Who is a Christian?

True relative to what theists claim of God, i.e. God qualities.

Your point is too shallow and subjective.
Provide some reference and authority to support your point?

Within the intellectual, academic, & philosophical communities, non-Xs has been defining ‘who is an X’ on an objective and rational basis as accepted by a majority. This is so common.

Note the meaning of definition;

dictionary.com/browse/definition
the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:

dictionary.com/browse/define

Define
-to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.):
-to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe:
-to define judicial functions.
-to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly:
-to define one’s responsibilities.
-to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of:
-to define property with stakes.
-to make clear the outline or form of:

verb (used without object), de·fined, de·fin·ing.
to set forth the meaning of a word, phrase, etc.; construct a definition.

It is ridiculous to insist only Xs can define ‘who is an X’.

E.g. we don’t need scientists to define who is a scientist, non-scientists with the relevant and recognized authority can define who is a scientist objectively.
Philosophers who are not scientist can express “what is Science” and “who is a scientist” within the Philosophy of Science with a high level of credibility.

Prismatic,

Isn’t this…

a contradiction of this…

How are you not conflating the two here?

Prismatic,

KT’s post was not shallow or subjective, I don’t understand why you would say that? It actually explored the issues surrounding this discussion at some depth, deeper than anyone else has yet, and brought some interesting points to the fore - re the actual applicability of any authority to actually define a Christian.

Defining a scientist and defining a Christian are completely different.

The Principles of the Law of Contract is universal which exist within any agreement between two parties [individuals or group] to qualify the agreement as a contract.

Even within the secular perspective, there are many types of courts, e.g. crime, commercial, family, etc. You cannot conflate i.e. try a felony crime within a commercial court for small business related crimes even though they both recognize the principles of the law of contract.

It is more obvious, you cannot try a secular crime within an illusory divine court that exists only in the minds of theists. Note I had argued a there is a covenant between a believer and god as implied from the verses of the holy texts and the acts of belief in an illusory God.

Why did you get the latter idea from? Supportings?

The act of definition is reinforced by expert etymologists which is normally based on popularity.
There is no difference in the principles of etymology for defining a scientist and a Christian.

Btw, I had insisted I did not invent my own definition of who is a Christian but rather rely on who is commonly defined as a Christian based on justified evidences which I had provided.

Note there will be times you will have to provide a definition of ‘who or X?’ Will you insist, because you are not an X, you cannot say anything nor provide any definition at all re ‘who is X?’

Frankly, your’s and other’s opposition that just because I am not a Christian, I do not have the authority to define who is a Christian, is one of the most childish intellectual resistance I have EVER come across.

There is no expert in explaining the past. There is only speculation from people who read and think. You lack experience in subjects, that’s it. Why do you argue? When you can just go study the subjects and see for yourself, read the holy Bible with the definitions I have provided and you will understand it. They are on a path of understanding knowledge, understanding themselves at the beginning of consciousness, especially in the books about Moses. Jesus is merely an archetype or idea, something to aspire to be, the hero/savior. It’s part of the psyche. Man expresses himself through art. Look at it that way, you can read a person psychologically by investing the time into understanding the art/expression. Keep in mind the context too.

An image of the psyche…

I provided an argument. On the specific point you cited. Appeals to authority are not the only kind of argument, and further I pointed out the problems with the authorities you use and how this relates to the specific case of Christians-

And, again, you treat my argument as if I am ruling out non-members defining members in general. You ignored points about why this specific case is a specific case. And I have mentioned other special cases with similar problems.

A general argument and one I have not made. I made a specific set of arguments about a specific case, Christianity. Your judgment would have some meat if you actually addressed the points I made. Perhaps you have done it elsewhere, but here you are making a poor argument. Since we in general do this and it works in many instances, it must work in all instances where we define who is a member of set X. This a weak argument and allows you not to address the specific issue at hand or the arguments I made.

And note the logically false argument.

I am saying that doing this is a problem in the case of Y.
You respond that it works in the case of X.

Your argument makes sense if my argument was 'in no case can people who are not X, decide who is a member of group X. Then showing a counterexample is a good argument.

But I have never said that in all cases, when one is not a member of group X, one cannot determine the members of group X. I clearly and obviously made a case that the specific qualities of this group X and what this entails about the criteria involved and determining what criteria are involved entails my conclusion.

And there is an extra irony in that you chose an example where you specifically have reasons to believe in the authorities. You believe in the scientific epistemology. You believe in their expertise. You believe in the objects of their learnedness. Any body evaluating who is a scientist would be best to include scientists. You, Prismatic, have good grounds to think they are experts, since you believe in science, so you, as a specific human, appealing to their authority, makes sense. So not only, by using scientists as a counterexample, arguing against an argument I never made (the general one) but you have chosen a counterexample that is not relevent in any way to the case I made.

Further, Case X Christians has to do with religion where we are talking about beliefs, attitudes and a lot of internal states - that is where the problem of other minds plays a key role. That the authorities disagree about a lot of important issues in other areas, have changed their minds over time about a lot of important issues, have vested interests in the criteria, have justified evil acts and then changed their minds, often about those, and work with ‘evidence’ that itself is inconsistant, makes your appeals to authority problematic. There were other arguments I made in my previous post. And nothing you said in this last post is even relevent to any of those arguments.

My experience is, Prismatic, that once you have decided on a position, nothing can change your mind. It has to be the case. So I will openly say I do not read all your responses. I have focused more on Fanman’s posts here, though this obviously meant I was responding to your arguments and points, in the context of his discussion with you.

I hope you will notice here how your response to my argument, in its last formulationn, was a very poor one, since it treated my argument as a general one rather than a specific one, and the only possible reason to do this is to avoid dealing with the specific qualities of the Christian one and so my argument got framed as saying ‘non-members of a group can never define who members are.’ An argument I never made. I do not believe that holds at the general level. So before just finding new arguments, notice that you grabbed for an irrelevant one, and consider that this might indicate how open minded you actually are about this issue.

Prismatic,

As a lay person, perhaps that would be the shrewd thing to do. I do not believe that my definition of a scientist will be as accurate, applicable, practical or comprehensive as someone who can be considered an authority on scientists, has experience of working with scientists or someone who actually practices science.

Surely you should be objective enough to present a definition that is based on what is commonly accepted by the majority rather than your own subjective opinions.
Whatever definition you present of ‘who is a scientist,’ I will justify it against the current acceptable definitions and decide whether your definition is acceptable or not.

Note the definition of who is a Christian is not MY own based on personal subjective opinions, but as I had argued is based on what is presented in the holy texts and actions of the majority of “Christians.”
The concepts I used, i.e. baptism, surrender to God, covenant are not my inventions, they are extracted explicitly or implicitly all from the holy texts. The universal principles of the law of contract are not my inventions.

Are you saying your disagreement is confined only to defining ‘Who is a Christian’. Why so specific.
Where did you get your authority to insist on such a restriction?

If you insist on the Christianity set, then you should also restrict authority to define whatever religions [Muslims, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, etc.] within the religious set. Then nobody in the world can define who belongs to a religion except those who are officially a believer of that religion.

Why not other sets, like shamans, magicians, actors, dancers, carpenters, etc. This look like your argument is getting crazy.

The point is you don’t have the authority at all to insist on your censorship of me or others except Christians themselves in defining who is a Christian.
This is why I had insisted, since we are in a philosophy forum the epistemological approach should prevail and I have provided justification on this basis.

Epistemologically there is no problem with a definition of who is a scientist.
A scientist is one who has worked [testing, etc.] and produced accepted theories within the objectively defined Scientific Framework and System comprising its assumptions, scientific method, peer review, etc.

Prismatic,

My point is, that the definition of something from someone within the same field or an authority on that field, is likely to be more comprehensive and accurate than the definition from a lay person, even if it contains subjectivity.

Who’s definition would you be more accepting of, the lay person or the authority?

Prismatic,

I feel the sting of this, and I have what I think is a decent and likewise response. The issue is, would it be mature of me to post that response in retaliation or should I just ignore this altogether and act as though you haven’t insulted me and KT. What do you think I should do? Better yet, what would you do? :laughing:

Prismatic,

I think that the variables which constitute a scientist are clear, generally, there is little ambiguity on what they do and why do it. With a Christian, the constituting variables are vast and largely undetermined, which may be one of the reasons why there are so many different sects and ideas about it. The authority (the Bible) is also inconsistent, we cannot even verify that it is real, and there are many factors in defining a Christian which need to be considered as have been discussed in this topic. I think that the only consistent variable in all Christians is that they believe in Jesus, everything else is open to interpretation.

Now, you can except this or not, but my feeling is that if you don’t, solely because it isn’t supported by Wiki or something like that, without analysing the content of what I’m saying and if it makes sense, then you don’t grasp things properly. You don’t have to agree, but if you think that I’m wrong you have to explain why, in a logical way.

What? The words and terms used to describe Christians are completely different from that which would be used to describe a scientist. What does the meaning of words have to do with the context of this discussion? The principles may be the same, but the actual etymology is not.

So why are you arguing that you’ve defined “who is a Christian” QED? If the definition is not yours, something that you just agree with, and think is justified/conclusive, then by all means you’re just propounding a moot point.

Nah you got it wrong.

Would you accept a primitive or aboriginal person [they are expert in their own field] as defining themselves. Surely not? This is why we need the help of anthropologists and etymologists to establish a definition of ‘who they are’ that is understood by the majority.

It is more so in the definition of those with mental issues or definitions that involved subtle knowledge with the mind and physical worlds that only experts can provide.

The definition of who is a Christian or a believer involves mental elements, in this case, the concept of the covenant held in the minds of the believer.

Even with scientists of the highest caliber the most effective definition has to be epistemological and philosophical to avoid any issues of Scientism.

I did not mean “you” in general but only in this specific case, i.e. to insist that the best person to define one’s identity, i.e. a Christian is only for the Christians to define themselves.
The point is an effective definition must encompass the most specific and including sublime properties involved.

Since you insist only a Christian can only define who is a Christian,
note there are more than 2 million Christians around the world, does that mean you must collate every individual Christian’s view to find out and decide ‘who is a Christian’.

There is no question of insult, no need to be so sensitive.
What I have provided is an objective criticism.
What I see are only both your personal opinions which is not supported by any general consensus within the intellectual and philosophical community. If otherwise, show me evidence your views are a popular view?

QED does not mean I am projecting my own definition out of nowhere.
QED meant I have successfully presented a rational and justified definition which I believe is acceptable by the majority.

What moot point?
Note the definition I presented is derived from the basic definition [believe in Christ, baptism] but reinforced with more essential properties that represent who is a Christian, i.e. the covenant.

I believe, I would be silly to insist a Christian is one who declare him/herself to be a Christian, wear a cross, go to church, proselytize about Christianity and other forms that represent what are normally attributable to Christians.

What I have done is to zoom into the fundamental and essential elements that define who is a Christian which the majority of Christians normally do not think about, but would have no problem accepting if these essential elements are explained to them.

Prismatic,

I don’t think you understood what I was saying, my point was relating to lay persons, people actually in a field and an authority’s definitions of the same field.

I think that saying this means you’ve not properly understood what has been stated in this discussion. I’m not arguing that you can’t define a Christian, the problems arise when you exclude people who claim to be Christians, by the “QED” criteria that you use to define them.

In my view QED means “thus it has been demonstrated”, which means to me that you believe you’ve demonstrated “who is a Christian”. “QED” is also used to conclude proofs. I don’t know if you believe that your argument is a proof, but what you’ve described above does not match the definition of “QED”.

If your argument/criteria represents the majority or commonly held view of a Christian, then it is a moot point. Like all Christians believe in the New Covenant, that is a moot point.

I get your point, but your point is not an effective one.

There are many groups of people in this world who do not possess the intellectual authority to define themselves, e.g. the primitive, the uneducated, the mental cases, the ignorant.

The point is there is a need for outside experts who has the expertise [intellectual, rationality and the necessary competence] to establish an objective definition. This is the basis for the ‘authority’ to establish a reasonable [not absolute] definition of who is a Christian.

It is the same for scientists, we don’t need scientist to be the sole and final authority to define themselves. Others who are intellectually qualified can provide a definition of who is a Scientist.

It is the same for a person of intellectual integrity and competence to define who is a Christian as long as the definition is epistemological justified in relation to Jesus Christ, the Christian God and the relevant holy texts.

It is ridiculous to give a mad or incompetent person to declare himself to be a Christian and thus automatically qualify to be in the set ‘Christians’ as defined objectively.

Perhaps the issue is our understanding of what is QED.
Q.E.D. (also written QED, sometimes italicized) is an initialism of the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum” meaning “what was to be shown”[1] or “thus it has been demonstrated.”
Note also Q.E.D = Quite Easily Done, thus my intention is to show the definition is “Quite Easily Done” i.e. justified, proven and demonstrated epistemologically, rationally, and objectively.

Note my definition of who is a Christian include the practice of baptism [albeit not of critical consideration] cover >90% of Christians besides the obvious believing in Jesus Christ.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
To reinforce the definition I insisted on the elements of surrender to God and the imperative covenant with God.

Note I did not claim all Christians “believe” in the New Covenant.
I stated the definition of who is a Christian at the least implied a covenant with God even though if it is not explicitly declared by the Christian.

If a person consciously and intentionally declares explicitly he did not enter into a covenant with the Christian God to comply with the specific covenanted terms in the NT, then he cannot be a Christian as defined.

If a person declared him/herself as a Christian and has entered into a covenant with God BUT if s/he believed the covenanted terms include the permission to exchange sex for conversion [not in the Gospels], then, that is not a proper Christian covenant, thus s/he cannot be a Christian per se.

Prismatic,

An outside expert? In what field, surely it would have to be related to science in some way? Otherwise, how would they understand science enough to define a scientist in anything more than in a basic or trivial sense? My point relates specifically to lay people defining a field, and if they can do so more comprehensively and accurately than someone who is in a specific field like science, or an authority on science, which I don’t think they could.

I think that the definition of scientist, from an actual scientist, would be more comprehensive and accurate than someone who is not qualified in that field/a lay person, even if they are educated in another field. And I think that to suggest otherwise, is quite strange. Why reject the definition of a scientist from the proverbial horses mouth? Unless you don’t think that a scientist is qualified enough to define what a scientist is.

Personally, I think that the view of a normal Christian, because they have actually experienced the religion, is more accurate than a lay person. A lay person can state what they believe defines a Christian, as according to a set of criteria or principles, but experientially they don’t have a clue and so cannot expound upon the feeling aspect, which is so vital to Christianity. Also, a Christian is not precluded from taking an epistemological and philosophical approach to their belief. For me there is no hard answer here, not with something like wholly defining who is a Christian.

Hmm, “Justified, proven and demonstrated epistemologically, rationally, and objectively.” clearly means: quod erat demonstrandum, not Quite Easily Done. I don’t really understand why someone would claim that about their own argument though, I’m happy with just making sense.