Who is a Christian?

[Serendipper]

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.

I don't have the time to keep up with this thread anymore, but I think my point still stands that the only requirement for being a christian is simply professing to be one. And being an american is simply being born in the country or paying money and jumping through hoops, then you're free to burn the flag and use the constitution as toilet paper and still be american.

This category of people who "love their enemies" does not exist. I don't think pretending it does is doing anyone any favors, but you're welcome to believe it I guess.

Sure, Islam seems worse than Christianity, but it seems the ugliness of Islam should be a deterrent while Christianity appears as an angel of light suckering people into a faith responsible for more evil than Islam.

[promethean75]

while Christianity appears as an angel of light suckering people into a faith

well we know robertson, baker, swaggart and osteen do, but i wonder if pompeo also has twenty million dollars in his...

[Prismatic567]

I don't have the time to keep up with this thread anymore, but I think my point still stands that the only requirement for being a christian is simply professing to be one. And being an american is simply being born in the country or paying money and jumping through hoops, then you're free to burn the flag and use the constitution as toilet paper and still be american.

Your point is too loose and general in relation to the OP.
Anyone can profess to be an American, North American, Central American, South American and whatever American.

The main point here is, who is an American as Citizen of the USA as with Who is a Christian.

An American as Citizen of the USA is specifically defined, not by professing to be one, note,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
— 14th Amendment

In addition, an American has to pledge allegiance to the Nation.

As a Citizen of the USA, one has certain Rights and Responsibilities, of relevance in this case, i.e.

-Support and defend the Constitution.
-Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn ... sibilities

All the above implied an American Citizen has entered into a contract [social] with the Government to exercise the stated obligations in exchange for protection, rights, and whatever is accorded.

The above principle of entering into a contract is the same as with Who is a Christian, i.e. one who has entered into a Covenant with the Christian God to obey his words [in the Gospels] in exchange for whatever divine promises in the covenant.

This category of people who "love their enemies" does not exist. I don't think pretending it does is doing anyone any favors, but you're welcome to believe it I guess.

What proofs do you have to be so sure there is Zero of such people.
Here is one counter example to defeat your hasty generalization, i.e.

MEET THE CHRISTIANS WHO LOVE THEIR ENEMIES, EVEN WHEN IT'S ISIS
http://orthochristian.com/97079.html

I am sure there are many more.

Note my point is not that there are people who "love their enemies."
My point is Christianity has a overriding maxim "love [even] your enemies" as a term in the covenant with God.
Such a command like "love your enemies" from God directly has a significant impact in controlling the behavior of Christians to a great degree in contrast to a God's command to 'Kill your enemies.'

Sure, Islam seems worse than Christianity, but it seems the ugliness of Islam should be a deterrent while Christianity appears as an angel of light suckering people into a faith responsible for more evil than Islam.

As I had stated before, Christianity per se has its negative baggage but it is not as inherently evil and malignant as Islam.
There are a percentile of Christians who killed and acted violently but that has nothing to do with Christianity per se but rather such evil acts are triggered by their own inherent evil human nature.
Priests who raped children were not influenced by verses in the Gospels.

[Karpel Tunnel]

In addition, an American has to pledge allegiance to the Nation.

1) you bring up a different kind of category as if the criteria for that other kind of category must match the first category. There is no reason to assume that being an american will have the same criteria as being a Christian. The former is a legal status, which means it involved government agencies and laws and specifically laid out legal criteria. The former does not have that. 2) You do not have to pledge allegiance to the nation. This is false. I would guess that immigrants who gain citizenship probably would as part of the ceremony. But if one is born in the US, one need never do this. So you are incorrect.

As a Citizen of the USA, one has certain Rights and Responsibilities, of relevance in this case, i.e.

-Support and defend the Constitution.
-Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn ... sibilities

All the above implied an American Citizen has entered into a contract [social] with the Government to exercise the stated obligations in exchange for protection, rights, and whatever is accorded.

And if you do not support and defend the contitution you are still an american. You may go to prison if you go against the laws, but you are still a citizen. So again you are wrong.

The above principle of entering into a contract is the same as with Who is a Christian, i.e. one who has entered into a Covenant with the Christian God to obey his words [in the Gospels] in exchange for whatever divine promises in the covenant.

1) it is not the same. One is citizenship, a legal status. The other is not a legal status. It is comparing bicycles and oranges. 2) a native born american never needs to engage in an act of entering a covenant. They just are american. They can not care a bit about their country, the laws, their citizenship, the constitution and still be american.

This category of people who "love their enemies" does not exist. I don't think pretending it does is doing anyone any favors, but you're welcome to believe it I guess.

What proofs do you have to be so sure there is Zero of such people.
Here is one counter example to defeat your hasty generalization, i.e.

MEET THE CHRISTIANS WHO LOVE THEIR ENEMIES, EVEN WHEN IT'S ISIS
http://orthochristian.com/97079.html

People saying that one should and that they do does not mean they do themselves. People have all sorts of cognitive confusions about themselves.

I am sure there are many more.

Note my point is not that there are people who "love their enemies."
My point is Christianity has a overriding maxim "love [even] your enemies" as a term in the covenant with God.

That's one interpretation of the Bible. There are obviously many others. The vast history of Christians killing their enemies and using the Bible to justify this, including killing other Christians, should make this abundantly clear. They have killed more than the members of any other religion. Only atheists can compete with Christians for the number of killings. But they haven't been around long enough to fully compete, despite the really competitive tries of Mao and Stalin.

Priests who raped children were not influenced by verses in the Gospels.

1) the Bible is not just the Gospels. 2) Influence from texts is more complicated than dealing with them like intruction manuels for your tv remote. These are complicated that create behaviors that have side effects. The celebacy and 'annointed by God' aspects of being a priest definitely play a role in the abuse. And these ideas come out of interpretations of the Bible. It is facile to walk around saying X and Y have nothing to do with being Christian because the Bible does not expressly allow that or seems to countermand that. A complicated religious text lkke the Bible leads to all sorts of behaviors, ones that the writers likely did not intend, but because of their stupidity, naivte about humans, wrongheadedness and more, these are the effects nevertheless. And atheists, certainly, are in no position to judge what the correct interpretation of the Bible is.

Consider for a second, please, that you are just desperately trying to hold your position because it feels like you need to. Honestly, it just comes off as silly. As faith based, like a theist desperately trying to explain something because it has to be true, but in this case it is a non-theist.

[Jakob]

"A Christian philosophy is a wooden iron and a misconception."
- Heidegger

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.

Quantum Mechanics is actually fully experimental, as is all real science.

Science is defined in terms of empiricism. No matter what Philosophy of Science may profess.

A categorically unverifiable theory like String Theory is more akin to religion than it is to science. It shares this fundamental quality with religion, that it isn't empirically verifiable.

Similarly we can have a Philosophy of Religion [e.g. epistemological definition of who is a believer].

Equally nonsensibly. We could also have a philosophy of other peoples tastes. Or at least have that term floating around.

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?

As Heidegger said, from within a philosophical perspective, the idea of approaching faith as a rational issue is a misconception.
Im probably a little more well versed in actual philosophy than you are. Which allows me to identify the folly of your pursuit.

I am not insisting ALL Christians Must engage in Philosophy
I am certain Christians would be better human beings if they were to engage in Philosophy-proper.

I am certain they would not.
Your statement is hubristic in the extreme and testifies of a rather arrogant heart.

First of all, there is no philosophy-proper. There aren't any agreements in philosophy as to "proper" value-standards. Philosophy has no power to make a person better.
One is either called to the philosophical question, or one isn't. In the latter case, as seems to be your case, religion is a much better suit.

The worst thing you can do is approach philosophy as if it is a religion, which is what youve been doing in this thread.

[Serendipper]

I don't have the time to keep up with this thread anymore, but I think my point still stands that the only requirement for being a christian is simply professing to be one. And being an american is simply being born in the country or paying money and jumping through hoops, then you're free to burn the flag and use the constitution as toilet paper and still be american.

Your point is too loose and general in relation to the OP.

Then you'll have to go door to door in america telling all the christians that they are not truly christians until they meet some arbitrary interpretation (ie yours) of the NT.

Anyone can profess to be an American, North American, Central American, South American and whatever American.

The main point here is, who is an American as Citizen of the USA as with Who is a Christian.

An American as Citizen of the USA is specifically defined, not by professing to be one, note,

Yes but the point is once you are an american citizen, there is no requirement to fulfill to continue to be one. Once you are a christian, there is no requirement to fulfill to continue being one. Actually, according to the bible, there is no way to become a nonchristian regardless what you do. And if you ever do become consistent with being a nonchristian, they would simply say you were never christian to begin with. Once you're saved, it's done and it can't be undone.

In addition, an American has to pledge allegiance to the Nation.

No they don't.

As a Citizen of the USA, one has certain Rights and Responsibilities, of relevance in this case, i.e.

[list]-Support and defend the Constitution.

No they don't.

Right now the states are constructing legislation to circumvent the constitution and 13 states have passed it.

-Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.

Break a law, go to jail, but still an american in jail.

All the above implied an American Citizen has entered into a contract [social] with the Government to exercise the stated obligations in exchange for protection, rights, and whatever is accorded.

The above principle of entering into a contract is the same as with Who is a Christian, i.e. one who has entered into a Covenant with the Christian God to obey his words [in the Gospels] in exchange for whatever divine promises in the covenant.

You're being a bullheaded dogmatist no different than the objectivists you're crusading against. I live in the middle of it and yet you, from all the way across the world, are telling me what I see. You may as well be arguing for objective truth since you'd be just as qualified. You read objective truth in a book (ie christianity = this), proclaim it's objective, then disregard all evidence to the contrary.

You shall not be moved!



Reason and evidence doesn't matter; I shall not be moved.
Facts are irrelevant; I shall not be moved.
What you say is of no merit; I shall not be moved.

This category of people who "love their enemies" does not exist. I don't think pretending it does is doing anyone any favors, but you're welcome to believe it I guess.

What proofs do you have to be so sure there is Zero of such people.
Here is one counter example to defeat your hasty generalization, i.e.

MEET THE CHRISTIANS WHO LOVE THEIR ENEMIES, EVEN WHEN IT'S ISIS
http://orthochristian.com/97079.html

If they loved their enemies, they would kill themselves for being infidels. Since they're still alive, then obviously they don't love their enemies.

I am sure there are many more.

Zero.

Note my point is not that there are people who "love their enemies."
My point is Christianity has a overriding maxim "love [even] your enemies" as a term in the covenant with God.
Such a command like "love your enemies" from God directly has a significant impact in controlling the behavior of Christians to a great degree in contrast to a God's command to 'Kill your enemies.'

I prefer the command to kill enemies because then people forsake the immoral religion. The command to love enemies is far more dangerous.

[Prismatic567]

I don't have the time to keep up with this thread anymore, but I think my point still stands that the only requirement for being a christian is simply professing to be one. And being an american is simply being born in the country or paying money and jumping through hoops, then you're free to burn the flag and use the constitution as toilet paper and still be american.

Your point is too loose and general in relation to the OP.

Then you'll have to go door to door in america telling all the christians that they are not truly christians until they meet some arbitrary interpretation (ie yours) of the NT.

None mine but in according to principles.
I have already defined 'Who is a Christian' i.e.

1. Being baptized [water or non-water] and 95% of Christians do that.
2. Implied a covenant with God - as confirmed from what I have gathered from the majority.

Anyone can profess to be an American, North American, Central American, South American and whatever American.

The main point here is, who is an American as Citizen of the USA as with Who is a Christian.

An American as Citizen of the USA is specifically defined, not by professing to be one, note,

Yes but the point is once you are an american citizen, there is no requirement to fulfill to continue to be one. Once you are a christian, there is no requirement to fulfill to continue being one. Actually, according to the bible, there is no way to become a nonchristian regardless what you do. And if you ever do become consistent with being a nonchristian, they would simply say you were never christian to begin with. Once you're saved, it's done and it can't be undone.

Once you are an American citizen or citizen of any recognized Nation, it is implied the person is a citizen until s/he had broken the critical term of the contract as defined.
Nobody can be a perfect citizen thus there is always a tolerable limit until a serious non-compliance is committed for one to be denounced as a citizen or put in jail.

In addition, an American has to pledge allegiance to the Nation.

No they don't.

Again it is implied until one is evidently proven to break the allegiance.
Why don't you try to go to somewhere in Iraq or Syria, pledge your allegiance to ISIS and kill some American soldiers. Then you will know what pledging allegiance to the USA means.

As a Citizen of the USA, one has certain Rights and Responsibilities, of relevance in this case, i.e.

[list]-Support and defend the Constitution.

No they don't.

As suggest above, Why don't you try to go to somewhere in Iraq or Syria, pledge your allegiance to ISIS and kill some American soldiers. Then you will know what supporting and defending the Constitution means.

Right now the states are constructing legislation to circumvent the constitution and 13 states have passed it.

The Constitution is not a fixed thing. The Constitution is maintained and supported by the People and thus can be changed by the people on a federal basis.
If the state can counter any elements of the constitution, then the constitution must have some provisions to enable it to do so.

Do you think any State can come up with laws to go to war with Washington??

-Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.

Break a law, go to jail, but still an american in jail.

The point is you loose your general freedom if you are in a jail.

All the above implied an American Citizen has entered into a contract [social] with the Government to exercise the stated obligations in exchange for protection, rights, and whatever is accorded.

The above principle of entering into a contract is the same as with Who is a Christian, i.e. one who has entered into a Covenant with the Christian God to obey his words [in the Gospels] in exchange for whatever divine promises in the covenant.

You're being a bullheaded dogmatist no different than the objectivists you're crusading against. I live in the middle of it and yet you, from all the way across the world, are telling me what I see. You may as well be arguing for objective truth since you'd be just as qualified. You read objective truth in a book (ie christianity = this), proclaim it's objective, then disregard all evidence to the contrary.

You shall not be moved!

Reason and evidence doesn't matter; I shall not be moved.
Facts are irrelevant; I shall not be moved.
What you say is of no merit; I shall not be moved.

Regardless of where I am, universal human principles apply every where, in this case the universal principles of contract laws, i.e. a social contract.

This category of people who "love their enemies" does not exist. I don't think pretending it does is doing anyone any favors, but you're welcome to believe it I guess.

What proofs do you have to be so sure there is Zero of such people.
Here is one counter example to defeat your hasty generalization, i.e.

MEET THE CHRISTIANS WHO LOVE THEIR ENEMIES, EVEN WHEN IT'S ISIS
http://orthochristian.com/97079.html

If they loved their enemies, they would kill themselves for being infidels. Since they're still alive, then obviously they don't love their enemies.

'Love your enemy" is an overriding pacifist maxim which is not to be enforced absolutely.
Christianity in general and in principle do not expect Christians to be stupid followers but in practice I know many do.

I am sure there are many more.

Zero.

Proofs?
I have provided on example from google, you can google and you will note there are many others.

Note my point is not that there are people who "love their enemies."
My point is Christianity has a overriding maxim "love [even] your enemies" as a term in the covenant with God.
Such a command like "love your enemies" from God directly has a significant impact in controlling the behavior of Christians to a great degree in contrast to a God's command to 'Kill your enemies.'

I prefer the command to kill enemies because then people forsake the immoral religion. The command to love enemies is far more dangerous.

"Kill your enemies" is a very obvious negative but
there are many other reasons why humanity must wean off ALL religions in the future and there are many ways to approach that.

[Prismatic567]

"A Christian philosophy is a wooden iron and a misconception."
- Heidegger

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.

Quantum Mechanics is actually fully experimental, as is all real science.

Science is defined in terms of empiricism. No matter what Philosophy of Science may profess.

A categorically unverifiable theory like String Theory is more akin to religion than it is to science. It shares this fundamental quality with religion, that it isn't empirically verifiable.

Note I stated, most practicing scientists don't give a damn with Philosophy of Science.

However Quantum Physics is an exception where the scientists involved do engage with Philosophy.
Bohr, one of the pioneers of QM was leaning very heavily on Philosophy to derive his QM theory of complementarity which he had adapted from the concept of Yin and Yang.

To the extent, in appreciation, Bohr had embedded the Yin-Yang symbol in his Coats of Arms,


The other pioneers into QM were also heavy into relying on Philosophy, e.g. Bohm, Feyman, etc.

Here is a paragraph from Richard Feynman on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics (Lectures on Physics, Volume III, Chapter 2):

“Let us consider briefly some philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.
As always, there are two aspects of the problem: one is the philosophical implication for physics, and the other is the extrapolation of philosophical matters to other fields. When philosophical ideas associated with science are dragged into another field, they are usually completely distorted. Therefore we shall confine our remarks as much as possible to physics itself.
First of all, the most interesting aspect is the idea of the uncertainty principle; making an observation affects the phenomenon. It has always been known that making observations affects a phenomenon, but the point is that the effect cannot be disregarded or minimized or decreased arbitrarily by rearranging the apparatus. When we look for a certain phenomenon we cannot help but disturb it in a certain minimum way, and the disturbance is necessary for the consistency of the viewpoint.

.....
.....

Read the full para at:
http://braungardt.trialectics.com/scien ... s-feynman/


Your thinking is too shallow.
The rest of your points are loaded with ad hominens which is not philosophical and critical thinking.
You should provide more in depth arguments.

[Serendipper]

Then you'll have to go door to door in america telling all the christians that they are not truly christians until they meet some arbitrary interpretation (ie yours) of the NT.

None mine but in according to principles.

Well you are the one defining who is christian, so the interpretation is according to you. Otherwise there is no standard interpretation of the NT, hence all the denominations of the religion. As I said, the pastor down the road wouldn't agree with you, so you'd have to go door to door informing his congregation that they are wrong and are not truly chrisitian unless they jump through your hoops. Since they are Baptists, I assume most have been baptized in the muddy creek, but none would say that's conditional to being saved or being a christian.

I have already defined 'Who is a Christian' i.e.

1. Being baptized [water or non-water] and 95% of Christians do that.

I don't know how you'd quantify that. I was baptized when I was young and before I had any choice in the matter and probably would not have been baptized if left up to me because baptism isn't a requirement of anything, and some people do it multiple times because they like acting out the resurrection.

2. Implied a covenant with God - as confirmed from what I have gathered from the majority.

The covenant is unconditional; all you have to do is believe.

Once you are an American citizen or citizen of any recognized Nation, it is implied the person is a citizen until s/he had broken the critical term of the contract as defined.
Nobody can be a perfect citizen thus there is always a tolerable limit until a serious non-compliance is committed for one to be denounced as a citizen or put in jail.

The only way to become nonamerican is to pay some money or else be convicted of treason (I think).

In addition, an American has to pledge allegiance to the Nation.

No they don't.

Again it is implied until one is evidently proven to break the allegiance.
Why don't you try to go to somewhere in Iraq or Syria, pledge your allegiance to ISIS and kill some American soldiers. Then you will know what pledging allegiance to the USA means.

American citizens are not required to have the neural capacity to understand what allegiance means and therefore pledging allegiance is not a requirement.

As a Citizen of the USA, one has certain Rights and Responsibilities, of relevance in this case, i.e.

[list]-Support and defend the Constitution.

No they don't.

As suggest above, Why don't you try to go to somewhere in Iraq or Syria, pledge your allegiance to ISIS and kill some American soldiers. Then you will know what supporting and defending the Constitution means.

Go to X and pledge allegiance to Y and then I will know what Z means? I already know what Z means and it has nothing to do with X and Y. American christians caused what's going on in syria and iraq and created isis. Isn't it funny that where there is oil there is calamity?

Right now the states are constructing legislation to circumvent the constitution and 13 states have passed it.

The Constitution is not a fixed thing.

Then there is nothing to support like trying to hold water in your hand.

The Constitution is maintained and supported by the People and thus can be changed by the people on a federal basis.
If the state can counter any elements of the constitution, then the constitution must have some provisions to enable it to do so.

The US is "supposed" to be a confederation of states with limited federal government. Kinda like europe is a confederation of countries with limited EU.

Do you think any State can come up with laws to go to war with Washington??

Well yes that was the civil war. The southern states tired of Washington making decisions that hurt the South, so they booted the army out of Ft Sumter and started the war.

-Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.

Break a law, go to jail, but still an american in jail.

The point is you loose your general freedom if you are in a jail.

Yes but still an american.

All the above implied an American Citizen has entered into a contract [social] with the Government to exercise the stated obligations in exchange for protection, rights, and whatever is accorded.

The above principle of entering into a contract is the same as with Who is a Christian, i.e. one who has entered into a Covenant with the Christian God to obey his words [in the Gospels] in exchange for whatever divine promises in the covenant.

You're being a bullheaded dogmatist no different than the objectivists you're crusading against. I live in the middle of it and yet you, from all the way across the world, are telling me what I see. You may as well be arguing for objective truth since you'd be just as qualified. You read objective truth in a book (ie christianity = this), proclaim it's objective, then disregard all evidence to the contrary.

Regardless of where I am, universal human principles apply every where, in this case the universal principles of contract laws, i.e. a social contract.

You're too hardheaded. Intelligence can only be a function of ability to be wrong because you can't be right until you're able to be wrong, so the one who is quickest to admit defeat is going to find wisdom faster than those eternally unable to clear the blockage.

I am sure there are many more.

Zero.

Proofs?
I have provided on example from google, you can google and you will note there are many others.

You proved that there are people who "claim" they love their enemies, but if they did, they would kill themselves for being infidels. And if the standard of loving enemies is merely claiming so, then why can't a christian be one who merely claims so?

First prove it's possible to love anyone but oneself.

Then after you have finished that, prove there are chrisitians who love their enemies.

[Prismatic567]

Then you'll have to go door to door in america telling all the christians that they are not truly christians until they meet some arbitrary interpretation (ie yours) of the NT.

None mine but in according to principles.

Well you are the one defining who is christian, so the interpretation is according to you. Otherwise there is no standard interpretation of the NT, hence all the denominations of the religion. As I said, the pastor down the road wouldn't agree with you, so you'd have to go door to door informing his congregation that they are wrong and are not truly chrisitian unless they jump through your hoops. Since they are Baptists, I assume most have been baptized in the muddy creek, but none would say that's conditional to being saved or being a christian.

I stated I defined 'who is a Christian' based on principles leveraged on critical thinking.

In terms of principles, the majority [99%] of Pastors would agree with,

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.

3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

Note I. above is very evident and objective. 2. and 3. are implied or as explicitly declared by a Christian as in 1.

I had already provided supporting arguments and evidence for the above.

The above are the critical principles. If there are differences in opinion in some verses in the NT, that do not effect the critical principles on 'who is a Christian'.

You have not disputed my points above effectively.

[MagsJ]

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

The only remaining inquiry is.. when and where was that decreed?

It would be interesting to know the timeline of events and happenings which led up to the sacraments being put in place, to signify one's allegiance to the religion.

[Prismatic567]

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

The only remaining inquiry is.. when and where was that decreed?

It would be interesting to know the timeline of events and happenings which led up to the sacraments being put in place, to signify one's allegiance to the religion.

I believe the starting point is when God spoke to Jesus Christ and he was technically the first Christian [who need not be baptized] followed by the original-disciples, then the followers of the respective original disciples.

Subsequently whoever is a Christian would have complied with the following;

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

A child born to a Christian family is implied to be a potential-Christian till s/he is baptized.

[Fanman]

I think that Christianity is founded upon the tenets/life guidance of Jesus. Therefore, IMV anyone who complies to how Jesus says people should live, and loves (agape) while doing so is a Christian. Christianity heavily focuses upon the moral inclination of the "heart", and Jesus eschewed the pharisees for their ritualistic behaviour, yet lack of genuine altruistic endeavour/intent. So with that in mind, why would a ritual such as baptism be absolutely necessary for someone to be a Christian?

I think that Jesus is quoted as saying somewhere in the NT that water baptism is essential to entering heaven, but to me that seems to contradict his general purported ethos, and also, when he said the guy who died next to him on the cross would join him in paradise, that guy wasn't baptised, he was a criminal.

I don't think we can reach an objective standard of what constitutes a Christian, as there are so many different opinions and sects. If there was such a consensus, wouldn't it have been reached a long time ago?

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think that Christianity is founded upon the tenets/life guidance of Jesus. Therefore, IMV anyone who complies to how Jesus says people should live, and loves (agape) while doing so is a Christian. Christianity heavily focuses upon the moral inclination of the "heart", and Jesus eschewed the pharisees for their ritualistic behaviour, yet lack of genuine altruistic endeavour/intent. So with that in mind, why would a ritual such as baptism be absolutely necessary for someone to be a Christian?

I think bringing in the context adds to the absurdity. Prismatic is an atheist. This would mean that he is, essentially, an atheist who would tell people who belong to sects or churches who do not think baptism is necessary, that they are not christians. I don't think he, as an atheist, can take the position as an ecumenical authority for Christianity as a whole.

I think that Jesus is quoted as saying somewhere in the NT that water baptism is essential to entering heaven, but to me that seems to contradict his general purported ethos, and also, when he said the guy who died next to him on the cross would join him in paradise, that guy wasn't baptised, he was a criminal.

Further even the Catholic Church, toward the more traditional of the various churches regarding rituals, allows for people who have not been baptized to be consider Christian - if they intended to get baptized - and then people who have not grown up within Christian cultures, the chance to come to heaven. While this latter group might not be Christians, it shows that there is quite a bit of flexibility even within a more conservative Christian sect. Others obviously allow for even more freedom from ritual.

An atheist cannot rule those groups out as non-christians.

I don't think we can reach an objective standard of what constitutes a Christian, as there are so many different opinions and sects. If there was such a consensus, wouldn't it have been reached a long time ago?

And given the vast amount of interpretations of the NT, the Bible as a whole, what one must or should do as Christian, there is no way an outsider can determine who meets Prismatics criteria.

I am nto saying insiders are therefore right, but at least they can, without hypocrisy, appeal to an authority - the Bible, their preacher, the Catholic Church, a vision they had. An outsider cannot, without instant hypocrisy, choose and authority and a single clear interpreation of that authority, since they do not believe in these authorities. And arguing ad populum just looks silly.

[Prismatic567]

I think that Christianity is founded upon the tenets/life guidance of Jesus. Therefore, IMV anyone who complies to how Jesus says people should live, and loves (agape) while doing so is a Christian. Christianity heavily focuses upon the moral inclination of the "heart", and Jesus eschewed the pharisees for their ritualistic behaviour, yet lack of genuine altruistic endeavour/intent. So with that in mind, why would a ritual such as baptism be absolutely necessary for someone to be a Christian?

I think that Jesus is quoted as saying somewhere in the NT that water baptism is essential to entering heaven, but to me that seems to contradict his general purported ethos, and also, when he said the guy who died next to him on the cross would join him in paradise, that guy wasn't baptised, he was a criminal.

I don't think we can reach an objective standard of what constitutes a Christian, as there are so many different opinions and sects. If there was such a consensus, wouldn't it have been reached a long time ago?

I believe you missed my main points;

I mentioned the following;

Subsequently whoever is a Christian would have complied with the following;

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

Re the above, baptism is merely the ritual and external form which is at least the minimal indication a person is a Christian.

But what is most critical is point 2 and 3.
God is supposed to be omnipresent and also a omnipotent to know what is in the hearts of a Christian.
Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].

As such I am defining who is God from the Christian's God knowledge and not from my personal interpretation.

I don't think you can dispute the above point re Who is a Christian from the Christian's God perspective.

[Prismatic567]

I think bringing in the context adds to the absurdity. Prismatic is an atheist. This would mean that he is, essentially, an atheist who would tell people who belong to sects or churches who do not think baptism is necessary, that they are not christians. I don't think he, as an atheist, can take the position as an ecumenical authority for Christianity as a whole.

Note my point to Fanman above.

I am not defining a Christian from my personal interpretation but rather from the Christian's God perspective.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

I believe you missed my main points;

I get the gist.

I mentioned the following;

Subsequently whoever is a Christian would have complied with the following;

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

Re the above, baptism is merely the ritual and external form which is at least the minimal indication a person is a Christian.

But what is most critical is point 2 and 3.
God is supposed to be omnipresent and also a omnipotent to know what is in the hearts of a Christian.
Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].

A person can surrender their will to the Christian God (Yaweh), but not believe in Jesus - someone who believes in the OT, but not the NT. There are other variables, and your trying to find a blanket definition of what constitutes a Christian, but I don't think there is one. Except that all Christians believe in Jesus.

As such I am defining who is God from the Christian's God knowledge and not from my personal interpretation.

I thought you were trying to define who is a Christian?

I don't think you can dispute the above point re Who is a Christian from the Christian's God perspective.

What is it with you and logical finality? I don't believe that your quote from wiki is the QED on what constitutes a Christian. And if you're arguing that all true Christians are baptised then I believe that is firmly a 'no true Scotsman' argument. There are many branches to the Christian tree, and whilst baptism may rest on one of them, there are, of course, many other branches to consider when deciding if we think someone is a Christian.

I don't think you can dispute the above point re Who is a Christian from the Christian's God perspective.

Why, because wiki says so? If someone wants to understand who is a Christian from God's perspective, unequivocally, the Bible is the authority, not wiki - it is problematic to dispute that. As an atheist, the Bible is certainly not an authority for you, which may be affecting the nature of your views on this subject, but if your trying to define a Christian from a perspective of the Christian God, it would IMV be a misunderstanding to not consider the Bible as a key, if not the authority. IOW, IMV, God's omniscient perspective is the objective definition.

Dear Lord please forgive Prismatic, for he knows not what he does.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

I mentioned the following;

Subsequently whoever is a Christian would have complied with the following;

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

Re the above, baptism is merely the ritual and external form which is at least the minimal indication a person is a Christian.

But what is most critical is point 2 and 3.
God is supposed to be omnipresent and also a omnipotent to know what is in the hearts of a Christian.
Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].

A person can surrender their will to the Christian God (Yaweh), but not believe in Jesus - someone who believes in the OT, but not the NT. There are other variables, and your trying to find a blanket definition of what constitutes a Christian, but I don't think there is one. Except that all Christians believe in Jesus.

As such I am defining who is a Christian God from the Christian's God knowledge and not from my personal interpretation.

I thought you were trying to define who is a Christian?

I don't think you can dispute the above point re Who is a Christian from the Christian's God perspective.

What is it with you and logical finality? I don't believe that your quote from wiki is the QED on what constitutes a Christian. And if you're arguing that all true Christians are baptised then I believe that is firmly a 'no true Scotsman' argument. There are many branches to the Christian tree, and whilst baptism may rest on one of them, there are, of course, many other branches to consider when deciding if we think someone is a Christian.

I don't think you can dispute the above point re Who is a Christian from the Christian's God perspective.

Why, because wiki says so? If someone wants to understand who is a Christian from God's perspective, unequivocally, the Bible is the authority, not wiki - it is problematic to dispute that. As an atheist, the Bible is certainly not an authority for you, which may be affecting the nature of your views on this subject, but if your trying to define a Christian from a perspective of the Christian God, it would IMV be a misunderstanding to not consider the Bible as a key, if not the authority. IOW, IMV, God's omniscient perspective is the objective definition.

Dear Lord please forgive Prismatic, for he knows not what he does.

Note the correction in blue above.

You missed my point again.

I did not state the point from Wiki is the final determinant on who is a Christian.
I stated being baptized is merely a ritual and form, and represent the minimal indication, the person is a Christian [regardless it is genuine or not].

Note I stated more indicative elements of who is a Christian are;

2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

I mentioned the NT specifically in relation to Christianity.

The Christian God is omnipresent and omnipotent to know what is in the Christian's mind on whether the person has surrender his/her will to God and the covenant is explicit or implied.

It is not my definition but that definition is from the Christian's God view and in reference to the NT in the Bible with the OT in the background.

I am confident my view is true and I believe 90% of Christians who had been baptized would agree with me. This is what I have gathered from reading most of the Christian's view.

I believe your view on who is a Christian belong the minority.
If not show me sufficient evidences your point of view re 'Who is a Christian' is the dominant view?

Note point re 'Surrender of one's will to God [Christian]'

Another principle central to the Christian concept of surrender is the concept of surrender to God's Will.
Surrendering to God's will entails both the "surrender of our will to His in macrocosm", in which His plan prevails over man's and the adversary, and secondarily to the surrender of one's will for individual life to "His will for our personal lives in microcosm."
This is done through the emptying or dying of self, the "putting self aside" in favor of divine influence. This includes the idea of surrendering to a call.
The corollary of this personal surrender is obedience, and obedience to God is denoted as bringing about His will, having lasting effects, and often associated with earthly and divine blessings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion)#In_Christianity

The 'surrender of one will to God' is embedded within a covenant [contract] with God to obey God's words and commands via the NT [for Christians].

Note this is related to what are the objective principles.
Don't give silly excuses because I am a non-theist I cannot understand nor speak of objective principles and philosophy of theism.

It is a very common thing for non-Christians who specialize in the study of the religion of Christianity to have a greater understanding of Christianity than most lay-Christians.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

You missed my point again.

Please explain how I've missed your point?

I did not state the point from Wiki is the final determinant on who is a Christian.

Hmm, It seemed that you did, because your application of the wiki quote led you to say this: “Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].” This claim clearly shows you believed you'd reached the conclusion of what constitutes a Christian.

I stated being baptized is merely a ritual and form, and represent the minimal indication, the person is a Christian [regardless it is genuine or not].

I don't think that's right. You cannot be a Christian if you don't genuinely believe in Jesus and follow his principles, the ritual is meaningless if you don't actually have faith, that is common knowledge. I can stick a Ferrari emblem on a Ford Focus, but that doesn't make it a Ferrari.

Note I stated more indicative elements of who is a Christian;
2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

I mentioned the NT specifically in relation to Christianity.

I don't think that a person has to enter into a covenant with God, in order to obey the words of God, someone can do so merely by choice, because it feels right. Much of what Jesus preached is a lifestyle, rather than a set of strict *must obey* commandments, that was the nature of the OT covenant. Indeed, Jesus fulfilled the law of the OT and founded a “New Covenant”, that covenant is based upon his sacrifice, therefrom anyone who believes in him is “saved” or “redeemed”, the explicit message of the NT is “believe and be saved”, not “obey and be saved”. Since that is the standard by which people are saved (able to enter heaven), by simply accepting Jesus, I think it is reasonable to call such people Christians.

The Christian God is omnipresent and omnipotent to know what is in the Christian's mind on whether the person has surrender his/her will to God and the covenant is explicit or implied.

What's your point here?

It is not my definition but that definition is from the Christian's God view and in reference to the NT in the Bible with the OT in the background.

What definition are you talking about? As far as I'm aware, God himself never actually defined who is and who is not a Christian. Jesus' parables give us an indication of what someone who believes in him/God should be like, and therefrom I think we can have an idea about what constitutes a Christian. If Jesus gave us a direct answer, this discussion would be moot.

I am confident my view is true and I believe 90% of Christians who had been baptized would agree with me. This is what I have gathered from reading most of the Christian's view.

As ever... I think it is a moot point that Christians who are baptised will believe they are Christian in a formal sense, because that is the nature of the ritual. But I don't think that what Christians think is the defining perspective here. If we want to know what constitutes a Christian, we should refer to what God/Jesus states in the Bible. In this context, people's (Christian's) opinions are largely irrelevant, because unless their opinion is supported by scripture it doesn't have any authority. There is such an authority on baptism, which is Jesus' words, but there are exceptions to the rule or seemingly contradictions, about who can enter heaven.

I believe your view on who is a Christian belong the minority.
If not show me sufficient evidences your point of view re 'Who is a Christian' is the dominant view?

Always trying to intellectually win, Prismatic. It doesn't matter whether the view is minority or majority if you're looking for clear objectivity. And I think that looking for objectivity when there's an authority such as the Bible is problematic. If you believe that your view represents the majority that's fine by me, it doesn't prove anything, it is possible that the majority can be wrong. Substance, and how closely the view reflects God's is the key here, not what the majority or minority think.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

You missed my point again.

Please explain how I've missed your point?

I did not state the point from Wiki is the final determinant on who is a Christian.

Hmm, It seemed that you did, because your application of the wiki quote led you to say this: “Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].” This claim clearly shows you believed you'd reached the conclusion of what constitutes a Christian.

You got this wrong.
The Wiki refer to the point re Baptism which I had stated is not the critical element.

I am giving more weightages [90%] to point 2 [surrender] and 3 [covenant] in arriving at my conclusion.

I stated being baptized is merely a ritual and form, and represent the minimal indication, the person is a Christian [regardless it is genuine or not].

I don't think that's right. You cannot be a Christian if you don't genuinely believe in Jesus and follow his principles, the ritual is meaningless if you don't actually have faith, that is common knowledge. I can stick a Ferrari emblem on a Ford Focus, but that doesn't make it a Ferrari.

You got this point wrong as well.
If one is baptized, the minimum is one is at least a Christian in name, perhaps not necessary sincerely for some.

Note I stated more indicative elements of who is a Christian;
2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.
3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

I mentioned the NT specifically in relation to Christianity.

I don't think that a person has to enter into a covenant with God, in order to obey the words of God, someone can do so merely by choice, because it feels right. Much of what Jesus preached is a lifestyle, rather than a set of strict *must obey* commandments, that was the nature of the OT covenant. Indeed, Jesus fulfilled the law of the OT and founded a “New Covenant”, that covenant is based upon his sacrifice, therefrom anyone who believes in him is “saved” or “redeemed”, the explicit message of the NT is “believe and be saved”, not “obey and be saved”. Since that is the standard by which people are saved (able to enter heaven), by simply accepting Jesus, I think it is reasonable to call such people Christians.

If not expressed explicitly, there is an implied covenant/contract between the Christian and God.
You have to update yourself on the general principles in the Law of Contract where a contract is implied from circumstances of an explicit or implied agreement between two parties.

Note accepting whatever of Jesus [the prophet] re the verses of the NT is ultimately the words and command of the Christian God.

The terms of the contract or covenant is the Christian having surrendered his will to God and will obey whatever of God's words and command in the NT [Gospels] in EXCHANGE for the assurance of being saved with eternal life in heaven.

The point here is whenever there is some sort of agreement between two parties, in this case, between God and believer, there is always an implied contract or an explicit one.
One of the basic element of any contract is there must be the acts of Offer and Acceptance, which in this case is God as the offeror, the believer the one who accepted of offer.
https://www.upcounsel.com/offer-and-acceptance

There are other essential elements of a valid contract [explicit or implicit] which I will not go into at present.

The Christian God is omnipresent and omnipotent to know what is in the Christian's mind on whether the person has surrender his/her will to God and the covenant is explicit or implied.

What's your point here?

A serious Christian will know of God's power and will not dare to pretend to be baptized or lie explicitly s/he is a Christian.

It is not my definition but that definition is from the Christian's God view and in reference to the NT in the Bible with the OT in the background.

What definition are you talking about? As far as I'm aware, God himself never actually defined who and who is not a Christian. Jesus' parables give us an indication of what someone who believes in him/God should be like, and therefrom I think we can have an idea about what constitutes a Christian. If Jesus gave us a direct answer, this discussion would be moot.

I am referring to a matter of principle.
This principle is where whoever is a member of any group by choice is conditioned by the constitution of the group, in this case the Bible.

Jesus may be described who is Christian is like, but we have to fall back on the essence of who is a Christian, i.e. the principles as I had mentioned above.
If Jesus described in terms of behavior and attitude, anyone could pretend as such but that will not make one a Christian until one had surrendered one's will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT.

I am confident my view is true and I believe 90% of Christians who had been baptized would agree with me. This is what I have gathered from reading most of the Christian's view.

As ever... I think it is a moot point that Christians who are baptised will believe they are Christian in a formal sense, because that is the nature of the ritual. But I don't think that what Christians think is the defining perspective here. If we want to know what constitutes a Christian, we should refer to what God/Jesus states in the Bible. In this context, people's (Christian's) opinions are largely irrelevant, because unless their opinion is supported by scripture it doesn't have any authority. There is such an authority on baptism, which is Jesus' words, but there are exceptions to the rule or seemingly contradictions, about who can enter heaven.

Whatever, the foundational rule is a Christian is one who had surrendered one's will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT.

I believe your view on who is a Christian belong the minority.
If not show me sufficient evidences your point of view re 'Who is a Christian' is the dominant view?

Always trying to intellectually win, Prismatic. It doesn't matter whether the view is minority or majority if you're looking for clear objectivity. And I think that looking for objectivity when there's an authority such as the Bible is problematic. If you believe that your view represents the majority that's fine by me, it doesn't prove anything, it is possible that the majority can be wrong. Substance, and how closely the view reflects God's is the key here, not what the majority or minority think.

I being objective.

Do you think a Christian do not have to surrender his will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels [re Jesus] of the NT.

To be a Christian, fundamentally one has to commit to the above. If they misinterpret certain verses in NT, that is a different issues and subject to God's judgment.

[Fanman]

Prismatic:

You got this wrong.
I did not state the point from Wiki is the final determinant on who is a Christian.

Me:

Hmm, It seemed that you did, because your application of the wiki quote led you to say this: “Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].” This claim clearly shows you believed you'd reached the conclusion of what constitutes a Christian.

Prismatic:

You got this wrong.
The Wiki refer to the point re Baptism which I had stated is not the critical element.

Prismatic:

I am giving more weightages [90%] to point 2 [surrender] and 3 [covenant] in arriving at my conclusion.

What? Your statements clearly show that you've reached a conclusion upon what you think constitutes a Christian, and that conclusion is supported by the quote from wiki, minus the point relating to baptism.

You got this point wrong as well.
If one is baptized, the minimum is one is at least a Christian in name, perhaps not necessary sincerely for some.

You're missing the point. Sincerity is the hallmark of Christianity, nothing else. If a Christian does nothing which associates them with the religion, except being baptised, is that person a Christian? If you're trying to define who is a Christian, being a Christian by name and not deed is clearly meaningless, Jesus propounded this kind of thing.

If not expressed explicitly, there is an implied covenant/contract between the Christian and God.
You have to update yourself on the general principles in the Law of Contract where a contract is implied from circumstances of an explicit or implied agreement between two parties.

Ridiculous. You assume that I don't know the workings of a contract based upon what I've stated here? Shouldn't you ask before you assume? Regardless, I'll stick with what I said, following the words of God, does not mean that you've entered into a covenant with him. It may just be a pragmatic choice.

Note accepting whatever of Jesus [the prophet] re the verses of the NT is ultimately the words and command of the Christian God.

I don't understand what this means.

The terms of the contract or covenant is the Christian having surrendered his will to God and will obey whatever of God's words and command in the NT [Gospels] in EXCHANGE for the assurance of being saved with eternal life in heaven.

The New Covenant? I don't think you understand. Where did you get this idea from?

In order to show you the unreliability of wiki as an authority, here's an excerpt from wiki on the New Covenant, headed "The Christian View"

The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,[16] both Jews and Gentiles, upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ.

This excerpt favours my view, whilst the excerpt you quoted favours yours. How can we reach an objective consensus on which is correct? I doubt we'll even find agreement. I think that wiki should be read with the view that it is a guide, not an authority, unless it directly quotes one(s). I'm not claiming that this excerpt means that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just making a point.

A serious Christian will know of God's power and will not dare to pretend to be baptized or lie explicitly s/he is a Christian.

So you think, but the reality is that people will do all sorts of things you wouldn't expect them to.

I am referring to a matter of principle.
This principle is where whoever is a member of any group by choice is conditioned by the constitution of the group, in this case the Bible.
Jesus may be described who is Christian is like, but we have to fall back on the essence of who is a Christian, i.e. the principles as I had mentioned above.
If Jesus described in terms of behavior and attitude, anyone could pretend as such but that will not make one a Christian until one had surrendered one's will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT.

 

In terms of what constitutes a Christian, Jesus' word is the authority, to dispute that is folly. No matter what principles you apply or what you perceive is the essence of Christianity, there is no greater authority than the head of Christianity, furthermore, when that head is an omniscient deity.

You are of course entitled to your own views and interpretations, but they do not supersede what Jesus says when discussing Christianity.

Whatever, the foundational rule is a Christian is one who had surrendered one's will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT. 

Foundational rule? According to who or what authority? Please don't say God, and if you do, please quote the specific chapter and verse.

I being objective.

I think that someone can only be objective when dealing with empirical things. The question "who is a Christian" does not IMV allow for objectivity.

Do you think a Christian do not have to surrender his will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels [re Jesus] of the NT. 

To be a Christian, fundamentally one has to commit to the above. If they misinterpret certain verses in NT, that is a different issues and subject to God's judgment.

I believe that someone only needs to believe in Jesus to be saved, being saved means you can enter heaven, and entering heaven means that you're a Christian. It is that simple. I may be wrong, but I don't recall God/Jesus stating that someone has to surrender their will to him in order to be a Christian. To me, that seems like an interpretation. You're trying to get the precious QED, but I don't think it exists in this case. Regardless, why ask the question if you think you already know the answer? Is this whole thing rhetorical?

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic:

You got this wrong.
I did not state the point from Wiki is the final determinant on who is a Christian.

Me:

Hmm, It seemed that you did, because your application of the wiki quote led you to say this: “Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].” This claim clearly shows you believed you'd reached the conclusion of what constitutes a Christian.

Prismatic:

You got this wrong.
The Wiki refer to the point re Baptism which I had stated is not the critical element.

Prismatic:

I am giving more weightages [90%] to point 2 [surrender] and 3 [covenant] in arriving at my conclusion.

What? Your statements clearly show that you've reached a conclusion upon what you think constitutes a Christian, and that conclusion is supported by the quote from wiki, minus the point relating to baptism.

You got this wrong.
The Wiki reference is only related to point 1 re baptism.
The other two points are from my own inference re Principles of Contract and involving surrendering of one's will to god.

You got this point wrong as well.
If one is baptized, the minimum is one is at least a Christian in name, perhaps not necessary sincerely for some.

You're missing the point. Sincerity is the hallmark of Christianity, nothing else. If a Christian does nothing which associates them with the religion, except being baptised, is that person a Christian? If you're trying to define who is a Christian, being a Christian by name and not deed is clearly meaningless, Jesus propounded this kind of thing.

You are contradicting your own point where you stated;

Fanman: So you think, but the reality is that people will do all sorts of things you wouldn't expect them to.

My point is out of 100% of people who are baptized, some % [1-5%] may not be sincere but got baptized for various reasons of convenience, e.g. marriage, family, social, political, finances, etc.

If not expressed explicitly, there is an implied covenant/contract between the Christian and God.
You have to update yourself on the general principles in the Law of Contract where a contract is implied from circumstances of an explicit or implied agreement between two parties.

Ridiculous. You assume that I don't know the workings of a contract based upon what I've stated here? Shouldn't you ask before you assume? Regardless, I'll stick with what I said, following the words of God, does not mean that you've entered into a covenant with him. It may just be a pragmatic choice.

It the same point as above. Yes, some may choose to be baptized for pragmatic reasons other than being genuinely surrendering their will to God without effecting a covenant with God. But this percentage is very Low.

Note accepting whatever of Jesus [the prophet] re the verses of the NT is ultimately the words and command of the Christian God.

I don't understand what this means.

You keep mentioning Jesus with Christianity, but whatever Jesus said as in the Gospels are spoken on behalf God who has the ultimate authority.

Those who merely follow what Jesus is without understanding God is the ultimate authority, they are pseudo-Christians.

The terms of the contract or covenant is the Christian having surrendered his will to God and will obey whatever of God's words and command in the NT [Gospels] in EXCHANGE for the assurance of being saved with eternal life in heaven.

The New Covenant? I don't think you understand. Where did you get this idea from?

In order to show you the unreliability of wiki as an authority, here's an excerpt from wiki on the New Covenant, headed "The Christian View"

Where did I state New Covenant.
The principle is there must be a covenant [technically] between God and the believer.
This is based on the Principles of the Laws of Contract.

The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,[16] both Jews and Gentiles, upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ.

This excerpt favours my view, whilst the excerpt you quoted favours yours. How can we reach an objective consensus on which is correct? I doubt we'll even find agreement. I think that wiki should be read with the view that it is a guide, not an authority, unless it directly quotes one(s). I'm not claiming that this excerpt means that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just making a point.

My argument on who is a Christian is determined by the following;

1. Baptism - done by 90% of Christians, - weightage 10%
2. Surrender of one's will to God, w = 30%
3. Establishment of a covenant between God and the Christian - 60%

The above support my view that there is a covenant between a Christian and God, with Jesus as the mediator.

A serious Christian will know of God's power and will not dare to pretend to be baptized or lie explicitly s/he is a Christian.

So you think, but the reality is that people will do all sorts of things you wouldn't expect them to.

Yes, but only a small % will do otherwise for various reasons.

I am referring to a matter of principle.
This principle is where whoever is a member of any group by choice is conditioned by the constitution of the group, in this case the Bible.
Jesus may be described who is Christian is like, but we have to fall back on the essence of who is a Christian, i.e. the principles as I had mentioned above.
If Jesus described in terms of behavior and attitude, anyone could pretend as such but that will not make one a Christian until one had surrendered one's will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT.

 

In terms of what constitutes a Christian, Jesus' word is the authority, to dispute that is folly. No matter what principles you apply or what you perceive is the essence of Christianity, there is no greater authority than the head of Christianity, furthermore, when that head is an omniscient deity.

You are of course entitled to your own views and interpretations, but they do not supersede what Jesus says when discussing Christianity.

As I had argued, whatever is Jesus' words, the final authority is God's. Jesus' role is that of a son of God, prophet/messenger sent by God.

Whatever, the foundational rule is a Christian is one who had surrendered one's will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT. 

Foundational rule? According to who or what authority? Please don't say God, and if you do, please quote the specific chapter and verse.

The covenant is based on the general principles of the Law of Contract.

Re Surrendering of one's will, note this [I quoted earlier];

Another principle central to the Christian concept of surrender is the concept of surrender to God's Will.
Surrendering to God's will entails both the "surrender of our will to His in macrocosm", in which His plan prevails over man's and the adversary, and secondarily to the surrender of one's will for individual life to "His will for our personal lives in microcosm." This is done through the emptying or dying of self, the "putting self aside" in favor of divine influence. This includes the idea of surrendering to a call. The corollary of this personal surrender is obedience, and obedience to God is denoted as bringing about His will, having lasting effects, and often associated with earthly and divine blessings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion)#In_Christianity

I [am] being objective.

I think that someone can only be objective when dealing with empirical things. The question "who is a Christian" does not IMV allow for objectivity.

In this case, objective is with reference to support from

1.the Bible;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion)#In_Christianity

2. The General Principles of the Law of Contract

Note humans are supposed to have free will, they will have to make a choice to accept God's offer and thus have to enter into a covenant [contract] with God.

Do you think a Christian do not have to surrender his will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels [re Jesus] of the NT. 

To be a Christian, fundamentally one has to commit to the above. If they misinterpret certain verses in NT, that is a different issues and subject to God's judgment.

I believe that someone only needs to believe in Jesus to be saved, being saved means you can enter heaven, and entering heaven means that you're a Christian. It is that simple. I may be wrong, but I don't recall God/Jesus stating that someone has to surrender their will to him in order to be a Christian. To me, that seems like an interpretation. You're trying to get the precious QED, but I don't think it exists in this case.

Regardless, why ask the question if you think you already know the answer? Is this whole thing rhetorical?

I have argued, believing in Jesus as son is essential, but the ultimate is believing in God.
Re surrendering one's will to God, note the supporting I have provided above.

I have raised the OP to counter Serrendipper's crazy idea that one is a Christian as long as one declares oneself to be a Christian.

I had a discussion with Serendipper who claimed that any one can be a Christian as long as s/he claimed to be a Christian and do what s/he thinks is necessary to fit that definition.
viewtopic.php?p=2721023#p2721023

It is necessary that one should read the OP before participating in any thread.

My main purpose in highlighting the covenant and surrendering of will to God, is directed especially to Muslims and Allah.
Since Muslims [from their perspective] must enter into a contract with God, Allah, they have to surrender their will to Allah and obey every word of Allah as in the Quran. The Quran contains verses that condone Muslims to kill [commit other evil & violence on] non-Muslims if there is a threat [vague*] to Islam. * even cartoons and the likes.

The critical point to note here is Muslims must be educated that God is an impossibility and is an illusion, thus they had only entered into a contract with an illusion.
Therefore, there is no valid contract for them to kill non-Muslims.
If this is understood, there will be ZERO Islamic driven evils and violence.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

You got this wrong.
The Wiki reference is only related to point 1 re baptism.
The other two points are from my own inference re Principles of Contract and involving surrendering of one's will to god.

So I did. My apologies, I thought that, because of the way that you clustered the points together, they were from the same Wiki quote. I'm not sure if the principles of contract law apply in the same way they do with the New Covenant. So I'm not going to draw a definite conclusion, as you have done.

You are contradicting your own point where you stated;

Fanman: So you think, but the reality is that people will do all sorts of things you wouldn't expect them to.

 

I don't think that I am, please show me where the contradiction is?

My point is out of 100% of people who are baptized, some % [1-5%] may not be sincere but got baptized for various reasons of convenience, e.g. marriage, family, social, political, finances, etc.

How do you know this, by inference?

It the same point as above. Yes, some may choose to be baptized for pragmatic reasons other than being genuinely surrendering their will to God without effecting a covenant with God. But this percentage is very Low.

How do you know if the percentage is high or low?

You keep mentioning Jesus with Christianity, but whatever Jesus said as in the Gospels are spoken on behalf God who has the ultimate authority.

I do, and that is relevant in relation to this discussion, Jesus is the reason for the existence of Christianity. As according to the Bible Jesus is God, he is an authority in and of himself. Consider what he stated in Matthew 28:18. Jesus' words are construed as the explicit words of God.

Those who merely follow what Jesus is without understanding God is the ultimate authority, they are pseudo-Christians.

By definition, a genuine follower of Jesus acknowledges the authority God. I don't believe there is an adult Christian who doesn't understand nature of the relationship between God and Jesus. I think that all adult Christians are aware of what Jesus said in John 10:30-38.

Where did I state New Covenant.
The principle is there must be a covenant [technically] between God and the believer.
This is based on the Principles of the Laws of Contract.

Christianity is the New Covenant, the New Testament conveys the promise of the New Covenant, they are inextricably linked. As such, the New Covenant is otherwise referred to as the New Testament. I'm not going to commit to the idea that the New Covenant is based upon the principles of contract law. There may be similar or correlating elements, but I don't think they are exactly the same. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just not sure.

My argument on who is a Christian is determined by the following;
1. Baptism - done by 90% of Christians, - weightage 10%
2. Surrender of one's will to God, w = 30%
3. Establishment of a covenant between God and the Christian – 60%

You are entitled to your views, but I think this is difficult to argue. Is this a claim, if so, is there any supporting evidence?

The above support my view that there is a covenant between a Christian and God, with Jesus as the mediator.

I'm not debating that there is a Covenant.

In this case, objective is with reference to support from

1.the Bible;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion)#In_Christianity

2. The General Principles of the Law of Contract

Perhaps I've missed where you've referenced the Bible in support of your argument? Does the Bible explicitly state in the NT that a person must surrender their will to God? I'm aware that concept is propounded by Christian's, but I don't think it is explicitly stated in the New Testament? If not, how have you inferred that it is implied? It is difficult to claim that interpretations are objective in discussions like these. If, as you claim, your view is objective in respect to this discussion, does this mean that subjective view points are inherently wrong or that yours is prevailing? I don't think so. Even if the New Covenant correlates with contract law, can you explain why that makes your view objective?

If the New Covenant is subject to the principles of contract law, we would be able to find both the "express and implied terms" within the New Testament. As far as I'm aware, there are very few aspects of the NT that we could define as “express terms” because Jesus explicitly stated they were necessary to enter heaven. Which I believe are:

1) Believing that Jesus is the son of God.
2) Baptism.

If we are to consider the above as being “express terms” then I think the "implied terms" would be:

1) Having faith.
2) Being born again.

Personally, I cannot see how a person surrendering their will to God is implied here. Since a person can both believe that Jesus is the son of God and be baptised, without doing so. If a person doesn't surrender their will to God, do you think that would mean the Covenant is void? I don't think that it would, because none of the “terms” have been breached.

Re Surrendering of one's will, note this [I quoted earlier];

Another principle central to the Christian concept of surrender is the concept of surrender to God's Will.
Surrendering to God's will entails both the "surrender of our will to His in macrocosm", in which His plan prevails over man's and the adversary, and secondarily to the surrender of one's will for individual life to "His will for our personal lives in microcosm." This is done through the emptying or dying of self, the "putting self aside" in favor of divine influence. This includes the idea of surrendering to a call. The corollary of this personal surrender is obedience, and obedience to God is denoted as bringing about His will, having lasting effects, and often associated with earthly and divine blessings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion)#In_Christianity

You are using a Wiki quote as a supporting reference for your conclusion: "“Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].”, I wasn't completely wrong. I'm not debating that surrender to God's will is an aspect of Christianity, I just fail to see where it is stated explicitly in the Bible (NT) and I don't infer how it is implied. From my perspective, it is an interpretation (which may well be correct), not a condition of the New Covenant.

I have argued, believing in Jesus as son is essential, but the ultimate is believing in God.

Within Christianity, God and Jesus are recognised as the same being, he is everything that God is. That is why Jesus is worshipped as God.

Re surrendering one's will to God, note the supporting I have provided above.

Supporting your conclusion with Wiki, inferences and interpretations, does not in my view, make it conclusive. I don't believe that there is a conclusive argument for "who is a Christian". I am of the opinion that one need only sincerely believe in Jesus to be considered a Christian, I believe that the NT supports that view, but others would disagree.

It is necessary that one should read the OP before participating in any thread.

I did, your conclusion on "who is a Christian" is stated in the OP. My point is, if you've reached a conclusion in OP, the question is not open-ended, because you already think that you know the answer. It's like your asking to be proven wrong or convinced otherwise, rather than openly discussing the subject. If you believed you were right from the start, why bother asking at all? It seems pointless. From my reading of this thread, it seems as though you only accredit validity to arguments which agree with what you're arguing, as if to disagree with you is to err, which makes it seems as though you're as though you're being rhetorical. I do not mean this as a criticism, that is just how I perceive things.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Do you think it would it be incorrect or illogical to claim that: Because all genuine Christians believe in Jesus, the most basic, and most objective definition of a Christian, is someone who genuinely believes in Jesus. From which it follows that, if someone sincerely declares themselves to believe in Jesus then that person is a Christian. Since, the most fundamental condition required of a Christian is that they believe in Jesus, we may consider someone a Christian solely due to the content of their belief and what their belief leads them to do.

If you think the above is incorrect or illogical, can you please explain why?

Also, you stated that:

I have raised the OP to counter Serrendipper's crazy idea that one is a Christian as long as one declares oneself to be a Christian.

OP wrote:
I had a discussion with Serendipper who claimed that any one can be a Christian as long as s/he claimed to be a Christian and do what s/he thinks is necessary to fit that definition.

You've claimed that Serendipper is incorrect because he believes that “any one can be a Christian as long as s/he claimed to be a Christian and do what s/he thinks is necessary to fit that definition.” (I don't know if he stated that exactly, but I'll take your word for it), but how is that contrary to, or so distant from your conclusion of “Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].”? Your conclusion could be something that Serendipper describes as "is necessary to fit that definition", his conclusion does not preclude yours.

Now, I'm not arguing that your conclusion is wrong, I think it is reasonable to surmise, but very conservative. I don't believe that it is objective, or defines who is a Christian to such an exact degree that all other definitions should not be considered as valid, it is an interpretation of the NT and I think that what Serendipper claims is too.

Even if Jesus provided a specific definition of who is a Christian in the Bible, we would be free to discuss if we thought that definition was correct or incorrect, but what that would give us is an authority. We don't have such an authority to refer to in this discussion, so we can't measure how close or far we are to defining who is a Christian as according to an explicit Biblical definition. We have to rely upon how closely our interpretations, arguments and conclusions mirror that of the NT, and I don't believe Serendipper's claim is so far from the message of the NT as to be called “crazy”. This is not an ad populum point, but there are many people who would agree with what Serendipper claims, and I think that the same goes for what you conclude, does that mean that those who agree with him are crazy and people who agree with you are not? I don't think so, his view represents one of the myriad of views on what constitutes a Christian, as do yours and mine.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Prismatic,

Do you think it would it be incorrect or illogical to claim that: Because all genuine Christians believe in Jesus, the most basic, and most objective definition of a Christian, is someone who genuinely believes in Jesus. From which it follows that, if someone sincerely declares themselves to believe in Jesus then that person is a Christian. Since, the most fundamental condition required of a Christian is that they believe in Jesus, we may consider someone a Christian solely due to the content of their belief and what their belief leads them to do.

If you think the above is incorrect or illogical, can you please explain why?

Also, you stated that:

I have raised the OP to counter Serrendipper's crazy idea that one is a Christian as long as one declares oneself to be a Christian.

OP wrote:
I had a discussion with Serendipper who claimed that any one can be a Christian as long as s/he claimed to be a Christian and do what s/he thinks is necessary to fit that definition.

You've claimed that Serendipper is incorrect because he believes that “any one can be a Christian as long as s/he claimed to be a Christian and do what s/he thinks is necessary to fit that definition.” (I don't know if he stated that exactly, but I'll take your word for it), but how is that contrary to, or so distant from your conclusion of “Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].”? Your conclusion could be something that Serendipper describes as "is necessary to fit that definition", his conclusion does not preclude yours.

I can't speak for Serendipper, but I think we must consider the topic as one between four people, you me, S and P, who are not Christians, deciding who they each think of as Christian. It is a situation. We are not discussing the composition of water. This is a kind of social, epistemological problem of a completely different kind.

None of us are in a position to separate the wheat from the chaff. For epistemological and social reasons.

I think it makes sense, in general, to accept that anyone who says they are a Christian, is one. For practical reasons and out of epistemological humility on two grounds: we cannot, by definition, know which Christian authority to believe, including individuals and sects,and we cannot know other minds. Perhaps we might later find evidence that seems to contradict this, but otherwise we are dealing with the problem of other minds and also, not being Christians, we cannot bring choose amongst the various Christian authorities to rulle any out.

How the hell do I evaluate if some has surrendered to the will of God? Or even that they believe in Jesus, a very vague concept with no real measurable criteria. And people are notoriously not always correct about what they believe. They have official beliefs, but mixed feelings and counterbeliefs that are egodystonic.

My sense is we can come up with practical definitions for ourselves. What we would tend to accept when Christians assert their identity or people assert they are Christians. What we do with that.

But a bunch of nonChristians, even if one is an ex Christian, thinking they can even define what a Christian is that might rule out someone who thinks they are a Christian is just silly.

P needs to do it, because it is part of his polemic against Islam. Or thinks he needs to.

I see no reason to decide which people are Christians amongst those who claim to be.

Be like me feeling like I could tell people whether they really like their dreams, when they claim to, or that they are not, for example, Giants fans. No, you have to wave the banner more at games.