Who is a Christian?

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.

I agree an actual scientist and the scientific community would be able to give a reasonable definition of ‘who is a scientist’. But that is not highly objective.

Re the definition of a scientist by layperson, I am NOT referring merely to any tom, dick or harry non-scientist.

In this case of laypersons or non-scientists in this case, I am referring to notable and professional philosophers plus those with competence in philosophy in compliance with the rigor required to arrive at a definition that is justified, proven and demonstrated epistemologically, rationally, and objectively.

To arrive at such a justified definition, the philosophers will have to do a literature research, study all definitions provided by various scientists, study the work of scientists, listen to the view of scientists and other philosophers, before they accept a justified definition.

Note this is done within the Philosophy of Science which currently ongoing and inevitably a definition of who is a scientist would have been established.
Since we are in a philosophy forum the preferred definition of who is a scientist would be from the philosophers [justified epistemologically] rather than from the scientists themselves.

It would be same for Who is Christian. i.e. the philosophical approach [which I have done] within the Philosophy of Religion, would be preferred over the definition provided by any individual Christian or group of Christians.

In your case you will have to take note of the views of 2 billion+ individual normal Christians to be credible, thus an impossible task.
What is some individuals who because suicide bombers who had killed millions and they claimed the are Christians. Do you accept their claims and allow Christianity to be blacken? My definition will sieve them out as not Christians.

Note as I had stated, the laypersons involved in the definition of who is a Christian is not any ordinary Tom, Dick or Harry, but professional, notable and competence philosophers who abide by generally accepted philosophical principles.
They may not have the personal experience of a Christian but they can listen and read all the feelings of Christian and asking the right question to gather the necessary evidence they need to justify their conclusion, i.e. in this case who is a Christian.

Note being responsible I had joined 3 Christian Forums and most of them agree with my definitions. Where there are difference I have explained and most did not object strongly to my explanations. I am confident the answers would be the same if I ask most Christian based on what I have read of Christians’ views and on Christianity itself.

I am not insisting my definition is accepted by all, but what is critical is my definition is justified epistemological. Surely there will be opposite views but they are the minority 1-5% which is normal for human views.

Your ‘making sense’ is too shallow. Your ‘sense’ could be just common or conventional sense which are not the norm in the philosophical sense.

Note my often posted Russell’s quote [mine];

Prismatic,

If you don’t believe that Christians have the aptitude to define themselves, why are you seeking their agreement or disagreement? How can you rely on their competence to properly evaluate what you’re arguing? If they’re incapable of defining themselves, how can you expect them to recognise if you’re right or wrong?

I don’t fully understand your 1st and 2nd sentence, but I didn’t actually think you’d claim the 3rd, wherein lies the problem. You’re treating your argument/criteria as an applicable authority - which, I believe, you would only do if you believed it was QED (quod erat demonstrandum).

Where did I say, the Christian do not have the aptitude to define themselves. What Christians has are not the justified epistemological definition.
As with scientists, self definition is limited, i.e. not of the highest level as compared a epistemological approach.

Note I have presented a definition of who is a Christian based on the essential elements from a philosophical basis and evidences gathered from the practices of the majority of Christians and relying on universal principles.
Most [not all] the forums agree to the elements I presented.

Your point is any individual Christian can define who is a Christian and allowing room for those in the fringes to come up with their own definition.
Then would you agree with a suicide bomber who had killed million, if he as an individual, claimed to be Christian? Would you accept his definition that he is a Christian?
Point is it is not wise to accept his definition he is a Christian because suicide bombing is not a covenanted term in the Gospels of Jesus.
Get my point?

Note I have given you a definition of who is a Christian based on a justified epistemological approach and you agreed to it except you insist on a more looser definition.
As I had pointed out above, we cannot allow a looser definition, otherwise a person who committed genocides could claim to be a Christian because he insisted he believed in Jesus Christ, go to church, etc.

Prismatic,

My apologies if you didn’t, I took it that you didn’t believe that Christians were capable of defining themselves, due to other points you made, and because you’re propounding that the definition of “who is a Christian” is better etc, from a source outside of Christianity.

Why do you believe that self-definition is limited? If someone has the experience in a field and can articulate themselves well, I don’t see a problem. An “epistemological approach” is a vague term unless you specify how and why there is a difference in epistemology between a person in an actual field defining that field, and a lay person defining the same field.

You’ve claimed that Christians don’t have the justified epistemological definition, what does that mean? From my perspective, you’ve extrapolated what you believe to be the maxims of Christianity (which are well known), organised them into an argument and defined “who is a Christian” as according to a person’s adherence to those maxims. I believe that is the reason you’ll find agreement from Christians and others, and I don’t see why a Christian cannot do that?

What does that mean in the context of this discussion?

Not really, and I don’t understand how you surmised that? If I wanted to define a Christian, I would listen to a Christian’s explanation who practices Christianity within the context of the Bible. I don’t see why you think that is problematic.

I’m not aware that I agreed with it? I believe that there are people who would, and that it makes reasonable sense in the positive, but I have the issues with it that I’ve been propounding.

I don’t think that’s right, probably because I am more liberal than you are. For me, in a practical sense, someone who believes in Jesus and lives according to his principles is a Christian. I think that generally, people who commit genocide don’t believe they are Christians, and even if they do, they are not sane or conscientious people. The NT has a pacifist and conscientious maxim, a person who commits genocide can’t have abided by that.

All the sources I relied upon re the critical elements for ‘Who is a Christian’ are from the Bible and the Christians.
The only extra is I highlighted the imperative and implied existence of a genuine covenant between the Christian and God, based on the universal principles of the Law of Contract. Since it is universal, no sane person [including] Christian will deny the principles of the Law of Contract.

Note:
Without any agreement or covenant established, then it is a case of coercion or compulsion from God or the other party. The Christian God is not a that cruel and besides humans are supposedly given free will.

Self-definition is always limited due to potential bias especially confirmation bias.

Epistemology?? Note,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Read this article for the basic understanding of what is epistemology.
Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge, i.e. Justified True Belief [JTB].
The epistemological approach is very objective, more credible than Science, but itself is still limited in some sense [Gettier].

Science is the most credible knowledge but still limited in the philosophical sense.
For a scientist or scientists to present a definition, they cannot use Science to justify their own definition, they have to take off their scientist hat and wear a philosophical one, i.e. relying on epistemology, rationality, etc.

Yes a Christian can define ‘Who is a Christian’ based on the elements I presented. If their definition conform to the epistemological conditions, I have no problem with that.
But ALL Christians rely critically on faith, thus their definition is subjected to faith.
As such not all Christians can present a high level justified definition, i.e. a JTB.

When you insist on a looser definition, the looser ones will not likely comply with the conditions of a JTB.

Therefore what prevails must be an epistemological definition of ‘Who is a Christian.’

What I had presented in based on a rigoristic epistemological approach.
Thus those Christians who agree with my definition would imply they agree to an epistemological definition.

If ‘you’ follow and comply with the conditions and processes of what is a Justified True Belief in your definition of ‘who is a Christian’ I have no issue with it. In that case you should agree with my definition, unless you can present a justified counter to it. But you do not have an effective counter to my definition.

Note the issue here you want to define a Christian in the loosest sense and that is not complying to the requirements of a epistemological JTB.

You did agree with my definition basically.
Your issue is you want to define it more loosely.

Analogy:
Your definition of ‘Who is a Christian’ is like defining what is male and female.
In your case, a female or male can be self-defined, i.e. one can declare one to be a female based on feelings, appearance, behaviors and other subjective opinions.
On the other hand while I take into account outer appearances and feelings, the critical element that decide who is a female is based on X, Y Chromosomes and other critical properties represented in the majority of females.

Like resorting to the essence of X, Y Chromosomes on who is a female, my focus on the covenant between God and believer is defining ‘Who is the Christian’ down to the most basis essence.

You only “think” which is very subjective and not objective.
Note it is very common for SOME humans to act and pretend as if they are Christians out of convenience for various reasons but are not genuine in their intentions.

I also pointed out someone could have been sincerely be a Christian in the initial stage, but any thing can happen with his brain and mental state subsequent to the initial agreement or covenant.
Therefore a Christian can be a genocidal person or psychopath later in life and where at this point the covenant is void due to non-compliance, since the person cannot express love [a term of the covenant] anymore. Being omnipresent and omniscient, God would have known this fact that the covenant with God is null and void until the person is cured and repent to renew a new covenant.

Yes, abided!
How can one abide if there is no initial agreement [in this case a covenant, at least implied] and the agreed convenanted terms to abide to?

This is what I meant, regardless whether explicit or not, the covenant is imperative and implied to initiate the ‘contractual’ relationship between God and the Christian [or Muslim, Jew,].

In addition, the pros from the concept of the covenant outweighs the pros of your loose definition.

Alright, I am going to come at this the other way. There is absolutely no way for a human to judge objectively other humans’ claims that they are Christian according to these criteria.

We cannot possibly know if someone claiming to be a Christian is doing these things. We might be able to eliminate a few people over their behavior, but we would never be able to give the stamp of approval due to the problem of other minds
and
in addition
no way to measure how much of their hearts they are loving God with or their neighbors, even if we were psychic. Is that all of their heart, of just a lot of it? Are they thinking a bit too much about their jobs, couldn’t they squeeze in more time and fullness of focus on loving God? And so on…

Jesus internalized the commandments

Again we cannot know if people are meeting Jesus’ criteria on lust.

He says something similar about anger. His take on the commandments makes it utterly impossible to judge Christians in the positive and this would be something left to God.

And since Prismatic does nto believe in God, there is no entity that can judge this.

Me, as a non-Christian, I feel I cannot judge, but reading Jesus’ criteria, I would be willing to venture a guess that in practice Christianity is a minor religion, with very, very few followers, because I don’t think many people meet Jesus’ criteria. That’s my guess, at least.