Words matter so WTF is a "Christian" anyway?

In another thread, which I may have misunderstood or at least poorly explained my thinking, I said words to the effect that the majority of folks who call themselves "Christian" in the US and claim to follow Christ's teachings are like someone who drives behind a garbage truck and claims to pick up trash, someone who follows an ambulance and claims to heal people, or someone follows a firetruck and claims to put out fires.

To me words have meaning. Someone can't just call themselves truthful and lie all the time. You can't claim to run a social network and optimize it for anti-social behavior. You can't call yourself a scientist and not follow the scientific method.

So if you're going to say "A Christian isn't independently verifiable so therefore we have to accept that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian". But to me there's a meaning for Christian in the dictionary:

Now in the thread I was replying to the OP said:

the conditions for membership in Christianity (not specific branches, which may have more stringent requirements, but Christianity as an umbrella) are belief, and belief is not something that’s externally verifiable

but I would argue belief is verifiable. If I say I believe the world is round I would be willing to fly around it. If I believe water is drinkable I would drink it. If I believe the floor is lava I won't step on it, ever. Etc. etc. I can't believe 1+1 is 2 and not use that daily. I can't as a scientist believe Newton's laws and not use them (in a non-relativistic context). So if I believe "in the teachings of Jesus Christ" then I would actually follow them right because I want to be accepted into the Kingdom of Christ etc. etc.?

So in my opinion it is disingenuous to say:

the only external way to determine if someone is or is not a Christian is by their self-identification.

I really do think we must strive to resist that and make a distinction between those who just call themselves that and those that actually live what they preach, or rather what Jesus preached. Otherwise do we have to accept that anyone who calls themselves a "stable genius" is both stable and a genius? What does that do to the meaning of those words individually? They are now meaningless.

You might say "but stable genius" is externally verifiable. Okay then let's examine their record and if that works for you how about we do the same to those who profess belief in teaching of Jesus Christ. And you might say "well they can say they only believe them, they don't do them". No, Jesus actually told you how to live and act. If you say you believe in the California Drivers Handbook and don't drive on the right then you don't believe it, you just say you do, or you read it and did not comprehend what you read.

Again words have meaning and I think Christian should be reserve for those who substantially live as Jesus Christ's teachings said they should. Anyone who just calls themselves a Christian is literally that "someone who just calls themselves a Christian" or as some put it "Christian in name only" or more conveniently an air-quoted "Christian"

Now I get the "no true Scotsman" argument. I don't think there is any such thing as a "true Christian" although someone might argue their Jesus Christ (mythical or not) was that. Okay, outside of him, I think the point was no one is perfect and we are all sinners in that regard (remember I'm an atheist though) but Christians should, by the book, continually strive to be better and ask forgiveness for their sins. That's part of it. It's like the scientific process - we don't know everything, but the process gives us a path to know more, find what we don't know, and find errors in prior conclusions.

Anyway, to me the original thread which I commented on was making the point that using "no true Scotsmanning" allows "Christians" (air-quotes intentional) as a group to protect their brand by always claiming those that do something un-Christian like harming a certain person or group are not true Christians - a classic no-true-Scotsman fallacy. I personally think those "Christians" a) typically wouldn't say that in the example case given (when they harm other groups they usually claim support from some cherry-picked part of the bible), b) are literally the Christians in name only that so bother me.

Now you might some other part of the Christian community - say European protestants or Catholics - might say that about US Christians or bad people of their own community. But be honest, have you ever seen US Evangelical Christians (the MAGA loving kind) disown some crooked preacher as not a true Christian? I cannot recall a single time. They claim he say "he fell on his way" and in a few years they welcome him back, but to completely say "he's not a Christian, no true Christian would ever do that!". Nope. If you have counter examples I want to hear them.

Actually I would say to the contrary, look at how they are rallying against Talarico. They are actually claiming he's gay, or saying he's possessed by the devil, not a Christian, or some other ad-hominem to distance themselves from what he's saying about them. Crazy. And all Talarico is saying is just what I said - if you call yourself a Christian you should practice what you claim you believe or you're just faking it. Talarico pointed out the real life way to verify their "Christian" cards and he's calling bullshit unless they step up.

So TL;DR

• words and their definitions matter otherwise argument becomes meaningless and pointless
• you can verify if someone believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ
• many people who call themselves are Christians are either substantially or entirely failing any reasonable verification
• using the no true Scotsman fallacy is a great (but fallacious) way to protect a brand, we should reject it for all cases

Now I agree (after further interactions on the thread) that the problem with my argument is what even the most criteria for showing you believe the followings of Christ - that's not well defined. And indeed within the Bible (both NT, OT, and NT vs OT) there are many discrepancies and disagreements. It makes it all to easy for someone to start cherrypicking and before you know it they have some highly cherrypicked set of axioms they are working with. Indeed they might only cite a single axiom from the Bible and claim it makes them Christian. That too me is too little.

A while back I tried to boil down a summary of key teachings of Jesus from the New Testament (not stuff added on by Paul and the like), or at least ones that were not relating to the metaphysical realm of god etc. What they came down to was:

I would say if you can't at least agree on these as good things to aim for you're failing. Of course this is subjective but each suggestion can be backed up by scripture coming directly from the New Testament. There is also the problem that as with the human laws they are always open to interpretation and finding loopholes. People will always find a way to justify why they didn't forgive someone or why they shouldn't give to some needy person or the other.

I guess ultimately Christian should have a solid foundation but doesn't, its sitting on quicksand. May be the best approach is the Socratic one: ask questions. If someone you are talking with (in real life or online) and they mention they are Christian, or talk about Christians, or Christianity, then we should always ask "what does that mean?" or "what does that mean to you?" and see what they say. That's a useful starting point. We have the tools to weed out ones that are CPCs - Cherrypicking Christians (very selective beliefs), or CINO - Christians in name only (basically not following anything), CIS - Christians In Spirit / Christ Followers (substantially following or trying to follow the core tenets as above or some reasonable facsimile of them).

That's just my $0.02 worth.