God is an Impossibility

[Serendipper]

We are doing philosophy here and thus should not be victim of a Category Mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Thus we need to understand what is Christianity-proper and pseudo-Christianity.

There is no category other than affirmation: if you consider yourself a christian, then you are. Reading is not a requirement.

If that is the case I can consider myself an American if I declare and affirm I am an American?
(Officially I am not an American).

No, but you can claim to be a christian and no one will contest that. If you claim to be american, someone might contest it.

Christianity-proper is the belief that is in accordance [grounded] to its Constitution, i.e. the NT of the Bible.

And the number of christians who follow the bible is zero, so your category is empty.

Show me 1 christian who has given everything to the poor, took up his cross, and followed christ. Show me just 1.

Note I mentioned adherence to the core principles e.g. John 3:16 and others.
Giving everything to the poor, took up his cross is not the core and imperative principles.

Ok then, but there is no standardized interpretation of 3:16. If jesus died for the world, then all you have to do is profess that you believe and you are a christian. If the terrorist who flew the plane into the tower called upon jesus at the last moment, he'd gone straight to heaven as his plane crashed into the tower, killing 3000 people (who probably would've went to hell because they didn't believe). It's as simple as that. You don't need to know how to read or need to know anything about the bible. Just tell people you're a christian and you are.

I live in the middle of it. All the roads here are named after churches. There is a church on every corner. I'm probably the only one in the entire region who is not a professing christian. I hate to put myself on a pedestal, and it's actually pitiful to report that I'm about as authoritative as you can find regarding Christianity because I grew up in it, am surrounded by it, everyone I know is a Christian, and I studied the bible passionately for many years. Heck, I've only been out of it for a year or two. 2 years ago I would have been arguing with you that god exists.

Note this point;

It is important to understand that a person is not necessarily a Christian because he was born into a Christian nation, culture or home. Nobody in this world is naturally born a Christian.
Even though a person may associate with or approve of Christian principles, that does not make him a Christian.
There is no way that anybody can be a Christian by his own strength of character, willpower, knowledge, talents, sense of righteousness, or sensitive feelings.
https://activechristianity.org/who-is-a-christian

I agree. There is no way that anybody can be a Christian by his own strength of character, willpower, knowledge, talents, sense of righteousness, or sensitive feelings because all it takes is simply professing that one is a Christian. It's as easy as falling off a log.

Even though a Christian may be compliant with the precepts of Buddhism, that does not make the person a Buddhist. To be officially a Buddhist one has to accept Buddha and the founder of Buddhism

What does it mean to accept the Buddha? Buddha isn't a god, but just a guy who was the first to become enlightened.

and accept the core teachings of the Buddha.

That's what I meant by being compliant with the precepts.

It is the same with a Christian, and what differentiate a Christian from other religions and practices is a Christian-proper believes in the core principles within the NT, e.g. John 3:16, Jesus is the son of God, Jesus was crucified, died and raised, and other critical doctrinal principles.

Yeah, jesus was either god or the son of god or both, and he died for our sins, and he rose again on the 3rd day, defeated death, and all you have to do is believe it. Now you have a license to do whatever you want. You can shoot people and just rely on your faith to save you.

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Works do not matter and there is no law. The law ended with jesus. The 10 commandments are suggestions. The bible can be distorted 10 ways from sunday or just disregarded.

The Pharisees hassled Jesus over not washing his hands, but he replied it doesn't matter because it goes through the gut and comes out in the poop. It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man, but what comes out of it because out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. What you do is not as important as what you say.

Note the contrast where there are commands in the Quran [core of Islam] where God sanctions the killing of non-Muslims under the vaguest threats and reasons. This is so evident where millions of non-Muslims has been killed in the name of God and as a divine duty of Muslims.

Contrast is noted and valid, but Christians have still killed more people.

Nope.
Those who happened to claim to be Christians may have killed people, but they did not kill in the name of Christ. Jesus never commanded Christians to kill non-Christians.

I didn't say they killed in the name of christ. I said they killed and they were christian.

Same with Brahman, the Absolute, and such is impossible to exist as real.

The absolute doesn't exist because there is nothing for it to exist in relation to, but obviously there must be a totality of everything with nothing outside. So either the totality goes on and on forever in infinity, which is absurd, or the totality is unitary and absolute.

Obviously??? Who said so.
Either way past or forward we are faced with infinite regression which cannot be spoken of, thus as per Wittgenstein's 'Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent.'
Point is you [as with any others] as a fallible human being cannot conclude on a infinite regression.

Infinity doesn't exist and can't exist. It's absurd. Says who? We have a whole thread on that viewtopic.php?f=4&t=194376

We're now only arguing if infinity can exist merely as a concept (I say no, not even as a concept).

Infinity is a camera looking at its own monitor. It's a unity trying to see itself, which always results in an illusory infinite regression.

It is a fact the Christians has sinned against the NT when they kill non-Christians and other 'Christians'. It is not a fact that Christianity has killed or caused the suffering and deaths.

If Christianity hadn't existed, then Hitler could not have committed atrocities. Stalin could not have committed atrocities.

This is one of the most irrational and ridiculous view I have ever come across.
It is obvious the acts of Hitler has nothing to do with the Christianity and the New Testament.
Come on, don't insult your own intelligence with the above statement.

Hitler's alliance with Christianity viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194717

Inspired by the holy texts, the Quran, Muslims has killed appx 80 millions of Indians over 1000 years of the conquest of India.

Christianity beat that in a mere decade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Again this is ridiculous.
World War II has nothing to do with Christianity nor what it a theological war. There is no link betweeen the WWII and any religious commands from the New Testament.
World War II was mainly a political war.

The killing of 80 million Indians I mentioned was specifically linked to verses from the Quran, i.e. the religion of Islam.

You have a lot to learn.

[Prismatic567]

We are doing philosophy here and thus should not be victim of a Category Mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
Thus we need to understand what is Christianity-proper and pseudo-Christianity.

There is no category other than affirmation: if you consider yourself a christian, then you are. Reading is not a requirement.

If that is the case I can consider myself an American if I declare and affirm I am an American?
(Officially I am not an American).

No, but you can claim to be a christian and no one will contest that. If you claim to be american, someone might contest it.

Note we are in a philosophy forum and thus has to be rational.
If you see a real apple but insist it is an orange who is to judge that?
The point here is one need to exercise intellectual integrity.

True any one can claim to the a Christian but within the ambit of intellectual integrity as in such a philosophical forum, one is a Christian by conformance to the main doctrinal principles of the New Testament.

Note I mentioned adherence to the core principles e.g. John 3:16 and others.
Giving everything to the poor, took up his cross is not the core and imperative principles.

Ok then, but there is no standardized interpretation of 3:16. If jesus died for the world, then all you have to do is profess that you believe and you are a christian. If the terrorist who flew the plane into the tower called upon jesus at the last moment, he'd gone straight to heaven as his plane crashed into the tower, killing 3000 people (who probably would've went to hell because they didn't believe). It's as simple as that. You don't need to know how to read or need to know anything about the bible. Just tell people you're a christian and you are.

I live in the middle of it. All the roads here are named after churches. There is a church on every corner. I'm probably the only one in the entire region who is not a professing christian. I hate to put myself on a pedestal, and it's actually pitiful to report that I'm about as authoritative as you can find regarding Christianity because I grew up in it, am surrounded by it, everyone I know is a Christian, and I studied the bible passionately for many years. Heck, I've only been out of it for a year or two. 2 years ago I would have been arguing with you that god exists.

Telling you are Christian will not make you one.
The point is one still have to perform certain ritual and procedures to be qualified to be called a Christian.

It is important to understand that a person is not necessarily a Christian because he was born into a Christian nation, culture or home. Nobody in this world is naturally born a Christian.
Even though a person may associate with or approve of Christian principles, that does not make him a Christian.
There is no way that anybody can be a Christian by his own strength of character, willpower, knowledge, talents, sense of righteousness, or sensitive feelings.
https://activechristianity.org/who-is-a-christian

I agree. There is no way that anybody can be a Christian by his own strength of character, willpower, knowledge, talents, sense of righteousness, or sensitive feelings because all it takes is simply professing that one is a Christian. It's as easy as falling off a log.

I agree to an extent it is very simple to be a Christian, i.e. just surrender and believe in Christ and the Christian God.
However the above acts of surrender and belief implied one must comply with the commands of God within the New Testaments.

In the New Testaments Jesus did not command Christians to kill non-Christian but rather commands Christian to love even their enemies.

It is the same with a Christian, and what differentiate a Christian from other religions and practices is a Christian-proper believes in the core principles within the NT, e.g. John 3:16, Jesus is the son of God, Jesus was crucified, died and raised, and other critical doctrinal principles.

Yeah, jesus was either god or the son of god or both, and he died for our sins, and he rose again on the 3rd day, defeated death, and all you have to do is believe it. Now you have a license to do whatever you want. You can shoot people and just rely on your faith to save you.

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Works do not matter and there is no law. The law ended with jesus. The 10 commandments are suggestions. The bible can be distorted 10 ways from sunday or just disregarded.

The Pharisees hassled Jesus over not washing his hands, but he replied it doesn't matter because it goes through the gut and comes out in the poop. It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man, but what comes out of it because out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. What you do is not as important as what you say.

As I had stated above;

In the New Testaments Jesus did not command Christians to kill non-Christian but rather commands Christian to love even their enemies.

Nope.
Those who happened to claim to be Christians may have killed people, but they did not kill in the name of Christ. Jesus never commanded Christians to kill non-Christians.

I didn't say they killed in the name of christ. I said they killed and they were christian.

Killing as Christians do not mean Christianity kills.
As you have stated, it is easy to become a Christian, i.e. the good, the bad and the evil. If a evil person became a Christian and then raped a person, it has nothing to do with Christianity because there are no commands in the NT condoning Christians to rape others.
It is the same for killing, since the NT do not condone Christians to kill non-Christians.

You have a lot to learn.

Why should I have to learn from Hitchen in this case.
I understand there are Christians who had been engaged in loads of evil acts since 2000 years ago, but such evil acts has nothing to do with Christianity per se.
Where in the NT did Christ command Christians to go to war and kill non-Christians?

[Serendipper]

Note we are in a philosophy forum and thus has to be rational.
If you see a real apple but insist it is an orange who is to judge that?
The point here is one need to exercise intellectual integrity.

True any one can claim to the a Christian but within the ambit of intellectual integrity as in such a philosophical forum, one is a Christian by conformance to the main doctrinal principles of the New Testament.

But defining christians in that way is an empty category (or sparsely populated at best). If you want to encapsulate christians into a category, you'll have to define then as anyone who professes to be one.

Telling you are Christian will not make you one.
The point is one still have to perform certain ritual and procedures to be qualified to be called a Christian.

The ritual is simply professing to be one.

I agree to an extent it is very simple to be a Christian, i.e. just surrender and believe in Christ and the Christian God.
However the above acts of surrender and belief implied one must comply with the commands of God within the New Testaments.

No it's not about works (obeying laws or anything that you could perform, but only faith).

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

If it were about works, then you could brag and boast about how well you adhere to the law. That is why it's not about works, but only faith. Salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned by doing works, but only believing. There is no law.

That said, the works are the evidence of salvation. If people do bad works, then they probably are not saved. But if they do good works, then they might be saved. Works do not cause salvation, but are evidence that salvation has happened.

In the New Testaments Jesus did not command Christians to kill non-Christian but rather commands Christian to love even their enemies.

This is true, but no one does it. Even so, let's not forget the spirit of doing good to enemies:

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

The reason to do good to enemies is to punish them (by making god punish them). So there is nothing virtuous there.

Killing as Christians do not mean Christianity kills.

Christianity kills because it divides people into classes of good and evil.

As you have stated, it is easy to become a Christian, i.e. the good, the bad and the evil. If a evil person became a Christian and then raped a person, it has nothing to do with Christianity because there are no commands in the NT condoning Christians to rape others.
It is the same for killing, since the NT do not condone Christians to kill non-Christians.

I understand the distinction you're showcasing, but Islam is just a more transparent version of the fight against evil. What are we trying to accomplish here anyway? Can't we agree that both religions are bad?

Why should I have to learn from Hitchen in this case.

Because he has already performed the research and has much to teach.

I understand there are Christians who had been engaged in loads of evil acts since 2000 years ago, but such evil acts has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

Except christianity's assertion that evil exists.

Where in the NT did Christ command Christians to go to war and kill non-Christians?

No where that I know of.

[Prismatic567]

Note we are in a philosophy forum and thus has to be rational.
If you see a real apple but insist it is an orange who is to judge that?
The point here is one need to exercise intellectual integrity.

True any one can claim to the a Christian but within the ambit of intellectual integrity as in such a philosophical forum, one is a Christian by conformance to the main doctrinal principles of the New Testament.

But defining christians in that way is an empty category (or sparsely populated at best). If you want to encapsulate christians into a category, you'll have to define then as anyone who professes to be one.

Telling you are Christian will not make you one.
The point is one still have to perform certain ritual and procedures to be qualified to be called a Christian.

The ritual is simply professing to be one.

There are two meanings to 'profess'.

PROFESS:
1. claim that one has (a quality or feeling), especially when this is not the case.
"he had professed his love for her only to walk away"

2. affirm one's faith in or allegiance to (a religion or set of beliefs).
"a people professing Christianity"

I presume your use of 'profess' is not related to 1 but rather 2.

In the case of professing to be a Christian, there is obviously faith and allegiance to a set of beliefs which is normally accompanied by some sort of ritual to recognize the person as a Christian, e.g. baptism, etc. to surrender and obey Christ and God.

I agree to an extent it is very simple to be a Christian, i.e. just surrender and believe in Christ and the Christian God.
However the above acts of surrender and belief implied one must comply with the commands of God within the New Testaments.

No it's not about works (obeying laws or anything that you could perform, but only faith).

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

If it were about works, then you could brag and boast about how well you adhere to the law. That is why it's not about works, but only faith. Salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned by doing works, but only believing. There is no law.

That said, the works are the evidence of salvation. If people do bad works, then they probably are not saved. But if they do good works, then they might be saved. Works do not cause salvation, but are evidence that salvation has happened.

You are cherry picking the verses and messing it up.
Note the point is what qualifies to be a Christian not about salvation.

The theological principle of any religion is the follower must comply with the authority of the religion, i.e. in the case of Christianity it is the New Testament.
A Christian cannot claim to be a Christian if his beliefs and acts are outside the scope of the New Testament.
Surely a person who claimed to be a Christian cannot insist his God is Allah of the Quran, the Hindu Brahman and prefer to following the teachings of the Quran or Gita?

Thus the minimal requirement for a person to be a Christian is he must comply with the critical imperative criteria as stated in the New Testament from Christ and nowhere else.

In the New Testaments Jesus did not command Christians to kill non-Christian but rather commands Christian to love even their enemies.

This is true, but no one does it. Even so, let's not forget the spirit of doing good to enemies:

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

The reason to do good to enemies is to punish them (by making god punish them). So there is nothing virtuous there.

It is not for you to decide and make judgment.
If God stated you have to love, feed, then you just have to obey God's command otherwise you will go to hell for disobedience. What happen to the enemy thereafter is none of the Christian's business.

Killing as Christians do not mean Christianity kills.

Christianity kills because it divides people into classes of good and evil.

This is a weido kind of response.

As you have stated, it is easy to become a Christian, i.e. the good, the bad and the evil. If a evil person became a Christian and then raped a person, it has nothing to do with Christianity because there are no commands in the NT condoning Christians to rape others.
It is the same for killing, since the NT do not condone Christians to kill non-Christians.

I understand the distinction you're showcasing, but Islam is just a more transparent version of the fight against evil. What are we trying to accomplish here anyway? Can't we agree that both religions are bad?

Personally, I believe ALL religions should be weaned off eventually.
Christianity has its negatives but it is not as evil as Islam.
All religions has to go but priority is on Islam.

Why should I have to learn from Hitchen in this case.

Because he has already performed the research and has much to teach.

In this case, Hitchen attempts to link religions per se to the acts of their evil followers is irrational and a fallacy.

I understand there are Christians who had been engaged in loads of evil acts since 2000 years ago, but such evil acts has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

Except christianity's assertion that evil exists.

That Christianity asserts evil exists do not imply Christianity is evil.
I assert, DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and violent acts, then I propose how can we prevent such evil and violent acts from being committed by evil prone people.

Where in the NT did Christ command Christians to go to war and kill non-Christians?

No where that I know of.

That is the point.
That is why I conclude Christianity per se do not condone evil and violent acts like Islam does.
Christianity per se has its negative threat to humanity now and in the future, but they are not that critical in contrast to Islam's potential of evil and violence.

[Serendipper]

There are two meanings to 'profess'.

PROFESS:
1. claim that one has (a quality or feeling), especially when this is not the case.
"he had professed his love for her only to walk away"

2. affirm one's faith in or allegiance to (a religion or set of beliefs).
"a people professing Christianity"

I presume your use of 'profess' is not related to 1 but rather 2.

In the case of professing to be a Christian, there is obviously faith and allegiance to a set of beliefs which is normally accompanied by some sort of ritual to recognize the person as a Christian, e.g. baptism, etc. to surrender and obey Christ and God.

If you came to my house, we could walk down the road and ask the preacher, "What does it take to be a christian?" He would say "If you profess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead."

I've heard that line a million times.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

I'm not sure the difference in confess and profess, but you get the idea.

At the end of every sermon the preacher would give altar call where he'd implore people to come and be saved. If you felt like he was "standing on your toes" talking directly to you, you might venture to the front while everyone else is singing and clapping to loud music. When you got the front, a guy wreaking of cologne and dripping in sweat would approach and ask you to affirm the words that is essentially "do you believe jesus died for your sins, etc". Then he'd pray over you and you'd start balling your eyes out in realization that god loves you. After that, you're saved. There is nothing else to do, but you are expected to go to church on sunday to sing and clap and sit there trying not to fall asleep while the preach drones on and on. They expect you to read your bible, but nobody does. Oh, and you're supposed to put money in the tray they pass around.

When I was a kid, mom had me believing that in the end times scary men would ask me to deny jesus and take the mark of the beast. The only relevant bit was either confessing or denying jesus. The ones refusing to deny would be marched off to concentration camps or something.

I agree to an extent it is very simple to be a Christian, i.e. just surrender and believe in Christ and the Christian God.
However the above acts of surrender and belief implied one must comply with the commands of God within the New Testaments.

No it's not about works (obeying laws or anything that you could perform, but only faith).

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

If it were about works, then you could brag and boast about how well you adhere to the law. That is why it's not about works, but only faith. Salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned by doing works, but only believing. There is no law.

That said, the works are the evidence of salvation. If people do bad works, then they probably are not saved. But if they do good works, then they might be saved. Works do not cause salvation, but are evidence that salvation has happened.

You are cherry picking the verses and messing it up.

Cherry picking? How many verses do you want?

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

I set christianity on a pedestal specifically because it was distinct from islam and judaism in being exclusively faith-based and not works-based. Works are just a method to brag about piety.

Note the point is what qualifies to be a Christian not about salvation.

Yep it's simply saying you're a christian.

The theological principle of any religion is the follower must comply with the authority of the religion, i.e. in the case of Christianity it is the New Testament.

Many different authorities fall under the heading of "christian". There are lots of ways to interpret the new testament.

A Christian cannot claim to be a Christian if his beliefs and acts are outside the scope of the New Testament.

But I could claim anything is within the scope of the NT according to my interpretation and no one could challenge that since it's simply their interpretation vs mine. There is no ultimate judge specifying which interpretations are allowed. Jim Jones poisoned 1000 people according to his interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

Surely a person who claimed to be a Christian cannot insist his God is Allah of the Quran, the Hindu Brahman and prefer to following the teachings of the Quran or Gita?

Yes you're probably right about that.

Thus the minimal requirement for a person to be a Christian is he must comply with the critical imperative criteria as stated in the New Testament from Christ and nowhere else.

According to his interpretation of it, sure. But that's still arbitrary.

In the New Testaments Jesus did not command Christians to kill non-Christian but rather commands Christian to love even their enemies.

This is true, but no one does it. Even so, let's not forget the spirit of doing good to enemies:

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

The reason to do good to enemies is to punish them (by making god punish them). So there is nothing virtuous there.

It is not for you to decide and make judgment.
If God stated you have to love, feed, then you just have to obey God's command otherwise you will go to hell for disobedience.

I can't go to hell because once I'm saved, I'm always saved. That's one interpretation. So I can be mean all I want and god can't punish me since: once saved, always saved.

Or I could ask forgiveness later and god is "faithful to forgive 7 x 70".

No one looks after the welfare of their enemies; it's absurd.

Just like the command to not give thought for tomorrow. Who does that?

Killing as Christians do not mean Christianity kills.

Christianity kills because it divides people into classes of good and evil.

This is a weido kind of response.

Why?

Personally, I believe ALL religions should be weaned off eventually.
Christianity has its negatives but it is not as evil as Islam.
All religions has to go but priority is on Islam.

Islam to me seems like the religion of the uneducated. I think if people get generally smarter, islam will fizzle out on its own. I'm more worried about christianity since it's an angel of light compared to islam.

Why should I have to learn from Hitchen in this case.

Because he has already performed the research and has much to teach.

In this case, Hitchen attempts to link religions per se to the acts of their evil followers is irrational and a fallacy.

How do you know if you haven't listened?

I understand there are Christians who had been engaged in loads of evil acts since 2000 years ago, but such evil acts has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

Except christianity's assertion that evil exists.

That Christianity asserts evil exists do not imply Christianity is evil.
I assert, DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and violent acts, then I propose how can we prevent such evil and violent acts from being committed by evil prone people.

Good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things, but to get a good person to do evil, that takes religion.

Where in the NT did Christ command Christians to go to war and kill non-Christians?

No where that I know of.

That is the point.
That is why I conclude Christianity per se do not condone evil and violent acts like Islam does.
Christianity per se has its negative threat to humanity now and in the future, but they are not that critical in contrast to Islam's potential of evil and violence.

I think islam will fizzle out. It's too barbaric.

[Serendipper]

Funny video:

[Prismatic567]

There are two meanings to 'profess'.

PROFESS:
1. claim that one has (a quality or feeling), especially when this is not the case.
"he had professed his love for her only to walk away"

2. affirm one's faith in or allegiance to (a religion or set of beliefs).
"a people professing Christianity"

I presume your use of 'profess' is not related to 1 but rather 2.

In the case of professing to be a Christian, there is obviously faith and allegiance to a set of beliefs which is normally accompanied by some sort of ritual to recognize the person as a Christian, e.g. baptism, etc. to surrender and obey Christ and God.

If you came to my house, we could walk down the road and ask the preacher, "What does it take to be a christian?" He would say "If you profess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead."

I've heard that line a million times.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

I'm not sure the difference in confess and profess, but you get the idea.

At the end of every sermon the preacher would give altar call where he'd implore people to come and be saved. If you felt like he was "standing on your toes" talking directly to you, you might venture to the front while everyone else is singing and clapping to loud music. When you got the front, a guy wreaking of cologne and dripping in sweat would approach and ask you to affirm the words that is essentially "do you believe jesus died for your sins, etc". Then he'd pray over you and you'd start balling your eyes out in realization that god loves you. After that, you're saved. There is nothing else to do, but you are expected to go to church on sunday to sing and clap and sit there trying not to fall asleep while the preach drones on and on. They expect you to read your bible, but nobody does. Oh, and you're supposed to put money in the tray they pass around.

When I was a kid, mom had me believing that in the end times scary men would ask me to deny jesus and take the mark of the beast. The only relevant bit was either confessing or denying jesus. The ones refusing to deny would be marched off to concentration camps or something.

A Christian preacher do not have the authority to decide who is ultimately a Christian.

I do agree there is some truths to it when a preacher made the following assertion;

You are a Christian,
"If you profess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead."

The above is merely sales talk without the relevant doctrinal 'small prints' from the NT.

What is critical is the above assertion by the preacher implies the onus of the the person who profess to carry out the commands of Christ as in the NT.

Would the person who had professed earlier still be a Christian if s/he shouted
"Fuck Christ, I will never love my enemies as commanded in the Bible."
"I believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead but I will never obey whatever Jesus preached in the NT" "Regardless of my acts, Jesus must ensure I enter heaven as promised."

Surely the above is not what Christianity intended Christians to be?

Cherry picking? How many verses do you want?

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

What the above meant is salvation of the Christian is not primarily dependent on works itself.
What is primary is the faith and grace which will spontaneously generate good works.

This primary requirements [faith, purpose, intent, etc.] are expected in the New Testament, thus a Christian must still comply with the NT to be a Christian.
In addition, a Christian will also have comply with other commands in the NT in addition to the primary requirements re faith, purpose, intention, etc.

I set christianity on a pedestal specifically because it was distinct from islam and judaism in being exclusively faith-based and not works-based. Works are just a method to brag about piety.

Note, most religions primary requirements are not works-based but beliefs-based [surrender, faith, reverence, etc.]. Works is secondary, but whatever the works, they have to be compliant with the core authority of the religions as expressed in various terms and commands.

Note the point is what qualifies to be a Christian not about salvation.

Yep it's simply saying you're a christian.

As I had stated, professing one to be a Christian automatically entails the onus to obey the commands in the NT.
There is no way one can be a Christian and insist on not following the commands in the NT.

The theological principle of any religion is the follower must comply with the authority of the religion, i.e. in the case of Christianity it is the New Testament.

Many different authorities fall under the heading of "christian". There are lots of ways to interpret the new testament.

There are certain core principles which are shared by the majority of so-called Christianity. No Christians will deny the existence of God and Christ.

A Christian cannot claim to be a Christian if his beliefs and acts are outside the scope of the New Testament.

But I could claim anything is within the scope of the NT according to my interpretation and no one could challenge that since it's simply their interpretation vs mine. There is no ultimate judge specifying which interpretations are allowed. Jim Jones poisoned 1000 people according to his interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

Jim Jones is a Christian because he believed in the core principles of Christianity as in the NT.
The fact that he poisoned ~1000 people has nothing to do with Christianity but rather his own inherent evil nature as a human being.

It is the same we cannot blame Christianity for priests who rape children and boys.
Note a person can wear many hats in different moments. A person can be a boss, a teacher, worker, employee or employer during the normal 9-5 and a father later at home.
When these men/women who raped children within the Christian community, they were acting with an evil persona and not as a Christian per-se, sort of Jekyll and Hyde personalities.

I can't go to hell because once I'm saved, I'm always saved. That's one interpretation. So I can be mean all I want and god can't punish me since: once saved, always saved.

This is most weird.
I don't believe it is true.
Give me a link to show your claim is true?

Or I could ask forgiveness later and god is "faithful to forgive 7 x 70".

I am not an expert with the Bible as with the Quran.
But surely there are forgivable and unforgivable sins or degrees of sins?

No one looks after the welfare of their enemies; it's absurd.

Just like the command to not give thought for tomorrow. Who does that?

What is set in the NT is the ideal.
The point is followers must strive to comply to the best of their ability.

This will prevent the opposite 'Hate your enemies and kill them' as commanded in the Quran which is evil to start with.

Christianity kills because it divides people into classes of good and evil.

This is a weirdo kind of response.

Why?

How can dividing people into classes of good and evil imply condoning killing the others?
Christianity does divide humans as in "us versus them" which is not a good thing.
But Christianity do not condone the killing of "them."
Therefore Christianity do not kills.

Personally, I believe ALL religions should be weaned off eventually.
Christianity has its negatives but it is not as evil as Islam.
All religions has to go but priority is on Islam.

Islam to me seems like the religion of the uneducated. I think if people get generally smarter, islam will fizzle out on its own. I'm more worried about christianity since it's an angel of light compared to islam.

Christianity will be at most a pest or 'mosquito' [creationism, pro-life, proselytizing, homophobic, etc.] to humanity as long as it exists.
However the commands in the Quran could lead to the extermination of the human species as and when WMDs [nukes, bio, etc.] are cheaply and easily available.

In this case, Hitchen attempts to link religions per se to the acts of their evil followers is irrational and a fallacy.

How do you know if you haven't listened?

How do you know I have not listened.
I did listen and his conclusion is hasty generalization.

That is the point.
That is why I conclude Christianity per se do not condone evil and violent acts like Islam does.
Christianity per se has its negative threat to humanity now and in the future, but they are not that critical in contrast to Islam's potential of evil and violence.

I think islam will fizzle out. It's too barbaric.

I had argued elsewhere,

DNA wise, ALL humans inherent has the potential to commit evil and violence.
Appx. 20% [conservatively] are born with an active evil tendency.
The majority of humans are born with an existential crisis that drive them to theism.

Until we deal with the above, Islam as a theistic religion will not fizzle out and the natural evil prone people will feast on the God-sanctioned evil verses within the Quran.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Prismatic, Serendipper

Where in the NT did Christ command Christians to go to war and kill non-Christians?

No where that I know of.

There is an assumption in this argument that the most blunt expression of violence in a text will lead to the most deaths. IOW if Islam comes right out and says kill X clearly and does not have contradictory parts, then it will cause more deaths and is a more pernicious text than, say, The Bible, where it is more complicated and, hey, Jesus, seems anti-violence, etc.

But we are complicated creatures and the Bible has be incredibly effective in leading to violence against Christians and against other types of Christians.

Violence carried out by Muslims and by Christians of course have many other factors in their violence, the religion often a justification for violence that would have happened anyway for other reasons.

Just telling people to kill directly may not be the most effective set at creating violence. In fact indirect manipulative communication can be used incredibly effectively.

And then there's things like this....

https://www.juancole.com/2013/04/terror ... gions.html
*Apart from the statistics....

The Jesus at the end of the book is coming back with “eyes like a flame” wearing a “robe dipped in blood.” He’s got plans to make a feast for the birds out of “the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” Kill ‘em all and let Dad sort ‘em out.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Death_tol ... ristianity

And this is a nice general set of diagrams about deaths in general...

https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-deat ... kdown.html

I had an ex-girlfriend who would describe our relationship and breakup with her has the bad guy. She confessed to her shortcomings, blamed herself. But she did in such a way that it sounded like, hey, here's this person who knows her faults, confessing her sins, that other guy, Karpel, doesn't seem to be owning much, she just wants another chance, he must be the asshole. She never said it. If they brought up that reaction she continued to defend me

and I have NEVER GOTTEN SO MUCH SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING I EVER DID. Breaking up with her that is.

Now this may seem silly to compare with religious scriptures, but my point is that what a text does in masses of human brains is not a simple process.

I have been trash talked behind my back by people and never, ever did it cause so much social damage as a person pretending to take respnsibility for things she did - like always letting me know she was slumming being with me, until I got tired of it and broke up with her. Judging me all the time and more.

Her indirect approach and fake martyr attitude IMPLIED all sorts of shit about me AND WAS VASTLY MORE EFFECTIVE than anyone who ever went on a direct attack.

Of course this, lol, does not prove that The Bible is more effective at creating violence than the KOran. Christians have tended to have better weapons than Muslims, at least recently. And there have been more of them.

But this assuption that a more direct test is more effective and one can catalogue via quotes and rate the effectiveness of long texts and claim causal chains leading to violence seems incredibly naive to me. And an assumption that needs a lot of support, especially given how many deaths Christians have carried out.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic, Serendipper

Where in the NT did Christ command Christians to go to war and kill non-Christians?

No where that I know of.

There is an assumption in this argument that the most blunt expression of violence in a text will lead to the most deaths. IOW if Islam comes right out and says kill X clearly and does not have contradictory parts, then it will cause more deaths and is a more pernicious text than, say, The Bible, where it is more complicated and, hey, Jesus, seems anti-violence, etc.

But we are complicated creatures and the Bible has be incredibly effective in leading to violence against Christians and against other types of Christians.

Violence carried out by Muslims and by Christians of course have many other factors in their violence, the religion often a justification for violence that would have happened anyway for other reasons.

Just telling people to kill directly may not be the most effective set at creating violence. In fact indirect manipulative communication can be used incredibly effectively.

And then there's things like this....

https://www.juancole.com/2013/04/terror ... gions.html
*Apart from the statistics....

The Jesus at the end of the book is coming back with “eyes like a flame” wearing a “robe dipped in blood.” He’s got plans to make a feast for the birds out of “the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” Kill ‘em all and let Dad sort ‘em out.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Death_tol ... ristianity

And this is a nice general set of diagrams about deaths in general...

https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-deat ... kdown.html

I find the above statistics misleading and dangerously wrong in many cases, e.g.

https://www.juancole.com/images/2013/04/relviolence.jpg
Death is 20th Century via War and Politics by Religion;
Christianity = 100 million
Islam = 2 million

.

There is a categorical error in the above in that we must separate the ideology from its believers.
If the above is to be held to be true then rationally less attention should be given to Islam.

Philosophically, wisely, morally and ethically, ALL evil and violent acts regardless must be dealt with.
To be efficient in dealing with problems we must break them up in manageable categories.
From these categories we then find the critical root causes.
Two main categories of evil are 1. Secular-based and 2. Religious-based Evil and violence acts.

I have proven the following;

1. Evils and violent acts of Muslims are inspired directly by the religion of Islam.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194744
2. Evils and violent acts of non-Islamic believers are triggered by the evil human nature of the believers themselves and not by the religion itself.

From the above, logically weaning off the religion of Islam will definitely eliminate any possibility of evil and violent acts inspired by Islam itself.

Without religions, human beings will still commit evil and violent acts triggered by their inherent human nature. As such humanity need to find solution to deal with such evil and violent acts by tuning human nature from within. I am optimistic with this given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

The above statistics are misleading and are often used by apologists to play down the inherent malignant evil and violent potential of Islam.
If this inherent evil and violent potential from Islam is not dealt with it is possible for the human species to be exterminated when WMDs [bio, nukes] are cheaply and easily available.

What is significant is when the sanctions and commands [immutable] as in Islam are from an all powerful God and believers are obliged within a divine contract in exchange for eternal life in heaven, such a drive becomes very powerful for believers to act the worst.

On the other hand, whilst humans are inherent evil, there is room for change and improvements within the secular perspective. Note South Africa had given up their nukes and discussion is ongoing with North Korea and in the future there is a possibility all Nations will be nukeless.

[Serendipper]

A Christian preacher do not have the authority to decide who is ultimately a Christian.

The only one who knows that is god. Everyone else is not supposed to judge who is and isn't a christian.

You are a Christian,
"If you profess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead."

The above is merely sales talk without the relevant doctrinal 'small prints' from the NT.

Pretty much every christian fell for the sales talk then.

What is critical is the above assertion by the preacher implies the onus of the the person who profess to carry out the commands of Christ as in the NT.

There are no commands, unless belief is a command.

Would the person who had professed earlier still be a Christian if s/he shouted
"Fuck Christ, I will never love my enemies as commanded in the Bible."
"I believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead but I will never obey whatever Jesus preached in the NT" "Regardless of my acts, Jesus must ensure I enter heaven as promised."

Surely the above is not what Christianity intended Christians to be?

That's pretty much what christians say. Show me a christian who loves his enemies.

What the above meant is salvation of the Christian is not primarily dependent on works itself.
What is primary is the faith and grace which will spontaneously generate good works.

Correct. Now you understand.

This primary requirements [faith, purpose, intent, etc.] are expected in the New Testament, thus a Christian must still comply with the NT to be a Christian.
In addition, a Christian will also have comply with other commands in the NT in addition to the primary requirements re faith, purpose, intention, etc.

Except that 1) nobody can agree what those requirements are and 2) there are no requirements, but only evidence, however the only one qualified to interpret the evidence is god; everyone else is to suspend judgement. Anyone claiming to be christian cannot be said to be wrong by any man.

I set christianity on a pedestal specifically because it was distinct from islam and judaism in being exclusively faith-based and not works-based. Works are just a method to brag about piety.

Note, most religions primary requirements are not works-based but beliefs-based [surrender, faith, reverence, etc.]. Works is secondary, but whatever the works, they have to be compliant with the core authority of the religions as expressed in various terms and commands.

Judaism doesn't require the following of laws to attain salvation? That was the point of Jesus coming: to split from the idea of following law.

Note the point is what qualifies to be a Christian not about salvation.

Yep it's simply saying you're a christian.

As I had stated, professing one to be a Christian automatically entails the onus to obey the commands in the NT.
There is no way one can be a Christian and insist on not following the commands in the NT.

Ok then, no one loves their enemies, therefore no one is a christian, therefore your category is empty.

The theological principle of any religion is the follower must comply with the authority of the religion, i.e. in the case of Christianity it is the New Testament.

Many different authorities fall under the heading of "christian". There are lots of ways to interpret the new testament.

There are certain core principles which are shared by the majority of so-called Christianity. No Christians will deny the existence of God and Christ.

That's about all they agree on.

A Christian cannot claim to be a Christian if his beliefs and acts are outside the scope of the New Testament.

But I could claim anything is within the scope of the NT according to my interpretation and no one could challenge that since it's simply their interpretation vs mine. There is no ultimate judge specifying which interpretations are allowed. Jim Jones poisoned 1000 people according to his interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

Jim Jones is a Christian because he believed in the core principles of Christianity as in the NT.
The fact that he poisoned ~1000 people has nothing to do with Christianity but rather his own inherent evil nature as a human being.

Yes but he required religion in order to carryout the deception.

I can't go to hell because once I'm saved, I'm always saved. That's one interpretation. So I can be mean all I want and god can't punish me since: once saved, always saved.

This is most weird.
I don't believe it is true.
Give me a link to show your claim is true?

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

http://www.comereason.org/can-you-lose- ... vation.asp
https://www.backtothebible.org/post/is- ... -salvation
https://biblearchive.com/blog/can-i-be- ... e-unsaved/

"Once saved, always saved" is a popular tenet of Christianity, but there are those who believe it's possible to backslide. Jesus didn't speak kindly about that: Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Or I could ask forgiveness later and god is "faithful to forgive 7 x 70".

I am not an expert with the Bible as with the Quran.
But surely there are forgivable and unforgivable sins or degrees of sins?

Only one sin is unforgivable:

Matthew 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I'm not exactly sure how to go about committing that sin.

No one looks after the welfare of their enemies; it's absurd.

Just like the command to not give thought for tomorrow. Who does that?

What is set in the NT is the ideal.
The point is followers must strive to comply to the best of their ability.

This will prevent the opposite 'Hate your enemies and kill them' as commanded in the Quran which is evil to start with.

The Quran is so blatantly evil that I can't believe anyone would follow it. The bible seems innocent, so many are lured inside.

Christianity kills because it divides people into classes of good and evil.

This is a weirdo kind of response.

Why?

How can dividing people into classes of good and evil imply condoning killing the others?

Why would a good person not want to kill evil?

Christianity does divide humans as in "us versus them" which is not a good thing.
But Christianity do not condone the killing of "them."
Therefore Christianity do not kills.

Your naive view of it illustrates exactly why it's so dangerous.

Personally, I believe ALL religions should be weaned off eventually.
Christianity has its negatives but it is not as evil as Islam.
All religions has to go but priority is on Islam.

Islam to me seems like the religion of the uneducated. I think if people get generally smarter, islam will fizzle out on its own. I'm more worried about christianity since it's an angel of light compared to islam.

Christianity will be at most a pest or 'mosquito' [creationism, pro-life, proselytizing, homophobic, etc.] to humanity as long as it exists.
However the commands in the Quran could lead to the extermination of the human species as and when WMDs [nukes, bio, etc.] are cheaply and easily available.

I suppose the big fear is that muslims take over white countries with nukes, but I think by the time that happens, the muslims will be smarter and less prone to violence. The solution is education.

In this case, Hitchen attempts to link religions per se to the acts of their evil followers is irrational and a fallacy.

How do you know if you haven't listened?

How do you know I have not listened.
I did listen and his conclusion is hasty generalization.

He devoted a whole chapter in his book to it. How can a hasty generalization follow from so much research?

Here then, the central premise of Hitchens’ argument is worthy of reiteration. Had Stalin inherited a purely rational secular edifice, one established upon the ethos espoused by the likes of Lucretius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Einstein and other free thinking and rational secularists, then the apologist’s argument would hold slightly more weight, but such wasn’t the case. Stalin merely tore the existing religious labels off the Christian Inquisition, the enforcement of Christian orthodoxy, the Crusades, the praising of the priesthood, messianism, and Edenic ideas of a terrestrial religious-styled utopia, and re-branded them with the red of communism. Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress ... -hitchens/

Good people will do good and evil people will do evil, but to get good people to do evil requires religion.

That is the point.
That is why I conclude Christianity per se do not condone evil and violent acts like Islam does.
Christianity per se has its negative threat to humanity now and in the future, but they are not that critical in contrast to Islam's potential of evil and violence.

I think islam will fizzle out. It's too barbaric.

I had argued elsewhere,

DNA wise, ALL humans inherent has the potential to commit evil and violence.
Appx. 20% [conservatively] are born with an active evil tendency.
The majority of humans are born with an existential crisis that drive them to theism.

Until we deal with the above, Islam as a theistic religion will not fizzle out and the natural evil prone people will feast on the God-sanctioned evil verses within the Quran.

Environmental stress causes the brain to favor lower cognitive functions at the expense of higher functions such as empathy. As technology progresses, people will endure less stress and grow more empathetic brains and religion will fizzle out.

[Serendipper]

Without religions, human beings will still commit evil and violent acts triggered by their inherent human nature.

But not on a mass scale.

In the name of humanity we can battle cancer, but can we put all jews to the sword in the name of humanism?

The above statistics are misleading and are often used by apologists to play down the inherent malignant evil and violent potential of Islam.
If this inherent evil and violent potential from Islam is not dealt with it is possible for the human species to be exterminated when WMDs [bio, nukes] are cheaply and easily available.

So, what's your method of dealing with it? War in the name of humanism? Should we kill them because they want to kill us?

[Prismatic567]

A Christian preacher do not have the authority to decide who is ultimately a Christian.

The only one who knows that is god. Everyone else is not supposed to judge who is and isn't a christian.

That is my point.
The Christian God delivered his terms via the NT.
Therefore the NT is the basis [deliberated philosophically] to determine who is a Christian.

You are a Christian,
"If you profess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead."

The above is merely sales talk without the relevant doctrinal 'small prints' from the NT.

Pretty much every christian fell for the sales talk then.

How do you know every Christian did not take note of the small prints?
I don't believe Christians are that superficial because their Church would have informed them of the requirements within the small prints of how to become a good Christian.

Note Mathew 19:23-26

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, to which the man stated he had done. Jesus responded, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.

What is critical is the above assertion by the preacher implies the onus of the the person who profess to carry out the commands of Christ as in the NT.

There are no commands, unless belief is a command.

Note the above

"... Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments ..."

Would the person who had professed earlier still be a Christian if s/he shouted
"Fuck Christ, I will never love my enemies as commanded in the Bible."
"I believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead but I will never obey whatever Jesus preached in the NT" "Regardless of my acts, Jesus must ensure I enter heaven as promised."

Surely the above is not what Christianity intended Christians to be?

That's pretty much what christians say. Show me a christian who loves his enemies.

Here is one;

Pope at Mass: ‘Forgive, love our enemies’
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope-fran ... emies.html

The Pope himself is one good example of living up to his call, i.e. he extended 'love' to Islam which has for centuries and till the present been killing Christians.

This primary requirements [faith, purpose, intent, etc.] are expected in the New Testament, thus a Christian must still comply with the NT to be a Christian.
In addition, a Christian will also have comply with other commands in the NT in addition to the primary requirements re faith, purpose, intention, etc.

Except that 1) nobody can agree what those requirements are and 2) there are no requirements, but only evidence, however the only one qualified to interpret the evidence is god; everyone else is to suspend judgement. Anyone claiming to be christian cannot be said to be wrong by any man.

Note my point above, i.e.
The Christian God delivered his terms via the NT.
Therefore the NT is the basis [deliberated philosophically] to determine who is a Christian.

Note, most religions primary requirements are not works-based but beliefs-based [surrender, faith, reverence, etc.]. Works is secondary, but whatever the works, they have to be compliant with the core authority of the religions as expressed in various terms and commands.

Judaism doesn't require the following of laws to attain salvation? That was the point of Jesus coming: to split from the idea of following law.

I did not claim salvation is a critical element of Judaism.

Ok then, no one loves their enemies, therefore no one is a christian, therefore your category is empty.

Note I have given you an example [above] of the Pope who love his enemies.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope-fran ... emies.html

Here is another group of Christians who love their enemies;
MEET THE CHRISTIANS WHO LOVE THEIR ENEMIES, EVEN WHEN IT'S ISIS
http://orthochristian.com/97079.html

I have read of many Christians who love their enemies.

Jim Jones is a Christian because he believed in the core principles of Christianity as in the NT.
The fact that he poisoned ~1000 people has nothing to do with Christianity but rather his own inherent evil nature as a human being.

Yes but he required religion in order to carryout the deception.

It is the same with Christian priests who rape and molest choir boys.
Sure these priest require Christianity to be Christian priests, but their evil act of rape and abuse has nothing to do with Christianity itself.
It is the same with Jim Jones, Koresh, and others who were Christians.

I can't go to hell because once I'm saved, I'm always saved. That's one interpretation. So I can be mean all I want and god can't punish me since: once saved, always saved.

This is most weird.
I don't believe it is true.
Give me a link to show your claim is true?

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

http://www.comereason.org/can-you-lose- ... vation.asp
https://www.backtothebible.org/post/is- ... -salvation
https://biblearchive.com/blog/can-i-be- ... e-unsaved/

"Once saved, always saved" is a popular tenet of Christianity, but there are those who believe it's possible to backslide. Jesus didn't speak kindly about that: Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Note Mathew 19:23-26 re "easier for camel to go through the eye of the needle, .." which imply there is more to claiming to be saved.

Or I could ask forgiveness later and god is "faithful to forgive 7 x 70".

I am not an expert with the Bible as with the Quran.
But surely there are forgivable and unforgivable sins or degrees of sins?

Only one sin is unforgivable:

Matthew 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I'm not exactly sure how to go about committing that sin.

If you declare, "I will not love my enemies' that would be speaking against the Son of man, thus an unforgivable sin.

Christianity does divide humans as in "us versus them" which is not a good thing.
But Christianity do not condone the killing of "them."
Therefore Christianity do not kills.

Your naive view of it illustrates exactly why it's so dangerous.

That is a fact.

I suppose the big fear is that muslims take over white countries with nukes, but I think by the time that happens, the muslims will be smarter and less prone to violence. The solution is education.

Nope, the fear is when official and rogue Muslims majority countries and group get access the cheap and easily available WMDs.

Note, the Quran is the immutable words of Allah applicable till 'eternity'.
Therefore if Allah commands and exhort Muslims to kill non-Christian, then no Muslim can change the words of God. If any Muslim does that, he will go to hell.
Therefore if there is an easy and greater method [WMDs] to get rid of non-Muslims and even themselves they will do it. It is a win-win for them, regardless of how they die, they are assured of a place in heaven while the non-Muslims will definitely go hell.

How do you know I have not listened.
I did listen and his conclusion is hasty generalization.

He devoted a whole chapter in his book to it. How can a hasty generalization follow from so much research?

Here then, the central premise of Hitchens’ argument is worthy of reiteration. Had Stalin inherited a purely rational secular edifice, one established upon the ethos espoused by the likes of Lucretius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Einstein and other free thinking and rational secularists, then the apologist’s argument would hold slightly more weight, but such wasn’t the case. Stalin merely tore the existing religious labels off the Christian Inquisition, the enforcement of Christian orthodoxy, the Crusades, the praising of the priesthood, messianism, and Edenic ideas of a terrestrial religious-styled utopia, and re-branded them with the red of communism. Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress ... -hitchens/

Good people will do good and evil people will do evil, but to get good people to do evil requires religion.

Nah, Hitchen already got it very wrong when he conflated Communism as a religion.
I had argued, what is a religion conventionally is best defined by Ninian Smart in his essential 7 Dimensions that qualify an ideology and practice to be a 'religion'.

Environmental stress causes the brain to favor lower cognitive functions at the expense of higher functions such as empathy. As technology progresses, people will endure less stress and grow more empathetic brains and religion will fizzle out.

Religion [theistic or non-theistic] is driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Humanity can only wean off religion when we are able to understand that existential crisis thoroughly and developed the ability to modulate the impulses of that unavoidable existential crisis.

[Serendipper]

I just happened to be listening and as luck would have it:



52:29
the question about Islamic ideas in
52:31
practice??? I mean Islam is like
52:43
Christianity Judaism Buddhism:
52:48
there's no such thing as Islamic ideas
52:50
there are lots of different Islamic
52:52
ideas just like Christian. The real
52:55
question we should be asking,
52:57
particularly here, is what about
52:59
Christianity? That's something we can do something
53:02
about. ok so that's the highest priority.
53:06
So what are Christian ideals?
53:08
well they vary all over the place: people
53:12
in high places now claim to be devout
53:16
Christians and on the basis of Christian
53:19
ideals they're saying let's proceed to
53:21
destroy the world. I don't know anybody
53:24
in the Islamic world is doing that.
53:26
That's of course not all Christian
53:28
ideals, there are others too. Martin
53:31
Luther King expressed different
53:33
Christian ideals and it's the same with
53:35
the Islamic world: you can find lots of
53:38
things, but the idea that there are fixed
53:42
Islamic ideals which are a problem for
53:44
the world: that doesn't mean anything.

Prism, it appears you're now fighting Chomsky as well as Hitchens; two of the smartest people in modern history.

There is no standard Islam or Christianity. Religion itself is the problem. And Christianity is particularly dangerous because it seems so innocuous.

[Prismatic567]

I just happened to be listening and as luck would have it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwTQsvhq3ew

52:29
the question about Islamic ideas in
52:31
practice??? I mean Islam is like
52:43
Christianity Judaism Buddhism:
52:48
there's no such thing as Islamic ideas
52:50
there are lots of different Islamic
52:52
ideas just like Christian. The real
52:55
question we should be asking,
52:57
particularly here, is what about
52:59
Christianity? That's something we can do something
53:02
about. ok so that's the highest priority.
53:06
So what are Christian ideals?
53:08
well they vary all over the place: people
53:12
in high places now claim to be devout
53:16
Christians and on the basis of Christian
53:19
ideals they're saying let's proceed to
53:21
destroy the world. I don't know anybody
53:24
in the Islamic world is doing that.
53:26
That's of course not all Christian
53:28
ideals, there are others too. Martin
53:31
Luther King expressed different
53:33
Christian ideals and it's the same with
53:35
the Islamic world: you can find lots of
53:38
things, but the idea that there are fixed
53:42
Islamic ideals which are a problem for
53:44
the world: that doesn't mean anything.

Prism, it appears you're now fighting Chomsky as well as Hitchens; two of the smartest people in modern history.

There is no standard Islam or Christianity. Religion itself is the problem. And Christianity is particularly dangerous because it seems so innocuous.

Appealing to authority?
The only thing that appeal to me is the soundness of the arguments they present not their reputation.

I am very familiar with Chomsky from long time ago re the Battle of the Linguistic.

Chomsky thinking in terms of the fundamentals of language and in this case Islam & Christianity and Buddhism is too shallow.

Note this;

It began nearly 40 years ago, when, as a graduate student, Lakoff rebelled against his mentor, Noam Chomsky, the most celebrated linguist of the century. The technical basis of their argument, which for a time cleaved the linguistics world in two, remains well beyond the intellectual reach of anyone who actually had fun in college, but it was a personal and nasty disagreement, and it basically went like this:

Chomsky said that linguists should concern themselves with discovering the universal rules of syntax, which form the basis for language.

Lakoff, on the other hand, theorized that language was inherently linked to the workings of the mind -- to ''conceptual structures,'' as a linguist would put it -- and that to understand language, you first had to study the way that each individual's worldview and ideas informed his thought process.
http://more-minerals.blogspot.com/2015/ ... omsky.html

It is true there are certain patterns within language from an external analysis BUT there are more deeper fundamentals related to language from our evolutionary past.

Even reason and logic is rooted in our biology;

The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology)
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

Chomsky may be a very good analytical thinker but he is not a good deeper thinker like Kant whom I favor.

In the above video, he was merely expressing opinions without any argument. You should not rely too much on the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Btw, I have provided sufficient argument to justify;

A Jew, Christian and Muslim is one who had entered into a covenant/contract with God explicitly or implicitly to obey his commands and terms as expressed in the official holy text, i.e. the Torah, NT and Quran respectively. This is the fundamental principle with variation in forms.

Example an American citizen would have pledged allegiance to the American Constitution as the basic requirement regardless of whether he act accordingly in practice or not. In the event of non-compliance then the courts will decide.
If an American killed many people, he was not doing it as an American but rather his own evil nature. We cannot blame the US for that act.

Any acts by the believer outside the scope of the official holy text[s] cannot be attributed to the religion itself. E.g. a priest who rape and molest children has nothing to do with the essence of Christianity per se.

Religion?
There are pros and cons for religions relative to time.
I agree the shelf life and the effective usefulness of religions are expiring soon.
However Islam is the worst of all the current religion and should go first before other religions.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Without religions, human beings will still commit evil and violent acts triggered by their inherent human nature.

But not on a mass scale.

In the name of humanity we can battle cancer, but can we put all jews to the sword in the name of humanism?

Sure, The Soviet- Union was sytematically abusive of Jews. We can have racism without religion. And while Hitler made Christian noises sometimes, his beef with the Jews was not religious it was racial. And Stalin and Mao killed millions without religious justification. I could easily see non religious elites today culling or setting things up so that most people had no resources, based on free market ideologies of various kinds and presumed superiority. At best human empathy has a small radius. Human greed has a huge radius.

[Serendipper]

Appealing to authority?
The only thing that appeal to me is the soundness of the arguments they present not their reputation.

How are we to know the definition of christian if we don't consult the authorities that defines the definitions?

You are perfectly within your liberties to create a definition of christian that is antithetical to that of representatives of intelligentsia, and encompass an empty set, but I don't see the value in bullheadedly swimming upstream.

I was a christian all my life and I live in the middle of the bible belt, but you say I don't know what a christian is.

Now you say the writer of over 100 books doesn't know what he's talking about either.

Christopher Hitchens is likewise stupid as well as Alan Watts.

How do you innately know more than people who have devoted their lives to the study of these things?

I am very familiar with Chomsky from long time ago re the Battle of the Linguistic.

Chomsky thinking in terms of the fundamentals of language and in this case Islam & Christianity and Buddhism is too shallow.

Just because his ideas on language were shallow doesn't mean his every thought is shallow.

In the above video, he was merely expressing opinions without any argument. You should not rely too much on the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

I'm not relying on Chomsky. I know what a christian is because I never knew anyone who was not. And zero fit into your definition of them.

And Chomsky agrees with me that idealizations of what it means to be a christian or muslim are meaningless.

Btw, I have provided sufficient argument to justify;

Only in your mind.

Example an American citizen would have pledged allegiance to the American Constitution as the basic requirement regardless of whether he act accordingly in practice or not.

I am a citizen who never pledged allegiance to anything (except that drivel they made us recite in school, which didn't count as a true pledge). Simply being born in america makes you a citizen. You could wipe your butt with the constitution and still be american. Actually, it's expensive and difficult to become a noncitizen.

If an American killed many people, he was not doing it as an American but rather his own evil nature. We cannot blame the US for that act.

People do blame america for not banning guns. "America, when will you learn?" they say. An american is one who likely has guns and therefore has more capacity to kill than non-americans.

Any acts by the believer outside the scope of the official holy text[s] cannot be attributed to the religion itself. E.g. a priest who rape and molest children has nothing to do with the essence of Christianity per se.

No but it trusts sex-deprived men to be in close contact with lots of kids.

Religion?
There are pros and cons for religions relative to time.
I agree the shelf life and the effective usefulness of religions are expiring soon.
However Islam is the worst of all the current religion and should go first before other religions.

I had a muslim friend once and he didn't try to kill me, so does that mean he was not muslim?

[Serendipper]

A Christian preacher do not have the authority to decide who is ultimately a Christian.

The only one who knows that is god. Everyone else is not supposed to judge who is and isn't a christian.

That is my point.
The Christian God delivered his terms via the NT.
Therefore the NT is the basis [deliberated philosophically] to determine who is a Christian.

You are a Christian,
"If you profess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead."

The above is merely sales talk without the relevant doctrinal 'small prints' from the NT.

Pretty much every christian fell for the sales talk then.

How do you know every Christian did not take note of the small prints?
I don't believe Christians are that superficial because their Church would have informed them of the requirements within the small prints of how to become a good Christian.

Note Mathew 19:23-26

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, to which the man stated he had done. Jesus responded, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.

What is critical is the above assertion by the preacher implies the onus of the the person who profess to carry out the commands of Christ as in the NT.

There are no commands, unless belief is a command.

Note the above

"... Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments ..."

That just exemplifies the motley mix of interpretations that exist. Some Christians believe commands are to obeyed and some do not. Some Christians believe X, some Y, some Z, some A, some B, some A+B, etc etc etc. There is no such thing as an idealized christian. Same with muslims: some kill and some do not.

Would the person who had professed earlier still be a Christian if s/he shouted
"Fuck Christ, I will never love my enemies as commanded in the Bible."
"I believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead but I will never obey whatever Jesus preached in the NT" "Regardless of my acts, Jesus must ensure I enter heaven as promised."

Surely the above is not what Christianity intended Christians to be?

That's pretty much what christians say. Show me a christian who loves his enemies.

Here is one;

Pope at Mass: ‘Forgive, love our enemies’
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope-fran ... emies.html

The Pope himself is one good example of living up to his call, i.e. he extended 'love' to Islam which has for centuries and till the present been killing Christians.

The pope hypocritically decreeing to love enemies is not an example of loving enemies. Show me the love he has bestowed on those who he considers his enemies. I can show you the Nazi party and burnings at the stake and the condemnation of Galileo as examples of the Pope's love for his enemies. What evidence do you have? Did he give his enemies money? Food? Build schools? Or is he all talk?

The only christians I have ever seen who love their enemies only do so in order to heap hot coals on their heads, which isn't loving enemies. I have never seen anyone genuinely provide care for their enemies.

This primary requirements [faith, purpose, intent, etc.] are expected in the New Testament, thus a Christian must still comply with the NT to be a Christian.
In addition, a Christian will also have comply with other commands in the NT in addition to the primary requirements re faith, purpose, intention, etc.

Except that 1) nobody can agree what those requirements are and 2) there are no requirements, but only evidence, however the only one qualified to interpret the evidence is god; everyone else is to suspend judgement. Anyone claiming to be christian cannot be said to be wrong by any man.

Note my point above, i.e.
The Christian God delivered his terms via the NT.
Therefore the NT is the basis [deliberated philosophically] to determine who is a Christian.

I already addressed this. You're going in circles. The NT says to simply believe. The NT can be interpreted anyway one wants.

Note, most religions primary requirements are not works-based but beliefs-based [surrender, faith, reverence, etc.]. Works is secondary, but whatever the works, they have to be compliant with the core authority of the religions as expressed in various terms and commands.

Judaism doesn't require the following of laws to attain salvation? That was the point of Jesus coming: to split from the idea of following law.

I did not claim salvation is a critical element of Judaism.

Then what's the point of it?

I can't go to hell because once I'm saved, I'm always saved. That's one interpretation. So I can be mean all I want and god can't punish me since: once saved, always saved.

This is most weird.
I don't believe it is true.
Give me a link to show your claim is true?

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

http://www.comereason.org/can-you-lose- ... vation.asp
https://www.backtothebible.org/post/is- ... -salvation
https://biblearchive.com/blog/can-i-be- ... e-unsaved/

"Once saved, always saved" is a popular tenet of Christianity, but there are those who believe it's possible to backslide. Jesus didn't speak kindly about that: Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Note Mathew 19:23-26 re "easier for camel to go through the eye of the needle, .." which imply there is more to claiming to be saved.

So the bible contradicts itself. Nothing new there.

Or I could ask forgiveness later and god is "faithful to forgive 7 x 70".

I am not an expert with the Bible as with the Quran.
But surely there are forgivable and unforgivable sins or degrees of sins?

Only one sin is unforgivable:

Matthew 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I'm not exactly sure how to go about committing that sin.

If you declare, "I will not love my enemies' that would be speaking against the Son of man, thus an unforgivable sin.

No, the son of man is not the holy ghost. The son, the father, and the holy ghost are 3 distinct persons, but also one god.

I suppose the big fear is that muslims take over white countries with nukes, but I think by the time that happens, the muslims will be smarter and less prone to violence. The solution is education.

Nope, the fear is when official and rogue Muslims majority countries and group get access the cheap and easily available WMDs.

I'm not afraid of that. If they set off a dirty bomb we'd turn the middle east into a glass crater and then go sing praises to the lord in church on sunday.

Note, the Quran is the immutable words of Allah applicable till 'eternity'.

Yes but the people who believe that are essentially chimps. Chimps in the jungle are scary, but chimps with bombs are not scary. All they could accomplish is pissing off the means of their extermination.

Nah, Hitchen already got it very wrong when he conflated Communism as a religion.

Right, because you said so. Hitchens provided reason and rationale which you countered with an authoritative claim that he is wrong without any accompanying reasoning.

Environmental stress causes the brain to favor lower cognitive functions at the expense of higher functions such as empathy. As technology progresses, people will endure less stress and grow more empathetic brains and religion will fizzle out.

Religion [theistic or non-theistic] is driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Humanity can only wean off religion when we are able to understand that existential crisis thoroughly and developed the ability to modulate the impulses of that unavoidable existential crisis.

That looks like education to me.

[Serendipper]

Without religions, human beings will still commit evil and violent acts triggered by their inherent human nature.

But not on a mass scale.

In the name of humanity we can battle cancer, but can we put all jews to the sword in the name of humanism?

Sure, The Soviet- Union was sytematically abusive of Jews. We can have racism without religion. And while Hitler made Christian noises sometimes, his beef with the Jews was not religious it was racial. And Stalin and Mao killed millions without religious justification. I could easily see non religious elites today culling or setting things up so that most people had no resources, based on free market ideologies of various kinds and presumed superiority. At best human empathy has a small radius. Human greed has a huge radius.

One doesn't need to be religious to hate jews, but to convince a population to hate jews requires religion.

If christianity hadn't existed, then the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin could not have been accomplished.

Here then, the central premise of Hitchens’ argument is worthy of reiteration. Had Stalin inherited a purely rational secular edifice, one established upon the ethos espoused by the likes of Lucretius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Einstein and other free thinking and rational secularists, then the apologist’s argument would hold slightly more weight, but such wasn’t the case. Stalin merely tore the existing religious labels off the Christian Inquisition, the enforcement of Christian orthodoxy, the Crusades, the praising of the priesthood, messianism, and Edenic ideas of a terrestrial religious-styled utopia, and re-branded them with the red of communism. Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism. https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress ... -hitchens/

[Serendipper]

The best argument for the impossibility of god is here https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sh ... hy-n979626

Cora Jones, 52, had been through a lot in recent months: a breast cancer diagnosis in December. A job loss and a move after that. But she had gotten through it thanks to support from members of her family, many of whom lived just several roads away from her in the small community of Beauregard.

So on Sunday, after church, Jones planned to go to her parents' house and cook them a meal that included her mother's favorite food: sweet potatoes. It was going to be a chance to have a nice evening together as a family.

Instead, shortly after they returned home from church, Jones' parents — Mary Louise Jones, 83, and Jimmy Lee Jones, 89 — were killed when devastating tornadoes cut through eastern Alabama on Sunday afternoon.

Jones, whose home was not damaged by the tornadoes, raced to her parents' place after the twisters hit, hoping to find them alive.

"When I got up that hill, I see no houses. Everything was gone. I just couldn't believe it," Jones said. "It looked like someone took a chainsaw and went, 'swoop.'"

She found her father's body. Emergency personnel later told her about her mother's death.

"Just the image — I will never get out of my head. They really didn’t want me to see the picture, but I had to identify the body."

But the losses did not stop there. A total of 10 members of Jones' extended family were killed, including a brother, a cousin, a niece and a second cousin of her mother's.

Anyone still think a god exists? Or that it gives a shit? Or isn't a sadist?

[Prismatic567]

Appealing to authority?
The only thing that appeal to me is the soundness of the arguments they present not their reputation.

How are we to know the definition of christian if we don't consult the authorities that defines the definitions?

You are perfectly within your liberties to create a definition of christian that is antithetical to that of representatives of intelligentsia, and encompass an empty set, but I don't see the value in bullheadedly swimming upstream.

I was a christian all my life and I live in the middle of the bible belt, but you say I don't know what a christian is.

Now you say the writer of over 100 books doesn't know what he's talking about either.

Christopher Hitchens is likewise stupid as well as Alan Watts.

How do you innately know more than people who have devoted their lives to the study of these things?

Regardless of yours, Hitchens, Watts, or anyone's definition of 'who is a Christian per se' there must be some objective standards to their definitions.

Per Christian theology, there is no way God will accord 'eternal life in heaven' to anyone who merely claimed s/he is a Christian on Judgment Day. God is supposedly all powerful, all knowing and is not stupid in accepting anyone's subjective claim.
In any case, the omniscient God would already a person's status whether s/he was a Christian or not by God's own standards.

Thus a Christian must first know what is God's objective definition of 'who is a Christian' rather than relying on his own subjective definition.

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

As such 'who is a Christian' is one who has entered into a covenant [explicitly or implicitly] with God.

The terms of the covenant/contract can only be in the Gospels of the NT.

Can you dispute the above requirements for an objective definition in conformance with God's standards.

For a wannabe Christian to claim his/her own subjective definition [anything goes] is an insult to the Christian's God.

I am very familiar with Chomsky from long time ago re the Battle of the Linguistic.

Chomsky thinking in terms of the fundamentals of language and in this case Islam & Christianity and Buddhism is too shallow.

Just because his ideas on language were shallow doesn't mean his every thought is shallow.

When one do not has the habit or inherent nature to think in depth, it is applied to most of their various views.
I am very familiar with Islam and Buddhism in depth and I KNOW Chomsky thoughts on them are shallow.

In the above video, he was merely expressing opinions without any argument. You should not rely too much on the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

I'm not relying on Chomsky. I know what a christian is because I never knew anyone who was not. And zero fit into your definition of them.

And Chomsky agrees with me that idealizations of what it means to be a christian or muslim are meaningless.

Note my view of what is an objective definition of 'who is a Christian' above.

Btw, I have provided sufficient argument to justify;

Only in your mind.

Note my summarized justifications of an objective definition of 'who is a Christian' above.

Example an American citizen would have pledged allegiance to the American Constitution as the basic requirement regardless of whether he act accordingly in practice or not.

I am a citizen who never pledged allegiance to anything (except that drivel they made us recite in school, which didn't count as a true pledge). Simply being born in america makes you a citizen. You could wipe your butt with the constitution and still be american. Actually, it's expensive and difficult to become a noncitizen.

It is the acts that count not what you think or not done.
Why don't you make the following claims and intention on some platform in any court in America;

"I will never pledged allegiance to the American Constitution, therefore I call upon all Americans to break the laws or kill others, and the likes."

You will surely get your ass burnt in any legal issues you have had with the law.

If an American killed many people, he was not doing it as an American but rather his own evil nature. We cannot blame the US for that act.

People do blame america for not banning guns. "America, when will you learn?" they say. An american is one who likely has guns and therefore has more capacity to kill than non-americans.

Yes, many people will make all sorts on blames re 'America' but such has claims do not have any legal implications in say an International Court or the local court of any Nation.

Any acts by the believer outside the scope of the official holy text[s] cannot be attributed to the religion itself. E.g. a priest who rape and molest children has nothing to do with the essence of Christianity per se.

No but it trusts sex-deprived men to be in close contact with lots of kids.

You can't blame Christianity per se which is objectively linked to the NT.
At most we can blame the admininistration of the related church and the individual but never the religion itself [unless it can be justified to its holy texts].

Religion?
There are pros and cons for religions relative to time.
I agree the shelf life and the effective usefulness of religions are expiring soon.
However Islam is the worst of all the current religion and should go first before other religions.

I had a muslim friend once and he didn't try to kill me, so does that mean he was not muslim?

If he had entered into a covenant with Allah then he is an ordinary Muslim.
In the Quran there are gradings for being Muslim from ordinary [Muslim], to good [Mushin] to very good [Tagwa] with its respective degree of rewards in heaven.
Your Muslim friend [if he did not kill non-Muslims] would likely be an ordinary Muslim but cannot qualify to be a very good Muslim thus has no assurance and certainty of going to paradise [with virgins for some] with eternal life.
A Muslim who had killed non-Muslims [with it own definition of justifications] is assured of a certain and direct path to paradise with eternal life.

[Serendipper]

Regardless of yours, Hitchens, Watts, or anyone's definition of 'who is a Christian per se' there must be some objective standards to their definitions.

Per Christian theology, there is no way God will accord 'eternal life in heaven' to anyone who merely claimed s/he is a Christian on Judgment Day.

That's true from god's point of view, but only god can judge, because he knows the hearts, but how are we to judge? We can only take someone at their word, right? Are you a christian or are you not? We can't go rummaging around their life looking for good acts and bad acts to discern whether or not they are christian.

In any case, the omniscient God would already a person's status whether s/he was a Christian or not by God's own standards.

Thus a Christian must first know what is God's objective definition of 'who is a Christian' rather than relying on his own subjective definition.

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

As such 'who is a Christian' is one who has entered into a covenant [explicitly or implicitly] with God.

The terms of the covenant/contract can only be in the Gospels of the NT.

Can you dispute the above requirements for an objective definition in conformance with God's standards.

For a wannabe Christian to claim his/her own subjective definition [anything goes] is an insult to the Christian's God.

You are essentially making a "No True Scotsman Argument". You say "Well, that's not a true christian; a true christian does _______".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Example an American citizen would have pledged allegiance to the American Constitution as the basic requirement regardless of whether he act accordingly in practice or not.

I am a citizen who never pledged allegiance to anything (except that drivel they made us recite in school, which didn't count as a true pledge). Simply being born in america makes you a citizen. You could wipe your butt with the constitution and still be american. Actually, it's expensive and difficult to become a noncitizen.

It is the acts that count not what you think or not done.

Simply being born in america makes you an american. Immigration to america is basically paying some money and taking tests, afterwards you can use the constitution for toilet paper and burn the flag.

Why don't you make the following claims and intention on some platform in any court in America;

"I will never pledged allegiance to the American Constitution, therefore I call upon all Americans to break the laws or kill others, and the likes."

You will surely get your ass burnt in any legal issues you have had with the law.

You can shoot someone, go to prison, and still be american in american prison.

Religion?
There are pros and cons for religions relative to time.
I agree the shelf life and the effective usefulness of religions are expiring soon.
However Islam is the worst of all the current religion and should go first before other religions.

I had a muslim friend once and he didn't try to kill me, so does that mean he was not muslim?

If he had entered into a covenant with Allah then he is an ordinary Muslim.
In the Quran there are gradings for being Muslim from ordinary [Muslim], to good [Mushin] to very good [Tagwa] with its respective degree of rewards in heaven.
Your Muslim friend [if he did not kill non-Muslims] would likely be an ordinary Muslim but cannot qualify to be a very good Muslim thus has no assurance and certainty of going to paradise [with virgins for some] with eternal life.
A Muslim who had killed non-Muslims [with it own definition of justifications] is assured of a certain and direct path to paradise with eternal life.

I don't know what my muslim friend would have said to that as it was 15 years ago, but he certainly wasn't the type to kill people.

A christian who killed commies goes to heaven too.

[Prismatic567]

Regardless of yours, Hitchens, Watts, or anyone's definition of 'who is a Christian per se' there must be some objective standards to their definitions.

Per Christian theology, there is no way God will accord 'eternal life in heaven' to anyone who merely claimed s/he is a Christian on Judgment Day.

That's true from god's point of view, but only god can judge, because he knows the hearts, but how are we to judge? We can only take someone at their word, right? Are you a christian or are you not? We can't go rummaging around their life looking for good acts and bad acts to discern whether or not they are christian.

That is my point, regardless of whether I am a Christian or not, it is God's view as stipulated in the NT that objectively defines who is a Christian.
God's words defining Christianity are represented in the Gospels within the NT.

Since the Gospels are available for all to read, why should we depend on any fallible Tom, Dick or Harry to define who is a Christian?

In any case, the omniscient God would already a person's status whether s/he was a Christian or not by God's own standards.

Thus a Christian must first know what is God's objective definition of 'who is a Christian' rather than relying on his own subjective definition.

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

As such 'who is a Christian' is one who has entered into a covenant [explicitly or implicitly] with God.

The terms of the covenant/contract can only be in the Gospels of the NT.

Can you dispute the above requirements for an objective definition in conformance with God's standards.

For a wannabe Christian to claim his/her own subjective definition [anything goes] is an insult to the Christian's God.

You are essentially making a "No True Scotsman Argument". You say "Well, that's not a true christian; a true christian does _______".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Straw man.

I stated, rationally and logically, a true Christian is defined within the Gospels in the NT directly from God to Jesus.

Note your definition is more ridiculous, i.e. you claimed to be a Christian previously merely because you claimed to be a Christian based on your own subjective definition.

Simply being born in america makes you an american. Immigration to america is basically paying some money and taking tests, afterwards you can use the constitution for toilet paper and burn the flag.

Note the constitution is not the dotted pixels and the paper it is written on.

That one is an American because one is born n American is still defined by the Constitution and its associated Laws.

Why don't you make the following claims and intention on some platform in any court in America;

"I will never pledged allegiance to the American Constitution, therefore I call upon all Americans to break the laws or kill others, and the likes."

You will surely get your ass burnt in any legal issues you have had with the law.

You can shoot someone, go to prison, and still be american in american prison.

The above is conditioned by the Constitution, thus it is the Constitution that prevails.
The Constitution of Christianity is the Gospels supported by various relevant verses from the NT and OT.

I had a muslim friend once and he didn't try to kill me, so does that mean he was not muslim?

If he had entered into a covenant with Allah then he is an ordinary Muslim.
In the Quran there are gradings for being Muslim from ordinary [Muslim], to good [Mushin] to very good [Tagwa] with its respective degree of rewards in heaven.
Your Muslim friend [if he did not kill non-Muslims] would likely be an ordinary Muslim but cannot qualify to be a very good Muslim thus has no assurance and certainty of going to paradise [with virgins for some] with eternal life.
A Muslim who had killed non-Muslims [with it own definition of justifications] is assured of a certain and direct path to paradise with eternal life.

I don't know what my muslim friend would have said to that as it was 15 years ago, but he certainly wasn't the type to kill people.

A christian who killed commies goes to heaven too.

The majority of Muslims are social and cultural Muslims who are not aware of the actual principles and elements in the core texts of Islam, i.e. the Quran. The cultural Muslims do not understand the full requirements of what it take to be the very best Muslim.

Your friend is likely to be a cultural Muslims who is being more human than being more Muslim, thus not complying with the higher requirements of being a Muslim.

These days there is a high possibility anyone [you, me, others] could be killed by zealous bad evil Muslims [compelled by their religion] anywhere around the world if you happened to be at a certain location and time.

Note this was what happened to some innocent tourists;

CAIRO — A bus full of Vietnamese tourists was rocked by a roadside bomb near the famed Giza Pyramids on Friday, killing at least four people and wounding 10 more, officials said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/worl ... mbing.html

We often hear of surprises of a Muslim who was supposedly a goody-two-shoe or an indifferent Muslim who suddenly appeared in the news as a suicide bomber or killer.
These are the vulnerables who have been convinced by their imam [Islamic experts] who showed them the actual texts in the holy book from God, which promised them a certainty of passage to paradise with eternal life if they kill non-Muslims [with their twisted justifications of a threat].
There are tons of examples on such cases supported with evidences.

[Santiago]

I've seen this sort of erroneous argumentation before.
While it's true that God is characteristically attributed with omnipotence (being all-powerful), it's not a necessary attribute.
I believe that when most theologians describe God as being "all-powerful", what they mean is that God has such immense power that it causes great awe and wonder.
It's a sort of figurative expression denoting God's magnificent power.
God does not need to be perfectly powerful or "all-powerful" in order to exist; one can describe him, rather, as being the most powerful.

God is the supreme power. This, however, does not necessarily mean he has to be perfect.

[Jakob]

Here is an argument Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god. As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

So,

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

Any religious person worth his salt will be able to tell you: yes, fellow humble mortal, from our humble mortal perspective, God certainly is impossible.

We call his existence a "miracle".

Anything that we can logically account for is unfit to be considered Divine.

Of course we can't account for the existence of the universe without positing a miraculous creation of it out of nothing with a nice big bang. So technically we are all part of a giant miracle.

[Prismatic567]

I've seen this sort of erroneous argumentation before.
While it's true that God is characteristically attributed with omnipotence (being all-powerful), it's not a necessary attribute.
I believe that when most theologians describe God as being "all-powerful", what they mean is that God has such immense power that it causes great awe and wonder.
It's a sort of figurative expression denoting God's magnificent power.
God does not need to be perfectly powerful or "all-powerful" in order to exist; one can describe him, rather, as being the most powerful.

God is the supreme power. This, however, does not necessarily mean he has to be perfect.

You cannot bring in humility as far as a God is concern.

Note is it not confined to only omnipotence or all-powerful.

If your God is not perfect in the absolute in every sense and as 'a being no greater can exists', then it is implied there exists other Gods which are more superior to your God. The other more superior Gods can then dominate your God to kiss their ass or feet.
If you insist your God is such an inferior God, it is your discretion to downsize and disrespect your God.

However the majority of theists will always be driven to ensure their God is a being than which no greater can exists - St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.

In Islam, Allah is claimed to be the greatest which no greater can exists, thus dominate over whatever other Gods.

By default and human psychology wise, a God has to be 'a being no greater can exist' i.e. an absolute perfect God.

Otherwise your inferior God could be a mere dust spot to the more superior God which no greater can exists. Relatively your inferior God could be a speck of atom within the sh:t of the ultimate superior God which is infinitely no greater can exist.

Looks like you have to change your mind, then you are caught in the dilemma presented in the OP.

The reason is because the idea of God is an impossibility and the idea only arise out of desperate existential psychological reasons. The solution is to address these inherent psychological issues within oneself, but it is not easy.