[makeitdouble]

I was specially referring to "Christians" as becoming a generic term for someone following a set of Christian values or belonging to a Christian group, even when they don't seek to be a disciple of Christ in any way shape or form.

I understand it goes against the very defintion of the term, but that's a thing.

I'm trying to steer away from my personal anecdotes, so for instance:

https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-a-Christian.html

> Unfortunately over time, the word “Christian” has lost a great deal of its significance and is often used of someone who is religious or has high moral values but who may or may not be a true follower of Jesus Christ. Many people who do not believe and trust in Jesus Christ consider themselves Christians simply because they go to church or they live in a “Christian” nation.

[aphantastic]

What a ridiculous argument. By this “logic” anyone could claim anything at all is “a simple for of Christianity” and you’d jump in to say “why yes, you see some people don’t view Christianity as meaning much of anything, therefore we can clearly argue it means everything!”

Suit yourself but I find this reasoning cyclically brain-dead.

[makeitdouble]

Well, given the centuries and number of people and things around the globe that fit some kind of Christianity, yes I expect the meaning of the word to be pretty diluted.

That's the same logic regarding any concept at that scale ("American" would be the same case, there is a tight definition, but the wider usage has almost nothing to do with it)

To me that's just how language works.

[aphantastic]

Saying it’s diluted is one thing - I actually agree there. Saying that because it’s diluted, it actually means specifically “X” is totally different and indefensible.