Catagories of Christians

[philoseeker]

I would like to throw a thought out and to this forum.

Having been raised in a fundamentalist atmosphere, I have come to realize that there are (at least) 4 separate groups of Christian: 1) Genuine Believer (who accept Jesus as a historical figure and the "true" son of God, etc.); 2) Pragmatists (who, while actually believeing that Jesus is a mythological figure or a legend, believe that Chiristianity is essential to our existence and so promote it--as if they actually believed it); 3) Traditionalists, who may or may not have any strong beliefs about the nature of God or Christ, but who accept their "religion" simply because it is the "traditional" thing to do--It was good for grandpa, ao it's good for me); and 4) Opportunists (Those who may or not believe, but involve themselves in Christianity for personal gain--who earn their livelihood and social standing from "spreading the Word". Of course, these groups have a lot of bleedover, but I believe them to be a foundational distinction.

The importance of recognizing the existence of the varying foundations of Christian adherence is very high. For instance, discussiing evidence that Jesus and God are only mythological figures will be futile if the person with whom we are speaking already believes that to be true, but has other motives for his or her advocacy.

I thnk it would be informative to get some feedback from others in this forum on this "theory".

philoseeker

[funinspace]

Well, first I would consider this more about ideas on grouping/categorizing people vice being any kind of theory. And as with any categorizing of people, generalizations will only get you so far. Humans are far more complex than your 4 categories. Though these 4 do make some sense. However, these categories also have flaws.

The (1) Genuine Believers are not all literalists. That is, there are people who consider the Bible to be inspired, but not necessarily factually correct on details. They will usually still insist on the core elements of Christ as savior and raised from the dead. These are often called Liberal Christians. What liberal Christians are not, is legalists (aka Christian Pharisee's). However, some of the liberal Christians do think the faith is critical to salvation.

There are also pragmatic literalists. In that they don't believe in Christian legalisms. But this is venturing into how Christians live and act out their faith vs. just their internal theological POV.

I would additionally suggest changing one phrase for the (4) Opportunists. I would add the bolded part: "but involve themselves in Christianity for personal gain and power". I think power is as much a motivation as greed. You may have meant both with the word "gain", but it was unclear to me.

I guess it depends on which way you are trying to categorize Christians, on which categories to employ. Your 4 labels/categories are decent in maybe describing an aspect of theological belief. I guess if you changed the Pragmatist to state that "they sometimes consider it mythical and sometimes consider the core elements to be true. But allow aspects of the Bible to be in error or mythical", then it might cover it better. But then the key word "Pragmatists" would not be a very good label then. Maybe (1) and (2) would be better represented by Literalist and None Literalist.

[Keith&Co.]

But from outside the church, or even standing inside the congregation, you can't really tell who is there from personal belief or just because they think it's better for their business to be seen at Church on Sunday.

I think you'll get farther by classifying either professed beliefs (God is Jesus, God knows Jesus) or behavior (Support CSS, Reject CSS, Accept CSS).

[philoseeker]

The (1) Genuine Believers are not all literalists. That is, there are people who consider the Bible to be inspired, but not necessarily factually correct on details. They will usually still insist on the core elements of Christ as savior and raised from the dead. These are often called Liberal Christians. What liberal Christians are not, is legalists (aka Christian Pharisee's). However, some of the liberal Christians do think the faith is critical to salvation.

You make an excellent point. The classifications are more general than they should have been. I wanted to present my ideas without getting overly involved initially in details. We can deal with specific beliefs and it would be far better to do so.

For example: II Timothy 3:16:All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof. for correction, for instruction in righteousness What would distinguish a literalist (a genuine believer in the sense I meant, from a pragmatist, is that a literalist would believe the first clause of the verse while a pragmatist would not, but a pragmatist would still believe the rest of the verse.

I did deal with specific beliefs--perhaps not clearly enough, such as whether Jesus is a mythological figure or a historical figure--whether he was, in fact. the son of God (or God himself) or just a preacher who made the claim, etc.

philoseeker

[Underseer]

Are all Genuine Believers biblical literalists? Or are biblical literalists a subset of Genuine Believers?

What about people who believe in creationism, but do not believe the Earth is stationary? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in creationism but still believe in a virgin birth? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in a virgin birth but still believe in Jesus' divinity? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in a physical barrier between the sky and the waters above (firmament) that God opens up to let the rain fall down?

What about people who don't believe rabbits count as cud-chewers because they don't have three stomachs?

What about people who don't believe in unicorns?

What about people who don't believe in dragons?

I think this "genuine believer" category would be awfully hard to define.

[WishboneDawn]

I would like to throw a thought out and to this forum.

Having been raised in a fundamentalist atmosphere, I have come to realize that there are (at least) 4 separate groups of Christian: 1) Genuine Believer (who accept Jesus as a historical figure and the "true" son of God, etc.); 2) Pragmatists (who, while actually believeing that Jesus is a mythological figure or a legend, believe that Chiristianity is essential to our existence and so promote it--as if they actually believed it); 3) Traditionalists, who may or may not have any strong beliefs about the nature of God or Christ, but who accept their "religion" simply because it is the "traditional" thing to do--It was good for grandpa, ao it's good for me); and 4) Opportunists (Those who may or not believe, but involve themselves in Christianity for personal gain--who earn their livelihood and social standing from "spreading the Word". Of course, these groups have a lot of bleedover, but I believe them to be a foundational distinction.

The importance of recognizing the existence of the varying foundations of Christian adherence is very high. For instance, discussiing evidence that Jesus and God are only mythological figures will be futile if the person with whom we are speaking already believes that to be true, but has other motives for his or her advocacy.

I thnk it would be informative to get some feedback from others in this forum on this "theory".

philoseeker

Eh. I guess I'm sort of close to your pragmatist but I'm quite sure most people who know me here can attest to the fact that I don't really give a shit about promoting it. New subcategory - Lazyass Pragmatist.

[funinspace]

The (1) Genuine Believers are not all literalists. That is, there are people who consider the Bible to be inspired, but not necessarily factually correct on details. They will usually still insist on the core elements of Christ as savior and raised from the dead. These are often called Liberal Christians. What liberal Christians are not, is legalists (aka Christian Pharisee's). However, some of the liberal Christians do think the faith is critical to salvation.

You make an excellent point. The classifications are more general than they should have been. I wanted to present my ideas without getting overly involved initially in details. We can deal with specific beliefs and it would be far better to do so.

For example: II Timothy 3:16:All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof. for correction, for instruction in righteousness What would distinguish a literalist (a genuine believer in the sense I meant, from a pragmatist, is that a literalist would believe the first clause of the verse while a pragmatist would not, but a pragmatist would still believe the rest of the verse.

I did deal with specific beliefs--perhaps not clearly enough, such as whether Jesus is a mythological figure or a historical figure--whether he was, in fact. the son of God (or God himself) or just a preacher who made the claim, etc.

philoseeker
As I thought about it more, I see another issue with your categories. #1 and #2 seam to be about how the individual sees one aspect of their theology. #3 and #4 seam to be more about how they see religion in society. The #3 Traditionalist sees how religion can help shape society in positive way, regardless of it's real truism. The #4 sees religion as a tool by which he/she can use to his/her own benefit, regardless of it's real truism.

So I guess I wonder what you are trying to categorize? Various theological views? Various ways people see religion in society? Various ways people interact with religion personally? ...

[Keith&Co.]

I did deal with specific beliefs--perhaps not clearly enough, such as whether Jesus is a mythological figure or a historical figure--whether he was, in fact. the son of God (or God himself) or just a preacher who made the claim, etc.
If you really got into this i think you'd end up with something like a periodic table of belief.
Grouped by nature and degree of accepting key dogmas, in columns of lesser dogmas, color coded by congregational descent.
A superscript for the total number of deities proposed, a subscript for deities worshipped...

[philoseeker]

Are all Genuine Believers biblical literalists? Or are biblical literalists a subset of Genuine Believers?

What about people who believe in creationism, but do not believe the Earth is stationary? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in creationism but still believe in a virgin birth? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in a virgin birth but still believe in Jesus' divinity? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in a physical barrier between the sky and the waters above (firmament) that God opens up to let the rain fall down?

What about people who don't believe rabbits count as cud-chewers because they don't have three stomachs?

What about people who don't believe in unicorns?

What about people who don't believe in dragons?

I think this "genuine believer" category would be awfully hard to define.

My discussion is about people who "genuinely believe" what they claim to believe--as opposed to those whose "claim" of belief has other motivations.

[philoseeker]

[/QUOTE] Eh. I guess I'm sort of close to your pragmatist but I'm quite sure most people who know me here can attest to the fact that I don't really give a shit about promoting it. New subcategory - Lazyass Pragmatist.[/QUOTE]

There is a subdivision of each category--active and passive.

[philoseeker]

You make an excellent point. The classifications are more general than they should have been. I wanted to present my ideas without getting overly involved initially in details. We can deal with specific beliefs and it would be far better to do so.

For example: II Timothy 3:16:All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof. for correction, for instruction in righteousness What would distinguish a literalist (a genuine believer in the sense I meant, from a pragmatist, is that a literalist would believe the first clause of the verse while a pragmatist would not, but a pragmatist would still believe the rest of the verse.

I did deal with specific beliefs--perhaps not clearly enough, such as whether Jesus is a mythological figure or a historical figure--whether he was, in fact. the son of God (or God himself) or just a preacher who made the claim, etc.

philoseeker
As I thought about it more, I see another issue with your categories. #1 and #2 seam to be about how the individual sees one aspect of their theology. #3 and #4 seam to be more about how they see religion in society. The #3 Traditionalist sees how religion can help shape society in positive way, regardless of it's real truism. The #4 sees religion as a tool by which he/she can use to his/her own benefit, regardless of it's real truism.

So I guess I wonder what you are trying to categorize? Various theological views? Various ways people see religion in society? Various ways people interact with religion personally? ...

I suppose my ain point is that we need to gear our dealings with Christians (if we are interested in secularizing our society) to their beliefs.

1. With a genuine believer--to evidence that God is a myth.

2. With pragmatists--that religion is not essential to decency and, in many respects, counterproductive of decency.

3. With traditionalists--that our orientation toward religious belief is important.

4. With Opportunists--that spreading religion can, in some instances, be like pushing a drug that does severe damage.

[TheRealityOfMan]

[QUOTE=funinspace;5350175]


For example: II Timothy 3:16:All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof. for correction, for instruction in righteousness What would distinguish a literalist (a genuine believer in the sense I meant, from a pragmatist, is that a literalist would believe the first clause of the verse while a pragmatist would not, but a pragmatist would still believe the rest of the verse.



philoseeker


Some pragmatists might believe in the first part but have a broader understanding of what inspiration of God means. For instance they may not believe it means the same thing as say the inspiration of Mohammed in writing out the Koran but that it means a more vague divine inspiration that is evidenced in sublime art and great moments of humanity.

[philoseeker]

TheRealityofMan wrote:

Some pragmatists might believe in the first part but have a broader understanding of what inspiration of God means. For instance they may not believe it means the same thing as say the inspiration of Mohammed in writing out the Koran but that it means a more vague divine inspiration that is evidenced in sublime art and great moments of humanity.[/QUOTE]

I would classify these people as genuine believers rather than pragmatists because, regardless of their idea of the nature of inspiration, they beleve that their God is the "right" God--that that God exists as a source of true inspiration in contrast to "false" gods or spirits such as the ones which move other "guides"--Mohammed, the Dalai Lama, Aesop, etc. They do not believe that all claims of truth have a human source--they, therefore, are "genuine believers" in the fundamental doctrines of the Godmyth.

[philoseeker]

Are all Genuine Believers biblical literalists? Or are biblical literalists a subset of Genuine Believers?

What about people who believe in creationism, but do not believe the Earth is stationary? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in creationism but still believe in a virgin birth? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in a virgin birth but still believe in Jesus' divinity? Do they still count as Genuine Believers?

What about people who don't believe in a physical barrier between the sky and the waters above (firmament) that God opens up to let the rain fall down?

What about people who don't believe rabbits count as cud-chewers because they don't have three stomachs?

What about people who don't believe in unicorns?

What about people who don't believe in dragons?

I think this "genuine believer" category would be awfully hard to define.

My discussion is about people who "genuinely believe" what they claim to believe--as opposed to those whose "claim" of belief has other motivations.

To add to my response:
It is counterproductive to get mired down in the varying denominational doctrines. There are very few basic assumptions that define a person as religious (Christian or otherwise). The primary one seems to me to be the belief in a supernatural force that directs us through life. Belief in the supernatural can be defined as "belief that a force exists which "sometimes" intervenes in the mechanical processes of nature. And further, that this force can be appeased in a variety of ways--such as prayer or right living or tossing virgins into the mouth of a volcano, in order to access its favor.

[Underseer]

My discussion is about people who "genuinely believe" what they claim to believe--as opposed to those whose "claim" of belief has other motivations.

To add to my response:
It is counterproductive to get mired down in the varying denominational doctrines. There are very few basic assumptions that define a person as religious (Christian or otherwise). The primary one seems to me to be the belief in a supernatural force that directs us through life. Belief in the supernatural can be defined as "belief that a force exists which "sometimes" intervenes in the mechanical processes of nature. And further, that this force can be appeased in a variety of ways--such as prayer or right living or tossing virgins into the mouth of a volcano, in order to access its favor.

Where the heck would Unitarians fall on that scale?

[Doug Shaver]

I thnk it would be informative to get some feedback from others in this forum on this "theory".
It isn't really a theory, so it's good that you put that word in quotes.

What you have proposed is a taxonomy. I suppose t could be useful in some contexts, but there are plenty of other ways to categorize Christians that would work better in most other contexts.

[philoseeker]

To add to my response:
It is counterproductive to get mired down in the varying denominational doctrines. There are very few basic assumptions that define a person as religious (Christian or otherwise). The primary one seems to me to be the belief in a supernatural force that directs us through life. Belief in the supernatural can be defined as "belief that a force exists which "sometimes" intervenes in the mechanical processes of nature. And further, that this force can be appeased in a variety of ways--such as prayer or right living or tossing virgins into the mouth of a volcano, in order to access its favor.

Where the heck would Unitarians fall on that scale?

To my knowledge, Universalist/Unitarians are not dogmatic regarding particular doctrines. After all, they they did much of the paving of the way for freethought that helped usher in the Age of Enlightenment. I would consider them to be moderate freethinkers rather than Theistic.

[Trout]

And sadly enough they're all plum crazy excepting the televangelist raking in the cash.

[philoseeker]

I thnk it would be informative to get some feedback from others in this forum on this "theory".
It isn't really a theory, so it's good that you put that word in quotes.

What you have proposed is a taxonomy. I suppose t could be useful in some contexts, but there are plenty of other ways to categorize Christians that would work better in most other contexts.

My primary concern is that there are some atheists who tend to lump all theists (or Christians) together, without realizing that there is a variety of groups who have a variety of beliefs and motivations for advocating their religion.

I am interested in knowing other methods of classification--not for academic purposes but for usefulness.

[J.F. Gaul]

I am interested in knowing other methods of classification--not for academic purposes but for usefulness.

The problem with classification based on "degree" of belief is that it's impossible. How on earth would you go about deciding whether a believer was sincere or not?

What might be useful is a distinction (not classification) between academic Christianity (e.g. theologically-concerned Christians), practiced Christianity (e.g. Josh McDowell, religious Republicans), emotional Christianity (e.g. drug addict reformation via religion, Bono), syncretic Christianity (e.g. Christianity w/ New Age elements), and so on.

The basic differences between these "types" is their adherence to formal doctrine, but unlike your system it does not use motivation as a factor in producing categories.

[Doug Shaver]

there are some atheists who tend to lump all theists (or Christians) together, without realizing that there is a variety of groups who have a variety of beliefs and motivations for advocating their religion.
Yes, and that is most lamentable.

I am interested in knowing other methods of classification--not for academic purposes but for usefulness.
I'd guess there are as many methods as there are purposes to which a person might wish to put the classification.

To my way of thinking, for most purposes a taxonomy according to beliefs is most likely to be useful. Depending on how finely you need to resolve the various sects, you start by noting the three major divisions: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. Then you might want to make the Anglicans a fourth major category.

The hard work comes with sorting out the Protestants. I think Wikipedia would get someone off to a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant

[TheRealityOfMan]

It's not just Atheists who group Christians together, but religious people do it for various motives too.

People advocate the idea that RELIGION is good for humans. However it is not just a question of RELIGION, but RELIGIONS. You cannot avoid differentiating. I don't see the world in fight between religion and non-religion but in a fight between religions and Atheists can float above and in between this.

[philoseeker]

there are some atheists who tend to lump all theists (or Christians) together, without realizing that there is a variety of groups who have a variety of beliefs and motivations for advocating their religion.
Yes, and that is most lamentable.

I am interested in knowing other methods of classification--not for academic purposes but for usefulness.
I'd guess there are as many methods as there are purposes to which a person might wish to put the classification.

To my way of thinking, for most purposes a taxonomy according to beliefs is most likely to be useful. Depending on how finely you need to resolve the various sects, you start by noting the three major divisions: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. Then you might want to make the Anglicans a fourth major category.

The hard work comes with sorting out the Protestants. I think Wikipedia would get someone off to a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant

But this is exactly what I was attempting to avoid--classifying religions according to doctrinal differences (Comparative Religion). Rather, I was looking for a way to distinguish between advocates of religion (in general) according to their "reasons" for advocating it. A good example is Trout's post above--some Christians are "crazy" or suffering from delusions, others advocate Christianity because it is a profitable way to make a living, gain power and societal standing. It is important, I think, to realize the variety of motivations for advocating religion--so as not to lump all advocates together--I still believe the 4 basic groups is a valid and useful taxonomy

[fromdownunder]

I must admit, I have a far more pragmatic view when it comes to on-line discussion with any theists (off-line I do not even bother talking about the subject) , and it is easily broken down into two groups:

1. Those with whom it is worthwhile having a discussion.

2. Those with whom it is not.

This is completely personal, and totally subjective. After a bit of practice, discussion and reading of their posts, it is pretty easy to tell the difference

Breaking this down further "categories" always depends on the individual with whom you are participating in the discussion with, and what particular subject is being discussed. It does not particularly matter - just go with the flow of the discussion, or leave it. The internet, for some, perhaps many of us is not an atheo-evangilist place where we are attempting to "convert" anybody to atheism.

Norm

[philoseeker]

I must admit, I have a far more pragmatic view when it comes to on-line discussion with any theists (off-line I do not even bother talking about the subject) , and it is easily broken down into two groups:

1. Those with whom it is worthwhile having a discussion.

2. Those with whom it is not.

This is completely personal, and totally subjective. After a bit of practice, discussion and reading of their posts, it is pretty easy to tell the difference

Breaking this down further "categories" always depends on the individual with whom you are participating in the discussion with, and what particular subject is being discussed. It does not particularly matter - just go with the flow of the discussion, or leave it. The internet, for some, perhaps many of us is not an atheo-evangilist place where we are attempting to "convert" anybody to atheism.

Norm

If religion were nothing more than a harmless exentricity, I would agree that it is not that important, yet after 9-11, it is impossible for me to see religion in this way--rather, it is a very dangerous thing (A good book on the subject is Karen Armstrong's "The Batte for God" among others.) I, at least, want to come down on the side of right, even if it is a hopeless battle against irrationality.

If you present a valid syllogistic argument to someone and they acknowledge the truth of all the premises, yet refuse to acknowledge the truth of the necessary conclusion, you can be certain that they are motivated by something beyond the desire to get at the truth. Once these motivations are determined, you can adress the actual issues involved--get beyond the smokescreen. Argument with some people seems to be futile, but I refuse to give up hope.

The 4 categories (or better, groups) is a good way to try to get beyond this smokescreen.

[Doug Shaver]

But this is exactly what I was attempting to avoid--classifying religions according to doctrinal differences
OK. If doctrinal differences are irrelevant to your classificatory purposes -- whatever those purposes happen to be -- then you're certainly free to invent whatever other system will serve your purposes.

[AdamWho]

I think that trying to map out dimensions rather than categories would be more helpful. A particular believer would exist on a continuum.

Example of possible dimensions:
Litteralist vs. metaphorical
Absolutionist morality vs. relativist morality
Intermediary vs. direct connection to god
Social responsibility vs social separation
Salvation be works vs salvation by faith.

[philoseeker]

But this is exactly what I was attempting to avoid--classifying religions according to doctrinal differences
OK. If doctrinal differences are irrelevant to your classificatory purposes -- whatever those purposes happen to be -- then you're certainly free to invent whatever other system will serve your purposes.

Doug Shaver, Sorry it took me so long to get back.

My classification goes beyond those who advocate religion (or any particular thing.) Any person who advocates something (anything) has a motivation for advocating that thing. Advocating a religious lifestyle or belief in any particular doctrine is no different than advocating anything else--(say a used car salesman advocating your purchase of a used car in his possession.)

To bring it back to religious belief, though, take a person who advocates the belief in "end days" eschatology--it hels to be aware of why that person is advocating that belief in order to better understand the nature of the belief and of the believers. In this case, there are those who actually believe that Jesus ascended into the clouds and will return to collect his "elect." Then, there are those who make a living through convincing the naive that this is the case. Dealing with any individual on the subject is facilitated by understanding what they actually believe (what their motivations are.)

[Doug Shaver]

Dealing with any individual on the subject is facilitated by understanding what they actually believe (what their motivations are.)
I don't want to assume anything about your knowledge of English punctuation and its proper use, but the way you wrote that implies that in your opinion, what a person believes is the same thing as his or her motivation for believing it. I strenuously disagree.

[philoseeker]

Dealing with any individual on the subject is facilitated by understanding what they actually believe (what their motivations are.)
I don't want to assume anything about your knowledge of English punctuation and its proper use, but the way you wrote that implies that in your opinion, what a person believes is the same thing as his or her motivation for believing it. I strenuously disagree.

I didn't mean to say that, but, take the example of the belief that there is a place called heaven where all faithful believers go when they die. A person may believe this because they want to believe it, they want to live forever, they want to see their departed loved ones again, they can't face the fact of their own mortality and the temporariness of life, because a trusted person tells them that it's true, etc.

A person who "preaches" that this heaven is true may also be a genuine believer, but it's possible, also that he "feeds" the hopes of the faithful because he or she gains respect, social standing, power, remuneration, etc. by doing so. The motivations of this person is completely different from those of the genuine believer and I believe it is important to understand what a persons real motivations are in order to facilitate rational discussion with them.

In the latter case, the person (attempting to protect his or her poition) will invent all sorts of arguments and will not be likely to listen to rational arguments against those arguments. I think that ID is one such argument.