Fanman wrote:Prismatic,
In the case of the children of God on what basis can you tell them or any others they are not Christians if they claim to believe in Jesus Christ.
I don't tell people they are not Christians if they claim that they are, its not really my place to do so. With regards to the children of God, I think my view is explained in what I initially said.
There are two perspectives to the above.
Generally most theists will never accept the views there is no God and they will not change their mind, at least in the present.
On the other hand there is the philosophical-epistemological perspective which I am adhering to. In this case, the view I presented is objective to the epistemological perspective which most who are inclined to epistemology will likely to agree to the Justified True Belief which I had presented.
Note you have not argued successfully against my views on an objective basis. You merely disagree with it by your personal subjective feelings.
For me, I would explain to them or get consensus with others on the basis,
if the Children of god want to ensure salvation as promised by God they have to enter into a covenant [implied or otherwise] to comply with God covenanted terms.
The covenanted terms as conveyed via Jesus Christ is only in the Gospels [ no where else] as supported by the epistles, acts, and relevant verses from the OT.
The children of God can counter in whatever ways with me or others, but that is no way they can push their interpretations and argue with God - the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
As such, in principle, the children of God cannot be Christians if they had not entered into a covenant with God, or the covenant is void if the terms of the covenant include the offer of sex to those who convert [no such thing in the Gospels of Christ].
So by the authority of the Bible you would tell them the errors of their ways? A non-theist, why would they listen to you? You'd expect members of a cult to listen to what you think is reason?
As stated above, many who disagree with my views will not likely to agree with me, because they had relied on faith [i.e. no proof, logic, reason or justified arguments].
I am confident with my epistemological Justified argument, most reasonable Christians will agree with me. I don't see how my thesis of who is a Christian, i.e. believing in Christ, surrender to God via a covenant would be rejected by a genuine Christian.
Note so far MagJ, presumably a Christian has agreed with me [even though me a non-theist] I believed my arguments are well justified and grounded to the essence of what is genuine Christianity.
It is not MY criteria and personal views.
I inferred that from God's words and the universal principle of the Laws of Contract.
God expect a Christian to believe in Jesus Christ and therefrom enter into a covenant with God based on the covenanted terms in the Gospels.
So why are you defending it? You formulated your argument re: Who is a Christian, into a set of specific criteria, supported them with Wiki, and have propounded that they constitute a QED argument. You therefore, in context, fully agree with the criteria and that they are sound. But, now you're claiming that the criteria aren't yours and don't represent your personal views? You are not a theist, but they
are your views on what constitutes a Christian. I don't understand why you would say they aren't?
If I state the fruit [below] on the table is an apple, that would not be a view that is novel from me. In that sense, it is not
MY [earlier I put that is CAP] view but rather a common and conventional knowledge.

My point re the above is an apple is not
MY view is the same with me saying the objective definition of who is a Christian is not
MY view. Rather it is a common philosophical-epistemological view.
In contrast I would claim the argument 'God is an Impossibility to be Real' in that thread I raised is MY own personal deduced argument.
As I had stated a Christian must believe in Jesus Christ as son of God and intermediary of God.
John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
This is common knowledge. Does this mean the rest of your inferred criteria aren't necessary? The quote from the Bible seems to dictate that only belief in Jesus is necessary.
I have been arguing the concept of believing in Jesus Christ implied a covenant with the Christian God as reflected in the Principles of the Law of Contract. This is why I doubted you re Principles of Contract. If you are well verse or is a lawyer you will definitely agree with me on that without doubt.
The belief in Christ implied entering into a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels.
In addition, believing in Christ is only the initiation process and one has to obey God's command to one's best ability to merit the salvation that is promised in the covenant [contract].
You need to prove that explicitly, which I don't believe you can. Why should we believe/accept what you say, when the authority doesn't say that?
If I am not mistaken you confirm you agree with the covenant but not seriously though.
I have read many articles by Christian on this point and they agree with the concept of the covenant.
Show me one main authority of Christianity who disagree with the covenant?
Why?? Because the Principles of the Law of Contract [covenant] state so!
Theology is based on faith [no proof and no reason], thus how can theology be credible as a Justified True Belief.
In this context, I think that theology is adequate to defend Christianity, apologetics makes the case for Christ/Christians. Applying strict philosophical-epistemological arguments is difficult when debating something that is related to faith. You don't believe that Christianity is a justified-true-belief, so how can you argue those grounds on the issues surrounding it? As I stated, I think it would be difficult.
Yes, I do not agree God exists is Justified True Belief [JTB].
I do not believe Santa exists to a young child is JTB, but that fathers/actors disguising and pretending to Santa during Christmas time is JTB.
Btw, have you met a genuine Christian who would disagree with my views re Christian as believe in Christ, surrender to God, enter into a covenant with God. At least I have a Christian [MagJ agreeing with me] and I believe all sincerely Christians will agree with me.
You have any Christian supporter on your view, i.e. covenant is not critical, not implied and not important.
On the basis of whether the above is Justified True Belief re the philosophical-epistemological perspective.
If you insist your views is true, prove it is justified and rational?
What? You made the claim about the openness of my view... Regardless, what are you saying I have to prove is “justified and rational”? My view that belief in Jesus constitutes a Christian?
You are not thinking deep enough into the essence of who is a Christian.
Belief in Jesus [John 3:16, etc.] as I had argued implied a surrender and entering into a covenant with God.
If you want to do a house renovation, it is useless in believing the contractor can do a good job. What is effective is the initiation of the relevant contract and the agreed terms between both parties with you as the 'offeree' and the contractor the 'offeror'.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.