Who is a Christian?

Note no human in the world can judge ‘What is Islam’.
According to Islam as in the Quran, Allah is the only authority to decide ‘What is Islam’.
Allah’s definition of ‘What is Islam and Who is a Muslim’ is stated in the Quran.

Therefore we have to refer to the Quran to determine from Allah’s words ‘What is Islam and Who is a Muslim.’
I have spent 3 years full time reading and researching the Quran and Islam.
Thus I am in the position to quote Allah’s words to support my points.
You? I don’t think you are qualified to state much about Islam.

Muslims’ agreement don’t count.
What count are the references directly from the Quran.

I am well acquainted with Allah’s definition of ‘What is Islam and Who is a Muslim’ and I can bring all the necessary and relevant quotes to support my point. It is a long lists so I will not produce it at this moment.

The Muslims that IS killed are supposedly hypocrites or deemed apostates in accordance to the Quran.
IS may have killed some innocent Muslims which is incidental as a part of the war against enemies of Islam.

It is regrettable that the Muslims of IS are more in compliance with the words of Allah in the Quran. This is very objective since reference can be made to the Quran. That is the problem with Islam per se that humanity need to recognize and deal with.
As I had stated, the Muslims that IS killed are being more human than being more Islamic per the Quran.

It is not a question whether which Muslims support which Muslims. The definition of ‘What is Islam and Who is a Muslim’ is objectively defined by the words of Allah in the perfect Quran delivered directly from Allah to Muhammad.

Note Ali stated

Ali as a Muslim has to obey the words of Allah to the ‘t’ which include going to war against those [Muslims and non-Muslims] who are a threat to the religion of Islam. Ali was willing to sacrifice his career for his beliefs. This is why I stated ‘Ali is LIKELY to support any war by Islam against non-Muslims.’

Another point is Allah permit a Muslim to lie for the good of Islam. Thus a Muslim will likely to lie if the truth of his conviction [supporting war against non-Muslims] is not in his favor.

Note the Sunni Muslims [90% e.g Saudi ] deemed the Iranian Shia Muslims [7%?] as heretics, thus deserved to be killed if need to.

All Muslims are striving for an Islamic State which may not be necessary in exact form like current defeated ISIS format but the core principles are the same, i.e. strive for dominance and kill enemies if necessary under very flimsy conditions of a threat to the religion [e.g. drawing of cartoons, etc.]

The Arab Israeli War was not an Islam versus Jews war.

I had supported my opinion with reasonable facts;

Note I stated theoretically,

  1. as a Muslim - the need to obey Allah as in the Quran and
  2. with his show of defiance and
  3. willingness to sacrifice such a career like his,
    Ali was LIKELY to support any Islamic War against non-Muslims and would have gone to war given the right conditions.

Note, two verses [READ THEM CAREFULLY] among the many 1000s related that support my points;

9:111. Lo! Allah hath bought [ish’tarā; purchased] from the believers [Muslims] their lives [anfusahum; nafs] and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs they [Muslims] shall fight in the way [sabil] of Allah and shall slay and be slain.
It is a promise which is binding on Him [Muslim] in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an.
Who fulfilleth His covenant [3HD: biʿahdihi; promise] better than Allah?
Rejoice then in your bargain [BY3: bibayʿikumu bāyaʿtum] that ye [Muslims] have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

2:216. Warfare [l-qitālu] is ordained [kutiba: prescribed] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

Your “constitution =toilet paper” is just the same as a serial killer insisting he is beyond the constitution and the laws of the country and thus can do whatever he wanted, i.e. kill as many people as possible.

Such is beyond the necessary basic critical thinking and rationality required in this forum, thus no point for me to discuss such a foolish point.

Except Serendipper is right.
Presidents accordingthe constitutions can only declare war via Congress. But since Kennedy they have done it and it is much more streamlined now.
lawfareblog.com/presidents-and-war-powers
Obama ordered the killing of suspected terrorists who were american citizens. They got no trials. That is against the constitution

theguardian.com/commentisfr … t-doj-memo

Did you know that the president has his own army? Well, they have for a while…

mentalfloss.com/article/30033/10 … ecret-army
And this army is active around the world.

Did you know that earlier in history when there was a disaster the federal government could only go into states when invited - for example after a hurricane? IOW they could then and only then, when invited, send in the national guard and other support.
Now through a presidential executive order, the federal government can decide that there is an immanent threat and send in FEMA and troops to states, without being invited. IOW they don’t have to wait for a disaster and an invitation. They can say that there may be one coming and do this.
A core balance of power was changed via presidential executive order, executive orders become not a radical exception but a new way that legislattion is created by bypassing Congress.
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/view … ntext=jleg

I was actually happy to see Serendipper take a this position. Since I think, generally, it is worse than he does. In fact what the above shifts in power mean are that we have presidents who can make law, including specific acts that allow for the killing of us citizens without trial but firing weapons into countries we are not at war with; presidents have their own army that they can send wherever they want with black op budgets and without congressional oversight over what action are taken. And the federal government, that is the president can send troops into states without state permission any longer, and they do not even have to have a present disaster to justify it.

All of this should make people concerned, but since it is marginalized from the mainstream media, very few people know about it.

People are not aware of the private army, the shift in War Powers powers against the constitution, the new rights of the federal government in relatin to states and exectutive orders which give the presidents king like powers.

You missed my major point, i.e. the terms of a contract or covenant within a group of people, i.e. the universal Principles of Contract Law.
Within any mutual agreement between two parties, individuals or groups there is a contract which could be explicit or implicit and included specific terms of the contract.

In this OP, for any one to be a Christian there is a contract or covenant between the Christian and his God via certain initiation processes. The terms of the contract or covenant between a Christian and his God is stipulated or implied within the Gospels.
Serendipper insisted there is no such contract which is intellectually irrational.

There are many examples of a contract between individuals or groups of people, but the critical point is the contract must be govern by a Constitution or agreed terms of the contract. Note the critical elements are the universal Principles of Contract Law.

To highlight the Principles of Contract Law [in this case a social contract], I gave an example, i.e. for anyone to be an American there is a contract agreed between the US Government and the person with terms stipulated in the US Constitution & its associated laws.

Serendipper insisting the US Constitution is ‘toilet paper’ indicate his ignorance of the Principle of Contract Law.

Note re your link:

First the above recognize the existence of the terms of a contract, i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of what Obama did which is contentious, your point confirmed my intention, i.e. the existence of the US Constitution as a term of the contract.

If what Obama did was seriously against the US Constitution, he would have been charged in court, but he was not, thus no case against him from the legal standpoint. The way out is to revise the terms and make them more precise to avoid ambiguity.

Note Main Point;
For any one to be a Christian there is a contract or covenant between the Christian and his God via certain initiation processes.
The terms of the contract or covenant between a Christian and his God is stipulated or implied within the Gospels.

The US Constitution is a side point to support the Principles of Contract Law as the essential terms in any agreed contract.
It is intellectually irrational to insist the US Constitution [as terms of a contract] is “toilet paper”. If it is true there would be total anarchy in that plot of land between Canada and Mexico.

Ultimate Point;
A Muslim or Islamist is one who has entered into a covenant [contract] with Allah with its terms stipulated in the Quran.
All evil and violent acts by evil Islamists are traceable to the terms of contract of being a Muslim, i.e. terms stipulated in the Quran - words of Allah.
Therefore to prevent all terrible evil and violent acts by Islamists, humanity must direct focus on the terms within the Quran that compelled Muslims to commit certain acts [as a divine duty] which result in terrible evil and violent acts on non-Muslims.

Ring The Vatican and ask them if to be considered Christian you need to be baptised.

To get into the local Roman Catholic primary school where my siblings and I were enrolled in, the main criteria was being baptised, by a direct decree from The Vatican… I suggest you all send them an email, and let them know your concerns on the matter of what does and does not qualify a person to be a Christian in their eyes… I am sure they will be very eager to answer your query, as I am sure they get such queries often… heck, they may even have a line to take on it.

Sure… anyone can call themselves a Christian though.

Actually… someone should email The Vatican, and see what their reply is. That would be jokes. :smiley:

I get that this was aimed at humor, but is the Vatican the expert on what a Christian is? How does one who is not a Christian decide who is THE authority? What if Martin Luther was right?

It was serious humour… if we want to know something, we ask… and it would be interesting to see what their reply would be. I would say that it’s not so much being on expert on, than being an authority in… how that authority came about is another matter.

The church or organisation they patronise should guide them, and advise them on the steps they need to take… the steps advised by those who are THE authority on the religion.

…about what?

I agree.

Here are some 2018 figures of the number of Christians by denominations;

  1. Catholic Church	1,285,000,000
    

2 Protestantism 920,000,000
3 Anglicanism 85,000,000
4 Eastern Orthodox Church 270,000,000
5 Oriental Orthodoxy 86,000,000
6 Restorationism and Nontrinitarianism 35,000,000
7 Independent Catholicism 18,000,000
8 Minor Branches 1,000,000

worldatlas.com/articles/chr … mbers.html

You highlighted ‘baptism’ is one representation of ‘Who is a Christian.’
Per my early listing on ‘Baptism’, it would appear the majority from 1-7 recognize baptism as a form of a definition of a Christian.

Baptism is an external recognition of ‘Who is a Christian’ but not a certainty because any one can pretend to be baptized. But I believe fakes and pretenders would be very rare.

In general, when one is baptized it is implied* the Christian has entered into a covenant [contract] and had surrendered his/her WILL to God and thus to obey essentially the teachings of Christ within the Gospels and other requirements of the specific Christian organization.

*I stated ‘implied’ because it is very difficult to confirm what is the internal intention of any person even when one has explicitly declared such a surrender and will obey.
However I believe the majority of Christians are likely to be genuine.

Point:
Therefore ‘Who is a Christian’ is a defined above.

Sure, but you suggested asking the Vatican. Why not a Baptist preacher? Why not someone who identifies as Christian but does not like organized religion? A quaker? If you are a Catholic, well, this suggestoin might make sense. But in a context where we are talking about atheists thinking they can decide who are Christians or not, I can’t see how taklkng to the Pope helps. I mean how would an atheist know the Pope is right and others who call themselves Chrisitans are wrong?

How did you decide that the Vatican is THE expert? And on what grounds do you rule out other experts?

People who are not Christian tend nto to have churches or organizations that are authorities on the subject.

…about what?
[/quote]
That the Catholic Church was a mess. Why if the people who split off from Protestantism are the real Christians? Or the people who slit off from the people who split off? On whose authority does the atheist decide?

The Jew proves the authenticity of the Bible. It was written by Jews and is a Jewish book.

On reflection there are no people in the world that are more persecuted or more protected than Jews. They are the most persecuted, protected and most cursed all in one. They go all the way back to days of Abraham, who is considered to be the starting point of the Jewish nation. There is no other people in the world that have been so scattered and yet remain distinct with their own culture, language, writing, customs religion and now they have another land called Israel again. The ancient Egyptians don’t exist anymore, the people in Egypt today are not the ones who built the pyramids. Babylon, gone. The Persians, it’s now Iran and Iraq. The ancient Persian language, customs and culture gone. The Greeks, are not a world empire anymore and ancient Rome is pretty much in ruins. But the Jews. The Jews are still a nation. Amazing. When you think about how they are scattered around the world. Between 65 .A.D. and 135 A.D. the Romans killed approximately two million Jews. They were driven all over the Roman Empire, beaten everywhere they went and of course there was the holocaust during World War ll. So much persecution and yet they survive.

Prismatic567wrote:

Today, Protestantism as a whole is dead and is no longer what it used to be. There was a time when they believed that God created the earth in six literal days, but many have adopted the theory of evolution like Rome and many have rejected the Flood and Creation accounts of Genesis.

Catholicism is so far removed from Christianity.

For people who classify themselves as Christians… these people can be divided into two broad groups. The first are those who allow the Scriptures to be their final authority and then there are those who choose to allow men to be their final authority. This group has always been represented by Roman Catholicism, which is by far the largest, most powerful and influential group. The Roman Catholic has always stated that they do not depend upon Scripture exclusively and they include traditions as other truths and if conflict arises between the two, tradition receives precedence over all and also Catholicism seeks her power in the political sphere as well as the religious realm. This Church accepts no authority as being higher than itself, thus this explains why there is antagonism between Scripture believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism and as an aside, even though the Greek Orthodox Church is separate from Catholicism, many of its practices are similar, such as the veneration of saints. Examples of unbiblical doctrines established and “Christianized” by the Roman Catholic Church are indulgence, purgatory, confession to priests, infallibility of the Pope.

Many have felt the wrath of Rome, Jews, Moslems and others, but, her special fury has always been reserved for her most effective challengers…

Bible believing Christians.

I don’t have the time to keep up with this thread anymore, but I think my point still stands that the only requirement for being a christian is simply professing to be one. And being an american is simply being born in the country or paying money and jumping through hoops, then you’re free to burn the flag and use the constitution as toilet paper and still be american.

This category of people who “love their enemies” does not exist. I don’t think pretending it does is doing anyone any favors, but you’re welcome to believe it I guess.

Sure, Islam seems worse than Christianity, but it seems the ugliness of Islam should be a deterrent while Christianity appears as an angel of light suckering people into a faith responsible for more evil than Islam.

well we know robertson, baker, swaggart and osteen do, but i wonder if pompeo also has twenty million dollars in his…

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa9UJMjjPPk[/youtube]

Your point is too loose and general in relation to the OP.
Anyone can profess to be an American, North American, Central American, South American and whatever American.

The main point here is, who is an American as Citizen of the USA as with Who is a Christian.

An American as Citizen of the USA is specifically defined, not by professing to be one, note,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
— 14th Amendment

In addition, an American has to pledge allegiance to the Nation.

As a Citizen of the USA, one has certain Rights and Responsibilities, of relevance in this case, i.e.

-Support and defend the Constitution.
-Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
uscis.gov/citizenship/learn … sibilities

All the above implied an American Citizen has entered into a contract [social] with the Government to exercise the stated obligations in exchange for protection, rights, and whatever is accorded.

The above principle of entering into a contract is the same as with Who is a Christian, i.e. one who has entered into a Covenant with the Christian God to obey his words [in the Gospels] in exchange for whatever divine promises in the covenant.

What proofs do you have to be so sure there is Zero of such people.
Here is one counter example to defeat your hasty generalization, i.e.

I am sure there are many more.

Note my point is not that there are people who “love their enemies.”
My point is Christianity has a overriding maxim “love [even] your enemies” as a term in the covenant with God.
Such a command like “love your enemies” from God directly has a significant impact in controlling the behavior of Christians to a great degree in contrast to a God’s command to ‘Kill your enemies.’

As I had stated before, Christianity per se has its negative baggage but it is not as inherently evil and malignant as Islam.
There are a percentile of Christians who killed and acted violently but that has nothing to do with Christianity per se but rather such evil acts are triggered by their own inherent evil human nature.
Priests who raped children were not influenced by verses in the Gospels.

  1. you bring up a different kind of category as if the criteria for that other kind of category must match the first category. There is no reason to assume that being an american will have the same criteria as being a Christian. The former is a legal status, which means it involved government agencies and laws and specifically laid out legal criteria. The former does not have that. 2) You do not have to pledge allegiance to the nation. This is false. I would guess that immigrants who gain citizenship probably would as part of the ceremony. But if one is born in the US, one need never do this. So you are incorrect.

As a Citizen of the USA, one has certain Rights and Responsibilities, of relevance in this case, i.e.

And if you do not support and defend the contitution you are still an american. You may go to prison if you go against the laws, but you are still a citizen. So again you are wrong.

  1. it is not the same. One is citizenship, a legal status. The other is not a legal status. It is comparing bicycles and oranges. 2) a native born american never needs to engage in an act of entering a covenant. They just are american. They can not care a bit about their country, the laws, their citizenship, the constitution and still be american.

People saying that one should and that they do does not mean they do themselves. People have all sorts of cognitive confusions about themselves.

That’s one interpretation of the Bible. There are obviously many others. The vast history of Christians killing their enemies and using the Bible to justify this, including killing other Christians, should make this abundantly clear. They have killed more than the members of any other religion. Only atheists can compete with Christians for the number of killings. But they haven’t been around long enough to fully compete, despite the really competitive tries of Mao and Stalin.

  1. the Bible is not just the Gospels. 2) Influence from texts is more complicated than dealing with them like intruction manuels for your tv remote. These are complicated that create behaviors that have side effects. The celebacy and ‘annointed by God’ aspects of being a priest definitely play a role in the abuse. And these ideas come out of interpretations of the Bible. It is facile to walk around saying X and Y have nothing to do with being Christian because the Bible does not expressly allow that or seems to countermand that. A complicated religious text lkke the Bible leads to all sorts of behaviors, ones that the writers likely did not intend, but because of their stupidity, naivte about humans, wrongheadedness and more, these are the effects nevertheless. And atheists, certainly, are in no position to judge what the correct interpretation of the Bible is.

Consider for a second, please, that you are just desperately trying to hold your position because it feels like you need to. Honestly, it just comes off as silly. As faith based, like a theist desperately trying to explain something because it has to be true, but in this case it is a non-theist.

Quantum Mechanics is actually fully experimental, as is all real science.

Science is defined in terms of empiricism. No matter what Philosophy of Science may profess.

A categorically unverifiable theory like String Theory is more akin to religion than it is to science. It shares this fundamental quality with religion, that it isn’t empirically verifiable.

Equally nonsensibly. We could also have a philosophy of other peoples tastes. Or at least have that term floating around.

As Heidegger said, from within a philosophical perspective, the idea of approaching faith as a rational issue is a misconception.
Im probably a little more well versed in actual philosophy than you are. Which allows me to identify the folly of your pursuit.

I am certain they would not.
Your statement is hubristic in the extreme and testifies of a rather arrogant heart.

First of all, there is no philosophy-proper. There aren’t any agreements in philosophy as to “proper” value-standards. Philosophy has no power to make a person better.
One is either called to the philosophical question, or one isn’t. In the latter case, as seems to be your case, religion is a much better suit.

The worst thing you can do is approach philosophy as if it is a religion, which is what youve been doing in this thread.

Then you’ll have to go door to door in america telling all the christians that they are not truly christians until they meet some arbitrary interpretation (ie yours) of the NT.

Yes but the point is once you are an american citizen, there is no requirement to fulfill to continue to be one. Once you are a christian, there is no requirement to fulfill to continue being one. Actually, according to the bible, there is no way to become a nonchristian regardless what you do. And if you ever do become consistent with being a nonchristian, they would simply say you were never christian to begin with. Once you’re saved, it’s done and it can’t be undone.

No they don’t.

No they don’t.

Right now the states are constructing legislation to circumvent the constitution and 13 states have passed it.

Break a law, go to jail, but still an american in jail.

You’re being a bullheaded dogmatist no different than the objectivists you’re crusading against. I live in the middle of it and yet you, from all the way across the world, are telling me what I see. You may as well be arguing for objective truth since you’d be just as qualified. You read objective truth in a book (ie christianity = this), proclaim it’s objective, then disregard all evidence to the contrary.

You shall not be moved!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRKi2V9h7LY[/youtube]

Reason and evidence doesn’t matter; I shall not be moved.
Facts are irrelevant; I shall not be moved.
What you say is of no merit; I shall not be moved.

If they loved their enemies, they would kill themselves for being infidels. Since they’re still alive, then obviously they don’t love their enemies.

Zero.

I prefer the command to kill enemies because then people forsake the immoral religion. The command to love enemies is far more dangerous.

None mine but in according to principles.
I have already defined ‘Who is a Christian’ i.e.

  1. Being baptized [water or non-water] and 95% of Christians do that.
  2. Implied a covenant with God - as confirmed from what I have gathered from the majority.

Once you are an American citizen or citizen of any recognized Nation, it is implied the person is a citizen until s/he had broken the critical term of the contract as defined.
Nobody can be a perfect citizen thus there is always a tolerable limit until a serious non-compliance is committed for one to be denounced as a citizen or put in jail.

Again it is implied until one is evidently proven to break the allegiance.
Why don’t you try to go to somewhere in Iraq or Syria, pledge your allegiance to ISIS and kill some American soldiers. Then you will know what pledging allegiance to the USA means.

As suggest above, Why don’t you try to go to somewhere in Iraq or Syria, pledge your allegiance to ISIS and kill some American soldiers. Then you will know what supporting and defending the Constitution means.

The Constitution is not a fixed thing. The Constitution is maintained and supported by the People and thus can be changed by the people on a federal basis.
If the state can counter any elements of the constitution, then the constitution must have some provisions to enable it to do so.

Do you think any State can come up with laws to go to war with Washington??

The point is you loose your general freedom if you are in a jail.

Regardless of where I am, universal human principles apply every where, in this case the universal principles of contract laws, i.e. a social contract.

'Love your enemy" is an overriding pacifist maxim which is not to be enforced absolutely.
Christianity in general and in principle do not expect Christians to be stupid followers but in practice I know many do.

Proofs?
I have provided on example from google, you can google and you will note there are many others.

“Kill your enemies” is a very obvious negative but
there are many other reasons why humanity must wean off ALL religions in the future and there are many ways to approach that.

Note I stated, most practicing scientists don’t give a damn with Philosophy of Science.

However Quantum Physics is an exception where the scientists involved do engage with Philosophy.
Bohr, one of the pioneers of QM was leaning very heavily on Philosophy to derive his QM theory of complementarity which he had adapted from the concept of Yin and Yang.

To the extent, in appreciation, Bohr had embedded the Yin-Yang symbol in his Coats of Arms,

The other pioneers into QM were also heavy into relying on Philosophy, e.g. Bohm, Feyman, etc.

Read the full para at:
braungardt.trialectics.com/scien … s-feynman/

Your thinking is too shallow.
The rest of your points are loaded with ad hominens which is not philosophical and critical thinking.
You should provide more in depth arguments.