Who is a Christian?

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.

Well you are the one defining who is christian, so the interpretation is according to you. Otherwise there is no standard interpretation of the NT, hence all the denominations of the religion. As I said, the pastor down the road wouldn’t agree with you, so you’d have to go door to door informing his congregation that they are wrong and are not truly chrisitian unless they jump through your hoops. Since they are Baptists, I assume most have been baptized in the muddy creek, but none would say that’s conditional to being saved or being a christian.

I don’t know how you’d quantify that. I was baptized when I was young and before I had any choice in the matter and probably would not have been baptized if left up to me because baptism isn’t a requirement of anything, and some people do it multiple times because they like acting out the resurrection.

The covenant is unconditional; all you have to do is believe.

The only way to become nonamerican is to pay some money or else be convicted of treason (I think).

American citizens are not required to have the neural capacity to understand what allegiance means and therefore pledging allegiance is not a requirement.

Go to X and pledge allegiance to Y and then I will know what Z means? I already know what Z means and it has nothing to do with X and Y. American christians caused what’s going on in syria and iraq and created isis. Isn’t it funny that where there is oil there is calamity?

Then there is nothing to support like trying to hold water in your hand.

The US is “supposed” to be a confederation of states with limited federal government. Kinda like europe is a confederation of countries with limited EU.

Well yes that was the civil war. The southern states tired of Washington making decisions that hurt the South, so they booted the army out of Ft Sumter and started the war.

Yes but still an american.

You’re too hardheaded. Intelligence can only be a function of ability to be wrong because you can’t be right until you’re able to be wrong, so the one who is quickest to admit defeat is going to find wisdom faster than those eternally unable to clear the blockage.

You proved that there are people who “claim” they love their enemies, but if they did, they would kill themselves for being infidels. And if the standard of loving enemies is merely claiming so, then why can’t a christian be one who merely claims so?

First prove it’s possible to love anyone but oneself.

Then after you have finished that, prove there are chrisitians who love their enemies.

I stated I defined ‘who is a Christian’ based on principles leveraged on critical thinking.

In terms of principles, the majority [99%] of Pastors would agree with,

  1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

  2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.

  3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

Note I. above is very evident and objective. 2. and 3. are implied or as explicitly declared by a Christian as in 1.

I had already provided supporting arguments and evidence for the above.

The above are the critical principles. If there are differences in opinion in some verses in the NT, that do not effect the critical principles on ‘who is a Christian’.

You have not disputed my points above effectively.

The only remaining inquiry is… when and where was that decreed?

It would be interesting to know the timeline of events and happenings which led up to the sacraments being put in place, to signify one’s allegiance to the religion. :-k

I believe the starting point is when God spoke to Jesus Christ and he was technically the first Christian [who need not be baptized] followed by the original-disciples, then the followers of the respective original disciples.

Subsequently whoever is a Christian would have complied with the following;

  1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
  2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
  3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

A child born to a Christian family is implied to be a potential-Christian till s/he is baptized.

I think that Christianity is founded upon the tenets/life guidance of Jesus. Therefore, IMV anyone who complies to how Jesus says people should live, and loves (agape) while doing so is a Christian. Christianity heavily focuses upon the moral inclination of the “heart”, and Jesus eschewed the pharisees for their ritualistic behaviour, yet lack of genuine altruistic endeavour/intent. So with that in mind, why would a ritual such as baptism be absolutely necessary for someone to be a Christian?

I think that Jesus is quoted as saying somewhere in the NT that water baptism is essential to entering heaven, but to me that seems to contradict his general purported ethos, and also, when he said the guy who died next to him on the cross would join him in paradise, that guy wasn’t baptised, he was a criminal.

I don’t think we can reach an objective standard of what constitutes a Christian, as there are so many different opinions and sects. If there was such a consensus, wouldn’t it have been reached a long time ago?

I think bringing in the context adds to the absurdity. Prismatic is an atheist. This would mean that he is, essentially, an atheist who would tell people who belong to sects or churches who do not think baptism is necessary, that they are not christians. I don’t think he, as an atheist, can take the position as an ecumenical authority for Christianity as a whole.

Further even the Catholic Church, toward the more traditional of the various churches regarding rituals, allows for people who have not been baptized to be consider Christian - if they intended to get baptized - and then people who have not grown up within Christian cultures, the chance to come to heaven. While this latter group might not be Christians, it shows that there is quite a bit of flexibility even within a more conservative Christian sect. Others obviously allow for even more freedom from ritual.

An atheist cannot rule those groups out as non-christians.

And given the vast amount of interpretations of the NT, the Bible as a whole, what one must or should do as Christian, there is no way an outsider can determine who meets Prismatics criteria.

I am nto saying insiders are therefore right, but at least they can, without hypocrisy, appeal to an authority - the Bible, their preacher, the Catholic Church, a vision they had. An outsider cannot, without instant hypocrisy, choose and authority and a single clear interpreation of that authority, since they do not believe in these authorities. And arguing ad populum just looks silly.

I believe you missed my main points;

I mentioned the following;

Re the above, baptism is merely the ritual and external form which is at least the minimal indication a person is a Christian.

But what is most critical is point 2 and 3.
God is supposed to be omnipresent and also a omnipotent to know what is in the hearts of a Christian.
Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].

As such I am defining who is God from the Christian’s God knowledge and not from my personal interpretation.

I don’t think you can dispute the above point re Who is a Christian from the Christian’s God perspective.

Note my point to Fanman above.

I am not defining a Christian from my personal interpretation but rather from the Christian’s God perspective.

Prismatic,

I get the gist.

A person can surrender their will to the Christian God (Yaweh), but not believe in Jesus - someone who believes in the OT, but not the NT. There are other variables, and your trying to find a blanket definition of what constitutes a Christian, but I don’t think there is one. Except that all Christians believe in Jesus.

I thought you were trying to define who is a Christian?

What is it with you and logical finality? I don’t believe that your quote from wiki is the QED on what constitutes a Christian. And if you’re arguing that all true Christians are baptised then I believe that is firmly a ‘no true Scotsman’ argument. There are many branches to the Christian tree, and whilst baptism may rest on one of them, there are, of course, many other branches to consider when deciding if we think someone is a Christian.

Why, because wiki says so? :laughing: If someone wants to understand who is a Christian from God’s perspective, unequivocally, the Bible is the authority, not wiki - it is problematic to dispute that. As an atheist, the Bible is certainly not an authority for you, which may be affecting the nature of your views on this subject, but if your trying to define a Christian from a perspective of the Christian God, it would IMV be a misunderstanding to not consider the Bible as a key, if not the authority. IOW, IMV, God’s omniscient perspective is the objective definition.

Dear Lord please forgive Prismatic, for he knows not what he does. [-o<

Note the correction in blue above.

You missed my point again.

I did not state the point from Wiki is the final determinant on who is a Christian.
I stated being baptized is merely a ritual and form, and represent the minimal indication, the person is a Christian [regardless it is genuine or not].

Note I stated more indicative elements of who is a Christian are;

  1. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
  2. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

I mentioned the NT specifically in relation to Christianity.

The Christian God is omnipresent and omnipotent to know what is in the Christian’s mind on whether the person has surrender his/her will to God and the covenant is explicit or implied.

It is not my definition but that definition is from the Christian’s God view and in reference to the NT in the Bible with the OT in the background.

I am confident my view is true and I believe 90% of Christians who had been baptized would agree with me. This is what I have gathered from reading most of the Christian’s view.

I believe your view on who is a Christian belong the minority.
If not show me sufficient evidences your point of view re ‘Who is a Christian’ is the dominant view?

Note point re ‘Surrender of one’s will to God [Christian]’

The ‘surrender of one will to God’ is embedded within a covenant [contract] with God to obey God’s words and commands via the NT [for Christians].

Note this is related to what are the objective principles.
Don’t give silly excuses because I am a non-theist I cannot understand nor speak of objective principles and philosophy of theism.

It is a very common thing for non-Christians who specialize in the study of the religion of Christianity to have a greater understanding of Christianity than most lay-Christians.

Prismatic,

Please explain how I’ve missed your point?

Hmm, It seemed that you did, because your application of the wiki quote led you to say this: “Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].” This claim clearly shows you believed you’d reached the conclusion of what constitutes a Christian.

I don’t think that’s right. You cannot be a Christian if you don’t genuinely believe in Jesus and follow his principles, the ritual is meaningless if you don’t actually have faith, that is common knowledge. I can stick a Ferrari emblem on a Ford Focus, but that doesn’t make it a Ferrari.

I don’t think that a person has to enter into a covenant with God, in order to obey the words of God, someone can do so merely by choice, because it feels right. Much of what Jesus preached is a lifestyle, rather than a set of strict must obey commandments, that was the nature of the OT covenant. Indeed, Jesus fulfilled the law of the OT and founded a “New Covenant”, that covenant is based upon his sacrifice, therefrom anyone who believes in him is “saved” or “redeemed”, the explicit message of the NT is “believe and be saved”, not “obey and be saved”. Since that is the standard by which people are saved (able to enter heaven), by simply accepting Jesus, I think it is reasonable to call such people Christians.

What’s your point here?

What definition are you talking about? As far as I’m aware, God himself never actually defined who is and who is not a Christian. Jesus’ parables give us an indication of what someone who believes in him/God should be like, and therefrom I think we can have an idea about what constitutes a Christian. If Jesus gave us a direct answer, this discussion would be moot.

As ever… I think it is a moot point that Christians who are baptised will believe they are Christian in a formal sense, because that is the nature of the ritual. But I don’t think that what Christians think is the defining perspective here. If we want to know what constitutes a Christian, we should refer to what God/Jesus states in the Bible. In this context, people’s (Christian’s) opinions are largely irrelevant, because unless their opinion is supported by scripture it doesn’t have any authority. There is such an authority on baptism, which is Jesus’ words, but there are exceptions to the rule or seemingly contradictions, about who can enter heaven.

Always trying to intellectually win, Prismatic. It doesn’t matter whether the view is minority or majority if you’re looking for clear objectivity. And I think that looking for objectivity when there’s an authority such as the Bible is problematic. If you believe that your view represents the majority that’s fine by me, it doesn’t prove anything, it is possible that the majority can be wrong. Substance, and how closely the view reflects God’s is the key here, not what the majority or minority think.

You got this wrong.
The Wiki refer to the point re Baptism which I had stated is not the critical element.

I am giving more weightages [90%] to point 2 [surrender] and 3 [covenant] in arriving at my conclusion.

You got this point wrong as well.
If one is baptized, the minimum is one is at least a Christian in name, perhaps not necessary sincerely for some.

If not expressed explicitly, there is an implied covenant/contract between the Christian and God.
You have to update yourself on the general principles in the Law of Contract where a contract is implied from circumstances of an explicit or implied agreement between two parties.

Note accepting whatever of Jesus [the prophet] re the verses of the NT is ultimately the words and command of the Christian God.

The terms of the contract or covenant is the Christian having surrendered his will to God and will obey whatever of God’s words and command in the NT [Gospels] in EXCHANGE for the assurance of being saved with eternal life in heaven.

The point here is whenever there is some sort of agreement between two parties, in this case, between God and believer, there is always an implied contract or an explicit one.
One of the basic element of any contract is there must be the acts of Offer and Acceptance, which in this case is God as the offeror, the believer the one who accepted of offer.
upcounsel.com/offer-and-acceptance

There are other essential elements of a valid contract [explicit or implicit] which I will not go into at present.

A serious Christian will know of God’s power and will not dare to pretend to be baptized or lie explicitly s/he is a Christian.

I am referring to a matter of principle.
This principle is where whoever is a member of any group by choice is conditioned by the constitution of the group, in this case the Bible.

Jesus may be described who is Christian is like, but we have to fall back on the essence of who is a Christian, i.e. the principles as I had mentioned above.
If Jesus described in terms of behavior and attitude, anyone could pretend as such but that will not make one a Christian until one had surrendered one’s will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT.

Whatever, the foundational rule is a Christian is one who had surrendered one’s will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT.

I being objective.

Do you think a Christian do not have to surrender his will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels [re Jesus] of the NT.

To be a Christian, fundamentally one has to commit to the above. If they misinterpret certain verses in NT, that is a different issues and subject to God’s judgment.