Who is a Christian?

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

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

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

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

Prismatic,

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

Follows from this:

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

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

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

That’s me done, cheers.

Prismatic,

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

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

[Read in full here]

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

[Read in full here]

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


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

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

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

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

How can you disagree with the above fundamentals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prismatic,

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

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

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

Prismatic,

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

Content deleted due to double post.

It’s not how he’s conducted the discussions. See the OP and the use of the word, for example, ‘must’ then also ‘objective’.

Calling Serendipper’s position crazy does not, to my mind down with what Betrand Russell says. It is the kind of speech utterly ruling out the position someone disagrees with.

An example of a response to an arguement of mine…

In response to you - who actually writes in the spirit of what Bertrand Russell said and get punished for it …

But I fear at best pointing this out will only get at they style. IOW Prismatic certainly could have posted more politely in response to arguments he disagreed with. But that is only one part of the problem. He determines what is objective, often with an appeal to an authority. Other people do not determine what is objective. One post I made with a variety of arguments he referred to as shallow - which seems very confused to me - because, it seems, I did not appeal to authorities. Which kind of misses the point of my criticism which was in part the relation of a non-theist, non-Christian to authorities, but also is part of a continual framing other people’s arguments as not appealing to authorities enough, with summations of his own positions as objective.

Fine, he doesn’t understand how idiosyncratic his ideas about objectivity are, nor does he address certain issues that are raised.

But the entire attitude is fundamentally that he is objective and would notice an argument that challenged his in some way. We have pointed out that this latter claim seems not to be the case. This has not affected him at all.

I would rather not create a more polite version of Prismatic, because the kinds of impolitenesses above actually serve as strong clues that this is someone who knows he is right in precisely the way Betrand Russell is saying is not a good idea.

One extra irony is that my position is that I don’t think I can determine who is a Christian objectively so I decide to accept other people’s self assessment. IOW I think my position is more in line with the implicit humility in BR’s idea. I am saying that since I cannot determine, given the epistemological limitations I have, I will tend to accept other people’s self-assessments. You, Fanman, also seem more flexible and have a practical and not fixed position. Serendipper was much certain, I think, as Prismatic, not that this makes his position crazy, but we approached the issue from positions that were more cautious about what one can know around this issue, especially as non-Christians. The details of that criticism – him not being Christian - never seem to be understood by Prismatic, but to find now this Bertrand Russell quote presented to you as somehow reflecting his approach is actually galling.

But also funny.

So far there only 3 you, KT and Serendipper who disagreed with me in here. The low number is one weak point to support your view but what is more critical is whether you and others have provided justified and sound steady arguments, i.e.

Serendipper’s = anyone can claim to be a Christian based on declaration.

You = covenant is an element but prefer a wider definition of who is a Christian.

KT = if not a Christian, then no authority to define a Christian.

Meanwhile I have provided an epistemological, rational, objective and philosophical based definition which should carry weight in this specific philosophy forum. Note, “In Rome, Do What the Romans Do”

Note Russell’s quote imply one had already dug deep until there is no answers in sight but yet we should not claim the current one is the definite and final answers.

Relative to most serious philosophical work, your view is obvious very shallow and narrow.
In my case, I had obviously dug deep into the issue.
Instead of focusing on the form of ‘who is a Christian’ or resigning the definition to Christian only, I dug deep into the essence, i.e. the covenant which can be extracted from the Bible and the universal principle laws of contract [agreement, relationships, covenant].
This is what I meant I had presented an argument that is objective which anyone can verify against, i.e. it is not my personal subjective opinions.

You should refute the points of my argument instead of simply insisting I or anyone who is not a Christian cannot define Who is a Christian.

I had mentioned there is a requirement to define who is a Christian in many perspectives, i.e. legal, political, social, cultural, religion, spirituality, philosophy, etc. and the only reliable definition is an epistemological and objective definition.

Btw, I have not stated it yet but we can [in the future] even use Science to assist/support in defining who is a Christian. This can be done by relating the activities of the brain when reading Biblical verses or Christian related images, i.e. isolating the brain activities to what is supposedly only a Christian would react in the brain.
Currently, based on crude brain images, neuroscientists are able to correlate them to who is a spiritual person.

As you will note, I have the strong proclivity and drive to dig deep, thus I have the sensitivity to note who is groping in the shallows.

Karpel Tunnel,

I agree. I was quite surprised when Prismatic quoted Russell as a reference to how he conducts himself, given the disparity between that quote and what he’s actually written here and in other topics. Indeed when people such as you or I adopt the approach that Russell advocated, he shuts them down using terms such as; “ignorant”, “shallow”, “subjective”, “wrong”, “crazy” etc., in relation to what we’re arguing. I don’t believe that Russell advocated that kind of philosophy.

I don’t understand why he refers to what you say as being “shallow”. When you’ve explored the issues surrounding this topic in depth. He doesn’t have to agree with you, me or Serendipper, but for some reason he arbitrarily decides that our posts are IOW (or in exactly those words) not good enough, as opposed to his, which are sound, and all of the other superlatives he uses to describe what he says.

Then he quotes Russell and says that’s what he conforms to, painting himself with glowing terms, as if his posts can’t be read. I don’t see how he’s surmised that after the way he’s treated peoples arguments.


Prismatic,

My point was specifically relating to some of your interlocutors deciding to withdraw from philosophical discussion with you, and that if you adopted the approach that Russell advocated, why would that be the case?

I quoted Russell’s i.e. philosophy do not go for definite answers but the questions.

I did not insist mine is an absolute definite answer, that is why I am waiting for counters to my argument.

Note Russell’s quote is leveraged upon sound philosophical arguments.
Your’s, KT’s and Serendipper’s as they are, are not sound arguments, how can I accept them.

If you agree the covenant is imperative in defining who is a Christian as the most rational and objective basis, but at the fringes there are 1 to 10% of so-claimed Christian who don’t give a damm with the requirement of a covenant, I can agree with that.
However those who do not accept the covenant are termed pseudo-Christians and not genuine Christians.

However KT and Serendipper’s argument are not sound.

With all due respect, Prismatic. I think that to continue philosophical discussion with you would be a waste of time. Or put in a way that you would understand, have more cons than pros. Ironically, as you said to me in another topic where I questioned you, I don’t think that you’re up to it. Which is of course going by what you’ve written - not my personal opinion of you, because I think you’re a clever person, albeit not as clever as you think.

Given the nature of your arguments and the fact that they can be read here and in other topics, your attempt to describe yourself as according to the Russell quote, seems quite ridiculous. I have no idea why you did that, but if your understanding leads you believe that your conduct is in accordance with the quote, then I don’t believe there is anything fruitful to be had in continued discussion. I will probably respond as you respond, I just can’t resist it. But as for anything topic related, I don’t really have anything else to say to you.

It is your discretion to participate or not.

I had modulated my ego long ago not to be bothered with being more clever or intelligent because such thoughts are detrimental to the self.

As I had stated, what is relevant is the currency in this philosophy forum is sound justified arguments and I will participate as long as they exist or needed.

Prismatic,

I’m not going to criticise you on a personal level, but this is not apparent, and does not come through in what you write, quite the opposite in fact. Its essentially the same as what you did with the Russell quote. You are aware that what you write provides clues about your character, right?

From your perspective maybe. From my perspective there is no “currency” here, and whether you agree or not intellectual ability is a key factor in producing sound arguments about complicated issues. So in my view (rightly or wrongly), the fact you claim that your arguments are sound and others arguments aren’t, means that indirectly, you’re claiming to be more intelligent or more accomplished than the interlocutors who disagree with you. Or to use your analogy, that the counter-arguments are without the required “currency”. So by your reasoning, if sound arguments are the “currency” here, then you’re a very rich man. Whilst those of us who disagree with you are without the “currency” needed in this forum, and thus poor, but that is clearly not the intellectual reality.

Now, you don’t have to accept that the counter-arguments are sound, but if you are going to claim that, then you have to show why they aren’t, which I don’t believe you have done (perhaps you could show an example?). There are issues that you haven’t dealt with, for example the criminal who died next to Jesus and was accepted into heaven. I don’t believe you can reconcile that point to meet your criteria, because it demonstrates biblically that a person does not have to comply with your criteria in order to be a Christian, and it is a moot point that only Christians can enter heaven (post the New Covenant). With these kind of inconsistencies (within the BIble), and the fact that the religion itself as a whole cannot decide decisively “who is a Christian” I don’t understand why you believe that you can, and QED no less.

If you have counter arguments then I will respond.

Basically the definition of ‘who is a Christian’ I introduced is valid because I had argued that is the fundamental and a basic definition.

In the case of the criminals, note Jesus stated,
Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.’

In this case, this is a last minute situation near death, as such there is no time for the criminals to consciously entered into terms as stated.
Being all-powerful and omniscient, knowing the fact of the ‘criminals’, God has made an exception in this case on last minute plea from Jesus.
According to the NT, this is two exceptions among the > 2 billion Christians.

Even then in this case, the covenant is implied, i.e. the criminals were not forced to go to heaven, at some point to Judgment Day they would have to agree with God’s offer to go to heaven, i.e. implying a covenant with God, thus a Christian.

What if the two criminals were to insist and yell to God and Jesus, “F… You we are atheists we don’t want to go to heaven.”

This has to be an exception because otherwise all criminals would be forgiven even though they have not claimed to be Christians and had not entered into a prior covenant with God.
Otherwise God would have seen to permit people to commit whatever they want, the worst up to genocides repeated and still are able to get to heaven.

If that is the case, there is no need for Jesus and God to deliver the John 3:16 verse.

Therefore my definition of who is a Christian with the imperativeness of covenant [implied or otherwise] still stands.