of God (or a devine). They believe him just as a prophet, like Moses or Noah, pretty sure that the Islamic faith do believe in many of the teachings in the New Testament as John is seen as a prophet too.

LDS is a reformist church based around the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is called 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' after all. Just like many Christians may believe the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, this is how they see the Book of Mormon. The main person in the Mormon book is Christ.

Your example is what I've had although my friend never tried to convert me as he knew of my objection, he just told me. He and his wife were concerned for me that I wouldn't gain entry to heaven.

Although saying it is false is a disrespect to 14million people around the world. How can a religius text that teachs good will and for man to have faith be false? when no matter the origins, it is a faith in it's own right and one many people are happy to follow it.

We were both on song

Athiesm is the belief that there is no higher power, although I'll grant you that doesn't necessarily mean that all athiests believe in science, as I implied.

My point stands.  One cannot say "I've no idea what the truth is" whilst simultaneously claiming someone else's truth is crazy.  At least, that is not a reasonable claim.

I should preface this by saying that any reasonable atheist is not with absolute certainty that there is no deity (especially an intervening one) anyone claiming so is blinded by arrogance; however, we say that the likelihood of it being the case is similar to that of unicorns existing -impossible to ever falsify, yet incredibly unlikely.

@starcraft: Sure they can. It's rude and perhaps over-generalizing, but they could do so without being hypocritical. If one only derives truth from conclusions based on data, they could categorically call a truth solely based on conclusions, sanas data, as 'crazy.' (though I think doing so is both condescending and insensitive)

@ IvorEvilen: There is a large difference between the beliefs of a theist and an atheist. An atheist belives in the absence of a god due to lack of evidence. A theist believes in a god in spite of a lack of evidence. One is making a positive claim while the other is negative.

It does not require as much faith to not believe that Zeus created the universe as it does to believe that he did. An overused analogy, I know, but it does drive home the difference between the two stances.

When Pierre-Simon Laplace, one of the greatest minds in history, had gone to Napolean to show his works on the universe, Napolean questioned "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." Laplace responded "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Starting with a conclusion and having it fit whatever model compared to reading data and making approriate conclusions are two wildly different things. It's a gross overstatement to say that they require the same amount of faith - or that one requires faith at all, really.

My intention here isn't to insult anybody (I really hope I haven't) or to incite debate of existance vs non-existance, just simply to falsify the idea that science requires just as much faith as religion.

JoelCool, if you feel my post has treaded far too much off-topic, let me know and I will delete it.

I don't know if I'd say the way the Qu'Ran or the Book of Mormon supercedes the Bible as the same thing. All faiths are open to change as they have in the last few thousands of years.

The Book of Mormon had new scriptures based on God's presence in the Americas not middle east and add to the Bible like the New Testament did to the Old. It does not replace it. I think this is different from the Qu'ran and it's production but I know less about it so can't comment fully. 

Elaborate, please? Because if there were falsifiable evidence, we'd all be, well, deists at least