Who is a Christian?

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.

Prismatic,

Or in other words a definite answer… :icon-rolleyes:

You didn’t mention this part:

Which I don’t believe you can reconcile with this (your argument/criteria):

The criminal did not fulfil anything stated in your list of criteria.

That’s not what the Bible says, and I don’t see how you can argue for God, interpret precisely what he does, or know how and why he chooses to do what he does. Also, it is strange that a non-theist would try to interpret God and with added precision, in order to justify a position. How do you know this case is an exception, because of the criteria of your argument, surely not? The case of the criminal supports the view that only faith is necessary to enter heaven. Can you provide a reason why I should not take this kind of case (with the criminal) as a rule? The NT doesn’t specify “who is a Christian”, I thought we had established that? Go on, put your theologian hat on again.

I don’t see how the covenant is implied in this case. The new covenant allows people to enter heaven, but in this case, what was said that between Jesus and the criminal which makes you believe that? Jesus promised heaven to the criminal, he didn’t say that the criminal would have to perform anything as your criteria does, as someone would do with a contract/agreement. I can’t believe that you’re actually applying this criteria that you formulated/extrapolated. Where did you get this idea re: Judgement Day from, isn’t this something of your own making? I haven’t heard of anything like that being stated in the Bible?

An exception to what rule, your criteria? If the Christian God exists, we cannot know precisely who he will forgive.

The Bible is inconsistent. It says anyone who believes in Jesus can have everlasting life, trying to rationalise that into categories is problematic, creating an argument that holistically defines a Christian is almost impossible IMV, when there are such inconsistencies with the authority. The other choice is to refer to what Christian authorities say, but if you ask across denominations, you are going to find very different answers.

To you maybe, but I do not believe that you have shown that by what you argue above, you’ve actually shown how inconsistent, vague and difficult “who is a Christian” is to define. If you have to attempt to interpret God, you may as well be chasing the wind with an argument based upon that interpretation. This case of the penitent thief (as described in the Bible) shows that fulfilling your criteria is not necessary to enter heaven and therefore be a Christian. Even with our theologian hats on, we cannot know how many other cases there are where this type of situation has occurred, and God/Jesus has permitted people to enter heaven - we can only refer to the Bible for a reference.

I’m going to stop saying this “not responding” thing, let’s just see what happens #-o.

Prismatic,

If your definition/criteria were as you claim “fundamental and basic”, they would define “who is a Christian” in all cases, but I believe it has been adequately demonstrated that they don’t. Therefore, your argument is not sound on that basis. If you had argued that your criteria defines some Christians I wouldn’t necessarily agree, but I wouldn’t or perhaps couldn’t debate it either, because it does, I believe, possibly describe some Christians. You can reject the liberal view due to your personal bias towards a more conservative definition, but you cannot refute the idea that only faith is necessary to enter heaven, since faith is a or perhaps even the fundamental requirement for a Christian, and is shown, for example, in the case of the penitent thief or John 3:16.

  • More so than your idea of strict adherence to a covenant (which more describes the OT). With the new covenant, a person can stray from the words of God, sin and come back to God like the prodigal son, without any of the rituals that were necessary with the old covenant, whereas you believe that doing so would make the new covenant void (like breaching the terms in contract law), and if the person returns to God then the contract is restarted (which doesn’t seem right if God knows all, because he’d know the person is going to repent), but if a person has faith their perceived connection to God is never broken, because they believe, and according to John 3:16 they’d still be granted eternal life. No doubt you will appeal to extreme cases, but this is not just my opinion, I believe you’ll find it is supported by almost any Christian source you can appeal to. I don’t think you’ll find anything supporting the view that if a Christian sins, the covenant is void and then restarted if they repent, but I could be wrong.

The above is an exception and you cannot use this exception to deny the criteria I had listed on ‘who is a Christian’ is not valid.

Objectively we have to rely from testimony of Christ and the apostles as in the Gospels.
The point is, this case is an exception because there is only one time where Jesus was crucified on a cross along with two ‘criminals’.

To the Romans Jesus Christ is also a ‘criminal’ as with the other two ‘criminals’ albeit the crime and accusations may not be the same.
As I had argued this is an exception and even then I argued there is still an agreement, i.e. covenant [albeit not the same as the normal Christian] between God and the so-called ‘criminals’ before they are allowed to be enter heaven.

Note exceptions to any contracts are very common.
In general, e.g. in sports an athlete may have to go through the process to be eligible to enter into a contract with an organizer to be a participant.
However there are provisions of wild cards cases where athletes who did not qualify through the normal system are give exceptions to enter into a contract to participate in the last minute.
Some students may not qualify to be a student to enter [contract with] a university through normal channels. But there are always exceptions in special circumstances.

Thus the “criminals” who so happened to be along side Christ is the exception.

There is no way a all-wise God will allow such exception where criminals can go to heaven. If this is the general rule it will be a bad precedent and damage God’s integrity.

My argument is sound and rational.

The critical point is being who is a Christian is not confined to time on earth but applicable to eternity in heaven.

The case of the criminals are an exception only in form.
In substance, the criminals still have to agree with God basic expectations to enable them to enter heaven as Christians.
If they have entered heaven as Christians, then they must an implied agreement [covenant] with God.
They could not have agreed as atheists or idolaters to enter heaven.

The difference is only in form, i.e. due to the exceptional last minute circumstances, they did not enter into a covenant to surrender to God and comply with the covenanted terms as in the Gospels here in Earth.

Being a Christian is not limited to time on Earth but it is eternal thus they will have a covenant to comply with the covenanted terms in heaven.

Note there are many cases of people in a terminal situation who had entered into a covenant with Christ and God. In these terminal cases, they would not have the time to love their neighbors, enemies and give the other cheek on Earth as stipulated in the gospels.

Nevertheless, a covenant is still implied.
Note I stated the imperative of the covenant [as emphasized] has a 70% weightage on who is a Christian.

Prismatic,

As I asked, but did not receive an answer, an exception to what rule?

Where did the penitent criminal do that?

Where?


Maybe (hopefully) someone will weigh in and deal with what you’re saying in full, but I feel that those are the pertinent points.