Degrees of Christianity?

[Zzyzx]

.
According to Christians who debate here there appear to be many 'degrees' of Christians – REAL Christians, TRUE Christians, Bible Believing Christians, Spirited-filled followers of Christ, Born Again Christians, Slaves of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Nominal Christians, Cultural Christians, etc, etc – even “authentic born-again, Spirited-filled followers of Christ�.

Often we see Christians demeaning fellow Christians who worship or believe differently, particularly when some commit reprehensible acts or promote a 'weird' viewpoint. This suggests the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy:

“The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defends the generalization of a group by excluding counter-examples from it. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

It also suggests self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement (because the speaker pretends, of course, to be one of the select)

Who decides what labels apply to which Christians? By whom are the judges appointed?

[Mithrae]

Either one is a Christian, that is, born-again (spirit once dead is brought alive in Christ) and Spirit-filled (Holy Spirit fills a person and lives within him or her) as he or she enters into a relationship with Jesus or he or she isn't. That's the historical definition of a Christian, always has been and I hope it always will be although there have been people who have wanted to define it to suit their own purposes -- and there still are including some on this forum. So there are no "degrees" of Christianity. Either one is or one isn't according to the definition which is rooted in the Bible and established by the early church.

If you want to look to the bible and earliest church (not to mention common sense) for your definition, then a Christian is someone who follows the teaching and example of Christ and his disciples, as 1213 has pointed out.

Alas, that excludes 99.99% of professing Christians, so a few other options are:
- A Christian is someone who accepts the core/creedal/common elements of Christianity
- A Christian is someone who identifies and fellowships with the Christian community

Both are historically and biblically defensible, fairly well aligned with common sense (and much more in line with common usage). But perhaps definitions like those include too many people for the tastes of those who believe that being a Christian is something special. So instead we have the abstract, metaphysical definitions such as:
- A Christian is someone who is 'born-again' and 'Spirit-filled' having entered into a relationship with Jesus
- A Christian is someone who has 'put on Christ'
- A Christian is someone who has been 'washed in the blood of the Lamb'
- A Christian is someone who has been 'justified' at some point in the past
- A Christian is someone who has been 'justified' and 'sanctified'

Or hey, maybe all of those terms mean the same thing. The fun part about definitions like these is that they are, for all practical purposes, utterly useless and indeed can mean almost anything one wants them to. Is someone a Christian if they said the Sinner's Prayer at some point in their life? Is someone a Christian if they've lived their whole life trying to obey the bible, but never asked Jesus into their heart? Ask a dozen different professing Christians and you'll probably hear nigh on a dozen different answers.

[Zzyzx]

.

According to atheists who debate here there appear to be many 'degrees' of atheists - explicit atheists, 'implicit' atheists, strong and weak atheists etc.

And therefore . . . . what?

We Non-Theists don't seem to have a 'degree' problem.

Often we see atheists demeaning fellow atheists who think or believe differently.

The Non-Theist user group shows 66 members, only four of which seem to be active. I do not recall any of us ever demeaning a fellow Non-Theist.

Even someone such as I who does not 'believe' in God and therefore by some folks' definitions would be an 'agnostic weak atheist' have been accused by more than one atheist of instead being Christian or religious.

According to Forum Rules and Protocol, each member is entitled to state (or avoid stating) their position regarding theism (or their 'label') and no one is entitled to challenge that position statement. What happens beyond the Forum is not subject to such constraint.

It also suggests self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement (because the speaker pretends, of course, to be one of the select)

And the monk said, “At humility we are the best�

Who decides what labels apply to which atheists? By whom are the judges appointed?

The individual decides / declares (if they so desire).

I would say that the biggest difference in this comparison is that Christians rarely or never try to claim that someone is a Christian who doesn't say they are one, but atheists regularly seem determined to put their label onto others - even babies!

This Non-Theist states that babies have no indication of god beliefs -- and that Atheism means 'without belief in gods'.

Diagoras has already hinted at the social dynamics which describe such efforts to create a suitable in-group:

Some of us are not concerned with being in a group. As a Non-Theist that is not a problem. I am not a 'joiner' (perhaps a Non-Joiner); with a very limited tolerance for groups, gatherings, events (or cities). The current national effort to discourage gatherings has no effect whatsoever on me. I am quite content staying on my few acres in the country (even more diligently than usual).

If others seek comfort in group settings, that is their business, not mine.

Being such a popular religion, some Christians might be more inclined to selectively refine their in-group, whereas having comparatively little popular success some atheists might be more inclined to artificially boost their in-group's size and social credibility.

“Little popular success�?

'Nones' (Atheist 3.1%, Agnostic 4.0%, Nothing in particular 15.8%) make up 22.8 percent of the US population – (an increase of 8% in five years https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... religious/).

Compare this to groups identified as:

Evangelical Protestant 25.4%
Mainline Protestant 14.7%
Historically Black Protestant 6.5%
Catholic 20.8%
Mormon 1.6%
Jewish 1.9%
All the rest less than one percent each

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

Even here in Bible Belt Arkansas, 'Nones' make up 18% of the population. Perhaps we will catch up with the home of my ancestors, the Czech Republic with 72% Unaffiliated (highest of 34 European nations surveyed). Shamefully, other ancestors came from Poland – one of the most religious nations.

[bjs]

As for the No True Scotsman Fallacy, it doesn't apply here. Being a true Scotsman means either being born in Scotland or becoming a citizen of Scotland. That's the definition.

You have confused the definition of a person’s nationality with the similarly-named fallacy. As Zzyzx has already posted a definition of the fallacy, I don’t need to repeat it, but the point is that the fallacy applies to any in-group being defended. As such, it very much does apply.

Overcomer brings us a valid point here. The No True Scotsman fallacy only makes sense if there is an agreed upon definition of a Scotsman.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is an informal form of Ad Hoc reasoning. It only applies when someone changes the definition of a word to exclude specific undesirable examples as they come up. So, in this case, changing the meaning of “Christian� whenever someone gives an undesirable example of someone who would otherwise qualify as a “Christian.�

However, when someone begins with a coherent definition of a word it will usually exclude some examples. When someone starts with a clear meaning of the word “Christian� then that meaning will necessarily exclude some people. That is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. That is consistent reasoning.