Who is a Christian?

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.

You are not thinking critically here.

First you must separate the person from his personal ideology [if any].

The President of the USA has to rule by the US Constitution and its laws.
The President of the USA has to be responsible to all of US citizens who are from various religious background.

Therefore the President of the USA cannot rule by the Bible or his personal ideology.

Strawman!

If Muhammad_Ali is alive to day, he would likely support the Islamic State and its evil acts.

Muhammad_Ali was sent to jail based on the Constitution and Laws of the USA not the Bible.

How could you possibly know that. There were plenty of Muslims who fought against the Islamic state, despite having Islamic beliefs. Muslims put their lives on the line to fight IS. I am no fan of Islam, trust me. And it disappointed me that Ali went into Islam and also that particular wing of it, but I see nothing to indicate he would support IS. And given that many Muslims fought against IS, for a variety of different reasons - and even Islamic states fought against them - it seems to me you are just making stuff up.

It would be nice if that were true, but Bush Jr went to war without a congressional declaration, which caused a large uproar in the news at the time. No one cares now that the precedent has been set (which actually started with Jefferson’s land-grab and Navy build-up, which he didn’t have constitutional power to do, but as author of the constitution, perhaps he had some justification, at least more than Bush, 200 years later.) and presidents are free to bomb brown people to their weaselly little hearts are content without congress saying boo about it. Presidents have little regard for the constitution and, now that I think about it, are better described as temporary kings. If congress really really really really objects, maybe they might be able to interfere somehow, but congress has essentially given all its power away in the name of laziness: “That’s the executive’s job; don’t bug me. That’s the court’s job; don’t bug me. I’m trying to play golf here. I only exist to vote to raise my own salary and inconvenience constituents with hare-brained legislation that doesn’t apply to me.”

Sure, so long as they’re christian.

This hit the news today: Trump Slams Newsom For Plan To Halt California Death Penalty

Oh the horror: no more killing people! We can’t have that! And all the Trumptards, just before church at 7 pm tonight, are rallying to support Trump’s call to kill people. Why? Because they deserve it. The Trumptards forgot about Jesus saying let the one without sin cast the first stone, nor would they care even if their vacuous craniums contained anything more than a throbbing and inflamed amygdala.

Naive.

It wasn’t an argument, just something that occurred to me.

I have no idea, but that doesn’t seem right.

Laws were used as a tool by christians to attempt to conscript Ali into killing commies.

No! In conversations with born again Christians, they always state that they best go get baptised… if they want to be recognised as a Christian… otherwise they are just playing at being one.

Well that is the starting point, but to get to the end game, the contract has to be entered into via Baptism… so those subjective feelings and dictates have to be acted upon, in the form of/through the sacrament of Baptism, in order to be classified as Christian in the eyes of the religion.

In order to be classified as a Christian, in the eyes of the religion, the sacrament of Baptism has to be entered into… nothing to do with burning in hell otherwise, but to show commitment to the faith/where allegiance lies.

It’s about showing allegiance… think of it as the religious version of The Freemasons or the Illuminati. :laughing:

That doesn’t seem to be a problem… if you have entered/been entered into the faith :wink:

Sure… anyone is free to read the bible and interpret it however they want, but when read through the eyes of a recognised Christian, the true meaning materialises… through intent.

You are still not thinking critically.

A US President can say what he likes on a personal basis, but it is always the Constitution and Law that prevails ultimately.

Nope.
Where in the US Constitution is this point stated?

This is where any Christian would have defy the maxim ‘Do not kill’ and ‘love your enemies’. In this case it is up to their God to judge them in accordance to the terms of the covenant.

You thinking is too shallow here.
Note the very strong resistance Trump gets on his Mexican Wall. This is proof a President cannot get what he personally or his followers wish for unless approved by the Government via congress and the senate.

Again, your thinking here is shallow.

Christians - Gospels in Bible. There is no reference to the authority of the Gospels in the US constitution.
If so, show the reference.

Note I stated an opinion i.e. “would likely” not SURELY or CERTAINLY.

In any case, a Muslim is obligated to support his fellow Muslims in any fight against non-Muslims who are a threat to Islam and fighting for any cause for Islam.
IS is fighting for a cause of Islam, thus Ali as a Muslims in theory has to support the IS.

Note many Muslims do not support IS, but that is because they are being more human than being more Islamic [theoretically].

Pardon, I should have noted that.

This is not based on any knowledge of the situation and even seems to lack some basic knowledge of current Islam. First just because one group of muslims says they represent Islam or the true Islam does not mean that all Muslims must agree to that. Second, IS is fighting Muslims and have been extremely violent against other Muslims, including non-combatants and prisoners who are Muslims. So obviously any muslim, especially those who IS has decided to kill or rape need not support them. Third, it is very odd that you think you know the mind of a man no longer alive and what he would ‘likely’ do. Presumably mind reading is not a skill you think you have. To say ‘likely’ while not saying you are certain implies you have some sort of knowledge of him and his priorities, which you clearly do not. Fourth, often Muslims are drawn into battles along sectarian lines. So, again, there is no need to assume or consider likely that any given Muslim would feel obligated to take up the IS banner. Fifth whole Islamic regimes, like Iran, took up the fight against IS. For all sorts of reasons - some having nothing to do with being more human than other Muslims that went on the side of IS.

Now Muhammed Ali is dead and I doubt his family will ever hear your strange psychic claim, but it is still making up negative stuff about another person based on next to nothing. He never went to war for Muslims while he was alive, and there were opportunities to get into struggles at that time. For example he didn’t rush off to join the Arab Israeli war.

And since he is known for refusing to fight, it is even odder to assume he would have now. And yes, I realize he refused to fight in a war that was not with muslims on one side, there is still no reason to treat him as likely to go off to war, when the indications are precisely the opposite, if anything.

This is, of course, a tangential issue in the thread. But it fits a pattern that this thread is a pattern of. I often find you making statements that do not seem supported or cannot be supported.

You should lookup the word “naive” and study it hard.

Naivety (or naïvety or naïveté) is the state of being naïve, that is to say, having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication, often in a context where one neglects pragmatism in favor of moral idealism.

You think the presidents and christians faithfully adhere to the rule of law instead of doing anything they want. Not only is that naive and unrealistic, but impossible.

“Constitution” is a fancy way of spelling presidential toilet paper.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. These provisions require cooperation between the President and Congress regarding military affairs, with Congress funding or declaring the operation and the President directing it. Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Afghanistan War of 2001 and the Iraq War of 2002. law.cornell.edu/wex/war_powers

The last time the congress declared war was 1942. Obviously there have been no wars since then, right? :icon-rolleyes:

Btw, I like this comment:

if they haven’t declared war since 1942, they have had zero veterans of wars since 1945. “Soldiers” operating on foreign soil, without being invited in to the country, in the name of a foreign govt or group for their motives are called terrorists not american war veterans. constitutioncenter.org/blog/whe … eclare-war

constitution = toilet paper

Naive. Christians don’t do that. If every christian disappeared off earth (maybe the rapture) the death penalty would cease to exist and all wars would immediately stop.

The wall just happens to be a big point of contention and is too public. If Trump wanted to drop a bomb on your head right now, nothing could stop him.

The law is not christian. The christians used the law… as a tool… to force Ali… to go kill commies… in a war that was unconstitutional.

And on top of that, a new law was created to silence those who protested the unconstitutional war, it’s called the drug war, which christians support!

Note no human in the world can judge ‘What is Islam’.
According to Islam as in the Quran, Allah is the only authority to decide ‘What is Islam’.
Allah’s definition of ‘What is Islam and Who is a Muslim’ is stated in the Quran.

Therefore we have to refer to the Quran to determine from Allah’s words ‘What is Islam and Who is a Muslim.’
I have spent 3 years full time reading and researching the Quran and Islam.
Thus I am in the position to quote Allah’s words to support my points.
You? I don’t think you are qualified to state much about Islam.

Muslims’ agreement don’t count.
What count are the references directly from the Quran.

I am well acquainted with Allah’s definition of ‘What is Islam and Who is a Muslim’ and I can bring all the necessary and relevant quotes to support my point. It is a long lists so I will not produce it at this moment.

The Muslims that IS killed are supposedly hypocrites or deemed apostates in accordance to the Quran.
IS may have killed some innocent Muslims which is incidental as a part of the war against enemies of Islam.

It is regrettable that the Muslims of IS are more in compliance with the words of Allah in the Quran. This is very objective since reference can be made to the Quran. That is the problem with Islam per se that humanity need to recognize and deal with.
As I had stated, the Muslims that IS killed are being more human than being more Islamic per the Quran.

It is not a question whether which Muslims support which Muslims. The definition of ‘What is Islam and Who is a Muslim’ is objectively defined by the words of Allah in the perfect Quran delivered directly from Allah to Muhammad.

Note Ali stated

Ali as a Muslim has to obey the words of Allah to the ‘t’ which include going to war against those [Muslims and non-Muslims] who are a threat to the religion of Islam. Ali was willing to sacrifice his career for his beliefs. This is why I stated ‘Ali is LIKELY to support any war by Islam against non-Muslims.’

Another point is Allah permit a Muslim to lie for the good of Islam. Thus a Muslim will likely to lie if the truth of his conviction [supporting war against non-Muslims] is not in his favor.

Note the Sunni Muslims [90% e.g Saudi ] deemed the Iranian Shia Muslims [7%?] as heretics, thus deserved to be killed if need to.

All Muslims are striving for an Islamic State which may not be necessary in exact form like current defeated ISIS format but the core principles are the same, i.e. strive for dominance and kill enemies if necessary under very flimsy conditions of a threat to the religion [e.g. drawing of cartoons, etc.]

The Arab Israeli War was not an Islam versus Jews war.

I had supported my opinion with reasonable facts;

Note I stated theoretically,

  1. as a Muslim - the need to obey Allah as in the Quran and
  2. with his show of defiance and
  3. willingness to sacrifice such a career like his,
    Ali was LIKELY to support any Islamic War against non-Muslims and would have gone to war given the right conditions.

Note, two verses [READ THEM CAREFULLY] among the many 1000s related that support my points;

9:111. Lo! Allah hath bought [ish’tarā; purchased] from the believers [Muslims] their lives [anfusahum; nafs] and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs they [Muslims] shall fight in the way [sabil] of Allah and shall slay and be slain.
It is a promise which is binding on Him [Muslim] in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an.
Who fulfilleth His covenant [3HD: biʿahdihi; promise] better than Allah?
Rejoice then in your bargain [BY3: bibayʿikumu bāyaʿtum] that ye [Muslims] have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

2:216. Warfare [l-qitālu] is ordained [kutiba: prescribed] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.