4 ms·

It makes sense to count people as what they consider themselves. Otherwise you are going to open a whole can of worms: protestants may not consider catholics ch

It makes sense to count people as what they consider themselves. Otherwise you are going to open a whole can of worms: protestants may not consider catholics christian, sunni muslims might want to exclude shia muslims etc.

vlunkr 12y ago
This is an excellent point. I'm a Mormon, and from our perspective, it's clear that we are Christians, but others have disputed it. At that point, there is no authority to decide where we fit. As you said, there are plenty of similar cases, so it's easier to just count everyone as what they claim to be.
- baddox 12y ago
  In that case, I think it makes sense to define the groups as "Mormons" and "non-Mormon Christians" or something like that. It doesn't make sense to define a group where half the members of the group think the other half are heretics.
  - chimeracoder 12y ago
    Why single Mormons out? Why not exclude Rastafari who also consider themselves Christians (but are not considered Christians by many non-Rastafari Christians)? Heck, why even include Protestants? Historically, "orthodox" Catholics consider them to be heretics as well[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari [1] and among some pockets of Catholicism, this belief holds strong to this day
    - baddox 12y ago
      I didn't mean to advocate singling Mormons out specifically. Like I said, my proposal is to define groups such that each group's members all consider each other to be orthodox. > Heck, why even include Protestants? Historically, "orthodox" Catholics consider them to be heretics as well[1]. When I listed "Mormons" and "non-Mormon Christians," I didn't mean to imply that those would literally be the only two groups within Christianity. I was just giving an example of separating people into groups based on mutually-recognized orthodoxy.
    - meepmorp 12y ago
      Or why even include Catholics, as there's a significant minority of Protestants who consider them to be a false church engaging in polytheism - asking saints for intercession with God on their behalf looks a lot like praying to them from the outside.
baddox 12y ago
But it also makes sense to define religious groups such that each member of a group considers all other members orthodox. If a third party defines a bunch of people to be in the same religious group, but half of that group thinks the other half are heretical, I think the third party should define the groups in a different way.
- __david__ 12y ago
  > But it also makes sense to define religious groups such that each member of a group considers all other members orthodox. Hah. Good luck with that—you'd just end up with a million little groups of one or two. The whole point of forming a sub-religion is that new people consider the old people heretical or unorthodox or vice versa.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Hah. Good luck with that—you'd just end up with a million little groups of one or two. There's no way that's accurate. Plenty of Protestant Christian denominations recognize other Protestant denominations as orthodox, and I suspect the same goes between many congregations of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. > The whole point of forming a sub-religion is that new people consider the old people heretical or unorthodox or vice versa. Not at all true, at least within Protestant Christian denominations.
    - argumentum 12y ago
      It only makes sense to treat people as individuals. Otherwise, what if one single Lutheran views all Baptists as heretics. I can guarantee that such a person exists. Are you going to create a new category for that one person? What will you call it? "Lutherans who don't consider Baptists to be Christian"? "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." - Thomas Jefferson
      - baddox 12y ago
        You point out an obvious problem, but any method of grouping is equally or more susceptible to this same problem. In practice you would probably look try to look either at the stated official beliefs of sufficiently large religious groups, or at polls of people who self-identify as an adherent to a certain religious group. It's certainly never going to perfectly objective. This is inherent to the very idea of this graph, which is to list religious groups rather than individuals. Any grouping will necessarily group together people who don't share identical beliefs. I'm just proposing one way to do so, because I think the most pragmatically important feature of a religious group isn't the name of the group or the name they use for their deities, but rather who they consider to be orthodox.
javert 12y ago
One approach to this problem is to look at where certain religions branched off from one another. Mormonism branched off from Protestant Christianity. So if you zoom out far enough, it is in the Christian "family," historically speaking.
- argumentum 12y ago
  That way all Christians are Jews.

vlunkr 12y ago

This is an excellent point. I'm a Mormon, and from our perspective, it's clear that we are Christians, but others have disputed it. At that point, there is no authority to decide where we fit. As you said, there are plenty of similar cases, so it's easier to just count everyone as what they claim to be.

baddox 12y ago
In that case, I think it makes sense to define the groups as "Mormons" and "non-Mormon Christians" or something like that. It doesn't make sense to define a group where half the members of the group think the other half are heretics.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  Why single Mormons out? Why not exclude Rastafari who also consider themselves Christians (but are not considered Christians by many non-Rastafari Christians)? Heck, why even include Protestants? Historically, "orthodox" Catholics consider them to be heretics as well[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari [1] and among some pockets of Catholicism, this belief holds strong to this day
  - baddox 12y ago
    I didn't mean to advocate singling Mormons out specifically. Like I said, my proposal is to define groups such that each group's members all consider each other to be orthodox. > Heck, why even include Protestants? Historically, "orthodox" Catholics consider them to be heretics as well[1]. When I listed "Mormons" and "non-Mormon Christians," I didn't mean to imply that those would literally be the only two groups within Christianity. I was just giving an example of separating people into groups based on mutually-recognized orthodoxy.
  - meepmorp 12y ago
    Or why even include Catholics, as there's a significant minority of Protestants who consider them to be a false church engaging in polytheism - asking saints for intercession with God on their behalf looks a lot like praying to them from the outside.

baddox 12y ago

But it also makes sense to define religious groups such that each member of a group considers all other members orthodox. If a third party defines a bunch of people to be in the same religious group, but half of that group thinks the other half are heretical, I think the third party should define the groups in a different way.

__david__ 12y ago
> But it also makes sense to define religious groups such that each member of a group considers all other members orthodox. Hah. Good luck with that—you'd just end up with a million little groups of one or two. The whole point of forming a sub-religion is that new people consider the old people heretical or unorthodox or vice versa.
- baddox 12y ago
  > Hah. Good luck with that—you'd just end up with a million little groups of one or two. There's no way that's accurate. Plenty of Protestant Christian denominations recognize other Protestant denominations as orthodox, and I suspect the same goes between many congregations of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. > The whole point of forming a sub-religion is that new people consider the old people heretical or unorthodox or vice versa. Not at all true, at least within Protestant Christian denominations.
  - argumentum 12y ago
    It only makes sense to treat people as individuals. Otherwise, what if one single Lutheran views all Baptists as heretics. I can guarantee that such a person exists. Are you going to create a new category for that one person? What will you call it? "Lutherans who don't consider Baptists to be Christian"? "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." - Thomas Jefferson
    - baddox 12y ago
      You point out an obvious problem, but any method of grouping is equally or more susceptible to this same problem. In practice you would probably look try to look either at the stated official beliefs of sufficiently large religious groups, or at polls of people who self-identify as an adherent to a certain religious group. It's certainly never going to perfectly objective. This is inherent to the very idea of this graph, which is to list religious groups rather than individuals. Any grouping will necessarily group together people who don't share identical beliefs. I'm just proposing one way to do so, because I think the most pragmatically important feature of a religious group isn't the name of the group or the name they use for their deities, but rather who they consider to be orthodox.

javert 12y ago

One approach to this problem is to look at where certain religions branched off from one another. Mormonism branched off from Protestant Christianity. So if you zoom out far enough, it is in the Christian "family," historically speaking.

argumentum 12y ago
That way all Christians are Jews.