Who is a Christian?

[Prismatic567]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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". https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03- ... -marijuana

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.

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?

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.

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.

Christians [as human beings] had killed millions but has any of these killers ever justify their killing to Jesus Christ words in the Gospels?

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

Had they shouted Jesus-u-Akbar before they kill?

lol

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

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.

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

.

Now, from a rational, critical thinking and philosophical perspective, the objective definition of 'who is a Christian' has to fall back on the Gospels of the NT, i.e. as per the words and doctrines from God.

"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 approach it with an analytic intention is not religious.

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.

[Serendipper]

As I presented many times,
I did not state baptism [water or no-water] is the ONLY requirement to be a Christian.

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

What is critical here is the surrendering one's will to God and the intent to comply with the Gospels within the NT.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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". https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03- ... -marijuana

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.

That is simultaneously funny and sad.

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.

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

You may find this interesting https://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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Christians [as human beings] had killed millions but has any of these killers ever justify their killing to Jesus Christ words in the Gospels?

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

Had they shouted Jesus-u-Akbar before they kill?

lol

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

I answered it. How did you miss it?

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.

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.

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.

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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali

[Karpel Tunnel]

As I presented many times,
I did not state baptism [water or no-water] is the ONLY requirement to be a Christian.

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.

[Prismatic567]

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.

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.

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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

[Serendipper]

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.

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.

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."

The President of the USA has to be responsible to all of US citizens who are from various religious background.

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.

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

Naive.

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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali

Strawman!

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

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

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

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

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

[MagsJ]

Well.. what you've said and taking the holy sacraments, to boot, as everyone knows that the first step to being a born again Christian is to be baptised into it, and only then will you be accepted into the faith in the eyes of Our Lord.

Yes, "baptism", I missed this critical point.

Baptism is a Christian rite of admission and adoption,[1] almost invariably with the use of water, into Christianity.
-wiki

I presume "baptism" [not always using water] is the critical requirement to recognize someone as a Christian.
Are the any exception to this?

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.

What is critical is the implication of baptism and becoming a Christian that one has entered into a covenant [read contract] with God and surrendering one's will to God's will via the commands and teachings of Jesus Christ [i.e. the terms of the contract].

The terms of the contract has to be from God directly via Christ which mean essentially what is stipulated in the Gospels.

So the point is one cannot claim to be a Christian merely based on one's subjective feelings and dictates.

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.

[MagsJ]

as everyone knows that the first step to being a born again Christian is to be baptised into it, and only then will you be accepted into the faith in the eyes of Our Lord.

Yes, placing a small amount of water on a baby's forehead and making some specific sounds means the newborn won't burn in hellfire for eternity.

To paraphrase Jim Jefferies.

How could you not believe in such a noble religion, you monsters!

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.

Yes you believe the vast majority of babies worldwide who are not Christian will endure endless maximal pain forever because they weren't born in the right place to know the right book instead of theirs.

It's about showing allegiance.. think of it as the religious version of The Freemasons or the Illuminati.

Oh wait, you don't "have" to be Baptised, so what then? Keep retreating those goalposts from what the Bible explicitly says until it fits your own personal conscience, which you conveniently fit to God.
Yeah the stuff you don't like in the book doesn't match your personal conscience? Better attribute your own sense of morality to some book that you need to correct to fit your own sense of morality, because the book is the ultimate source of morality in the first place. What do you mean, "circular logic"?

That doesn't seem to be a problem.. if you have entered/been entered into the faith

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.

[Prismatic567]

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.

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.

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."

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.

The President of the USA has to be responsible to all of US citizens who are from various religious background.

Sure, so long as they're christian.

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

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.

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.

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

Naive.

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.

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

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

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.

[Prismatic567]

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.

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].

[Karpel Tunnel]

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

Pardon, I should have noted that.

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]

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.

[Serendipper]

You are still not thinking critically.

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.

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

"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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/war_powers

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

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. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/whe ... eclare-war

The President of the USA has to be responsible to all of US citizens who are from various religious background.

Sure, so long as they're christian.

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

constitution = toilet paper

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.

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.

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.

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

Naive.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

[Prismatic567]

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]

This is not based on any knowledge of the situation and even seems to lack some basic knowledge of current Islam.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Note Ali stated

I am dependent upon Allah as the final judge of those actions brought about by my own conscience.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... 244dd2e1a3

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

The President of the USA has to be responsible to all of US citizens who are from various religious background.

Sure, so long as they're christian.

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

constitution = toilet paper

Your "constitution =toilet paper" is just the same as a serial killer insisting he is beyond the constitution and the laws of the country and thus can do whatever he wanted, i.e. kill as many people as possible.

Such is beyond the necessary basic critical thinking and rationality required in this forum, thus no point for me to discuss such a foolish point.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The President of the USA has to be responsible to all of US citizens who are from various religious background.

Sure, so long as they're christian.

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

constitution = toilet paper

Your "constitution =toilet paper" is just the same as a serial killer insisting he is beyond the constitution and the laws of the country and thus can do whatever he wanted, i.e. kill as many people as possible.

Such is beyond the necessary basic critical thinking and rationality required in this forum, thus no point for me to discuss such a foolish point.

Except Serendipper is right.
Presidents accordingthe constitutions can only declare war via Congress. But since Kennedy they have done it and it is much more streamlined now.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidents-and-war-powers
Obama ordered the killing of suspected terrorists who were american citizens. They got no trials. That is against the constitution

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-doj-memo

Did you know that the president has his own army? Well, they have for a while...

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30033/10 ... ecret-army
And this army is active around the world.

Did you know that earlier in history when there was a disaster the federal government could only go into states when invited - for example after a hurricane? IOW they could then and only then, when invited, send in the national guard and other support.
Now through a presidential executive order, the federal government can decide that there is an immanent threat and send in FEMA and troops to states, without being invited. IOW they don't have to wait for a disaster and an invitation. They can say that there may be one coming and do this.
A core balance of power was changed via presidential executive order, executive orders become not a radical exception but a new way that legislattion is created by bypassing Congress.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/view ... ntext=jleg

I was actually happy to see Serendipper take a this position. Since I think, generally, it is worse than he does. In fact what the above shifts in power mean are that we have presidents who can make law, including specific acts that allow for the killing of us citizens without trial but firing weapons into countries we are not at war with; presidents have their own army that they can send wherever they want with black op budgets and without congressional oversight over what action are taken. And the federal government, that is the president can send troops into states without state permission any longer, and they do not even have to have a present disaster to justify it.

All of this should make people concerned, but since it is marginalized from the mainstream media, very few people know about it.

People are not aware of the private army, the shift in War Powers powers against the constitution, the new rights of the federal government in relatin to states and exectutive orders which give the presidents king like powers.

[Prismatic567]

The President of the USA has to be responsible to all of US citizens who are from various religious background.

Sure, so long as they're christian.

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

constitution = toilet paper

Your "constitution =toilet paper" is just the same as a serial killer insisting he is beyond the constitution and the laws of the country and thus can do whatever he wanted, i.e. kill as many people as possible.

Such is beyond the necessary basic critical thinking and rationality required in this forum, thus no point for me to discuss such a foolish point.

Except Serendipper is right.
Presidents accordingthe constitutions can only declare war via Congress. But since Kennedy they have done it and it is much more streamlined now.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidents-and-war-powers
Obama ordered the killing of suspected terrorists who were american citizens. They got no trials. That is against the constitution

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-doj-memo

Did you know that the president has his own army? Well, they have for a while...

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30033/10 ... ecret-army
And this army is active around the world.

Did you know that earlier in history when there was a disaster the federal government could only go into states when invited - for example after a hurricane? IOW they could then and only then, when invited, send in the national guard and other support.
Now through a presidential executive order, the federal government can decide that there is an immanent threat and send in FEMA and troops to states, without being invited. IOW they don't have to wait for a disaster and an invitation. They can say that there may be one coming and do this.
A core balance of power was changed via presidential executive order, executive orders become not a radical exception but a new way that legislattion is created by bypassing Congress.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/view ... ntext=jleg

I was actually happy to see Serendipper take a this position. Since I think, generally, it is worse than he does. In fact what the above shifts in power mean are that we have presidents who can make law, including specific acts that allow for the killing of us citizens without trial but firing weapons into countries we are not at war with; presidents have their own army that they can send wherever they want with black op budgets and without congressional oversight over what action are taken. And the federal government, that is the president can send troops into states without state permission any longer, and they do not even have to have a present disaster to justify it.

All of this should make people concerned, but since it is marginalized from the mainstream media, very few people know about it.

People are not aware of the private army, the shift in War Powers powers against the constitution, the new rights of the federal government in relatin to states and exectutive orders which give the presidents king like powers.

You missed my major point, i.e. the terms of a contract or covenant within a group of people, i.e. the universal Principles of Contract Law.
Within any mutual agreement between two parties, individuals or groups there is a contract which could be explicit or implicit and included specific terms of the contract.

In this OP, for any one to be a Christian there is a contract or covenant between the Christian and his God via certain initiation processes. The terms of the contract or covenant between a Christian and his God is stipulated or implied within the Gospels.
Serendipper insisted there is no such contract which is intellectually irrational.

There are many examples of a contract between individuals or groups of people, but the critical point is the contract must be govern by a Constitution or agreed terms of the contract. Note the critical elements are the universal Principles of Contract Law.

To highlight the Principles of Contract Law [in this case a social contract], I gave an example, i.e. for anyone to be an American there is a contract agreed between the US Government and the person with terms stipulated in the US Constitution & its associated laws.

Serendipper insisting the US Constitution is 'toilet paper' indicate his ignorance of the Principle of Contract Law.

Note re your link:

The U.S. Constitution vests the president with “executive power” and provides that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy,” while it endows Congress with the power “To declare War.”
These provisions have given rise to two major questions about presidential war powers: first, what should be the president’s role in taking the country to war, and, second, what are the president’s powers to direct its conduct.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidents-and-war-powers

First the above recognize the existence of the terms of a contract, i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidents-and-war-powers
Obama ordered the killing of suspected terrorists who were american citizens. They got no trials. That is against the constitution

Regardless of what Obama did which is contentious, your point confirmed my intention, i.e. the existence of the US Constitution as a term of the contract.

If what Obama did was seriously against the US Constitution, he would have been charged in court, but he was not, thus no case against him from the legal standpoint. The way out is to revise the terms and make them more precise to avoid ambiguity.

Note Main Point;
For any one to be a Christian there is a contract or covenant between the Christian and his God via certain initiation processes.
The terms of the contract or covenant between a Christian and his God is stipulated or implied within the Gospels.

The US Constitution is a side point to support the Principles of Contract Law as the essential terms in any agreed contract.
It is intellectually irrational to insist the US Constitution [as terms of a contract] is "toilet paper". If it is true there would be total anarchy in that plot of land between Canada and Mexico.

Ultimate Point;
A Muslim or Islamist is one who has entered into a covenant [contract] with Allah with its terms stipulated in the Quran.
All evil and violent acts by evil Islamists are traceable to the terms of contract of being a Muslim, i.e. terms stipulated in the Quran - words of Allah.
Therefore to prevent all terrible evil and violent acts by Islamists, humanity must direct focus on the terms within the Quran that compelled Muslims to commit certain acts [as a divine duty] which result in terrible evil and violent acts on non-Muslims.

[MagsJ]

Ring The Vatican and ask them if to be considered Christian you need to be baptised.

To get into the local Roman Catholic primary school where my siblings and I were enrolled in, the main criteria was being baptised, by a direct decree from The Vatican.. I suggest you all send them an email, and let them know your concerns on the matter of what does and does not qualify a person to be a Christian in their eyes.. I am sure they will be very eager to answer your query, as I am sure they get such queries often.. heck, they may even have a line to take on it.

Sure.. anyone can call themselves a Christian though.

[MagsJ]

Actually.. someone should email The Vatican, and see what their reply is. That would be jokes.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Ring The Vatican and ask them if to be considered Christian you need to be baptised.

To get into the local Roman Catholic primary school where my siblings and I were enrolled in, the main criteria was being baptised, by a direct decree from The Vatican.. I suggest you all send them an email, and let them know your concerns on the matter of what does and does not qualify a person to be a Christian in their eyes.. I am sure they will be very eager to answer your query, as I am sure they get such queries often.. heck, they may even have a line to take on it.

Sure.. anyone can call themselves a Christian though.

I get that this was aimed at humor, but is the Vatican the expert on what a Christian is? How does one who is not a Christian decide who is THE authority? What if Martin Luther was right?

[MagsJ]

Ring The Vatican and ask them if to be considered Christian you need to be baptised.

To get into the local Roman Catholic primary school where my siblings and I were enrolled in, the main criteria was being baptised, by a direct decree from The Vatican.. I suggest you all send them an email, and let them know your concerns on the matter of what does and does not qualify a person to be a Christian in their eyes.. I am sure they will be very eager to answer your query, as I am sure they get such queries often.. heck, they may even have a line to take on it.

Sure.. anyone can call themselves a Christian though.

I get that this was aimed at humor, but is the Vatican the expert on what a Christian is?

It was serious humour.. if we want to know something, we ask.. and it would be interesting to see what their reply would be. I would say that it's not so much being on expert on, than being an authority in.. how that authority came about is another matter.

How does one who is not a Christian decide who is THE authority?

The church or organisation they patronise should guide them, and advise them on the steps they need to take.. the steps advised by those who are THE authority on the religion.

What if Martin Luther was right?

..about what?

[Prismatic567]

Ring The Vatican and ask them if to be considered Christian you need to be baptised.

To get into the local Roman Catholic primary school where my siblings and I were enrolled in, the main criteria was being baptised, by a direct decree from The Vatican.. I suggest you all send them an email, and let them know your concerns on the matter of what does and does not qualify a person to be a Christian in their eyes.. I am sure they will be very eager to answer your query, as I am sure they get such queries often.. heck, they may even have a line to take on it.

Sure.. anyone can call themselves a Christian though.

I get that this was aimed at humor, but is the Vatican the expert on what a Christian is?

It was serious humour.. if we want to know something, we ask.. and it would be interesting to see what their reply would be. I would say that it's not so much being on expert on, than being an authority in.. how that authority came about is another matter.

How does one who is not a Christian decide who is THE authority?

The church or organisation they patronise should guide them, and advise them on the steps they need to take.. the steps advised by those who are THE authority on the religion.

What if Martin Luther was right?

..about what?

I agree.

Here are some 2018 figures of the number of Christians by denominations;

1. Catholic Church 1,285,000,000
2 Protestantism 920,000,000
3 Anglicanism 85,000,000
4 Eastern Orthodox Church 270,000,000
5 Oriental Orthodoxy 86,000,000
6 Restorationism and Nontrinitarianism 35,000,000
7 Independent Catholicism 18,000,000
8 Minor Branches 1,000,000

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/chr ... mbers.html

You highlighted 'baptism' is one representation of 'Who is a Christian.'
Per my early listing on 'Baptism', it would appear the majority from 1-7 recognize baptism as a form of a definition of a Christian.

Baptism is an external recognition of 'Who is a Christian' but not a certainty because any one can pretend to be baptized. But I believe fakes and pretenders would be very rare.

In general, when one is baptized it is implied* the Christian has entered into a covenant [contract] and had surrendered his/her WILL to God and thus to obey essentially the teachings of Christ within the Gospels and other requirements of the specific Christian organization.

*I stated 'implied' because it is very difficult to confirm what is the internal intention of any person even when one has explicitly declared such a surrender and will obey.
However I believe the majority of Christians are likely to be genuine.

Point:
Therefore 'Who is a Christian' is a defined above.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It was serious humour.. if we want to know something, we ask.. and it would be interesting to see what their reply would be. I would say that it's not so much being on expert on, than being an authority in.. how that authority came about is another matter.

Sure, but you suggested asking the Vatican. Why not a Baptist preacher? Why not someone who identifies as Christian but does not like organized religion? A quaker? If you are a Catholic, well, this suggestoin might make sense. But in a context where we are talking about atheists thinking they can decide who are Christians or not, I can't see how taklkng to the Pope helps. I mean how would an atheist know the Pope is right and others who call themselves Chrisitans are wrong?


How did you decide that the Vatican is THE expert? And on what grounds do you rule out other experts?

How does one who is not a Christian decide who is THE authority?

The church or organisation they patronise should guide them, and advise them on the steps they need to take.. the steps advised by those who are THE authority on the religion.

People who are not Christian tend nto to have churches or organizations that are authorities on the subject.

What if Martin Luther was right?

..about what?[/quote]That the Catholic Church was a mess. Why if the people who split off from Protestantism are the real Christians? Or the people who slit off from the people who split off? On whose authority does the atheist decide?

[A Shieldmaiden]

The Jew proves the authenticity of the Bible. It was written by Jews and is a Jewish book.

On reflection there are no people in the world that are more persecuted or more protected than Jews. They are the most persecuted, protected and most cursed all in one. They go all the way back to days of Abraham, who is considered to be the starting point of the Jewish nation. There is no other people in the world that have been so scattered and yet remain distinct with their own culture, language, writing, customs religion and now they have another land called Israel again. The ancient Egyptians don't exist anymore, the people in Egypt today are not the ones who built the pyramids. Babylon, gone. The Persians, it's now Iran and Iraq. The ancient Persian language, customs and culture gone. The Greeks, are not a world empire anymore and ancient Rome is pretty much in ruins. But the Jews. The Jews are still a nation. Amazing. When you think about how they are scattered around the world. Between 65 .A.D. and 135 A.D. the Romans killed approximately two million Jews. They were driven all over the Roman Empire, beaten everywhere they went and of course there was the holocaust during World War ll. So much persecution and yet they survive.

[A Shieldmaiden]

Prismatic567wrote:

Note the Catholics interpret the Gospels differently from the various Protestant denomination but both groups are Christians without doubts.

Today, Protestantism as a whole is dead and is no longer what it used to be. There was a time when they believed that God created the earth in six literal days, but many have adopted the theory of evolution like Rome and many have rejected the Flood and Creation accounts of Genesis.

Catholicism is so far removed from Christianity.

For people who classify themselves as Christians..... these people can be divided into two broad groups. The first are those who allow the Scriptures to be their final authority and then there are those who choose to allow men to be their final authority. This group has always been represented by Roman Catholicism, which is by far the largest, most powerful and influential group. The Roman Catholic has always stated that they do not depend upon Scripture exclusively and they include traditions as other truths and if conflict arises between the two, tradition receives precedence over all and also Catholicism seeks her power in the political sphere as well as the religious realm. This Church accepts no authority as being higher than itself, thus this explains why there is antagonism between Scripture believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism and as an aside, even though the Greek Orthodox Church is separate from Catholicism, many of its practices are similar, such as the veneration of saints. Examples of unbiblical doctrines established and “Christianized” by the Roman Catholic Church are indulgence, purgatory, confession to priests, infallibility of the Pope.

Many have felt the wrath of Rome, Jews, Moslems and others, but, her special fury has always been reserved for her most effective challengers....

Bible believing Christians.