In another thread, a discussion ensued about whether or not Fred Phelps is properly categorized as a Christian.

The problem with answering this question is not one of religion but one of arbitrary categorization to suit a particular situation. On the surface, the consensus opinion seems practical and fair. But it quickly becomes apparent that any method used to categorize religious affiliation alienates previously accepted members.

A mistake is made when the consensus applies the judgment for a particular situation or circumstance without regard to how that same judgment applies in other similar situations and circumstances.

For example: Fred Phelps is widely criticized by a majority of Christians for various reasons relating to their subjective interpretation of what Christianity should be. As stated above.

Because the question is not of acceptable human behavior, but of categorization for religious affiliation, each reason given to disenfranchise Phelps may be applied to each member of the category in turn thereby dissolving the cohesiveness of the religion itself.

In fact, each individual members ideal of Christianity will vary subtly even within the same family. Each family will vary subtly within the local congregation. Each congregation will vary subtly with other congregations in other culturally varying pocket.

This is evidenced by the diffusion of sects. Did Martin Luther consider Catholicism Christianity? Are southern Methodists the same as northern Methodists? Some sects welcome homosexuals into the congregation, allow females to minister, etc...while others do not. This causes rifts even within Christian sects!

I used an example of color to show the problem with such methods of categorization. I asked "what is white?"? 43 Regular, whom I have invited into this thread, responded "white is the reflection of the entire visible spectrum". Then why do we call a piece of paper "white" and then compare it to snow and say "snow is more white"? Point: in recognizing that both are acceptable cultural representatives of white, I have proved the fallacy of lackadaisical categorization in the most innocuous seeming questions. But if that method is applied to skin color, then the categorization of what is "white" can become toxic - racism.

Why you attempt to categorize something is often as important as how it is done. Does it matter what is white? Sometimes yes. Does it matter if Fred Phelps is categorized as a Christian? Proceed with caution!

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

hmmm ... does it matter if Phelps is categorized as Christian?

well - what do christians have in common?

Christians believe in one God, who sent his Son to save us. That this son died on the cross for our sins. They also believe in 'judgement day' or something of the sort.

I guess they believe in the virgin birth?

Thats what ALL Christians have in common.

If Phelps believes this, then Phelps can be categorized as a christian, however whether he practices what many christians BELIEVE is christianity is another matter.

edit: there is a difference in the definition of 'a christian' and in what 'christian practice' may be. I think the latter probably causes more confusion. Myself, having grown up in one Church (which I later rejected) find that the practices of many who identify as christians are what I would regard almost as heresy if I still remained within that church.

Are you certain that all Christian have that set in common?
What if a person is a member of a Christian congregation, attends regularly, believes in God, believes that Jesus was some kind of representative of God in the form of his "Son" sent to earth to save "us" but doesn't believe in the virgin birth story and when they say "us", they do not believe this includes other races?

Christian?

It will prove impossible to define a Christian by attempting to match them to a prototype that does not exist. Not even Christ can be the prototype because, as you see, no Christians would be living.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Or, an alternative method, you could broadly define Christians as being "believers in Christ". All Christians have this one thing in common.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

How's this for a definition: A Christian is a Christian if according to herself, she is a Christian?

well, I'm not sure of the virgin birth being a universal in christianity - so I'm happy to leave that out of the definition.

re other races - well thats going to depend - after all - aren't 'black people' the descendants of Cain in some accounts - and therefore may be beyond the pale since the sins of the fathers and all that .....

certainly Luther thought it was a christian's duty to persecute the Jews - but he was a "good" christian ....

so I wouldn't necessarily expect a christian to necessarily include all races. or even necessarily all christians when they say "us," as history has proven.

I think we can say there is a set of people who are 'christian' and they have a set of beliefs in common. maybe these beliefs are few, but they are what they share.

Just as there is a set of people who are 'Muslim' who share some things in common. Osama bin Laden would be included in that set, although many 'good' Muslims will claim he is not a true Muslim due to his interpretation of various texts etc.

I seriosly doubt christ was a christian BTW, so he wouldn't qualify either as the prototype, or even an ordinary christian IMO.

If someone calls themself a "Christian", then they would be in the category of those who call themselves Christians.

Even more precise!

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I see a problem with this one actually. There may be an instance of an actual intentional liar in which case, this categorization fits just fine. But this particular case would disqualify anyone who is intentionally lying about being a Christian from actually being one.

Of course, that doesn't help determine who is lying and who is telling the truth. Perhaps a Jew in Germany in the late 30's early 40's might proclaim that they are a Christian to avoid persecution while never intending to be a Christian at all.

I just thought of something...is the character Satan a Christian?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

There is no logical problem with the argument. It doesn't attempt to determine whether someone is or is not a Christian.

I agree. Then following this logic, are you saying there is no categorizing "Christian"?

The point is not to avoid the categorization altogether which can not practically be done can it?

The point rather, would be to provide a categorization in shades. How much is the thing like the others?

In the case of Phelps, it might be said that he is similar to other Christians in that he believes in God and Christ as savior, and believes in some judgment day.

Phelps says "God hates fags". Clearly stated in the Bible, God hates many people. Literally, the Bible states that God hates many people for different sins. It does not literally say God hates fags or homosexuals or any derivation of the term. So Phelps has construed God's hatred of sinners to include what God states is a sin - homosexuality.

We may find this distasteful and wish to declare it a misinterpretation but then we must examine the modern promotion of homosexuality as a sin greater than even those set forth and passed down to Moses at the burning bush. This also is an interpretation of the Bible!

So not even a Christian can infallibly argue that Phelps interpretation is less accurate than their own. They can merely state that theirs is a socially preferable interpretation. All else is an excuse.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn