Who is a Christian?

Which is not the same as deciding what a Christian is. And it would include what he, an atheist, considers the proper interpretation of those qualities, how to measure them, how to prioritize them, and given the contradictions or complexities (however one wants to view them) in the NT or really the Bible as a whole, an outsider cannot tell someone if they are or not. Again, it is an appeal to authority that he does not think is an authority.

Then no one is a Jedi. Prismatic thinks he can say who are and who are not and that there are some in both categories. There would be no Jedi, unless you, Phyllo, think that some people have the powers, not just the outfits, of Jedi.

You need to feel that you have a method to determine which criteria are critical, which are not, to what degree one must meet them. Christians can do this since they believe in various authorities to sort out the complexities of the Bible. He does not believe in any of these authorities.

If the Bible was very simple and it said You are a Christian if you sang praises to God while being baptized, and that’s it. It makes it clear that is the only criterion. Sure, OK. At least in relation to any Christian who said that passage is the one that makes it clear what a Christian is and/or there is nothing elsewhere that muddies the waters.

Or does prismatic have a meter that measures if you have Jesus in your heart…? And whose authority does he appeal to to say that the person who believes this is the criterion is wrong? does he appeal to the Bible? He can’t. He doesn’t believe it is a true document. Perhaps it’s the Gnostic Gospels. Perhaps Jesus came to the person in a prayer induced vision. The Bible does not make it clear, though it says, sure a lot of stuff that can be used as evidence by those who believe the Bible is God’s word, and even they have trouble.

Here’s the liar who says you were one of the bank robbers.

I am not a Christian. I cannot imagine going to the Bible, finding some quotes, then telling someone who says they are a Christian that they are not one. Even an illiterate person who says Jesus came to them in a vision and they love Him, and try to good, because they can feel his goodness. I think it is loopy for a non-believer to think they can use an appeal to the authority of something they think is made up mythical untrue stuff, to tell that person they are not in a certain category. Not only would the argument be fallacious, it would be rude.

His point doesn’t work, see above.

That is true for some Christians and their interpretation of the Bible, but not for others. You are not an authority for all Christians or any particular sect or group. And given that you do not believe in God, you cannot claim to know the right way to interpret the Bible. Of course those who do believe in God have problems demonstrating that their interpretaiton is correct, but at least they can say they believe in whatever authority they do, including that it is God talkign through the Bible. Heck there are the Gnostic Gospels, perhaps those are right.

That implies that by simply declaring yourself a Christian, then you have a better ability to interpret, measure and prioritize than an atheist. That doesn’t seem possible. Your abilities have not changed. What has actually changed in you?

You’re not a Jedi and (I imagine) you don’t believe Star Wars is real … yet you are able to say that “no one is a Jedi”. No doubt that is some sort of reasoning which is based on the Star Wars movies - Jedi characterized by “having powers” for instance.

But the authorities are just some people “fleshing out” the details. They don’t have any more reasoning ability, understanding or “connection” to God than an equally intelligent and educated atheist.

Then you would agree with Prismatic if it was clear and simple. Therefore, in principle he must be right. The only disagreement seems to be about the role of complexity.

He’s not a mind reader so he has to rely on the observable behavior of the “Christian”. That’s what he is judging.

It seems that they have the same problem, although they are “inside”, as the atheist who is outside. They don’t have any advantage when doing the evaluation.

Then how can you make these statements about the relationships of a Christian to the Bible, to the Christian authorities?
You are stating how a Christian is defined.
It appears that if we accept your argument, then you, yourself, would not be in a position to make the argument. You’re an outsider.

By Prism’s definition, Christians do not exist; it’s an empty set.

Now with the additional baptism requirement, it’s even harder to populate.

He’s looking for a way to demonize Islam with respect to Christianity while I say Christianity is just as dangerous, if not more so, principally because people think it’s not. Christianity is the root of antisemitism, for Christ’s sake.

So he says anyone who murders is not a Christian; anyone who is evil is not a Christian; wars started by Christians were not really Christians because Christians cannot do wrong by definition of being a Christian.

He’s put Christianity on a pedestal as an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

So let’s see… violent islam or docile chrisitianity? Decisions decisions.

I used to preach it myself:

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Can you be deceived by a vile 10-headed beast? What will deceive people will be angels of light.

That doesn’t seem possible. Your abilities have not changed. What has actually changed in you?
[/quote]
It’s not that your abilities have changed, it is that it makes sense for you to argue that the Bible means that you are only a christian if… or that you are only a christian if X based on some religious authority. It makes no sense for someone who thinks religious authorities are liars or fantasts to appeal to religious authority.

I pointed out was a bad example, because in one instance prismatic thinks there are Christians, in the other no one would think there are Jedis. One is presented as fiction and considered fiction. And how can he possibly determine the truth based on what he considers fiction. I am a fiction writer and reader. I can appeal to the authority of a fictional story that is considered fiction and draw conclusions from it. It is not dependent on me believing it is describing the real. There is nothing I need to believe to draw those conclusions.

Right but since they consider the Bible or whatever a religious authority, iow one that connects them to got it makes sense for them to draw conclusions. They may be wrong, but it makes sense for htem to appeal to authority. It is nonsense for prismatic to appeal to the authority of the Bible when he does not believe it is an authority.

If all Christians believed the Bible was the authority and it was simple. But that is not the situation. There are Christians who think the Bible left out key texts - or the only true ones, like the gnostics. I am in no position and neither is prismatic to tell they are wrong. I and P are in no position to tell someone who says they love Jesus, but do not fit the Bible’s criteria, are not Christian.

It’s one problem and a big one. What do you think? How could a non-christian possibly figure out what to prioritize. A Christian can (claim to be) be divinely inspired to prioritized and interpret. He can’t…

Well, since Christianity may very well be about internal, not visible, not measurable attributes and one can certainly use postions of the NT to back that up, he has no way to measure.

Sure, they do. They can claim that the Bible is the authority. He can’t. Perhaps they are just as fallible, but it makes sense when they say they can draw conclusions form a book they consider contains the truth and it does not makes sense for him to say he can draw conclusions from a book he considered false and deluded.

You are arguing he has as much chance of being right. I am arguing that his argument makes no sense at all.

I would be like me saying I know how magic should be used because Gandalf told me.

I stated many ways Christians are defined. By Christians.

I can actually see many but not all the ways Christians define themselves. That I can see. I am not in a position to say which are right or wrong. I would consider it ridiculous to tell them. I am not arguing they are right, or which ones are right.

Your ‘some’ is very misleading.

Note this list of those who practiced Baptism [mostly with water] and those who don’t

It would appear that the majority of the 2+ billion of Christians around the world practiced baptism as a qualification to be a Christian.

As for the non-practitioners, there are appx 210,000 Quakers around the world.
bbc.co.uk/religion/religions … rs_1.shtml
What is 210,000 to 2+ billion, I believe the others in the non-baptism list are lesser than 200K.

Note this:
In principle [P1], there is an implied covenant [read contract] by the believer with God to comply with God’s words [Gospels via Jesus] in exchange for a promise of eternal life in heaven.
You have not counter this point which is universal for anyone to be a member of a group, in this case, Christians.

It is obvious, I am not an authority for ALL Christianity, so is everybody else.

The point is I am applying universal philosophical principles of rationality, critical thinking, logic, etc. to justify my point.
We are in a philosophical forum, would you rely on any Christian’s claim or rather a claim with philosophical and rational justifications.

Btw, I am sure a judge, jury or any official who is not a Christian can decide on whether a person is a Christian or not based on general principles in terms of membership to a Christian organization.

The critical point for me is; a Christian is one who has surrendered his will to God as expressed by Jesus Christ via the Gospels.
In principle [P1] this implies a Christian must comply with whatever is stated in the Gospels in the NT in order to be rewarded on Judgment Day with eternal life in heaven.

It does not matter if it is the Gnostic Gospels since the same principle [P1] as above applies.

The same basic principle [P1] applies to all theists within the mainstream religions.

The consequence of the above principle P1 of an obligatory compliance by a believer with the official holy texts [at the extreme] is;

  1. Christian = love all [even] your enemies

  2. Muslim = kill non-Muslims when Islam is threatened [vague definition of ‘threat’]

How so?

Baptism is the outer indicator and note the majority of Christian groups practice baptism.
My definition of who is a Christian is one who has surrender his will to God via Jesus Christ and this implies in principle, a Christian must comply with whatever is in the Gospels.
What is wrong with this?

It does not matter if it is the Gnostic Gospels, it is still Christ’s Gospel, the basic principle is the same.

I am using the same principle for all the theistic religions.

A member of any of the theistic religion is one who has surrendered his will to God and promises via a covenant [read contract] to obey God words [the holy texts from God via agent] in exchange for God’s favor to grant him eternal life in heaven.

I have never put Christianity as an angel of light. Christianity has its negative baggage and I believe ALL religions must be weaned off [replaced] eventually.

What I have done was to compare Judaism, Christianity and Islam relatively.

How can you make the comparison if you have not read the Quran thoroughly and research into the linking of the evil laden verses in the Quran directly to all the evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims?

Christians [as human beings] had killed millions but has any of these killers ever justify their killing to Jesus Christ words in the Gospels? Had they shouted Jesus-u-Akbar before they kill?
I have argued the so-labelled Christians killed others as being human and not as Christian per-se.

On the other hand, those SOME evil prone Muslims who killed did it as directed by their God within the Quran.

Note I am not drawing conclusions from a book I considered false and deluded.

My approach is philosophical, epistemological, etc.
My point is based on the principle and definition of who qualify to be a member of any group, in this case, Christians.
There are many criteria for a person to belong to a group, i.e. in terms biology, e.g. race, clans, or by acceptance via some initiation process.

In the case of being a member of a theistic religion, a member of a religion has to go through some sort of initiation process.
In the case of a Christian, the majority [98%??] has to be baptized mostly water-based or other forms.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#S … ng_baptism

In the baptism initiation, the inherent implication [explicitly or otherwise] is, a Christian would have surrendered his will to God and will obey the words of God as presented by Jesus Christ in the Gospels in the NT or the gnostic gospels. There is no way a person can be a Christian if the gospels [incl gnostics] are not involved.

Note I have read up many articles [googled ‘who is a Christian’] on the above on who is a Christians and their views are the same as mine.

If you disagree, show me references where it is up to anyone to claim for himself to be Christian by any means.

Phyllo also:

First, you negate your entire argument when you say that 98% go through the initiation. This means some do not. So by your own admission your criterion is not universal. Second your own link SPECIFICALLY mentions Christian groups that do not use Baptism. Third, I am not arguing who real Christians are. I am arguing that you cannot say who are, because anything that you consider a criterion, you must accept some religious authority on. You must argue that it is the criterion because God, this church, these religious believers believe it. BUT since you do not think they have special knowledge, this makes no sense. You cannot argue that these religious poeple are right, but the others who claim they are christians but did not meet your criteria are wrong, because you have no authority that you respect to base this conclusion on. You have no way to rule out individual believers in Jesus as their deity who have not met your criteria. Is it because there are less of them? That is an ad populum fallacy. Is it because the Catholic Church and the Baptists are right and those individuals are wrong? That is saying they have special knowledge, which you do not believe since you think they are deluded.

Jesus. Just give up this silliness.

And what the heck do any of us gain if we non-Christians decide we are better authorities then other people about what kind of religious person they are. I mean, setting aside the epistemological absurdity pointed out above, I can see not the slightest practical advantage.

If baptism is your only requirement, then fine, you have a populated set, but if following the NT is the requirement, then you have an empty set because: 1) It can’t be done. It’s an impossible standard. 2) No two people agree what the NT means.

If “love your enemy” is your test, then zero people fall into that category. It’s impossible for any being, including god, to love anyone but itself.

So he’s become a robot by surrendering his will. That’s the first step for committing atrocities.

Like the cops (no doubt christians) hassling the stage 4 cancer patient for marijuana because “they’re following orders”. zerohedge.com/news/2019-03- … -marijuana

I know. You’re saying christianity is relatively better than islam. Well, lead is relatively better than cyanide.

I’m just going on what you say and what others have said and what I see on tv. Islam appears to be a vile monster practiced by uneducated people. On the other hand, the only muslim that I really knew was a guy with better integrity than most christians I’ve known.

No, I don’t think so, except for Hitler.

lol

I definitely get your point and have gotten your point all along. But I think the fact that islam commands killing should dissuade people from joining. It’s too outwardly evil while christianity appears righteous.

As I said before, come to my house and we can walk down the road to the church and ask the preacher how to become christian. He will say “If you profess with your mouth and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins.” Then we can walk to the next church where you will hear the same. 1000s of churches will say that.

“A Christian philosophy is a wooden iron and a misconception.”

  • Heidegger

And likewise, for a Christian to engage in philosophy would be a dreadful mistake.

Philosophy is always an asking. Primordial question: why being and not rather nonbeing?

“Because God saw it fit”
“Why God and not rather nonbeing”?

Religion is about granting certainty to the heart where the mind must remain cleft. To aproach it with an analytic intention is not religious.

And the only way to argue those people are wrong would be to appeal to some religious authority or other. And an atheist cannot do this. Prismatic is an atheist.

I feel concerned for you, because the obviousness of this will not lead to his acknowleding it. So I fear for the next few years of your time.

But if he ever yields, please let me know.

I will congratulate heartily. I simply do not have the patience.

:laughing: Good one!

I disagree with you that I [or a non-Christian] cannot say who is a Christian.

What I am trying to do is to arrive at an objective definition of who is a Christian which in general is acceptable at least in a typical court of law.

As I had listed 98% [appx.] of Christians are initiated by baptism [water].
The other 2% may not use baptism-with-water but they do have some kind of initiation process which may include baptism-without-water or other formal processes.

Note I stated the above are merely formality and external processes.

But the real requirement inherent in the above formality for one to be a Christian is, one who has surrendered his will to God and will adhere and comply with God’s message delivered via Jesus Christ.

Thus an individual who has not gone through an formal initiation may still be a Christian if s/he declare s/he had surrendered to God via the Jesus Christ and be obedient to the message of the NT Gospels or gnostic gospels.

Now there should be no issue if I define who is a Christian by the above requirements.
I am sure the above definition of who is a Christian is acceptable in any court of law for the relevant cases in dispute.

Note the above is not MY non-theistic definition but a definition based on common public knowledge.

Nope, I did not claim non-Christians are better authorities to define who is a believer of a religion.
What I have done is to base the definition on common public knowledge on a rational critical thinking epistemological basis.

Note there is the Philosophy of Science that make philosophical sense [higher order knowledge] which many actual scientists don’t give a damn about. If non-scientist philosophers can have a rational and critical view of Science, why not philosophical view of who is a believer [Christian in this case].

The above definition of who is a Christian or a believer of any religion has tremendous implication for the future well being of humanity.

If the intrinsic definition of who is a theistic believer is one who had surrendered his Will to God and will adhere to the words of God [holy texts] delivered to a prophet/messenger,
then certain acts [religious based] of a believer are caused by the messages in the holy texts from God.

According to this principle, we can also determine whether certain negative and evil acts by believers are linked to the holy texts or not.

This is why I have been arguing the VERY terrible evil acts committed by “Christians” and “Buddhists” around the world cannot be due to the religion per se because their holy texts do not promote those violent and evil acts.

On the other hand, the VERY terrible acts committed by SOME [a very significant quantum] Muslims are influenced, inspired and compelled direct by the loads of evil laden verses from the Quran.

Therefore to prevent terrible evil religious based acts from SOME Muslims, the most effective approach would be to do something to the loads of evil laden verses or simply wean off Islam and replace it with benign spiritual practices for Muslims.

As such a formal definition of who is a believer [Christian, etc.] is very critical for the future of humanity.

If like you who do not bother to strive for a formal definition of who is a believer, you will be complicit in promoting vagueness and letting Islam and SOME evil prone Muslims continue to commit terrible evil and violent acts on non-Muslims around the world.

As I presented many times,
I did not state baptism [water or no-water] is the ONLY requirement to be a Christian. There are two critical criteria to qualify one as a Christian, i.e.

  1. I highlighted 98% of Christians are initiated via the water-baptism process while the other 2% are by no-water baptism and other formal processes.

  2. I asserted the baptism and other formal processes must explicitly or implicitly include the surrendering to God and complying with the Gospels in the NT.

What is critical here is the surrendering one’s will to God and the intent to comply with the Gospels within the NT.
How they interpret the Gospel is not primary but secondary.
Note the Catholics interpret the Gospels differently from the various Protestant denomination but both groups are Christians without doubts.

The above objective definition is sufficient for our human purpose to determine who is a Christian for various purposes.

Whether the individual qualified Christian as determined by the above criteria actually commit themselves to the words of God in the Gospel or not is not for humans to judge but for their accepted omniscient God to judge.

Nope “love your enemy” is not a criteria of defining who is a Christian.
Rather “love your enemy” is an official requirement of being a Christian as defined.

In this case, a person who actually hated and killed his enemy is still a Christian [by definition] except s/he who did not comply to such an official requirement [maxim] from the Gospel.

As such, such a non-compliant Christian will be punished by God on Judgment Day accordingly to the circumstances of the individual.

True all believers of theistic religions who had surrendered their Will to God are actually robots or zombies to ensure a passage to heaven with eternal life.

This is why it is important what sort of software programs [holy texts] are embedded into them as believers.

I am arguing the Gospels of Christianity are not as malignant [20%] as the Quran’s 95% malignancy.
This is why it is critical to link the definition of a theistic believer to his surrendering to God and the holy texts he had agreed to abide to.

Cops? = strawman.
The acts of the cops [if Christians] has nothing to do with the Gospels, they commit the evil as being humans rather than being officially as Christians per se.

You are making the wrong comparisons. Your critical thinking and analytical skills are lacking in this case.

To compare religions you need to compare their essence, i.e. the relevant holy texts, i.e. the Gospels with the Quran.

In the above case your Muslim friend happened to be a better human being than most other human being friends [you’ve known] who happened to be Christians.
What if your Muslim friend happened to be Osama-Bin-Laden, and your other friends are Mother Theresa and other goody Christians.

This is a serious point.
The question is did they kill in Jesus name?

Islam and the Quran are a feast for psychopaths who can divert their hobby of evil in God’s name.

In most cases, Muslims only discover the killing commands after being influenced by the expert clergies [imam] or they read the Quran themselves.
With eternal life or Hell at stake many Muslims will take up the offer to kill [within vague conditions] non-Muslims to gain the highest certainty and assurance of a guaranteed direct passage to heaven.

This is why it is critical to establish an objective definition of who is a believer [Christian or otherwise] and track their acts [good or evil] to the essence [holy texts] of the respective religions.

You missed my point.

As stated,
There is a Philosophy of Science [ a higher order knowledge] by various philosophers who are not scientists. Most practicing scientists don’t give a damn with Philosophy of Science.
Scientists who are very serious with knowledge will often refer to Philosophy of Science and other philosophical subjects. Note Quantum Physics is heavily philosophical based.

Similarly we can have a Philosophy of Religion [e.g. epistemological definition of who is a believer].
What I am doing here is related to the Philosophy of Religions. I believe the justifications I have provided re Who is a Christian or theistic believer is very rational. Do you dispute them within a philosophical perspective?

I am not insisting ALL Christians Must engage in Philosophy.
I am certain Christians would be better human beings if they were to engage in Philosophy-proper.

I didn’t say you did. I said if baptist is the only requirement, then you have populated your set.

And no one can agree what the NT means.
And christians (especially protestants) do not believe in keeping the law; salvation is ONLY a function of faith.

Paul said to the Corinthians that “all things are lawful” because the law is irrelevant. Furthermore, if the law were relevant, then Christ died in vain. If all one needed to do was keep a set of commands, then Christ was sacrificed for no reason. That’s Paul’s argument and he wrote most of the NT.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNT6Q0MkkmI[/youtube]

No, one can’t be punished and saved at the same time. There is no christian who will be punished on judgement day according to any protestant denomination. Catholicism may believe in purgatory, but that’s the extent of the punishment and they’re the only ones who believe that.

That is simultaneously funny and sad.

Cops and Christians are both authoritarians: people who unwaveringly obey authority.

You may find this interesting en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-win … itarianism

It’s a mindset: are you going to unquestionably obey orders or are you going to first decide if the order is sensible? Some people pride themselves on being an obedient tool.

You know more about the Quran and I know more about the bible, so we’re in the same boat, but on opposite ends.

Then my impression would have been different, but at the time there was a muslim scare since 9/11 just happened and I was surprised that he was so gentle and considerate in light of the stereotyping.

I answered it. How did you miss it?

I guess so, but my point is every time the religious right gets their president in power, lots of people die in wars, much more than any rogue muslim could kill.

Nixon was a christian, and quite the fundamentalist quaker variety, who started a drug war to silence protesters of the vietnam war where christians were killing communists, and they felt justified in killing the atheist commies.

As a matter of fact, it just occurred to me that Cassius Clay, better known as Muhammad Ali, protested the Vietnam war.

In 1966, Ali refused to be drafted into the military, citing his religious beliefs and opposition to the Vietnam War.[6][7] He was arrested, found guilty of draft evasion, and stripped of his boxing titles. He successfully appealed the decision to the Supreme Court which overturned his conviction in 1971, but he had not fought for nearly four years and lost a period of peak performance as an athlete. His actions as a conscientious objector to the war made him an icon for the larger counterculture generation,[8][9] and he was a high-profile figure of racial pride for African Americans during the civil rights movement.[6][10] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali

It’s even worse if it’s just one of the requirements. That position is even harder to defend, especially as an outsider who cannot appeal any religious authority.

Other can at least not be hypocritical if they do. You however can not.