Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.Prismatic567 wrote: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.
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.
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.