Who is a Christian?

Prismatic,

Faith in what exactly? In my view, people have presented reasonable arguments against your views of who is a Christian. You reject them as being unsound, but that doesn’t mean that they are. It is clear that you are denying some salient points, which question the correctness of what you claim, but the fact that you believe it is QED, makes it problematic in accepting counter-arguments/discussions.

Maybe some Christians would agree with you, maybe some won’t “Who is a Christian?” is very open to interpretation.

Is his agreement subjective or objective?

Hmm, you’ve really convoluted this. I see no reason to alter what I initially stated based upon this. IMV, recognising an apple, and deciding what constitutes a Christian, are two completely epistemological processes. Do we require a philosophical thesis and all of the trappings to discuss what constitutes an apple?

I’m not sure that someone well versed in law or a lawyer would, I think that claim is open to interpretation. There may well be correlating points, but I would not conflate the two. If a judge was deciding if someone was a Christian, I think that they would consider how close that person was to how Jesus behaved, and if they followed his principles, basically if they were or not a reflection of Jesus. Whereas if they were deciding if someone was concordant with the Old Covenant, they could simply check if a person had complied by the rules it stipulated. As far as I’m aware, the New Covenant does not contain a strict list of rules like the Old Covenant. What we know is that it is a belief based covenant between God and man which allows people to enter heaven because of what Jesus did, almost everything we surmise about it is interpreted.

I haven’t asked that of any Christians, I did ask a theist who believes in the Christian God (but doesn’t claim to be a Christian), and they disagreed regarding surrendering your will to God, not that I believe that makes me right. Hmm, where did I claim that the covenant is “not critical, not implied and not important”? Why do you keep claiming this, when I made my position clear?

I don’t think John 3:16 implies that. I think the explicit meaning of the statement is so clear, that there’s no need interpret an implied meaning. I don’t know what other scriptures you’re referring to. Interesting, can you break down and clarify your analogy and how it relates to the covenant between God and man?

OK, noted you agree it is critical but not QED.
I should not have used ‘critical’ rather it should be ‘QED’.

Other than terms used, what I meant was to me the covenant is an implication of imperative, i.e. 99% necessary, but to you is may be 60-75%.

This point is a leverage and critical for me to discuss and critique the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity’s and Islam’s impact on humanity in terms of evil and violent acts.

I have put in the reasonable effort to justify why the covenant and surrender support my QED.
If there are reasonable counter then I will change my position but so far there are none.

I believe the majority of Christians will agree with me, especially when surrender and covenant are critical terms within the Christian doctrine.

It is subjective but I believe it is based on the objective [to the doctrine] arguments I presented.

You seem out of touch with philosophy on this point.
The approach to ‘what is an apple’ and ‘Who is a Christian’ use the same epistemological process, i.e. justifying what is true belief. [I mean the person’s belief not theism itself].

In court the Judge will most likely depend on a Council of Christian leaders to decide who is a Christian.
The point is all the necessary elements to form a contract/covenant is present within the Christians’ and Muslims’ relationship with their God.

I will make the attempt to ask more Christians and I am confident they will agree with my thesis on who is a Christian.
Re covenant critical issue of your, note corrected above.

In philosophy as what we are doing here, we need to dig deep epistemologically.

Note the term ‘believe’ is very loose.
Thus it can only favor the believer if the term believe is expounded in a more refined and precise manner.

If favors a Christian to assert [to counter accusations of the crusades, inquisition, Salem, etc.],
ALL Christians are covenanted [contracted] to comply with God’s command of an overriding pacifist maxim of love everything even enemies. Therefore there is no way Christianity condones Christians to commit evil and violent acts.

As you can see, a simple shift in thought from common to epistemological generate very significant positive for Christianity in this respect.

even tho I’m an irreligious agnostic, if someone doesn’t know about or believe in some of the core tenets of Christianity the apostles extolled and all the major sects of Christianity agree on, than they do not qualify as Christian to me.
Guys like Hitchens set the bar really, really low for who’s Christian, all you have to do is claim to be, I think they do this in part, consciously or subconsciously, so they can blame Christianity for atrocities various insincere Christians, who were actually atheists, irreligious theists, pagans, Satanists, sociopaths and so on committed in its name.

Now I’m not saying sincere Christians can’t commit atrocities, either, don’t get me wrong.

There are many Christian who commit atrocities, acts of evil and violence, but in principle such people cannot be doing in the name of Christianity, Jesus nor the Christian God.

ALL genuine Christian are covenanted [contracted] with God to comply to the overriding pacifist maxim to love everything, even enemies, give the other cheek, and the likes. Personally I think this is a bit stupid but at least it prevent Christianity itself from being blamed for any evil or violent acts.
This is why we never hear of Christians quoting the Gospels of Jesus to justify any evil or violent acts.

In contrast Muslims are covenanted with Allah to obey Allah’s words in the immutable Quran, which include permission and encouragements to kill non-believe given the circumstances [very vague].
Once a Muslim is covenanted with Allah to be granted eternal life in Paradise, SOME zealots will do the utmost to gain the greatest possible merits that are granted in the killing of non-believers.
Note the Muslim should not be the primary blame, rather it must be the ideology and the religion that must be blamed.

Therefore the covenant is a very critical element is deciding who is a Christian or a Muslim plus providing the grounds to deliberate and prevent terrible theistic related evil and violent acts.

Prismatic,

I refer you to what I’ve already stated on this issue. What do you mean when you say “I should not have used ‘critical’ rather it should be ‘QED’”, how does that apply to or alter your argument?

In this instance I don’t reason in terms of percentages. My views are explained in what I previously stated on this issue.

I don’t understand what this means.

I would disagree that there are no reasonable counter-arguments.

I don’t believe that a Christian would disagree that there is a New Covenant, that is a moot point, but as far as I’m aware “surrendering your will to God in order to be a defined as a Christian” is not stated anywhere in the NT. That is where you may encounter disagreement, due to differences in interpretation.

Noted, the criteria you believe constitutes a Christian does not seem objective to me. From my perspective, it is the culmination of an interpretation of the Bible and the quotes from Wiki, your criteria is not an exact quote of what the Bible explicitly states (save Baptism), you’ve inferred those criteria from your own analysis, therefore it is not doctrine, it is your interpretation of doctrine and therefore subjective. Conversely, others have appealed to and directly quoted the Bible to make their points, yet you claim they are being subjective?

Hmm, you did not initially state ‘what is an apple’. Regardless, I’ll stick with what I initially said, based upon what you initially said.

I don’t think so. Why would a judge need a council of Christian leaders to decide if the person is a Christian, what if they don’t agree? Would you put judicial authority/accountability in the hands of Christian leaders? Do you think this because you believe the Bible is ambiguous? So you argue, but I will not stick my flag to that mast. I may be wrong, but from my perspective you are conflating contract law and the New Covenant. As I stated, I think there are correlating elements, but I wouldn’t argue that the principles of contract law apply to the New Covenant.

For me this is not a competition. I am not so concerned with being right, and as I’ve stated I don’t think that you’re entirely wrong. It doesn’t matter how many Christians you ask, you are not going to encompass the whole demographic.

For me John 3:16 (NIV) “16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” contains no more meaning to interpret than what it explicitly states, it is an explanation (a statement or account that makes something clear).

I don’t want to waste time on the above. I believe I have stated enough to justify who is a Christian, i.e.

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 a believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospels of the NT.

Re “Surrender” I have already provided the justification.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion#In_Christianity

I have read loads of article on this topic which is very common in relation to Christians; e.g.
allaboutfollowingjesus.org/ … to-god.htm

utmost.org/total-surrender/

and many others.

To me accepting people’s claim at face value is an epistemological issue, and a social one. ON what grounds to I tell someone who says they have Jesus in their heart and are Christian that they are not a Christian. I can point out that some religious authorities would disagree. But then most authorities disagreed with Jesus in his time. And how do I know which authority is correct. And then on the social side, I see no loss. As a side effect it allows in quite the opposite from what you are saying Hitchen’s ‘openness’ did. To me it lets in a lot of people who are even less likely to commit atrocities or go along with them.

And then the Quakers and Unitarians open the playing field up for beliefs incredibly.

Prismatic,

I don’t know if its a good or bad thing, but I wouldn’t sign off from a discussion/debate in that spirit, with a sting in the tail, maybe in the past, but not now.

You’ve tweaked your argument to add “via a believe in Jesus Christ”. My responses were in relation to what you stated before doing so. You don’t want to discuss this any more so I’ll leave it at that.

However I will say, I think that the qualifier missing from your argument (even though it has been tweaked) is “In my opinion”. :laughing:

You’ve worked hard to present your argument as objective or a fact (please correct me if I’m wrong in saying that), and I think it describes a paradigm of what some (conservative) Christians may well conform to or believe they are constituted as Christians by. But, in my view, even though you’ve supported it, it is reducible to interpretation, which means that it is subjective or your opinion, even if that opinion is educated. Some of the problems I see in what you’re proposing here, are (a) that you would exclude people as not being Christians who do not meet those criteria and (b) that it may not define all Christians in all cases as you intend to do. The one point you tweaked it to include, of which I’m not entirely sure of the meaning, but you appear to acknowledge the importance of belief in Jesus is, I think, the only aspect of your argument/criteria which cannot be disputed.

I don’t want to waste time repeating my same arguments as presented since the beginning.

That “via a believe in Jesus Christ” is so obvious [you agreed] that I left it out. But since you kept mentioning it, I included it so you don’t have to bring it up again.

I could have added more on who is a Christian, i.e. is a person,

  1. Who believes God exists as real to answer prayers and grant eternal life.
  2. Believes Jesus Christ is the son of God and in Christ’s teachings in the gospel
  3. Surrender to God via faith
  4. Is baptized accordingly
  5. Entered into a covenant with God

To me what is most critical as a matter of principle is the ‘covenant’ which established and enabled the connection and a two-ways relation between God and the Christian.

“Belief in Jesus Christ” [note the “Christ” in “Christian”] is the most obvious and I had mentioned it many times.

My definition is based on the philosophical-epistemological perspective which I believe is the most credible among all the other perspectives I have listed earlier.

The covenant is implied [re Law of Contract] upon believing in Jesus Christ’s teachings.
If someone insist there is no covenant with a God, then he has no essential relationship with Jesus and God. In this case, the person cannot expect God to grant him/her eternity life in heaven.

I understand there are many who claimed to be Christians, i.e. social, cultural, marriage, political, etc. but technically they are at best pseudo-Christians from an epistemological perspective.

A sincere genuine Christian is more likely to agree with my views since they will be in a position to defend Christianity against any accusation Christianity is at fault re the crusades, inquisition, salem, etc.

For a Christian, it would be a good refresh to focus on the covenant with God via Christ to feel more closer and stronger relationship to Christ and God.

Btw, I have joined a mainly Christian forum to get their views which so far many had agreed with my position on ‘who is a Christian’.
I have enough discussion [ideas exhausted] with non- and ex-Christians here i.e. no point more wasting time on this particular topic.

Prismatic,

OK, I thought that some Christians would agree with you, maybe even many, but as I’ve stated and regarding the issues that KT raised, because of the authorities you’re appealing to, your non-theist status, and because you believe your argument is QED, the problems will arise when people disagree with you, or when people claim to be Christians, but don’t fulfil the criteria.

It has been an interesting discussion, thanks.

My non-theistic status is not relevant.
What is relevant is whether I am talking sense, whether my argument of ‘who is a Christian’ [not whether god exists?] is rational and logical.

Prismatic,

Perhaps its not, I’m not 100% sure, but it seems to me that it would be. As you say, these issues have been discussed so there’s no point in going over them again. I think that your argument makes sense, is rational and logical as according to Christian beliefs, and your view about surrendering one’s will to God is well supported. I also don’t see any problems with you as a non-theist defining what you think a Christian should be like or what they are like, but if you claim that those who don’t meet your criteria are not true Christians or “pseudo-Christians”, then your non-theism can possibly become an issue in my view.

As far as I’m aware the Bible doesn’t provide an explicit definition of a Christian, and you can only claim “who is a Christian” according to what you interpret, not what you actually believe in an ontological sense, because for you the Bible is not a genuine authority. You have to rely on logic and reasoning to make your points valid, but they can only take you so far, because they don’t strictly apply to faith, which is a whole other entity.

What if someone argues that they feel they’re a Christian, which by faith is acceptable to some or maybe even many. Are you going to tell them/argue that they aren’t one? On what grounds as a non-theist - that Jesus doesn’t really exist, that the Bible doesn’t say that, that their feelings do not constitute evidence? Christians and preachers may argue that they are based upon their feelings and inclinations, are you going to hold up the Bible or your criteria to them, why as a non-theist would they listen to you?

You are diverting to an irrelevant point which I has no concerns and is not reflected in my and posts.

It is approximated there are nearly 2 billion Christians around the world and I am not interested nor it is relevant at all for me to convince every ‘someone’ within that 2 billion Christians.

Even with Science the most credible and objective theories on hand do not rely on convincing every one or every scientist to accept each scientific theory. Rather each scientific theory is accepted based on the intersubjective consensus of the majority of scientists who has authority on the theory contested.
Note Einstein and many other scientists then did not accept many of the theories from Quantum Mechanics [reinforced as true via repeated testings and is practiced in the present].

My definition of ‘who is a Christian’ is based on the majority of the 2 billion Christians and the rational and reasonable non-Christians. The Muslims [95%] will definitely agree with the covenant [re who is a Muslim, thus those of the Abrahamic family] because its requirement is explicitly stated in the Quran.

My main objective of the imperative of the covenant re ‘Who is a Christian’ is related to resolving the terrible evils and violent from SOME* Islamists. [some but very significant in quantum, i.e. appx 300 million].

I am highlighting the imperative of the covenant [contract] with God that compel Muslims to comply all of God’s command in the immutable holy texts which contains loads of evil laden elements.

It is a side benefit for Christians who can rely on the imperativeness of a covenant to defend themselves against accusation of Christianity being evil and violent because of the crusades, inquisition, Salem, pedophile priests, etc.
The counter for the Christians is, the Christians are covenanted [contracted] with God with an overriding pacifist maxim to love everyone, even their enemies, give the other cheeks, and the likes, thus in no way the Christians and exhorted to kill non-believers and others as a Christian [as defined].

Note my highlighting of a the imperativeness of a covenant [out of empathy and compassion] is critical, necessary and effective for a great cause to reduce terrible evils and violent within humanity.

I welcome counter views, but yours are too flimsy as restricted to requiring me to be a Christian to have authority and that I need to convince every ‘someone’ of all appx. 2 billion Christians.
Btw, what are the pros of your counter views? I don’t see anything significantly worthwhile except to some fringe cults of hundreds within 2 billion of Christians.

He was not saying that your point has problems because you cannot convince everyone. That is a beneficial to you misinterpretation. He is saying that that situation, with the specific kind of theist he described, shows the problem with you, in particular, defining what a Christian is.

Get it?

It was not saying that a proper epistemological criterion is that your argument should convince everyone - an iambiguous type of criterion. He was saying that you have no ground to call on any authority in that situation, as a non-theist. Even if you convince that person, you are calling on authorities you do not respect, who you think are delusional.

It would be like me saying to someone who believe aliens are among us but they are tall and very hair with small eyes, that they are not a true alien believer because most believers in aliens see them as short, grey with big eyes and no hair. Despite the fact that you think all of these people are deluded.

Thanks for weighing in KT. You are right in what you say, I don’t really understand why he doesn’t get it, but I have some ideas… I wasn’t going to respond to his post, as I was going to resist highlighting where I thought he was incorrect, due to his overbearing attitude.

One of the points I was going to make, is that if his argument constitutes the not a QED definition of Christians, fulfilling as he has claimed “all the necessary epistemological and philosophical requirements", wouldn’t that mean that his argument/criteria are universal? He is, after all, claiming that his argument defines/constitutes a Christian, in the all inclusive sense, otherwise he would of made it clear that he only meant some Christians. And I believe that he thinks that anyone outside of his criteria is not a Christian or not a true Christian, otherwise he doesn’t agree with his own “QED” argument.

As if to say: “This […] is the conclusive definition of a Christian (I think he also used the term conclusive), thus it has been demonstrated.”

Which doesn’t leave room for deviations or alterations unless new variables arise, he’s locked himself in it, so to speak. However, conversely, he’s now arguing that his goal is not to convince everyone, and referencing empirical science as a comparison to make that point as if they are related. Epistemologically and philosophically science and Christianity are completely different, but to him they are seemingly analogous because he feels that he has achieved a “proof” (again!)

From my perspective, a sound a posteriori argument need not be agreed upon by the majority for validity, because it is obviously correct, but perhaps I’m not entirely right in saying that? There are areas of his argument/criteria (if not the whole thing) that can reasonably be disputed, which they have been in my view - yet he also believes that in this topic, only his arguments are reasonable/sound, not any of the counter-views. As I stated, I think his argument will be viewed as valid depending on how someone views the whole nature of Christianity, but I do not believe that it defines all Christians in all cases, as he doesn’t have that authority, I don’t think anyone does and the Bible is not 100% clear, which seem to be points that he both accepts and rejects simultaneously. Prismatic is not making much sense to me at the moment.

Your point is too shallow.
I am not arguing whether Jesus is tall or short, dark or light skin, etc.
I am not even arguing which is the standard methods of baptism and I did not insist all must be baptized [which I stated is merely a ritual and form].

I am arguing the critical variable of ‘who is a Christian’ is the imperative covenant, explicit or implied.

Example; A schizo was “told” by a “real” Super Being promising him/her super power if s/he kill 20 people. The schizo then went on to kill more than 10 people and he was caught. The schizo gave the reason why he had to kill.
Now I would argue the schizo had entered into contract [implied] with that Super Being and he had to carry out the terms of the contract to receive what was promised by the Super Being.

There are many cases where deluded people are deemed to have entered into an implicit contract with the greater Being that promised them whatever power if they were to kill or commit some evil acts.

My emphasis here is the implicit or explicit contract or covenant and the real consequences that follow, regardless of whether the people involved are sane or deluded.

In the case of ‘who is a Christian’, yes I believe theism is based on a delusion, but the fact is there is an implicit contract between their God [illusory] and themselves [held in their mind] with prescribed covenanted terms to be complied which does have consequences in the real world.
In the case of ‘who is a Christian’ there are explicit terms of the covenant as represented the Gospels and the relevant supporting texts. The Christians are covenanted [contracted] to comply to terms of the covenant to the best of their abilities and that God will have the final say.

It would be very stupid and fatal [no eternal life] for a Christian to insist there is no covenant [contract or agreement] between him and God or he will not enter into a covenant with his God. If there is no agreement and relationship, there is no way - in principle - God can exercise any promise to him of salvation and eternal life. Any sane Christian will accept this principle if the point is explained clearly to him.

Therefore the covenant is the primary and ultimate factor in deciding ‘who is a Christian’ regardless of whether they are conscious of it or not.

Your point is too shallow.

As I had stated above;

It would be very stupid and fatal [no eternal life] for a Christian to insist there is no covenant [contract or agreement] between him and God or he will not enter into a covenant with his God.
If there is no agreement and relationship, there is no way - in principle - God can exercise any promise to him of salvation and eternal life. Any sane Christian will accept this principle if the point is explained clearly to him.

Therefore the covenant is the primary and ultimate factor in deciding ‘who is a Christian’ regardless of whether they are conscious of it or not.

Note God offered and promised to any person salvation and eternal life in exchange for believing Jesus Christ is the son of God and to comply with God’s word via Christ.
How can any person expect to gain eternal life in heaven if s/he had not entered into a mutual agreement, i.e. covenant, with God by accepting God’s term in the covenant?

A person can claim to be a Christian by all sorts of means but what counts ultimately is the essence of the covenant must be effected by the Christian. If no covenant is effected, then it is a non-starter for the person to be a Christian to gain salvation and eternal life, thus, on Judgment Day;

God to pseudo Christian: WTF, you did not enter into a covenant with me and you demand I grant you eternal life in heaven. Shut the F up and be prepared for HELL!

Prismatic,

In Law of Contract, can there be a legal agreement between a person and an illusory being?

Also, if the Christian dies and doesn’t receive eternal life as promised, can they sue the illusory being for breach of contract?

What’s the precedent?

And, of course, believing in God and Jesus and asserting that - since those are the criteria you accept, also has real world effects.