Do you claim to be a Christian, EnigmaOfSteel? Do you know there are people who call themselves Christians simply because they see the purported teachings of Jesus good? Will you tell such people that they aren't Christians?

I could claim to be a Christian, but that would not necessarily make it so. One would first have to arrive at a definition of Christianity, and then determine the extent to which my beliefs fit the definition. If we can't define Christianity independent of what any individual happens to define it as, then the term it seems is essentially meaningless. But I do not think Christianity is meaningless, and so if someone were claiming to be a Christian and the evidences indicated otherwise, I could envision a situation where I would express my opinion on the matter.

What evidences? You answer the question this way: "And how does it jive with our understanding of mainstream Christianity today?" Who said a system of beliefs has to jive with mainstream Christianity to be considered Christian.

I didn't claim that a system of beliefs "has" to jive with mainstream Christianity to be called Christian. I suggested that "how" it jives is one way of understanding, along with a number of other avenues of investigation. Examining how majorities of Christians understood and practiced the faith in the past and present is a legitimate part of the process in defining Christianity. As is looking at the sacred texts and various writings on the subject.

And just what is "mainstream Christianity" to you? If you were raised Roman Catholic, that might very well be your conception of what Christianity is. I was raised a Pentecostal. At a gut level, whether rationally supportable or not, Pentecostalism is the True Christianity to me. I have to fight the tendency to just assume Pentecostalism is what defines Christianity.

Does it matter what I happen to consider is mainstream, if my view is not as you say "rationally supported"? What matters is what can be considered mainstream through objective evaluation. Although I agree this can be easier said then done.

I'll confess to being mystified by the need of the argument you and Archi are making. What purpose does it serve? Will it win any points in a debate to tell the man who fervently believes he's a Christian that, in fact, he is not because of some technicality that, in his mind, you are trying to impose on his faith?

Is it not logical that if a person claims to be part of a group, that person should actually be a part of that group? Do we not want to understand group participation and dynamics? I don't see this as being about trying to disqualify someone from Christianity on a technicality. I would like to clarify that I am not advocating trying to claim someone is not a Christian as a sort of "gotcha" moment.

Reading through the various posts on the subject, I think this really goes to a larger philosophical question - is truth relative to the individual. If a person claims he/she is a Christian, and others cannot evaluate the truth of that claim, then it seems to me there is no truth outside of the individual. One can see why that view, if continued outside of this discussion on Christianity, can lead to all sorts of problems.

I composed most of this response before I saw your most recent post in which you state you probably won’t be back. This may be of interest for those who are (still!) following this thread.

“I want to point you to the impossibility of telling which one is the True Christian.”

I had already addressed this issue. (It might, in fact, help to address my posts point-by-point—see below). I’m not arguing over what a “true” Christian is. Moreover, as I stated, the label “Christian” can be abandoned altogether and the classification scheme I described can be carried out. Some classification schemes rely on a label, others don’t. All I can say is do some research on classification schemes and you will see that many schemes do not require a label. Indeed, simple categorizations based on a label are often quite inaccurate.

“Okay, Archi, I don't know if you're just trying to snow me under with these impossibly long posts, but there's no way I'm going to answer you point for point.”

Well, I do try to address points. I’ve put a lot of time and effort into trying to explain my views to you, and it has seemed to me that task requires longer posts. I would not waste my time trying to pull something fraudulent like trying to “snow someone under”.

“For all the words, you don't deal with the heart of my objection. (Added later–Although now it seems I've written a tome of my own.) Let me try it another way–one more time.”

I have now dealt with your objections multiple times. As for what you call “the heart” of your objection, you find it somehow outrageous or offensive or a violation of human rights if the researcher arrives at a different classification than the self-declared one. Why is this so unacceptable from a moral standpoint? Because it just is, you say. Well, I’ve asked at least twice now for you to explain why you think this, or how the person’s rights are being violated, but you haven’t provided this explanation.

“I submit that you're going to ask the guy and he's going to tell you "Christian." Indeed, that's the only way you'll know. Now you know that Tenets A, B, and C are "Christian" beliefs. I say "know" because it's all the information you've got. Maybe the guy's lying to you. Maybe any number of things. But, still, he has defined himself as "Christian." You simply have no choice but to accept that.”

I do have many choices, as a scientist. If I can obtain additional information, I will. If I can’t, I must acknowledge that the self-classification can only be accepted with less confidence than if we have collected additional information. Moreover, I don’t conclude that he is a Christian; rather the tentative probabilistic conclusion is that he had self-classified with the Christian label.

“You quickly find it's not simple at all. You kidnap a woman now. She says she believes Tenets C, D, and E. Obviously, this isn't the same religion. But to your astonisment, she calls herself "Christian," too.”

(I’ve already addressed this scenario, in previous posts). I would not draw the conclusion that her religion is not “the same” as the previous guy’s religion. All I would conclude (tentatively and probabilistically), based on your example, is that she overlaps with the other guy on self-classification and on tenet C, and does not overlap with him on tenets D and E.

“How could that be? Is one of them lying? Which one? Unless you've got some mind probing device (which we don't) to prove that one or the other is lying, you simply don't know. You're really left with no choice but to conclude that they're both Christians, but just define the Christian religion in strikingly different ways.”

No, you conclude “They’re both Christians.” I conclude “They appear to have both self-classified with the label ‘Christian’ in the study.” I already described essentially this same scenario (see above; though I don’t invoke aliens, kidnapping, etc.). I’ve told you that the “I’m a Christian” is expendable. It is useful, helpful, in some respects, but it is has drawbacks, and it is expendable in the task of precise classification. In dealing with sets of propositions, one does not need to label the sets. (It is often handy, but it is not absolutely necessary).
As for popular opinion, which changes in some respects from generation to generation, that too can be inserted as a variable in the classification scheme. No problem.
In fact, we can use popular opinion as a criterion. We just conduct large normative studies sampling people’s beliefs, output a normative profile of the beliefs according to popularity, and work from there. We can do the same for each generation and document the changes. This is very useful, very informative. In using it as one (among other) standards, the researcher does not seek to answer the question of who is a true Christian. The researcher is simply ascertaining the popularity of beliefs associated with a particular variable within the set of variables. That variable may be self-classification, but it need not be. One may use various mathematical techniques on the data to identify categories (e.g., see multi-dimensional scaling) without ever even using a category label.
One can observe that some significant number of these successive generations endorse some of the elemental propositions that happen to be contained in the scriptures. Thus, the NT is also useful as a standard. Again, the researcher is not using the NT to determine who is a “true Christian”. Rather, the researcher is simply documenting the various aspects of overlap/non-overlap between person’s beliefs and the elements in the NT.

“But the Christian himself is under no obligation to submit to your definition. Regardless how you challenge him, he's going to call himself a Christian. I, for one, am content to take him at his word–primarily because I don't see that I have any choice.”

Of course he is not obligated to “submit”. I never did ask or imply that anyone “submit” to a scientific classification of religious belief. If they participate in the study, they can keep calling themselves whatever they want, regardless of what the researcher concludes. You are simply attributing to me a claim that I did not make.

“And that illustrates, I suspect, why this conversation is going on at all. You, like Archi, are approaching this from the perspective of an external observer trying to pigeonhole systems of beliefs. I, on the other hand, am coming from the standpoint of the believer himself and am wondering where you get the nerve to tell me I'm not a Christian when I know very well I am.”

1. Your use of the word “pigeonhole” suggests that you have missed major parts of my previous posts. The classification scheme which I illustrated, involving overlapping elements, is obviously not pigeonholing. On the other hand, if a crude pigeonholing scheme is all that we have to work with, perhaps due to time and financial constraints, I have no problem with that other than the inaccuracies introduced.

2. What’s “nerve” got to do with it? You make it sound like classifying others’ religious category membership, purely for intellectual or scientific purposes, is illicit or immoral. I’ve already explained that self-classification is normally a variable that is taken into account by researchers. They just don’t rely on it exclusively when they have additional information available.
(SpeirM to Philip)

“You've missed the point again. I'm arguing that I don't have the right to say whether you're a Christian or not. Furthermore–and this is what I was trying to get across specifically–you won't cede that right to me *or anyone else.* You won't even submit to authorities that you don't approve in advance. You're certainly not going to let anyone like me tell you whether you're a Christian or not.”

The researcher (or outside observer) has a classification, and the person studied has his/her own classification. For various reasons, the researcher may take the self-classification into account, or may ignore it. So what? How is this a violation of somebody’s rights? In our society, they are free to go on classifying themselves by whatever religion label they want.

You've missed the point again. I'm arguing that I don't have the right to say whether you're a Christian or not. Furthermore--and this is what I was trying to get across specifically--you won't cede that right to me *or anyone else.* You won't even submit to authorities that you don't approve in advance. You're certainly not going to let anyone like me tell you whether you're a Christian or not.

And, yes, I do classify. I've said that over and over to both you and Archi. The difference is, I don't EXCLUDE a person from a category when his beliefs don't match my preconceptions. I BROADEN the category.

"When I said "If you want to tell me I'm not a Christian thats fine.", I was referring to this quote- I realised it isn't your general approach."

The quote was HYPOTHETICAL. It was designed to get you see my point that I don't have the right to decide whether you're a Christian or not. It was not a statement that I KNOW you're not a Christian. To me, you're a Christian if you say you are.

Now I've got to bug out. Sadly (for me, anyway), I won't be back. Probably not. It's been fun.

When I said "If you want to tell me I'm not a Christian thats fine.", I was referring to this quote- I realised it isn't your general approach.

Would you appreciate it very much if I said, "Philip, you're not a Christian because I KNOW Christians believe thus, thus, and thus and you don't"? No, I suspect that in all three cases you would continue to call yourself a Christian and believe deeply that you were. If anything, you would likely say that the opposing defintions are wrong.

It's not even up to me to decide if they're mistaken.

"And there are certainly authorities whom I might believe if they told me a particular view of mine was against Christian doctrine."

And you'll decide who those authorities are, won't you? You define your own religion, among other ways, but deciding what authorities you'll submit to.

"If you want to tell me I'm not a Christian because I don't believe something, thats fine. Of course, if I actually do believe it I would point that out. In fact, which of my beliefs do your regard as particularly non-Christian anyway?"

I'm not telling you you're not a Christian. I'm not telling you you don't measure up to my definition of what a Christian is. I'm telling you I DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO DO THAT. *I don't define Christianity for believers.* What do you think this discussion has been about?

I would ask the Assemblies of God how they define a Christian, and if I don't meet their definition then I'm not a Christian by their definition. I'm not quite sure who they are, but I care what humanity in general thinks, so I care what they think.

If another Catholic said I wasn't a Christian I would point to the Creed and say I believe that, what else do you want? I'm still open to the possibility I'm not actually a Christian: stranger things have happened. And there are certainly authorities whom I might believe if they told me a particular view of mine was against Christian doctrine.

If you want to tell me I'm not a Christian because I don't believe something, thats fine. Of course, if I actually do believe it I would point that out. In fact, which of my beliefs do your regard as particularly non-Christian anyway?

But does the wider Hindu community define Hinduism for everyone? If it disagrees that a particular person who claims to be is a Hindu, does that oblige me to call him a liar?

"The same could be said for Christians, of course."

Indeed! Let me go back to where I started with you. The consensus of those in the Assemblies of God would be that you're not a Christian. Do you care what the AG thinks? Aren't you a Christian anyway? Indeed, your beliefs often clash with the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. If another Catholic said you're not a Christian because of that, would it change your opinion of yourself? Would you appreciate it very much if I said, "Philip, you're not a Christian because I KNOW Christians believe thus, thus, and thus and you don't"? No, I suspect that in all three cases you would continue to call yourself a Christian and believe deeply that you were. If anything, you would likely say that the opposing defintions are wrong.

No. I'm accepting the claim of a self-professing Hindu that he is a Hindu. (Notice that I don't even have to have a clue what what he thinks "Hindu" means. In fact, I don't need to have any defintion at all in mind.) I'm calling him a Hindu because he calls himself a Hindu. Furthermore, knowing that some people call themselves Hindu does not consititute a definition of "Hindu" such that I am qualified to tell someone who claims to be a Hindu that he is, in fact, not a Hindu. For that matter, I don't have the right to tell anyone he's not a Hindu who claims to be--but, then, I've already covered that ground, haven't I?