Lefty-Science Privilege

[CharonY]

I would like to address the issue of left(ish) and science-based privilege on this board. The science part is quite trivial. Due to the fact that most members are interested in science, certain basic aspects (evolution, GR, climate change) are con-controversially accepted as fact. Not everyone has the expertise to fully understand the concepts, but at minimum one accepts them as trivially true and gets suspicious when someone addresses these or similar topics in an adversarial manner. In the best case scenario, ignorance is countered by knowledge and hopefully leads to education, willful ignorance almost always leads to argument. Still, it is easy to suspect untoward motivation, when the subject matter and tone is more adversarial than potentially intended (and it does not help that there seem to be more of those not arguing in good faith).

On policy sides thing are even trickier. I do not consider myself left leaning and I clearly do not associate myself with any party. However, I am very data-driven (in case you have not noticed, if so I am doing a bad job) and I tend to base my policy preferences on available data (even when imperfect) rather than a specific ideology. This results with me often agreeing with left-leaning stances, which on most issues is more dominant on this board. Although different members may have different reasons (ranging from evidence-based readings to ideological conviction) we do have a hegemony on many views (such as, I imagine, the utility of social intervention to solve crime rather than merely a punishment-based one). 

Especially for those that have done a lot of reading on that matter an alternative view based on demonstrably false assumptions can be seen as an attempt of trolling or the initiation of a discussion that is not considered to be in good faith. While many may reply that they do show evidence, it has to be acknowledge that long-held convictions cannot be overturned by single articles and it may be worthwhile to engage in a deeper conversation. That, unfortunately requires a lot of introspection from both sides. Although it is tempting (and I admit that I am getting annoyed at times, although no one forces me to participate here) I believe it is worthwhile to propose a conversation in good faith and at least acknowledge that deviating convictions, even if they seemingly clash with data or reality should be explored. Especially when one is part of the lefty-science hegemony on this board (a term I just made up) one should try to acknowledge not necessarily that the opposing view is correct. But rather we have to acknowledge that they feel that this aspect is important to them and if both sides agree to explore this, we may be able to find common ground. There is an inherent bias that we need to realize and acknowledge, as we are more likely to forgive someone using bad data to reach the same conclusion as we do, rather than someone who uses bad data to reach a different conclusion. 

 

On a different note, this feeling of marginalization is is similar to what it feels to be not on the upper side of racial or other privilege. The hegemony has behavioral rules and aspects that appear to be fair and make sense (based it on science, show the maths) yet may feel unfair on the receiving end. Opposition to divergent views appear to be amplified yet it is not acknowledged as such. People act as if they are fair and reasonable but why does it not feel that way? Why are my grievances not acknowledged? Why am I being marginalized for what I assume to be fairly reasonable?

This intangibility of these dynamics that merely arise from group composition rather than of adversarial bias (people do not think that they hate people with differing political opinions for example) is at the heart of issue of privilege (and the subconscious elements of racism, sexism etc.). It is also more common than aggressive bigotry and requires introspection to be recognized. I like the concept of second thoughts that Pratchett mentioned:

Quote

First Thoughts are the everyday thoughts. Everyone has those. Second Thoughts are the thoughts you think about the way you think. 

No one thinks that they are unfair or biases, otherwise they would behave that way. Left-leaning folks here do not think that they are being unfair to differing views. But for those on the receiving end it sure feels different, no?

Edited August 19, 2017 by CharonY

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

No one thinks that they are unfair or biases, otherwise they would behave that way. Left-leaning folks here do not think that they are being unfair to differing views. But for those on the receiving end it sure feels different, no?

Yes.

It does. However, if I read your post correctly, you're saying we don't give enough credit to those that are wrong. Rather then simply saying "You're stupid. And you're wrong. Here's a little proof." that we should delve deeper to help them understand. Correct?

[Delta1212]

I approve of this topic.

[Raider5678]

So do I.

 

[MigL]

Gee, I remember  someone bringing this up in another thread.

That although we all recognize the problem, different people may have differing solutions, and should be treated with a little more respect when they present their alternate solutions to these social problems.

Instead I was accused of 'finger wagging', telling others how they should behave ( but ignoring it myself ), and of being a racist.

Not conductive to civil discourse and solving social problems, is it ?

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Instead I was accused of 'finger wagging', telling others how they should behave ( but ignoring it myself ) , and of being a racist.

Not conductive to civil discourse and solving social problems, is it ?

Well, when you open and close pretty much every one of your posts with cheap shots and the occasional epithet hurled in abuse don't expect many followers on a forum where facts, not emotions matter.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

I would like to address the issue of left(ish) and science-based privilege on this board.

If I may ask, did you sign up under the/a premise this is a left-ish board? The science-base thing is why I signed up and I'm privileged to contribute.

[Area54]

@CharonY. Excellent, thoughtful post. I am definitely strongly left leaning and I hope, despite limited proper experience in the field, well aligned with scientific thinking. However, it seems to me that  these positions are "defended" by some members, some of the time at the merest suspicion the positions are being challenged.

I can't readily cite examples, since it is something I have simply noted in passing, but it is concerning. It is as if, in order to defend a scientific approach to issues, or a left view of the world, the principles of one, or both are simply abandoned. I recall threads where the OP has asked a question in the form of a statement. Rather than recognising this members have immediately attacked the OP in a manner that is dismissive, patronising or worse. That's not scientific, nor does it honour leftist principles that are supposedly inclusive.

The effect on the "attacked" member is likely to be negative, in the worst case turning them away from science, or cementing extremist political views. Thank you for raising this topic. I hope other members engage in it actively, or at least reflect on what you have said. I believe attention to your points can improve not only the quality of dialogue on the forum, but the beheviour of each of us. Thank you.

[studiot]

[Area54]

Indeed. The Pause is preferred to the claws from the paws.

 

Edit: I should probably have used it here.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Area54

[Ten oz]

Left leaning vs right leaning on science forum is a curious difference. Political parties have a handful of core ideas that at the foundation of their advocated philosophies. Here in the U.S. right leaning political advocates are the more anti science leaning. While pointing that out may seem like finger wagging or an inflammatory charge it is still accurate to say nonetheless. If we look at the political affiliations of groups which seek to defund public supported nonprofit search, supress climate research, invest in counter evolution education, and so on they are all right leaning. It is just the truth.

 

In my opinion many people identify as left leaning or right leaning as a cultural identity while their actual beliefs are more al la carte. One may consider themselves left leaning do to their policy views towards science ingeneral but they also may be strongly against any form of gun control and as a result take umbrage when the suggestion is made that left leaning policies are pro gun control. Problem there is that left leaning political groups do advocate for gun control. If one votes to elect left leaning politicians on the national level it inevitably benefits gun control efforts. Therein lies the problem some want to be identified politically for what they individual believe and not for the policies they ultimately suppport as a byproduct of their vote. The contradiction creates a lot of argument because while it is true that President Trump is setting Climate Policy back it is not true that every one of his supporters individually deny climate change. That said, whether they like it or not, every one of Trump's supporters are individually aiding and abetting Trump's assualt of Climate Policy. So we have those who demand individual ideological identification separate from what they ultimately support and those who strictly identify people based of what's ultimately supportered.

 

Personally I feel no man is a political island. Politics is a team sport and it is fair to identify people by the team they are on. For me it would be nonsensical to claim I was Pro Choice but then vote for Pro Life politician after pro life politician. If other variables are so much more important to where I lend my suppors that the pro choice vs pro life issue is time and time agian getting brushed aside than I think it is fair to I am politically indifferent on the issue as either outcome is perfectly acceptable. Who we vote for shows where or priorities are which in turn determines which team we align ourselves with. If one feels insulted when accurately associated with the team they are on than they probably should pick another team rather than cry foul about it.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Left leaning vs right leaning on science forum is a curious difference. Political parties have a handful of core ideas that at the foundation of their advocated philosophies. Here in the U.S. right leaning political advocates are the more anti science leaning. While pointing that out may seem like finger wagging or an inflammatory charge it is still accurate to say nonetheless. If we look at the political affiliations of groups which seek to defund public supported nonprofit search, supress climate research, invest in counter evolution education, and so on they are all right leaning. It is just the truth.

 

In my opinion many people identify as left leaning or right leaning as a cultural identity while their actual beliefs are more al la carte. One may consider themselves left leaning do to their policy views towards science ingeneral but they also may be strongly against any form of gun control and as a result take umbrage when the suggestion is made that left leaning policies are pro gun control. Problem there is that left leaning political groups do advocate for gun control. If one votes to elect left leaning politicians on the national level it inevitably benefits gun control efforts. Therein lies the problem some want to be identified politically for what they individual believe and not for the policies they ultimately suppport as a byproduct of their vote. The contradiction creates a lot of argument because while it is true that President Trump is setting Climate Policy back it is not true that every one of his supporters individually deny climate change. That said, whether they like it or not, every one of Trump's supporters are individually aiding and abetting Trump's assualt of Climate Policy. So we have those who demand individual ideological identification separate from what they ultimately support and those who strictly identify people based of what's ultimately supportered.

 

Personally I feel no man is a political island. Politics is a team sport and it is fair to identify people by the team they are on. For me it would be nonsensical to claim I was Pro Choice but then vote for Pro Life politician after pro life politician. If other variables are so much more important to where I lend my suppors that the pro choice vs pro life issue is time and time agian getting brushed aside than I think it is fair to I am politically indifferent on the issue as either outcome is perfectly acceptable. Who we vote for shows where or priorities are which in turn determines which team we align ourselves with. If one feels insulted when accurately associated with the team they are on than they probably should pick another team rather than cry foul about it.

 

I fail to see what any of this has to do with discussion etiquette on Science Forums?

 

Please educate me if this is not the case.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I fail to see what any of this has to do with discussion etiquette on Science Forums?

 

Please educate me if this is not the case.

Some posters want there ideas treated individually regardless of the larger implications of those ideas and it creates combative discussions. We see this over and over in various threads. In religious thread some posters will identify as Christian but then refuse to stand by any of inaccurate teachings in Christian text. They accept the title/identity but then don't feel it is acceptable for them to be boxed by the belief. It is a contradiction. If one doesn't believe in the bibles teachings or in the resurrection than by definition one isn't Christian. Yet we see posters often pick and choose which parts, al la carte style, of the bible they like and disregard the rest as not applicable. Reality is certian beliefs, theories, facts, and so on go together. One cannot insist they understand and accept general relativity but then also state they question the existence of gravity. Both can't be true. In my opinion most discussion here which result is posters questioning etiquette arise from one or more posters simply being contradictory or wrong and either lashing out at those who correct them or claim they aren't being understood.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Some posters want there ideas treated individually regardless of the larger implications of those ideas and it creates combative discussions. We see this over and over in various threads. In religious thread some posters will identify as Christian but then refuse to stand by any of inaccurate teachings in Christian text. They accept the title/identity but then don't feel it is acceptable for them to be boxed by the belief. It is a contradiction. If one doesn't believe in the bibles teachings or in the resurrection than by definition one isn't Christian. Yet we see posters often pick and choose which parts, al la carte style, of the bible they like and disregard the rest as not applicable. Reality is certian beliefs, theories, facts, and so on go together. One cannot insist they understand and accept general relativity but then also state they question the existence of gravity. Both can't be true. In my opinion most discussion here which result is posters questioning etiquette arise from one or more posters simply being contradictory or wrong and either lashing out at those who correct them or claim they aren't being understood.

 

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I think CharonY was saying

"The content is independent of the discussion etiquette, or should be."

And she was specifically talking about discussion on this forum, not some larger picture.

How often has the intial response to a post been antagonistic ?
(Not yours in particular, but someone's)

 

And yes I would agree if you said that some invite such response, perhaps even 'deserve it'.
But equally many do not and hold, and more importantly present here, sincere if misguided views.

Edited August 19, 2017 by studiot

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

 

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I think CharonY was saying

"The content is independent of the discussion etiquette, or should be."

And she was specifically talking about discussion on this forum, not some larger picture.

How often has the intial response to a post been antagonistic ?
(Not yours in particular, but someone's)

It is a good question. In no way am I claiming I have the answer. As perviously state most of the discussons which are not polite in nature that I see arise from someone pushing a contradiction or falsehood. Depending on ones tolerence for criticism (constrictive or otherwise) any level of correction or objection can be viewed as antagonistic.

[Delta1212]

50 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a good question. In no way am I claiming I have the answer. As perviously state most of the discussons which are not polite in nature that I see arise from someone pushing a contradiction or falsehood. Depending on ones tolerence for criticism (constrictive or otherwise) any level of correction or objection can be viewed as antagonistic.

I don't know if I agree with your premise about a la carte beliefs being in conflict with categories of belief like, for instance, not believing in the resurrection disqualifying one from being a Christian.

All beliefs are to one degree or another a la carte. You will be hard pressed to find to people whose beliefs are exactly identical on a wide range of topics. That disagreement means that there is rarely a set of canonical beliefs that fall under a single label which are not disagreed on at any point by people who take that label for themselves.

As such, applying labels to any set of beliefs is not a practice of objective classification but really one of taxonomy. It is grouping non-identical things into categories of likeness.

And any such taxonomic classification is going to, to some degree, be arbitrary and subjective with some blurriness on the edges.

To describe yourself as a religious person, do you need to share all of your religious beliefs with every other person who describes themselves as religious? Of course not. Similarly, I do not think that one must share all of their Christian beliefs with other Christians in order to qualify as a Christian. Just like you cannot reasonably expect a person to defend the existence of Krishna just because they describe themselves as religious, I do not think that you can hold everyone who describes themselves as Christian to defend every belief that is common among some groups of Christians.

Nor must someone who is a scientist defend every belief that is common in the scientific community.

Nor must a conservative defend the beliefs and actions of every other conservative, nor liberals those of liberals. Such labels are names of convenience, not accurate descriptions of all of a person's beliefs. 

If a person decides to take a label on as part of their identity, then it is incumbent upon them to stake out where they differ from popular perceptions of the beliefs commonly associated with that identity, but they do not necessarily have to subscribe to every single one of those beliefs in order to retain that label for themselves, and expecting them to put up a universal defense of those beliefs or else admit that they don't really qualify for the label is generally unreasonable. A simple statement of "I am an X who does not agree with Y belief" should be enough.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Delta1212

[Ten oz]

@Delta1212, I don't disagree with any of that in terms of the way things are commonly understood. That said by definition a christian does need to believe/accept christian text and the teachings of Jesus. You are right that is is common place for that to not always be the case  the definition is muted by practice. My other example was claiming to understand general relativity and believe it but also claiming gravity doesn't exist. This is a science forum and the thread is asking about science-based privilege. When common place contradictoral positions in the literal sense but perhaps less so in popular practice meet empirical fact based discuss (or who gravitate towards it) I think there will always be ruffled feathers. If someone is being antagonistic towards a statement of truth, whether that statement comes across as criticism or not, shame on them in my opinion. It is just my opinion though. I am not saying this is absolutely the way things are. I concede my whole post could be off base.

[Delta1212]

Christians existed for centuries before the Bible was put together into the canon that we are familiar with today. I don't think that there is really any definitive text that one must subscribe to in order to consider oneself a Christian. I'd say that the bare minimum is probably that one consider oneself a follower of Jesus. But that encompasses a very broad range of possible beliefs that may or may not include any adherence at all to anything written in the Bible and may not even necessarily include a belief in a literal resurrection.

[MigL]

General relativity is hard math and the predictions it makes are evident in observation.

Religion, and politics to a somewhat lesser extent, are based on beliefs and opinions.

Why should anyone tell others what they have to believe in in order to be a Christian ? And I keep bringing this up ( but no-one sees fit to answer ).
Do we believe the Islamic faith is monolithic ? And they must all subscribe to the same beliefs ?
Or do we believe there are only radical elements or groups within that religion which are causing trouble ?

Similarly politics, you'd have to be blind not to see the problems in America today. And different people have different opinions on how to solve these problems. Yet these opinions are immediately 'labelled' by some posters as conservative  ( or liberal ) and therefore wrong.
And sometimes the perpetrator of these ideas is unfairly accused of being a racist ( or a dick ), with no repercussions for the accuser.
 

Edited August 19, 2017 by MigL

[zapatos]

58 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That said by definition a christian does need to believe/accept christian text and the teachings of Jesus. 

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation? I was a Christian for years and no one ever told me that or insisted I believe everything in the bible. In fact, I knew priests who disagreed with various parts of Christian text.

[Ten oz]

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

General relativity is hard math and the predictions it makes are evident in observation.

Religion, and politics to a somewhat lesser extent, are based on beliefs and opinions.

Why should anyone tell others what they have to believe in in order to be a Christian ? And I keep bringing this up ( but no-one sees fit to answer ).
Do we believe the Islamic faith is monolithic ? And they must all subscribe to the same beliefs ?
Or do we believe there are only radical elements or groups within that religion which are causing trouble ?

Similarly politics, you'd have to be blind not to see the problems in America today. And different people have different opinions on how to solve these problems. Yet these opinions are immediately 'labelled' by some posters as conservative  ( or liberal ) and therefore wrong.
And sometimes the perpetrator of these ideas is unfairly accused of being a racist ( or a dick ), with no repercussions for the accuser.
 

I am not attempting to dictate anyones faith to them. My point is simply that a definition for what a Christian is exists. I didn't write it or insist it be written but it exists all the same. As such when one doesn't fit that definition they technically aren't that thing. That said I don't care if someone chooses to practice their self professed christian beliefs by attending a church of scientology I am okay with it. My point is merely that it will create difficult discussions in religious related threads because everyone involved will be operatinng on their own understandings.

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation? I was a Christian for years and no one ever told me that or insisted I believe everything in the bible. In fact, I knew priests who disagreed with various parts of Christian text.

A Christian ( /ˈkrɪʃtʃən/ ( listen) or /ˈkrɪstjən/) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian

 

Christianity[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic[1] religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, who serves as the focal point of the Christian faith.

Christian theology is summarized in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. These professions of faith state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, descended into hell, and rose from the dead, in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

 

I don't care if a person calls themselve Christian but does chooses to to adhere to Christianity. Doesn't bother. My point is simply that there are definitions for things and when one calls themself something or associates themselves with something there are various things which typically are implied and or assumed.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Ten oz
mispelled words/typos

[beecee]

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

Or do we believe there are only radical elements or groups within that religion which are causing trouble ?

There are radical elements on either side of the political/religious and any other spectrum. Both extremities are undoubtedly wrong.

Quote

And sometimes the perpetrator of these ideas is unfairly accused of being a racist ( or a dick ), with no repercussions for the accuser.

If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck.......Let me elaborate. I don't believe we need religion to tell how to behave, how to treat others, how murder is wrong, how taking what I know to belong to another is wrong....and by the same token, I do not accept being labelled a lefty or leaning to the left, because I accept that all people are basically equal, or that the President of the USA is a liar, or that the President of North Korea is a nut and that the North Korean population are hidden from the truth, or that the KKK are an evil abomination. To me at least, all that is painfully obvious and I do not need to put political spin on it.

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation? I was a Christian for years and no one ever told me that or insisted I believe everything in the bible. In fact, I knew priests who disagreed with various parts of Christian text.

And of course the Catholic church now has legitimized the acceptance of the BB and also the theory of Evolution of life. They did that because the evidence supporting both concepts is overwhelming.

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am not attempting to dictate anyones faith to them. My point is simply that a definition for what a Christian is exists. I didn't write it or insist it be written but it exists all the same. As such when one doesn't fit that definition they technically aren't that thing. That said I don't care if someone chooses to practice their self professed christian beliefs by attending a church of scientology I am okay with it. My point is merely that it will create difficult discussions in religious related threads because everyone involved will be operatinng on their own understandings.

My Mrs is a true blue dinky di practising Christian, and we have been married now in excess of 40 years. She even has her choir group at our place once a month for practise, [with my OK by the way] and I will welcome them all then proceed to my man cave to watch the football. She tolerates my beliefs or non beliefs, and I tolerate hers...no problems at all. Some of the best people in the world are Christians like her....Some of the worst arseholes in the world are also Christians: Some of the best and most intelligent people in the world are Atheists: Some of the worst most intelligent people in the world are also Atheists.

[Delta1212]

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am not attempting to dictate anyones faith to them. My point is simply that a definition for what a Christian is exists. I didn't write it or insist it be written but it exists all the same. As such when one doesn't fit that definition they technically aren't that thing. That said I don't care if someone chooses to practice their self professed christian beliefs by attending a church of scientology I am okay with it. My point is merely that it will create difficult discussions in religious related threads because everyone involved will be operatinng on their own understandings.

A Christian ( /ˈkrɪʃtʃən/ ( listen) or /ˈkrɪstjən/) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian

 

Christianity[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic[1] religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, who serves as the focal point of the Christian faith.

Christian theology is summarized in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. These professions of faith state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, descended into hell, and rose from the dead, in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

 

I don't care if a person calls themselve Christian but does chooses to to adhere to Christianity. Doesn't bother. My point is simply that there are definitions for things and when one calls themself something or associates themselves with something there are various things which typically are implied and or assumed.

 

 

And I said that where a person differs from what is commonly assumed, they should make clear, where relevant, what those differences are. That does not necessarily mean that the label no longer properly applies.

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

My Mrs is a true blue dinky di practising Christian, and we have been married now in excess of 40 years. She even has her choir group at our place once a month for practise, [with my OK by the way] and I will welcome them all then proceed to my man cave to watch the football. She tolerates my beliefs or non beliefs, and I tolerate hers...no problems at all. Some of the best people in the world are Christians like her....Some of the worst arseholes in the world are also Christians: Some of the best and most intelligent people in the world are Atheists: Some of the worst most intelligent people in the world are also Atheists.

What does this have to do with what I posted? I have made no character judgements about Christians. Rather I have mrely state that what it is to be a Christian has a definition and general meaning. Same goes for the titles of Athiest and Agnostic. The word Athiest has a definition. It means disbelieving in or lacking belief in god. If one is indifferent neither believing or disbelieving thay are Agnostic by definition.

6 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

And I said that where a person differs from what is commonly assumed, they should make clear, where relevant, what those differences are. That does not necessarily mean that the label no longer properly applies.

I agree 100%. However in order to make those differences clear one must know and be able to acknowledge what is commonly assumed and for various reasons people are not always willing to do that.

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What does this have to do with what I posted? I have made no character judgements about Christians. Rather I have mrely state that what it is to be a Christian has a definition and general meaning. Same goes for the titles of Athiest and Agnostic. The word Athiest has a definition. It means disbelieving in or lacking belief in god. If one is indifferent neither believing or disbelieving thay are Agnostic by definition.

I didn't say you had. In fact I'm agreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out that extreme views either side of the political/religious spectrum are inevitably dangerous, and is why I don't like labels.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I am not attempting to dictate anyones faith to them. My point is simply that a definition for what a Christian is exists. I didn't write it or insist it be written but it exists all the same. As such when one doesn't fit that definition they technically aren't that thing. That said I don't care if someone chooses to practice their self professed christian beliefs by attending a church of scientology I am okay with it. My point is merely that it will create difficult discussions in religious related threads because everyone involved will be operatinng on their own understandings.

A Christian ( /ˈkrɪʃtʃən/ ( listen) or /ˈkrɪstjən/) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian

 

Christianity[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic[1] religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, who serves as the focal point of the Christian faith.

Christian theology is summarized in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. These professions of faith state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, descended into hell, and rose from the dead, in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

 

I don't care if a person calls themselve Christian but does chooses to to adhere to Christianity. Doesn't bother. My point is simply that there are definitions for things and when one calls themself something or associates themselves with something there are various things which typically are implied and or assumed.

 

 

I didn't see anything in there that said I'm not a Christian if I don't believe everything in the Bible. I think you are applying what you believe to be the definition of Christianity onto others, when many leaders of Christianity don't even take as rigid a stand as you do.  I don't know that I've ever met two individuals, much less everyone, who believes all the same things in the bible, and they were always considered Christians by the church leaders I knew.

Some take the stories in the Bible literally, others treat them as stories. They both cannot be correct, yet both are accepted by their peers and their leaders as Christians.