The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

[Joyousperson]

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.

The Gospels did not state it is overriding, but in terms of the whole context of Christianity's ideal, "pacifism" is the overriding moral maxim, whilst recognizing that not all Christians will be able to meet such an ideal. Thus there is provision for forgiveness where justifiable.

It is critical for Christians to recognize this concept of the overriding pacifist maxim to defend against accusation Christianity is by nature evil and violent via the acts of certain Christians.

I have no issue with different people have different purposes and circumstances for different religions [except Islam which is inherently evil and violent].

I believe it is good for you personally that you have moved on to Buddhism which I believe is a more progressive religion or philosophy without the theistic baggage and will be optimal for the future.
However you need to detach [not cling - no tanha] at least from negative attitude toward Christianity [which has it pros and cons] in the way you have argued against it above.

 

[ananda]

The Gospels did not state it is overriding, but in terms of the whole context of Christianity's ideal, "pacifism" is the overriding moral maxim, whilst recognizing that not all Christians will be able to meet such an ideal. Thus there is provision for forgiveness where justifiable. It is critical for Christians to recognize this concept of the overriding pacifist maxim to defend against accusation Christianity is by nature evil and violent via the acts of certain Christians.

Since it is not written that "pacifism" is overriding, wouldn't you agree that it is merely your own preferred view or interpretation of the Christian writings?

However you need to detach [not cling - no tanha] at least from negative attitude toward Christianity [which has it pros and cons] in the way you have argued against it above.

I don't see myself as holding a negative attitude, but a reasoned, supported view of Christianity based on their own writings.

 

[Joyousperson]

Ananda Wrote;
Since it is not written that "pacifism" is overriding, wouldn't you agree that it is merely your own preferred view or interpretation of the Christian writings?

Yes, it is my own objective interpretation and I am trying to convince Christians this is very positive for them to defend Christianity from being accused as being evil and violent in nature because of the acts of SOME Christians in the past and present.

Since there nothing adverse with this view [covenant with an overriding pacifist maxim] but everything positive, then it would be wise for all Christians to accept this view.

I don't see myself as holding a negative attitude, but a reasoned, supported view of Christianity based on their own writings.

It is obvious a negative view which generating negativity [at least subliminally]. It would be better for you to move on and not be too attached [Upādāna] to such a view.
I presume you understand the negativity from Upādāna?
Upādāna - Wikipedia

If would be more wiser for you to critique Islam objectively rather than Christianity.

 

[ananda]

Yes, it is my own objective interpretation...

Therefore it cannot be watertight.

It is obvious a negative view which generating negativity [at least subliminally]. It would be better for you to move on and not be too attached [Upādāna] to such a view.
I presume you understand the negativity from Upādāna?
Upādāna - Wikipedia

If would be more wiser for you to critique Islam objectively rather than Christianity.

The Buddha freely disputed against followers of other systems, to dispel wrong views, e.g. "Imagining error where there is none, and seeing no error where there is, beings adopting wrong views go to a bad destination" (Dhp 318). It is not upadana when I can freely move on, and I shall do so (from your thread) as you wish.

 

[Joyousperson]

Therefore it cannot be watertight.

It is watertight as demonstrated objectively.

In contrast, the verses related to killing of non-Muslims is not watertight due to its vagueness.

5:32. For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel [Jews] that whosoever killeth a human being (for other than manslaughter [murder] or corruption in the [World] earth), it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption [mischief, wronged] in the land - will be that they [infidels] will be killed or crucified, or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.​

In the above it would appear Islam forbid whosever to kill a human being BUT note the exception, i.e. manslaughter or corruption [fasadin] [a threat to the religion].
The problem is the Arabic term 'fasadin' is too loose thus even drawing of cartoon is deemed to be a threat to the religion of Islam, thus Muslims went on to kill many merely because of cartoons and commit many other terrible evil and violent acts on this basis.

Note in the Gospels, Jesus did not state 'love all - even enemies' then qualify "except" this or that. Thus this is a watertight assertion.

There maybe grey areas, but they are overridden by the overriding pacifist maxim.

The Buddha freely disputed against followers of other systems, to dispel wrong views, e.g. "Imagining error where there is none, and seeing no error where there is, beings adopting wrong views go to a bad destination" (Dhp 318). It is not upadana when I can freely move on, and I shall do so (from your thread) as you wish.

As I had stated all religions [Christians and even Buddhism] has their pros and cons. I agree, we need to be critical of the cons, negativity and wrong views.

But regard the OP, I believe I have provided very solid evidences to back my case.

If you can bring me a verse in the Gospels, like, where Jesus stated explicitly and unconditionally,
"Kill all enemies of Christianity without exceptions" or even if Christianity is threatened, then I will reconsider my views.
Otherwise I would suggest you move on.

 

[Caliban]

As I understands,

Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.
Christian apologetics - Wikipedia
​

I have been listening to Jay Smith, David Wood, Sam Shamoun, and other Christian apologetics, but they don't seem to invoke this watertight defense re the concept of the covenant.

I believe the concept of the 'covenant' is the most watertight defense for Christianity against any negative accusations that it is associated with evil and violence based on the acts committed by SOME 'Christians' such as in the crusades, inquisition, Salem, pedophiles priests, and the likes.

I note there is a general covenant between God and the Jews in the OT and this is extended to the prophesised New Covenant in the NT.

For a person to be defined as a Christian, the individual must establish a personal relation with God and Christ via an agreement, i.e. a specific personal divine covenant.

I have argued and defended this definition of 'Who is a Christian-proper' in the following thread;
Who is a Christian?

A Christian is a person who;

1. Believes in Jesus as son of God and his teachings, i.e. accept the offer re John 3:16, etc.,
   
   
2. is Baptized accordingly,
   
   
3. Surrender to God via Jesus as Son of God,
   
   
4. Entered [explicit or implied] into a covenant with God to comply with God's words [the covenanted terms] in the Gospels [supported by the epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT] to the best of his/her ability.

In term of weightages, I understand 4 - entering into a covenant with God, is most critical which I would place at 75%. The covenant if not explicit is implied. Without a covenant [divine contract], then no true relationship is effected between God [& Jesus] and the believers.

The balance of 25% is divided among the others. Baptism is common but it is a ritual and form which can be abused. There could be some special exceptions to the above but regardless an covenant must be implied upon the circumstances.

Any one can declare a belief but it has to be reinforced with an actual covenant. It would be very fatal [no eternal life] for a Christian to insist there is no covenant [contract or agreement] between him and God or insist he will not enter into a covenant with his God.

• 
  If there is no agreement and relationship, there is no way - in principle - God can exercise any promise to him of salvation and eternal life. Any serious Christian will accept this principle if the point is explained clearly to him.
  
  Therefore the covenant is the primary and ultimate factor in deciding 'who is a Christian' regardless of whether they are conscious of it or not.

The above elements are based on genuine intentions from the believer and not on pretense which cannot escape God omniscience [all knowing].

Where the concept of the 'covenant' can be used as the most watertight defense for Christianity against any negative accusations that Christianity is associated with evil and violence based on the acts committed by SOME 'Christians' such as in the crusades, inquisition, Salem, pedophiles priests, and the likes, is argued as follows;

P1 A Christian is one who has entered into a covenant with the Christian God of Christianity.

P2 The covenanted terms of that a Christian must comply has a overriding pacifist maxim of love all, even one's enemies, thus a Christian cannot commit evil nor violent acts on any human being.

C3 Therefore any evil or violent acts by 'Christians' cannot be attributable to Christianity proper.​

The point is if Christians as defined above commits evil and violent acts, they could NOT have done it in the name of Christianity per se since the covenanted terms within Christianity has absolutely no provision to allow the Christian-proper to be evil and violent to any human, rather it is love all even one's enemies.

Often when I discussed with Muslims, others and even Christians about the terror, evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims, they will readily use the Tu Quogue fallacy, and countered so confidently -what about the Bible??, by accusing SOME Christians and Christianity as evil and violent by pointing to the many of such verses in the OT and some in the NT.

Thus the effective defense is the above syllogism, i.e.;
A Christian is one who had entered into a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms that has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love all, even one's enemies, neighbor, give the other cheeks etc. Thus even if a Christian has hatred for his enemies and others s/he by doctrinal principles and obligated by the covenanted terms, cannot kill, harm or commit evil acts against any one.

Of course, Christians being human beings and given free, SOME will be not be able to resist certain primal impulse to kill, harm or commit evil. But their acts cannot be attributable to Christianity itself since Christians must comply to the overriding pacifist maxim of love all.
In this case, we cannot blame Christianity itself but the blame should primarily be directed at the guilty Christians who acted on their own free will.
Fortunately the all knowing Christian God is all-merciful and will likely forgive [even the worst sin] if the guilty person repented sincerely and do not repeat the sin.

If the Christian apologetic is faced with accusations by Muslims that Christianity also has evil and violent elements in the Bible, NT and the other books, the counter attack would be;

P1 A Muslim is one who has entered into a covenant with the Allah of Islam.

P2 The covenanted terms of a Muslim contain loads of evil and violent element in the Quran and Ahadiths and the Muslim is exhorted to comply with them to gain greater merit and rewards. [evidence available]

C3 Therefore any evil or violent acts by SOME Muslims are inspired by the ideology of the religion of Islam itself.
​

One point to note is we must differentiate the ideology of Islam from Muslims as believers, thus we should not lay primary blame on the guilty Muslims rather we must trace the evil and violent acts to the ideology, note this thread;
Islam - Do Not Bash Muslims
The guilty Muslims must answer for his crimes within the law of the land, but the primary blame is on the religion of Islam itself and not on the guilty Muslims who was unfortunately born naturally with active evil proclivities.

Would you agree the concept of the imperative covenant a Christian has to establish with God as a watertight defense for Christianity in a Christian Apologetic scenario as above?
If not, your views?

Have you ever Googled the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

 

[Caliban]

I'll propose a test for the central claim of this post:
If the argument is "watertight" some percentage of atheists, sceptics, and freethinkers will convert and cite this argument for the reason.
I'll watch this thread.

 

[Joyousperson]

Have you ever Googled the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

I don't see the relevance of the "No True Scotsman fallacy at all.

What I have justified is there is at least an implied covenant when a Christian establish a personal relation with God.

 

[Caliban]

I don't see the relevance of the "No True Scotsman fallacy at all.

What I have justified is there is at least an implied covenant when a Christian establish a personal relation with God.

You claimed that there are criteria for a person to be a "true Christian." This is your work around against the moral failure of Christians during the Crusades and other instances of unethical behavior. It is textbook Scotsman.

 

[Joyousperson]

You claimed that there are criteria for a person to be a "true Christian." This is your work around against the moral failure of Christians during the Crusades and other instances of unethical behavior. It is textbook Scotsman.

My argued definition of who is a Christian-proper is not a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
Are you implying definitions are useless?

In a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, the variable 'Scotsman' is not defined rationally and objectively, thus the room to reject whatever counter examples provided.

In my case, I have provided a rational definition of 'Who is a Christian' and had argued for it in a separate thread.
Who is a Christian?

 

[Caliban]

My argued definition of who is a Christian-proper is not a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
Are you implying definitions are useless?

In a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, the variable 'Scotsman' is not defined rationally and objectively, thus the room to reject whatever counter examples provided.

In my case, I have provided a rational definition of 'Who is a Christian' and had argued for it in a separate thread.
Who is a Christian?

Exactly, you provided a definition. And a Catholic provides another definition. Then the Calvinists, and Episcopalians, the Eastern Orthodox. But, after all, yours must be the CORRECT definition. That is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Think on it a while.

 

[Joyousperson]

I'll propose a test for the central claim of this post:
If the argument is "watertight" some percentage of atheists, sceptics, and freethinkers will convert and cite this argument for the reason.
I'll watch this thread.

I have argued Christianity has its pros and cons. As such, certain people would not find Christianity to their liking based on other negative elements.

If any one has argued Christianity itself is inherently evil and violent based on the Crusades, inquisition, Salem witch-hunts, pedophile priests, and whatever evil and violent acts committed by Christians on their own free will, then it is false.

 

[Caliban]

I have argued Christianity has its pros and cons. As such, certain people would not find Christianity to their liking based on other negative elements.

If any one has argued Christianity itself is inherently evil and violent based on the Crusades, inquisition, Salem witch-hunts, pedophile priests, and whatever evil and violent acts committed by Christians on their own free will, then it is false.

You can't escape the fact that Christians, like every other brand of human, has done horrible things. But, some horrible things in particular have been done because of the Bible.

 

[Joyousperson]

Exactly, you provided a definition. And a Catholic provides another definition. Then the Calvinists, and Episcopalians, the Eastern Orthodox. But, after all, yours must be the CORRECT definition. That is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Think on it a while.

Note even within the scientific community, there are different definitions raised by different scientists regarding an issue. However, at some point a final definition and theory is accepted on an objective basis.

I have argued my definition is based on what is stated in the Bible and the universal principles of a contract or covenant [divine contract]. Thus my definition is objective within these conditions.

The Catholics, Calvinists, and Episcopalians, the Eastern Orthodox will accept my basic definition as defined in my thread.
Who is a Christian?
There is no way the above and most Christian denominations will reject my basic definition of 'Who is a Christian'.
Can you show me which Christian denomination will reject my definition 'Who is a Christian'.

Some Christians claimed 'faith' and 'grace' is sufficient, but I argued these will ultimate implied a covenant [agreement, contract].
One counter which is ineffective and absurd is the one who claimed 'anyone can claim to be Christian' by whatever means.

 

[Caliban]

I

Note even within the scientific community, there are different definitions raised by different scientists regarding an issue. However, at some point a final definition and theory is accepted on an objective basis.

I have argued my definition is based on what is stated in the Bible and the universal principles of a contract or covenant [divine contract].

The Catholics, Calvinists, and Episcopalians, the Eastern Orthodox will accept my basic definitions as defined in my thread.
Who is a Christian?
There is no way the above and most Christian denomination will reject my basic definition of 'Who is a Christian'.
Can you show me which Christian denomination will reject my definition 'Who is a Christian'.

The only counter which is ineffective is the one who claimed 'anyone can claim to be Christian' by whatever means. This is absurd.

C'mon! The problem is not with what a Christian is but, your claim that others were not Christians and therefore Christianity is immune from criticism. That's the fallacy. Seriously, take some time to read up on this instead of just digging in.

 

[Joyousperson]

I

C'mon! The problem is not with what a Christian is but, your claim that others were not Christians and therefore Christianity is immune from criticism. That's the fallacy. Seriously, take some time to read up on this instead of just digging in.

I did not claim those who committed evil and violent acts, e.g. Crusades, inquisition, are not Christians. They are Christians as long they conform to the definition of Who is a Christian?
Once a Christian had entered into a covenant [divine contract] with the Christian God, then s/he remained a Christian until s/he breaks the contract voluntarily.

What I stated is those who are Christians [as defined in Who is a Christian?] and had committed evil and violent acts, they are not doing in the name of Christianity. Rather they committed those evil acts on their own free will and human nature for various reasons, e.g. greater good or personal reasons.

Note a pedophile-Christian-priest's acts has nothing to do with Christianity because Christianity itself do not permit raping children.
It is the same with evil and violent acts by Christians which has nothing to do with Christianity itself, because Christianity has an overriding pacifist maxim to protect itself from being accused of evil and violent acts committed by Christians on their freewill.

A person is a Christian by definition as in Who is a Christian?
The question of whether the person is a good or sinful Christian is for God to judge on Judgment Day.
If the Christian has committed an act that is negative, God may forgive him/her if say, it was for a greater good or will be punished if the act was done with evil intent.

 

[Caliban]

You write, Where the concept of the 'covenant' can be used as the most watertight defense for Christianity against any negative accusations that Christianity is associated with evil and violence based on the acts committed by SOME 'Christians' such as in the crusades, inquisition, Salem, pedophiles priests, and the likes, is argued as follows;

P1 A Christian is one who has entered into a covenant with the Christian God of Christianity.

P2 The covenanted terms of that a Christian must comply has a overriding pacifist maxim of love all, even one's enemies, thus a Christian cannot commit evil nor violent acts on any human being.

C3 Therefore any evil or violent acts by 'Christians' cannot be attributable to Christianity proper.

How is the the conclusion of your syllogism not a claim that actions made by Christians, in the name of Christianity, were not attributable to Christians. What you are essentially saying is these are not Christian actions and therefor Christianity cannot be blamed. Thats the Scotsman. Christianity is indictable for many terrible things.

 

[Joyousperson]

You write, Where the concept of the 'covenant' can be used as the most watertight defense for Christianity against any negative accusations that Christianity is associated with evil and violence based on the acts committed by SOME 'Christians' such as in the crusades, inquisition, Salem, pedophiles priests, and the likes, is argued as follows;

P1 A Christian is one who has entered into a covenant with the Christian God of Christianity.

P2 The covenanted terms of that a Christian must comply has a overriding pacifist maxim of love all, even one's enemies, thus a Christian cannot commit evil nor violent acts on any human being.

C3 Therefore any evil or violent acts by 'Christians' cannot be attributable to Christianity proper.

How is the the conclusion of your syllogism not a claim that actions made by Christians, in the name of Christianity, were not attributable to Christians. What you are essentially saying is these are not Christian actions and therefor Christianity cannot be blamed. Thats the Scotsman. Christianity is indictable for many terrible things.

You have to read my syllogism more carefully. In P2, the covenant of Christianity do not permit Christians to commit evil and violent acts, but rather to love even their enemies.

If a Christian were to go against the prohibition in P2 as covenanted in Christianity, how can that be attributable to Christianity?

Note I stated the evil acts by Christians are not attributable to Christianity itself, i.e. the ideology.

You are committing the equivocation fallacy.
You cannot conflate the ideology with the believer in a total sense. Your fallacy is something like;

The KKK are Americans of the USA.
The KKK committed evil and violent acts.
Therefore the USA is an evil and violent government.​

What is factual is All Americans of the USA are governed by the US Constitution.
The US Constitution do not permit the sort and ways the evil and violent acts are committed by the KKK.
Therefore the evil and violent acts committed by the KKK has nothing to do with the USA government.

As with my argument, the Constitution of Christianity is the Gospels, with supporting appendixes from the epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT.
The Gospels [Constitution] do not permit Christians to commit evil and violent acts as inhibited by the overall pacifist maxim of 'love all -even enemies'.
Therefore the evil acts committed by Christians on their own free will and human nature has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

 

[Caliban]

You have to read my syllogism more carefully. In P2, the covenant of Christianity do not permit Christians to commit evil and violent acts, but rather to love even their enemies.

If a Christian were to go against the prohibition in P2 as covenanted in Christianity, how can that be attributable to Christianity?

Note I stated the evil acts by Christians are not attributable to Christianity itself, i.e. the ideology.

You are committing the equivocation fallacy.
You cannot conflate the ideology with the believer in a total sense. Your fallacy is something like;

The KKK are Americans of the USA.
The KKK committed evil and violent acts.
Therefore the USA is an evil and violent government.​

What is factual is All Americans of the USA are governed by the US Constitution.
The US Constitution do not permit the sort and ways the evil and violent acts are committed by the KKK.
Therefore the evil and violent acts committed by the KKK has nothing to do with the USA government.

As with my argument, the Constitution of Christianity is the Gospels, with supporting appendixes from the epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT.
The Gospels [Constitution] do not permit Christians to commit evil and violent acts as inhibited by the overall pacifist maxim of 'love all -even enemies'.
Therefore the evil acts committed by Christians on their own free will and human nature has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

Yes, and that's your syllogism and your expectations for Christian behavior. Do you not realize there is no "orthodox" view of what it is to be a Christian. There are many conceptions from a variety of different sects, denominations, and interpretations. Scottsman.

 

[Joyousperson]

Yes, and that's your syllogism and your expectations for Christian behavior. Do you not realize there is no "orthodox" view of what it is to be a Christian. There are many conceptions from a variety of different sects, denominations, and interpretations. Scottsman.

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​