Reply #9: They are very similar ... I think the subtle difference I intended was

[fishwax]

that the first simply accepts people at their word that they are a christian, while the sixth allows one the position of "bush isn't a christian," without claiming that "therefore christianity can't be criticized through bush."

I guess it is a fairly fine nuance, but I often see threads on religion here where people present criticisms of christianity as an institution through the actions of prominent christians, only to be met with "x isn't a real christian, so it doesn't count." Myself, I figure anybody can call themselves a christian under whatever terms they feel comfortable with. Likewise, I figure anyone can personally excommunicate anyone else (like bush) based on their personal definition. But a secular debate, as you say, must accept people at their word or else require a theological discussion.