Who is a Christian?

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

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?

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?

[Prismatic567]

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.

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.

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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

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 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.

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'.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.
https://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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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];

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table [via common sense], which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.

Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls:
Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God;
sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 if [s] 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.

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).

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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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.

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?

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.

What does that mean in the context of this discussion?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Epistemology?? Note,
https://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.

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?

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.'

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.

What does that mean in the context of this discussion?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The NT has a pacifist and conscientious maxim, a person who commits genocide can't have abided by that.

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I do not agree and believe there must be an objective definition that should meet God's definition of 'who is a Christian' thus qualify for all the divine rewards as promised by God for believing in God and obeying his commands and words delivered via Jesus as presented the Gospels [not Acts nor Epistles] in the NT.

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.

When asked which is the greatest commandment, the Christian New Testament depicts Jesus paraphrasing the Torah: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," before also paraphrasing a second passage; "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

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

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of
old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart.

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.

[Prismatic567]

I do not agree and believe there must be an objective definition that should meet God's definition of 'who is a Christian' thus qualify for all the divine rewards as promised by God for believing in God and obeying his commands and words delivered via Jesus as presented the Gospels [not Acts nor Epistles] in the NT.

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.

Note it is also true no court of law can arrive at the ultimate truth whether a person is a murderer or not especially if the accused do not confess to the crime.
Even when people confessed, that may not even be the actual truth as evident in many such cases.

Even with the above, there are many who have been convicted of crimes based on what is objective within the Law of the Land.

I agree, no humans can determined the ultimate truth whether a person is truly a Christian or not.
What counts in my case is God the omnipresent and omniscient will know whether the person is a true Christian or not.

What humans especially using the epistemological approach is to research all the necessary evidence and arrive at a justified definition which can be tested. I have already listed all the necessary properties/elements to who qualify to be a Christians.
What is critical is the covenant [implied or otherwise] and you cannot deny this.

When asked which is the greatest commandment, the Christian New Testament depicts Jesus paraphrasing the Torah: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," before also paraphrasing a second passage; "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

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

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of
old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart.

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.

Nah, humans [God recognize as fallible] need not be perfect to be a Christian.

As I had stated in a post,
Many of the covenanted terms from God are ideals to be striven by humans to the best of their abilities.
God will not expect Christians to love their enemies in the stupid way, e.g. if the enemies attack, they are to stand there with open loving arms to hug their enemies.
And I don't believe God literally meant giving the other cheek.

God issued the ideals [absolving God from condoning violence, etc.] but God knowing humans are exposed to various practical conditions must use their discretion wisely to Optimize any situations [threatening or otherwise].
It is then for God to judge the merit of what is performed to the best of their ability.

Note if you sign a contract with someone to provide you 1000 widgets but on delivery your testing and checking found 10% are defective, it is not 100% perfect.
In this case you can reject the whole delivery based on terms of the contract or you use your discretion to accept the 90% and pay for it while rejecting and returning the 10% of defects.

It is the same with God. God always set the highest ideal and will not compromise in his standards but God is compassionate enough to recognize human are fallible and limited, thus God will use his discretion to judge the human performance on whether s/he has performed to the best of his/her abilities or sufficient to avoid hell.

Note what is critical in my definition of who is a Christian, is the the person entering into a covenant [explicit or implied] with God to abide by the covenanted terms. To what degree the Christian perform the covenanted terms is secondary and for their God to judge. Note, to me God is an illusion but this covenant with God is real in the mind of the Christians.

What is most practical and beneficial to humanity is to recognize the imperative of such a covenant and covenanted terms within the minds of Christians and especially Muslims.
Therefore if there are serious evil consequences from either Christians or Muslims committing evil in the name of God, then the focus must be on the root cause, i.e. the covenant and the covenanted terms.
Thus getting rid of the covenant or changing the covenanted terms [impossible] would eliminate ZERO evil and violent acts in the name of a God.

What advantages does your loose definition bring to humanity in the future?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Note it is also true no court of law can arrive at the ultimate truth whether a person is a murderer or not especially if the accused do not confess to the crime.
Even when people confessed, that may not even be the actual truth as evident in many such cases.

Random analogy. And you have no way of knowing if it applies or is equivalent in the least. There is a difference between being 100 per cent sure and not being able to measure at all. Jesus made it critical that the internal states be in specific ways, and we cannot look at those at all. A murder case can include all sorts of physical evidence, witness accounts, etc. And how do we know Jesus meant that this was to be measured like we measure guilt in courts. In terms of process, degree necessary to be judged OK and more. You are just making up stuff and saying it is relevent or equivalent.

I agree, no humans can determined the ultimate truth whether a person is truly a Christian or not.
What counts in my case is God the omnipresent and omniscient will know whether the person is a true Christian or not.

OK, fine. God can tell, but we sure can't. It's not a definition of what a Christian is that we can use to figure out who are Christians. The phrase ultimate truth implies that we can do a pretty good job potentially. But actually, we don't even have a way to start seeing if people meet Jesus criteria for the internal states of believers. We don't know how much he would have considered enough. And the problem of other minds precludes measuring even if we did.

You seem to be claiming you can be a good stand in for God or Jesus. Sure, you might make a few mistakes, like the courts in murder cases, but still you'd come up with a fairly good number for the number of Christians. LOL. You would have no ideas if you had come many orders of magnitude off the actual number.

What humans especially using the epistemological approach is to research all the necessary evidence and arrive at a justified definition which can be tested. I have already listed all the necessary properties/elements to who qualify to be a Christians.
What is critical is the covenant [implied or otherwise] and you cannot deny this.

I worked with your criteria and demonstrated that no humans can determine how many Christians there are and who can be included in the set of Christians.

If you are saying that you have the correct definition, but it is one that only God can decide if it applies in some case or other, fine.

Nah, humans [God recognize as fallible] need not be perfect to be a Christian.

You just added a word that I did not use. Nor did Jesus. He seemed pretty clear these were strict criteria, using the words he used.

But even worse for this 'argument', we have no way of knowing how much love, how equivalent Jesus wanted us to love others, God, neighbors. How little anger one must have. How little lust. We have no way of measuring and even if we could measure we have no idea how much we are looking for.

As I had stated in a post,
Many of the covenanted terms from God are ideals to be striven by humans to the best of their abilities.
God will not expect Christians to love their enemies in the stupid way, e.g. if the enemies attack, they are to stand there with open loving arms to hug their enemies.
And I don't believe God literally meant giving the other cheek.

And now you are raising issues, I did not raise. And doing more work as a Christian theologian on irrelevent points.

God issued the ideals [absolving God from condoning violence, etc.] but God knowing humans are exposed to various practical conditions must use their discretion wisely to Optimize any situations [threatening or otherwise].
It is then for God to judge the merit of what is performed to the best of their ability.

And now you are acting as if you are a Christian theologian again. Also acting as if you know how he would measure and as if this could in any way be used by us to figure out who is Christian.

Note if you sign a contract with someone to provide you 1000 widgets but on delivery your testing and checking found 10% are defective, it is not 100% perfect.
In this case you can reject the whole delivery based on terms of the contract or you use your discretion to accept the 90% and pay for it while rejecting and returning the 10% of defects.

An utterly irrelevent analogy. And you have no idea if this is how God, an entity you do not believe exists, thinks about sin or doing what He wants. And you have no idea how to measure 90% even if this was God's number. Courts may have such criteria to measure physical products. But this may not be equivalent to how God does things, and even if he does, we can't.

Here's the underlying absurd assumption even bringing up this analogy...

God runs his evaluations like contract law does.

Utterly absurd.

It is the same with God. God always set the highest ideal and will not compromise in his standards but God is compassionate enough to recognize human are fallible and limited, thus God will use his discretion to judge the human performance on whether s/he has performed to the best of his/her abilities or sufficient to avoid hell.

Again you are writing as if you are a Christian theologian. And how fallible. And we can't know how fallible they are. How well they are loving neighbors. certainly not by behavior. There can be people with good behavior who act this way from their egos and have little love for anyone. And all sorts of shades of grey in between. We don't know how much God wants and we have no way to measure.

We cannot determine who is Christian

even if

your Christian theology is correct.

Sicne you are not a Christian, there is no reason to consider your interpretations relevent.


That's it. I will ignore you. If you seriously cannot see that
1) the murder trial analogy is irrelevent - it is a human court dealing with another issue - and further note that Jesus specificially was increasting the demands of the commandments and equated anger with murder.
2) you made up theology and theology that does not match what Jesus said. Perhaps you have guessed correctly what a God you do not believe exists would think about what Jesus really meant, but you are just guessing
3) it's all irrelevent since we cannot determine which humans even meet God's criteria if it is 90 percent, as in your business analogy. We have no way to measure how much love, how little anger, how much lust, how well someone loves their neighbors, especieally because Jesus clearly and specifically internalized the criteria.

Seriously, you just made up stuff.

Wait a week, relook at your 'arguments'. It's seems just you defending something because it feels like it must be correct. And notice how you did not directly interact with the parts of the Bible I brought up, nor with the arguments I made. You jumped to secular analogies as if they must apply, when it is a completely different situation with completely different epistemological problems since it has to do with internal states.

This is not honorable philosophical discussion on your part. You just created a lot of distraction and work. You're a smart guy. You should just throw a bunch of illogic salad at people because you don't want to re-evaluate your own position.

It's like I startled a skunk. I'm done.
(this is not me assuming I can read your mind, by the way. It's the experience of suddenly having a bunch of unpleasant 'smells' in my face, I am going at via the skunk metaphor) I think you are smarter than this kind of response on your part would lead one to believe, so it's frustrating to find it here)

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

There are points you've raised that I'd like to discuss and questions that I'd like to ask in response you latest reply to me, but I don't think that you're the right person to discuss them with, because (please take this as constructive criticism) I find you to be too overbearing and concerned with being right/proving your point. I would rather have a discussion than someone dictating things to me.

The last point I'd like to clarify with you is this:

Prismatic:

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.

Me:

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.

Prismatic:

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

As I said I'm not aware that I agreed with it, but maybe I did and I can't remember correctly, where do you think I agreed with it?

[Prismatic567]

Note it is also true no court of law can arrive at the ultimate truth whether a person is a murderer or not especially if the accused do not confess to the crime.
Even when people confessed, that may not even be the actual truth as evident in many such cases.

Random analogy. And you have no way of knowing if it applies or is equivalent in the least. There is a difference between being 100 per cent sure and not being able to measure at all. Jesus made it critical that the internal states be in specific ways, and we cannot look at those at all. A murder case can include all sorts of physical evidence, witness accounts, etc. And how do we know Jesus meant that this was to be measured like we measure guilt in courts. In terms of process, degree necessary to be judged OK and more. You are just making up stuff and saying it is relevent or equivalent.

I agree, no humans can determined the ultimate truth whether a person is truly a Christian or not.
What counts in my case is God the omnipresent and omniscient will know whether the person is a true Christian or not.

OK, fine. God can tell, but we sure can't. It's not a definition of what a Christian is that we can use to figure out who are Christians. The phrase ultimate truth implies that we can do a pretty good job potentially. But actually, we don't even have a way to start seeing if people meet Jesus criteria for the internal states of believers. We don't know how much he would have considered enough. And the problem of other minds precludes measuring even if we did.

You seem to be claiming you can be a good stand in for God or Jesus. Sure, you might make a few mistakes, like the courts in murder cases, but still you'd come up with a fairly good number for the number of Christians. LOL. You would have no ideas if you had come many orders of magnitude off the actual number.

What humans especially using the epistemological approach is to research all the necessary evidence and arrive at a justified definition which can be tested. I have already listed all the necessary properties/elements to who qualify to be a Christians.
What is critical is the covenant [implied or otherwise] and you cannot deny this.

I worked with your criteria and demonstrated that no humans can determine how many Christians there are and who can be included in the set of Christians.

If you are saying that you have the correct definition, but it is one that only God can decide if it applies in some case or other, fine.

Nah, humans [God recognize as fallible] need not be perfect to be a Christian.

You just added a word that I did not use. Nor did Jesus. He seemed pretty clear these were strict criteria, using the words he used.

But even worse for this 'argument', we have no way of knowing how much love, how equivalent Jesus wanted us to love others, God, neighbors. How little anger one must have. How little lust. We have no way of measuring and even if we could measure we have no idea how much we are looking for.

As I had stated in a post,
Many of the covenanted terms from God are ideals to be striven by humans to the best of their abilities.
God will not expect Christians to love their enemies in the stupid way, e.g. if the enemies attack, they are to stand there with open loving arms to hug their enemies.
And I don't believe God literally meant giving the other cheek.

And now you are raising issues, I did not raise. And doing more work as a Christian theologian on irrelevent points.

God issued the ideals [absolving God from condoning violence, etc.] but God knowing humans are exposed to various practical conditions must use their discretion wisely to Optimize any situations [threatening or otherwise].
It is then for God to judge the merit of what is performed to the best of their ability.

And now you are acting as if you are a Christian theologian again. Also acting as if you know how he would measure and as if this could in any way be used by us to figure out who is Christian.

Note if you sign a contract with someone to provide you 1000 widgets but on delivery your testing and checking found 10% are defective, it is not 100% perfect.
In this case you can reject the whole delivery based on terms of the contract or you use your discretion to accept the 90% and pay for it while rejecting and returning the 10% of defects.

An utterly irrelevent analogy. And you have no idea if this is how God, an entity you do not believe exists, thinks about sin or doing what He wants. And you have no idea how to measure 90% even if this was God's number. Courts may have such criteria to measure physical products. But this may not be equivalent to how God does things, and even if he does, we can't.

Here's the underlying absurd assumption even bringing up this analogy...

God runs his evaluations like contract law does.

Utterly absurd.

It is the same with God. God always set the highest ideal and will not compromise in his standards but God is compassionate enough to recognize human are fallible and limited, thus God will use his discretion to judge the human performance on whether s/he has performed to the best of his/her abilities or sufficient to avoid hell.

Again you are writing as if you are a Christian theologian. And how fallible. And we can't know how fallible they are. How well they are loving neighbors. certainly not by behavior. There can be people with good behavior who act this way from their egos and have little love for anyone. And all sorts of shades of grey in between. We don't know how much God wants and we have no way to measure.

We cannot determine who is Christian

even if

your Christian theology is correct.

Sicne you are not a Christian, there is no reason to consider your interpretations relevent.


That's it. I will ignore you. If you seriously cannot see that
1) the murder trial analogy is irrelevent - it is a human court dealing with another issue - and further note that Jesus specificially was increasting the demands of the commandments and equated anger with murder.
2) you made up theology and theology that does not match what Jesus said. Perhaps you have guessed correctly what a God you do not believe exists would think about what Jesus really meant, but you are just guessing
3) it's all irrelevent since we cannot determine which humans even meet God's criteria if it is 90 percent, as in your business analogy. We have no way to measure how much love, how little anger, how much lust, how well someone loves their neighbors, especieally because Jesus clearly and specifically internalized the criteria.

Seriously, you just made up stuff.

You have a faithbased belief and you cannot yield. Wait a week, relook at your 'arguments'. It's just you defending something because it feels like it must be correct. And notice how you did not directly interact with the parts of the Bible I brought up, nor with the arguments I made. You jumped to secular analogies as if they must apply, when it is a completely different situation with completely different epistemological problems since it has to do with internal states.

This is not honorable philosophical discussion on your part. You just created a lot of distraction and work. You're a smart guy. You should just throw a bunch of illogic salad at people because you don't want to re-evaluate your own position.

It's like I scared a skunk. I'm done.

Your argument is I cannot know how Jesus and God thinks.

Note I am not that ignorant, I have read the Gospels and other supporting texts to get an idea of Jesus and God views on the compliance of the covenanted terms.

There is no indication where Jesus and God insist Christians must comply 100% with the ideals set. Show me if you think there are any. Note,

The initial state to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ as in John 3:16 which imply a covenant is establish to enable a personal relation with God.
Many Christians claim this is all that is needed to be a Christian regardless of how the Christian behave later.
But that is not the case, the covenanted terms do not ensure a unconditional passport for one to be a Christian and be given eternal life in heaven.

Note
1. the case of the camel- eye of a needle - and richman
2. Good works do not guarantee a place in heaven

In another point, Christians can repent and ask for forgiveness even if they had committed the worst sin, e.g. as with Paul and Moses, etc.
This defeat your point that Jesus and Christ expect 100% or a high degree of compliance to the ideals.

I had argued the above do not make sense and would insult God if interpreted without common sense and wisdom. The worst sin of Paul, Moses and the likes are one off and they did not commit further sins after they had repented.
Common divine sense will tell us a God cannot give absolute forgiveness if a Christian later become genocidal and commit genocides repeatedly after each repentance and forgiveness by God.

From the above we can infer the Christian God will not expect a 100% compliance to the ideal standards but rather will provide some kind of discretion.
I am an expert with the Bible but I am confident there are verses [KIV] to support my point because the Christian God who expect one to love even one enemies cannot be so rigid.

My point again;
What is critical is the implication of a covenant in defining who is a Christian. If not expressed the covenant is implied when a person declared he believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ with reference to John 3:16 and the likes.

If a person declare consciously and explicitly, he do not want to enter into a covenant with the Christian God via Jesus, he cannot be a Christian per se.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

There are points you've raised that I'd like to discuss and questions that I'd like to ask in response you latest reply to me, but I don't think that you're the right person to discuss them with, because (please take this as constructive criticism) I find you to be too overbearing and concerned with being right/proving your point. I would rather have a discussion than someone dictating things to me.

The last point I'd like to clarify with you is this:

Prismatic:

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.

Me:

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.

Prismatic:

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

As I said I'm not aware that I agreed with it, but maybe I did and I can't remember correctly, where do you think I agreed with it?

It is too tedious to read through all the posts but I noted this one which imply you do accept the covenant to be a significant element, which is my main point of the whole issue.

From here:
viewtopic.php?p=2725509#p2725509

Point is regardless of your denial, there exists a covenant/contract that exists between God and a Christian.
This is not only by principle but the covenant [you even mention New Covenant] is implied in the Gospels and Bible.

I mentioned you deny the requirement of the covenant, but you disagreed, thus you point below;

This is a straw man. What denial are you referring to? If you mean in relation to the New Covenant, where did I state that there was no Covenant between God and a Christian? You need to clarify what you mean here.

As I had stated, you had agreed with my main requirement, i.e. the covenant, but you insist on a looser definition which is not effective and detrimental to Christianity and humanity in the long run.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

I thought you would present something like that rather than me actually stating that I agreed with your argument, but I was worried for a moment . It is rather strange that you believe this:

As I had stated, you had agreed with my main requirement, i.e. the covenant, but you insist on a looser definition which is not effective and detrimental to Christianity and humanity in the long run.

Follows from this:

This is a straw man. What denial are you referring to? If you mean in relation to the New Covenant, where did I state that there was no Covenant between God and a Christian? You need to clarify what you mean here.

Not that I want to debate it with you, I just think its quite a leap, even if I have a more liberal view of "who is a Christian" than you, but maybe you can see the future?

For the record, I never stated that you should create a looser definition. I wouldn't use the term "looser" in a discussion like this as it is quite vague, indeed it is you who introduced that term. I have a view of Christianity which is different from yours, but I never insisted that you should change your view to suit mine. You can try to quote me as doing so if you want to, but I wouldn't bother if you're only going to present which something you've implied, and then made an assumptive leap.

Finally, my belief that an important aspect of Christianity pertains to a covenant between God and the Christian, the New Covenant, does not mean that I agree with your argument.

That's me done, cheers.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Ok, this will DEFINITELY be my last post on this topic .

I was trawling through my posts to see if I had actually used the term “looser” when I came across this gem in relation to your argument:

[Read in full here]

Obviously I believe the above is QED, meaning to me it is conclusive proof and conclusion on who is a Christian.
The element of 'covenant' [contract] is the imperative premise in determining who is a Christian.
If there is no contract [explicit or implied] with the Christian God, there is no Christian - QED.

Note sure your understanding of QED is the same as mine, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
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." Traditionally, the abbreviation is placed at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument to indicate that the proof or argument is complete.

Which you then changed/tweaked to this, without indicating why:

[Read in full here]

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. [emphasis mine]

Just out of interest, what does this mean in relation to your argument, and why have you changed your position from quod erat demonstrandum to Quite Easily Done? You had previously claimed that your argument is a proof albeit to yourself, has your position changed on that? I mean, epistemologically and philosophically, what is the difference between quod erat demonstrandum and Quite Easily Done, in how they apply to your argument?

---

I will also say (along with KT), as I've said before, that I think you're a naturally intelligent person, but you're far too sure of yourself. People recognising that you're clever should not be done as a consolation.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

I thought you would present something like that rather than me actually stating that I agreed with your argument, but I was worried for a moment . It is rather strange that you believe this:

As I had stated, you had agreed with my main requirement, i.e. the covenant, but you insist on a looser definition which is not effective and detrimental to Christianity and humanity in the long run.

Follows from this:

This is a straw man. What denial are you referring to? If you mean in relation to the New Covenant, where did I state that there was no Covenant between God and a Christian? You need to clarify what you mean here.

Not that I want to debate it with you, I just think its quite a leap, even if I have a more liberal view of "who is a Christian" than you, but maybe you can see the future?

For the record, I never stated that you should create a looser definition. I wouldn't use the term "looser" in a discussion like this as it is quite vague, indeed it is you who introduced that term. I have a view of Christianity which is different from yours, but I never insisted that you should change your view to suit mine. You can try to quote me as doing so if you want to, but I wouldn't bother if you're only going to present which something you've implied, and then made an assumptive leap.

Finally, my belief that an important aspect of Christianity pertains to a covenant between God and the Christian, the New Covenant, does not mean that I agree with your argument.

That's me done, cheers.

I had stated the covenant is the most fundamental and critical in defining who is a Christian.
Note, besides your above, you said many times you agreed to the covenant between God and the Christian.

In agreement to the covenant, it is implied you recognized [regardless of your ignorance and denial] the covenant is fundamental.

To be a Christian, there must be a personal relationship established between God and the Christian. This personal relationship is initiated via an agreement, i.e. in this case a covenant [divine contract]. The terms of the contract are stipulated in the Gospels, supported by the other texts.

How can you disagree with the above fundamentals?

Your disagreement is extended to the very superficial, thus my mentioned of a 'looser' or wider interpretation of the term. Note a looser meaning of any term means making it less objective. Note the problems we have with the looser definition of 'religion' 'spirituality' 'love' and the likes.

I have also listed the dangers of insisting on a 'looser' definition in this case.
In addition the cons of such a looser definition is more dangerous [inviting evil] than the pros of the criticalness of the covenant.

So my point is, the concept of the covenant [agreement, divine contract] is a critical element in defining 'who is a Christian' or a Muslim.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Ok, this will DEFINITELY be my last post on this topic .

I was trawling through my posts to see if I had actually used the term “looser” when I came across this gem in relation to your argument:

[Read in full here]

Obviously I believe the above is QED, meaning to me it is conclusive proof and conclusion on who is a Christian.
The element of 'covenant' [contract] is the imperative premise in determining who is a Christian.
If there is no contract [explicit or implied] with the Christian God, there is no Christian - QED.

Note sure your understanding of QED is the same as mine, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
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." Traditionally, the abbreviation is placed at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument to indicate that the proof or argument is complete.

Which you then changed/tweaked to this, without indicating why:

[Read in full here]

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. [emphasis mine]

Just out of interest, what does this mean in relation to your argument, and why have you changed your position from quod erat demonstrandum to Quite Easily Done? You had previously claimed that your argument is a proof albeit to yourself, has your position changed on that? I mean, epistemologically and philosophically, what is the difference between quod erat demonstrandum and Quite Easily Done, in how they apply to your argument?

---

Note whether QED is "quod erat demonstrandum" or "Quite Easily Done" is not a critical issue.
What is critical is whether the argument is justified rationally and philosophically with substance.

QED as "Quite Easily Done" is merely a colloquial expression on the play of the alphabets to emphasize the justification is easily done [proven or justified]. It is the same with expression like as ABC, 1+1=2, cake – cake walk – cinch – cinchy – doss – dossy – easy as pie – easy-peasy – easy peasy, lemon squeezy – gimme – gravy – low-hanging fruit – piece of cake – rinky-dink.

Whatever said, what counts is the argument and justification proper which I had provided with supporting evidences.

I will also say (along with KT), as I've said before, that I think you're a naturally intelligent person, but you're far too sure of yourself. People recognising that you're clever should not be done as a consolation.

I had stated, I don't believe in certainty and definite answers as in the Russell's quote I had posted many times.

Whatever is related to the person is not critical, what counts and the currency of this philosophical forum is justified and sound arguments in accordance to the expectations of philosophy-proper.

Btw, my argument on the criticalness of the covenant in 'who is a Christian' is to be extended to "who is a Muslim" [where the covenant is very explicitly stated in the Quran] and this has bearing and leverage to eliminate ALL theistic-related evil and violence.

Once the Christians are educated to their own involvement and the criticalness of the covenant [fortunately with overriding pacifist terms] as being a Christian, they [especially the Pope and others] will understand why ALL genuine Muslims are contracted [with evil terms in the Quran] to kill them [Christians] and other non-Muslims.

This point itself should trigger you [if you are a responsible human being] to research more to explore deeply into the soundness of my thesis to provide more sophisticated counter views or to agree with my arguments.

[Fanman]

That's right Prismatic. Once everyone conforms to your way of thinking, then the world will be right and of course, be an adequate reflection of your image.

[Prismatic567]

That's right Prismatic. Once everyone conforms to your way of thinking, then the world will be right and of course, be an adequate reflection of your image.

Noted the sarcasm.
Yes, if only all conform but that is only an ideal.
In practice what is needed is a critical mass which could be 40% to form the core activists to push toward the objective and striving for continuous improvements.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Yes, if only all conform but that is only an ideal.
In practice what is needed is a critical mass which could be 40% to form the core activists to push toward the objective and striving for continuous improvements.

I doubt that you're being serious, but if you genuinely believe this, then it would make discussing things with you difficult. So much so, that I don't think I will be attempting to again.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Yes, if only all conform but that is only an ideal.
In practice what is needed is a critical mass which could be 40% to form the core activists to push toward the objective and striving for continuous improvements.

I doubt that you're being serious, but if you genuinely believe this, then it would make discussing things with you difficult. So much so, that I don't think I will be attempting to again.

So far I believe I have been sticking to this maxim of philosophy;

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied,
not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather
for the sake of the questions themselves;

I believe I have presented very rational and objective arguments, thus my proposals are always open to further questions, if not from you, then others.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

If what you claim or believe as stated above is a genuine reflection of how you've conducted your discussions, why are your interlocutors withdrawing from philosophical discussion with you?