The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

[Caliban]

Yes there is no absolute "orthodox" view, but there is an objective and rational view of 'Who is a Christian' on an epistemological basis [note Philosophy].

What is objective is, a contract is always implied whenever there is an agreement between two parties, e.g. a believer and a God, in this case the Christian and the Christian God.

The basic principles of a contract is there must be an offer and acceptance.

I have already argued in the Gospels of Jesus Christ, the Christian God made an offer via John 3:16 [and other verses?] and it is up the person to accept to be a Christian and then comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels.

Note to be a Christian of Christianity, it has to be via the Gospels of Jesus Christ and no where else.
If it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ [the central element], then it cannot be Christianity.

All members of all Christian denominations go through some sort of baptism in acceptance of Christ and John 3:16 explicitly or implicitly. Their differences are merely separated by their distinct forms, e.g. Catholic Church with a pope and its specific doctrines.

No person can merely claim to be Christian without going through the above basic principles and processes either via the denominations or on an individual basis via acceptance of John 3:16.

Baptism - Wikipedia
See the above, the majority of Christians go through baptism by water and other via other means.

Baptism (from the Greek noun βάπτισμα baptisma; see below) is a Christian rite of admission and adoption,[1] almost invariably with the use of water, into Christianity.
-wiki​

Great! Under this definition of a believer, the Crusades you mentioned, and other horrific things done in the name of Christianity, are examples of an immoral instinct and an indictment on the morality inspired by the Bible. It is evidence that Christians have no stronger moral impulse than anyone else.

 

[Joyousperson]

Great! Under this definition of a believer, the Crusades you mentioned, and other horrific things done in the name of Christianity, are examples of an immoral instinct and an indictment on the morality inspired by the Bible. It is evidence that Christians have no stronger moral impulse than anyone else.

Even if those Christians claimed to act in the name of Christianity [as defined], objectively they could have done that in the name of Christianity because Christianity itself do not permit them as Christians to commit evil and violent acts.

Therefore if those Christians commit evil and violent acts, they are doing with their own free will and human nature. As Christians on contract [covenant] they will be judged by God on Judgment Day to be forgiven or punished.

Example;
If police person of New York Police Department insisted he raped the victim in the name of the NYPD, surely that would be absurd because the NYPD would have rules that forbid such an act like rape, when the person has signed for upon agreement of employment.​

As I had argued a Christian of Christianity has entered into a contract with God via John 3:16 with the contractual term that s/he is to "love all - even enemies" thus cannot commit evil and violent acts of any human beings.
If the Christian then commit evil and violent acts, even though s/he claimed it was done in the name of Christianity, objectively we cannot blame Christianity itself for those acts committed by Christians.

It was a smart move, Christianity has already taken step to prevent itself from blame by acts of Christians, by including the clause in the contract, i.e. Christians are to love all even enemies.

Note a Christian-proper do not have an obligation with the whole Bible. What is critical and contractual for the Christian is the Gospels. Therefore the evil and violent elements in the OT do not have any bearing with a Christian. Whatever are evil and violent elements in the OT are abrogated by the Gospels. Whatever verses that are 'grey' [vague] re violence are overridden by the overriding pacifist maxim.

Note the Contrast
On the other hand, it is different with Islam and Muslims. The contract [covenant] a Muslim entered with Allah do not include any absolute condition like, "a Muslim cannot kill or commit evil acts upon non-Muslims."
Instead the covenanted terms agreed upon by a Muslim, permit [exhorts even encourage] Muslims to kill non-Muslims under very vague conditions of threats to Islam [e.g. even drawing of cartoons].

As such if a Muslim claimed to kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam, then we can blame Islam itself.
See the difference.

 

[Caliban]

Even if those Christians claimed to act in the name of Christianity [as defined], objectively they could have done that in the name of Christianity because Christianity itself do not permit them as Christians to commit evil and violent acts.

Therefore if those Christians commit evil and violent acts, they are doing with their own free will and human nature. As Christians on contract [covenant] they will be judged by God on Judgment Day to be forgiven or punished.

Example;
If police person of New York Police Department insisted he raped the victim in the name of the NYPD, surely that would be absurd because the NYPD would have rules that forbid such an act like rape, when the person has signed for upon agreement of employment.​

As I had argued a Christian of Christianity has entered into a contract with God via John 3:16 with the contractual term that s/he is to "love all - even enemies" thus cannot commit evil and violent acts of any human beings.
If the Christian then commit evil and violent acts, even though s/he claimed it was done in the name of Christianity, objectively we cannot blame Christianity itself for those acts committed by Christians.

It was a smart move, Christianity has already taken step to prevent itself from blame by acts of Christians, by including the clause in the contract, i.e. Christians are to love all even enemies.

Note a Christian-proper do not have an obligation with the whole Bible. What is critical and contractual for the Christian is the Gospels. Therefore the evil and violent elements in the OT do not have any bearing with a Christian. Whatever are evil and violent elements in the OT are abrogated by the Gospels. Whatever verses that are 'grey' [vague] re violence are overridden by the overriding pacifist maxim.

Note the Contrast
On the other hand, it is different with Islam and Muslims. The contract [covenant] a Muslim entered with Allah do not include any absolute condition like, "a Muslim cannot kill or commit evil acts upon non-Muslims."
Instead the covenanted terms agreed upon by a Muslim, permit [exhorts even encourage] Muslims to kill non-Muslims under very vague conditions of threats to Islam [e.g. even drawing of cartoons].

As such if a Muslim claimed to kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam, then we can blame Islam itself.
See the difference.

WOW! It's different for Muslims? Your head is buried so deep in your own idea that you are blind to simple fact. People can, and do, interpret the Bible a thousand different ways. There IS NO true Christian. That's your problem. You keep thinking you KNOW the truth. That you know you are correct. You're not. You dig deeper into the No True Scotsman Fallacy with every self assured post. If your ideas is so "watertight", why am I not convinced by it?

 

[Joyousperson]

WOW! It's different for Muslims? Your head is buried so deep in your own idea that you are blind to simple fact. People can, and do, interpret the Bible a thousand different ways. There IS NO true Christian. That's your problem. You keep thinking you KNOW the truth. That you know you are correct. You're not. You dig deeper into the No True Scotsman Fallacy with every self assured post. If your ideas is so "watertight", why am I not convinced by it?

Where did the Christian God permit the Gospels to be interpret in a thousand personal subjective ways?

The final authority of both Christianity and Islam is the Christian God and Allah respectively who delivered their words and command via their chosen agents in the respective holy texts.

I am not claiming I know the truth.
The truth that I presented re Who is a Christian and Who is a Muslim is abstracted from the words of the respective God.

Yes, people and Christians can interpret the Bible and Quran in a thousand or million ways subjectively.
But there is only one God's words and meanings which must be established objectively.
What I have done is interpret the Bible and Quran rationally and objective epistemologically which is more credible.

As for 'Who is a Muslim' [a believer in Islam] it is very specifically defined in the Quran.
Note I claim to be a reasonable expert in the Quranic verses.

There are many verses asserting the condition of being a Muslim in the Quran and here is one critical one which denote a Muslim has entered into a contract to comply with the covenanted terms.

16:91. Fulfill the covenant [3HD: biʿahdi] of Allah when ye [Muslims] have covenanted [ʿāhadttum], and break not your oaths [YMN; ayman] after the asseveration [tawkīdihā: affirm positively] of them [the oaths], and after ye [Muslim] have made Allah surety [kafīlan] over you. Lo! Allah knoweth what ye do.
​

As for who is a Christian, it is very specific in the Gospels re John 3:16.
I have already provided my basis of Who is a Christian,
Who is a Christian?
Do you have any counter to the above argument?

The personal covenant a Christian had established with God is not specific but it implied as I had argued in Who is a Christian?

Btw, you are merely making noises and accusing me of the No True Scotsman fallacy which is not applicable to my arguments which based on evidences from the holy texts. Show me proper arguments where I am wrong.

 

[Caliban]

Yo

Where did the Christian God permit the Gospels to be interpret in a thousand personal subjective ways?

The final authority of both Christianity and Islam is the Christian God and Allah respectively who delivered their words and command via their chosen agents in the respective holy texts.

I am not claiming I know the truth.
The truth that I presented re Who is a Christian and Who is a Muslim is abstracted from the words of the respective God.

Yes, people and Christians can interpret the Bible and Quran in a thousand or million ways subjectively.
But there is only one God's words and meanings which must be established objectively.
What I have done is interpret the Bible and Quran rationally and objective epistemologically which is more credible.

I have already provided my basis of Who is a Christian,
Who is a Christian?
Do you have any counter to the above argument?

As for 'Who is a Muslim' [a believer in Islam] it is very specifically defined in the Quran.
Note I claim to be a reasonable expert in the Quranic verses.

You can't point to a text that is highly disputable and claim your interpretation is the only viable one. That is what the No Scotsman Fallacy addresses. Your interpretation of the text, and what a Christian is, exists alongside many other interpretations. Like I said before, do a little reading on the subject. Your argument is not "watertight."

 

[Joyousperson]

Yo

You can't point to a text that is highly disputable and claim your interpretation is the only viable one. That is what the No Scotsman Fallacy addresses. Your interpretation of the text, and what a Christian is, exists alongside many other interpretations. Like I said before, do a little reading on the subject. Your argument is not "watertight."

Which is the text I had pointed to his highly disputable, you mean John 3:16 is highly disputable.
The contract can be inferred from this John 3:16, you dispute this?

Note I quoted 16:91 above, it that verses highly disputable? The covenant is so obvious in this 16:91.

 

[Caliban]

Which is the text I had pointed to his highly disputable, you mean John 3:16 is highly disputable.
The contract can be inferred from this John 3:16, you dispute this?

Note I quoted 16:91 above, it that verses highly disputable? The covenant is so obvious in this 16:91.

No, you misunderstood. You selectively choose a text you knew had mass agreement. I am talking about the great number of texts which divide people and organizations on theological grounds.
Examples:
Men have free will (Armenius/Erasmus) vs. the will is bound (Luther/Calvin).
Commemoration of saints: Catholics Vs. Protestants
Church authority: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Baptist etc...
Being a true Christian: Roman Catholic, Protestant, Oneness Pentecostal, Etc...

 

[Joyousperson]

No, you misunderstood. You selectively choose a text you knew had mass agreement. I am talking about the great number of texts which divide people and organizations on theological grounds.
Examples:
Men have free will (Armenius/Erasmus) vs. the will is bound (Luther/Calvin).
Commemoration of saints: Catholics Vs. Protestants
Church authority: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Baptist etc...
Being a true Christian: Roman Catholic, Protestant, Oneness Pentecostal, Etc...

It is obvious we resort to the essence and fundamentals when defining a variable in this case.
When defining what is a fruit, we do not differentiate apple, oranges, pears, etc. and rely on the forms.

Note,

An intensional definition, also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing being a member of a specific set.[2] Any definition that attempts to set out the essence of something, such as that by genus and differentia, is an intensional definition.
Definition - Wikipedia
​

as distinct for definitions based on forms.

 

[Caliban]

It is obvious we resort to the essence and fundamentals when defining a variable in this case.
When defining what is a fruit, we do not differentiate apple, oranges, pears, etc. and rely on the forms.

Note,

An intensional definition, also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing being a member of a specific set.[2] Any definition that attempts to set out the essence of something, such as that by genus and differentia, is an intensional definition.
Definition - Wikipedia
​

as distinct for definitions based on forms.

Help me to understand your point here. I understand the particular definitions of conditions, essence, and etc. but, how do these things connect to a claim?

 

[Joyousperson]

Help me to understand your point here. I understand the particular definitions of conditions, essence, and etc. but, how do these things connect to a claim?

My argument is dependent on the definition of 'Who is a Christian' as defined in Who is a Christian?

You stated, any one can claim to be a Christian of Christianity which is not the case based on an intensional definition.

As for what is Christianity,

Christianity[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Its adherents, known as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and savior of all people, whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament and chronicled in the New Testament.
​

In the above "believe" implied the Christian has accepted God's offer in John 3:16 which implied the establishment of a contract and to comply with the contractual or covenanted terms.

A Christian of Christianity in this case is one who has a contract with God which include the term 'love all - even enemies' which implies the Christian cannot kill or commit evil and violent acts on any human being.

If Christianity do not permit a Christian to kill and commit evil & violent acts, how can we blame Christianity if a Christian commit an evil or violent acts on his/her free will.

Thus this concept of the covenant is a watertight argument for Christianity from being accused as inherent evil and violent from the veil acts of Christians.

 

[Caliban]

My argument is dependent on the definition of 'Who is a Christian' as defined in Who is a Christian?

You stated, any one can claim to be a Christian of Christianity which is not the case based on an intensional definition.

Look, we are not going to agree. But, I think I have demonstrated that your thesis is not "watertight," Since I have not agreed with you, nor have you made another converts from other previous non-believers on this forum; others can conclude the ineffectiveness of the argument. Good luck in the future and let me know if later converts cite your thread as a powerful motivator for their newfound belief.

 

[Joyousperson]

Look, we are not going to agree. But, I think I have demonstrated that your thesis is not "watertight," Since I have not agreed with you, nor have you made another converts from other previous non-believers on this forum; others can conclude the ineffectiveness of the argument. Good luck in the future and let me know if later converts cite your thread as a powerful motivator for their newfound belief.

Note I am not a Christian and my intention is not to convert anyone.

My main intention is to counter Muslims and Muslim apologists who often deflect to 'what about the Bible' [Crusades, inquisition] whenever I argued Islam is inherently an evil and violent religion based on the evil and violent acts by SOME evil prone Muslims.

What I have presented is the objective truth which can be verified to the holy texts of the Gospels and is based on epistemological principles.

I believe the above is a useful truth for Christians to defend Christianity against any accusations that Christianity is inherently evil and violent because on the acts of the Christians [e.g. Crusades, inquisition, pedophile priests, etc.] committed in their own free will which has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

Note Obama once accused Christianity itself of being violent like IS,

President Obama basically lectured Christians not to get on a moral high horse in their castigation of the ISIS atrocities by reminding them that the Crusades and slavery were also justified in the name of Christ. Citing the Crusades, he used the single most inflammatory word he could have with which to feed the insatiable rage of the extremists.
A Presidential Blunder: My Response to Obama's Address at the National Prayer Breakfast
​

Obviously Obama was not speaking the truth with his mentioned of Christ in the above case.

Note my forte in is Philosophy and I believe the highest rigor should be applied in establishing truths.

 

[Caliban]

Note I am not a Christian and my intention is not to convert anyone.

My main intention is to counter Muslims and Muslim apologists who often deflect to 'what about the Bible' [Crusades, inquisition] whenever I argued Islam is inherently an evil and violent religion based on the evil and violent acts by SOME evil prone Muslims.

What I have presented is the objective truth which can be verified to the holy texts of the Gospels and is based on epistemological principles.

I believe the above is a useful truth for Christians to defend Christianity against any accusations that Christianity is inherently evil and violent because on the acts of the Christians [e.g. Crusades, inquisition, pedophile priests, etc.] committed in their own free will which has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

Note Obama once accused Christianity itself of being violent like IS,

President Obama basically lectured Christians not to get on a moral high horse in their castigation of the ISIS atrocities by reminding them that the Crusades and slavery were also justified in the name of Christ. Citing the Crusades, he used the single most inflammatory word he could have with which to feed the insatiable rage of the extremists.
A Presidential Blunder: My Response to Obama's Address at the National Prayer Breakfast
​

Obviously Obama was not speaking the truth with his mentioned of Christ in the above case.

Note my forte in is Philosophy and I believe the highest rigor should be applied in establishing truths.

Are you having a conversation with someone else? Why on earth did you just bring Obama into the conversation about Orthodoxy. I live in California but, the wild wild West was a long time ago. Hey, good luck on future writing escapades.

 

[Uber Genius]

I don't think apologetics is confined to the existence of God only. Are you familiar with Christian apologetics like David Wood, Jay Smith, Robert Spencer, Sam Shamoun, Christian Prince, and many others whose focus is to counter Islam.
In their discussion with Muslims and the claim that Islam is evil and violent in nature, the Muslims will counter "what about the evil and violent elements in the OT and NT?"

Note if Christianity is being accused on being evil and violent in nature with reference to the acts of 'Christians' in the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem witch hunts, pedophile priests, etc, then obviously a Christian has the duty to defend Christianity against these false accusations.

As I had demonstrated the concept of the covenant [a theological principle] is the most effective to counter the above false accusations.

Note the evil and violent acts in the OT are not relevant to Christianity as Jesus Christ has abrogated these evil elements with the covenanted terms of the Gospels, i.e. the overriding pacifist maxim of love all - even enemies.

Although I don’t share your zeal for the inference your cogent response is to be applauded!

 

[Uber Genius]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see where "pacifism" is claimed to be the overriding maxim in Christianity in their scriptures, while you do.

I see many contradictions in the Christian scriptures, which is one major reason I left it.

So I agree with you as Luke points out that Jesus tells the disciples to take their money and buy swords for personal protection against theft and murder by criminals!

As to your contradictions, on Buddhism evil and suffering are illisory.

Good and evil are Illusory.

In the midst of such incoherency the claim of contradictions between accounts of various narratives in scripture seem to pale in comparison to the cracks in the foundation of Buddhist philosophy. In fact when we examine how real people account for near historic events we find the scriptures consistent with all history of comparable times.

Of course one can always rely on anachronism or historic misrepresentations of the nature of the Biblical genres and appeals to popular esoteric albeit incoherent religious inferences.

 

[Uber Genius]

Great! Under this definition of a believer, the Crusades you mentioned, and other horrific things done in the name of Christianity, are examples of an immoral instinct and an indictment on the morality inspired by the Bible. It is evidence that Christians have no stronger moral impulse than anyone else.

This is an absurd claim. We look at the arguments given by Crusaders and can’t find them in concert with any NT claims whatsoever!

Jesus tells his followers to take HP their cross and sacrifice their lives for the sake of the gospel.

We see millions of Christians murdered by the Romans for refusing to claim the Roman emperor a god. The crusading Europeans were attempting to garner power from the church and didn’t have the first clue of what New Testament Christianity was about!

You have created a strawman and are attacking it hoping that people reading your post don’t know the New Testament!!

A person can claim to be anything but the magnitude to which their actions conform to that view will determine whether or not they are authentic!

Nice try. But anyone with knowledge of history and Christianity will rightly call out you claim as false. And that is why few atheists argue this way in debate!

Let’s try some arguments that don’t rely on straw men!

 

[ananda]

So I agree with you as Luke points out that Jesus tells the disciples to take their money and buy swords for personal protection against theft and murder by criminals!

As to your contradictions, on Buddhism evil and suffering are illisory.

Good and evil are Illusory.

In the midst of such incoherency the claim of contradictions between accounts of various narratives in scripture seem to pale in comparison to the cracks in the foundation of Buddhist philosophy. In fact when we examine how real people account for near historic events we find the scriptures consistent with all history of comparable times.

Of course one can always rely on anachronism or historic misrepresentations of the nature of the Biblical genres and appeals to popular esoteric albeit incoherent religious inferences.

I'm not sure where you heard that Buddhism teaches that suffering is illusory - that's not taught in early Buddhism as I understand it. Also, "good" and "evil" are explained as constructs of the mind (but they are not illusory either). For example, something that is interpreted as "good" to one mind might be understood as "evil" to another mind.

 

[Joyousperson]

Jesus tells his followers to take HP their cross and sacrifice their lives for the sake of the gospel.

I am not an expert in the details of the NT but I believe the above do not mean sacrificing one's life in the killing one's enemies [instead of loving one's enemies], as in the Crusades.

Here is one view;

What did Jesus mean when He said that, to be His disciples, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross, and give our lives for Him (Matt. 16:24,25; Mark 8:34,35; Luke 9:23,24)?

Lose your life for Jesus​

The next verse then helps us understand Jesus' point and strengthens the application. If a person holds his life so dear to himself that he wants to use it to please himself, do his own will, and accomplish his own purposes, rather than denying self and serving God, that person will in the end lose his life eternally. But anyone who loses his life for Jesus' sake - gives it in service and sacrifice to God by denying himself, as described above - such a man will save his life by gaining eternal life.

There can be no greater or clearer teaching anywhere of the meaning of being a disciple. This is how our Master lived, so this is how His disciples must live. We must live lives of complete and total submission to the will of God.
https://www.gospelway.com/topics/christian_life/deny_self-carry_cross.php

 

[Joyousperson]

I'm not sure where you heard that Buddhism teaches that suffering is illusory - that's not taught in early Buddhism as I understand it. Also, "good" and "evil" are explained as constructs of the mind (but they are not illusory either). For example, something that is interpreted as "good" to one mind might be understood as "evil" to another mind.

According to the "Two Truths Theory" of Buddhism, 'suffering' is both real and illusory depending on the perspective one looks at it.

Sufferings [physical and mental] on the sensual, experienced and on conscious level has to be real, e.g. worries, anxieties, angst, and the likes are accompanied by real feelings, chemical reactions and related behaviors. This "real" experience of suffering is the stimuli for one to take appropriate corrective actions.

However sufferings viewed from the psycho-analytical and philosophical [higher wisdom] perspective is an illusion since it is impermanent and the experiences and behavior can be modulated. Since suffering based on right view is illusory, then the right action [via mindfulness] is to detach oneself from sufferings in this particular perspective.