My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

[brewer]

[edit]

I think you are confusing the question: if I am consider myself a Christian, am I a Christian? with the fact of the matter. If one's belief is they are a Christian but they hold views that contradict Christianity, their belief is in error. At best they are a cultural Christian or nominal Christian. These two adjectives change the meaning to something other than a believer and follower in the central doctrines of a religion/ideology centered around Christ as revealed in the NT.

Matthew 7:1-3

[Angrboda]

You would have been more honest if you would have said "my Christianity" in the above instead of just "Christianity."  You claim that Mormons are polytheistic.  They don't see it that way.  It's a matter of subjective opinion.  Jews and Muslims see you as polytheist.  You see it differently.  Neither claim is based on an actual objective fact.  Christianity is by its nature pluralistic in fact, but exclusive in belief.  That doesn't change the fact that what one Christian or another excludes from Christianity is based on subjective opinion, and so enjoys no privilege over what any other person who claims to be Christian believes.  Are you a Christian if you don't believe in the book of Mormon?  It is a matter of opinion.  Does the Gospel of Peter belong in the bible?  Again, opinion.  Does the Gospel of John belong in the bible?  Again, opinion.  All you've got is a bunch of subjective opinions about what does and does not make someone a Christian.  Historically, the determinant of what was Christianity came down to violent suppression of minority opinions and consensus of those in power.  Neither gets you to an objective fact of the matter.  One might argue that belief in some kind of Christ is necessary, but since Mormons fit that bill, you're simply out to lunch here.  I recognize that you've drunk the koolaid which outlines your specific beliefs and that you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is not Christian, but ultimately that is nothing more than your subjective opinion on the matter.  Your opinion doesn't mean dick when it comes to settling just what Christianity is, exclusive or not.  It's just your opinion, nothing more.  Anybody else who happens to believe in Jesus Christ of some form and calls themselves Christian has as much basis for saying what is and is not a Christian as you do, which is to say, not much.  Christianity is a social movement based around beliefs about Jesus Christ.  Anyone that fits that description is therefore a Christian, in spite of the perennial bickering over who does and who does not belong in the club.  Such disputes aren't based on objective facts and so they are worth dick squat in resolving the question.  The best you can come up with reduce to appeals to popularity or might makes right arguments, neither of which is a rational basis for determining who is and is not a Christian.  

Still disagree. Why is the Gospel of John in the Bible? Because it had provenance and was theologically consistent with other known letters and docs with their own provenance. That is not opinion. Obviously there was standards because some books did not make the cut. Those that did not make the cut are not considered by anyone today as providing "Christian" doctrine. So, the early church applied standards, went back to the earliest and most reliable texts and weeded out the diverging thinkers and outright fakes. It makes no sense that they could apply the internally-consistent-constraint-standard on doctrines then and we can't today. No appeal to popularity, no might-makes-right. 

The idea that the texts chosen were chosen based upon provenance and consistency is not supported by the evidence and represents little more than wishful thinking. The scholarly consensus is that the gospels were anonymous, multiple supposedly Pauline epistles are not Pauline, and the authorship of Luke-Acts is not likely what it was later represented to be. The attribution of the gospels didn't occur until the latter half of the second century, and there is ample evidence that they circulated anonymously prior to that time. The earliest we have a glimmer of an author making an attribution was in Papias writing 120-130 CE, yet we have good reason to believe the works referenced by Papias were not the gospels we have today, so that does us no good. It's interesting to note that the attribution of the gospels appears concurrent to drives within the church to combat heretical doctrines (read: those that didn't win) and likely served a polemic and political purpose. What we do not have evidence of is any real provenance, and the evidence we do have is that the texts that were selected were selected on the basis of concurrence with the previously existing opinions of those who held power, rather than any scholarly concern for provenance or internal consistency. The only consistency that mattered was consistency with the opinions of those in power. Your speculation that because the church fathers had to base their decisions on something that they must have been engaged in anything other than a process motivated by prior opinion, power, and politics is the merest form of speculation. The evidence says otherwise, and any "consistency" we have today is an artifact of that process, not a basis of it. So your argument about the selection of the books of the bible is nothing more than apologetic horseshit.

Your "Historically, the determinant of what was Christianity came down to violent suppression of minority opinions and consensus of those in power" is a red herring. You can easily start the development of doctrine from the NT from scratch. That's how we got Protestants. 

It's hardly a red herring when we have ample evidence that such was the case. And doctrine didn't develop from the NT but was developed alongside it, so your complaint here is just more wishful thinking and fantasy.

I think you are confusing the question if I consider myself a Christian, am I a Christian? with the fact of the matter. If one's belief is they are a Christian but they hold views that contradict Christianity, their belief is in error. At best they are a cultural Christian or nominal Christian. These two adjectives change the meaning to something other than a believer and follower in the central doctrines of a religion/ideology centered around Christ as revealed in the NT.

As noted, the NT itself, both then and now, is more an ad hoc supposition created to support one or more specific Christianities, rather than something original to any specific ideology. There is no singular "Christianity," but rather Christianities, each of which has their own rationalization as to why theirs is the true essence of Christianity. Your arguments, such as they are, are nothing more than the typical, politically motivated drivel of a partisan struggling to make it to the top of the heap.

[SteveII]

Still disagree. Why is the Gospel of John in the Bible? Because it had provenance and was theologically consistent with other known letters and docs with their own provenance. That is not opinion. Obviously there was standards because some books did not make the cut. Those that did not make the cut are not considered by anyone today as providing "Christian" doctrine. So, the early church applied standards, went back to the earliest and most reliable texts and weeded out the diverging thinkers and outright fakes. It makes no sense that they could apply the internally-consistent-constraint-standard on doctrines then and we can't today. No appeal to popularity, no might-makes-right. 

The idea that the texts chosen were chosen based upon provenance and consistency is not supported by the evidence and represents little more than wishful thinking.  The scholarly consensus is that the gospels were anonymous, multiple supposedly Pauline epistles are not Pauline, and the authorship of Luke-Acts is not likely what it was later represented to be.  The attribution of the gospels didn't occur until the latter half of the second century, and there is ample evidence that they circulated anonymously prior to that time.  The earliest we have a glimmer of an author making an attribution was in Papias writing 120-130 CE, yet we have good reason to believe the works referenced by Papias were not the gospels we have today, so that does us no good.  It's interesting to note that the attribution of the gospels appears concurrent to drives within the church to combat heretical doctrines (read: those that didn't win) and likely served a polemic and political purpose.  What we do not have evidence of is any real provenance, and the evidence we do have is that the texts that were selected were selected on the basis of concurrence with the previously existing opinions of those who held power, rather than any scholarly concern for provenance or internal consistency.  The only consistency that mattered was consistency with the opinions of those in power.  Your speculation that because the church fathers had to base their decisions on something that they must have been engaged in anything other than a process motivated by prior opinion, power, and politics is the merest form of speculation.  The evidence says otherwise, and any "consistency" we have today is an artifact of that process, not a basis of it.  So your argument about the selection of the books of the bible is nothing more than apologetic horseshit.

Your "Historically, the determinant of what was Christianity came down to violent suppression of minority opinions and consensus of those in power" is a red herring. You can easily start the development of doctrine from the NT from scratch. That's how we got Protestants. 

It's hardly a red herring when we have ample evidence that such was the case.  And doctrine didn't develop from the NT but was developed alongside it, so your complaint here is just more wishful thinking and fantasy.

I think you are confusing the question if I consider myself a Christian, am I a Christian? with the fact of the matter. If one's belief is they are a Christian but they hold views that contradict Christianity, their belief is in error. At best they are a cultural Christian or nominal Christian. These two adjectives change the meaning to something other than a believer and follower in the central doctrines of a religion/ideology centered around Christ as revealed in the NT.

As noted, the NT itself, both then and now, is more an ad hoc supposition created to support one or more specific Christianities, rather than something original to any specific ideology.  There is no singular "Christianity," but rather Christianities, each of which has their own rationalization as to why theirs is the true essence of Christianity.  Your arguments, such as they are, are nothing more than the typical, politically motivated drivel of a partisan struggling to make it to the top of the heap.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on taking the dimmest views of the quality/provenance of the NT. I can argue point by point, but I don't think I need to. A significant portion of the people we are talking about (Mormons for example) take a high view of the NT. Additionally, cultural/nominal Christians don't necessarily justify their position like you did (the historicity of the NT is such that...x). In many if not most cases they don't know what they don't know. For those two reasons, I think your argument is weak that people logically can get to any number of conflicting beliefs, therefore Christian beliefs are whatever people that call themselves Christians believe. 

If I call myself a cultural conservative in the US because my parents and whole town are, but I hold major conflicting views from cultural conservatives, my belief that I am a cultural conservative is wrong. I don't get to redefine it.