What would it take to make you a Christian?

[cloudyday2]

@Joyousperson , your Venn diagram is misleading in #375 if you have the energy you might fix it. No big deal, because I'm sure everybody knows what a subset is anyway. Sorry I know it is silly for me to notice such things LOL

 

[Joyousperson]

I see. So basically you have no clue of the Mystics inner experience of Love and what they experience. Or even of mystical experience of the Mystics in general for that matter. And clearly your not referencing anything Johntson has written. Have you truly read him as you claimed? I wonder. Johnston himself writes: "Mysticism is the experience". Which this whole time you have not understood and even argued against. Which speaks volumes of your knowledge, or lack of, of mysticism.

And you would think there's a lot more to Love for the mystic than merely an emotion when someone like William Johnston writes a whole book on the subject from the mystics perspective and even highlighted with the title "The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion".

It would be wiser of you not to jump to conclusion too hastily.

I have read Johnston's 'Silent Music' and the one on his Autobiography, quite some time ago. I have not read his other books, e.g.
The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion

One of my interest is in all things spirituality which encompassed mysticism, religions [Eastern, Western, Middle], various spiritual approaches, self-development techniques, etc.

Johnston is an expert on Christian meditation and Eastern meditation, especially Zen.
I am VERY familiar with Zen Buddhism and its meditation techniques.

The point with the term 'love' is one cannot move the concept of 'love' from its fundamental groundings.

Here is some notes on the book;

Johnston begins with the mystical tradition itself, its roots and origins, its appearance and significance in the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the early Church. He explains what mysticism is and is not, and how it is inextricably bound up with love. It is at the level of mysticism, he maintains, that the two traditions of East and West can at last understand one another and begin to work together to heal a broken world. The Inner Eye of Love escorts the reader through the stages of the mystical journey, from initial call to final enlightenment. Johnston compares and contrasts the Oriental and Christian experience, continually revealing new points of commonality The much discussed "dark night of the soul" is seen here in a positive way, as an emptying preliminary to the overbrimming of the soul with the knowledge and love of God.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/082321778...ProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div
​

If Johnston believe there are commonalities between the East [Zen, etc.] and West, example the concept of 'love' then that is restricted to the fundamental emotion of 'love' that all and nothing more than that.
Note Love - Wikipedia

Zen [non-theistic] do not agree with 'love' that is divine.

There is no way Johnston can talk of 'love' without reference [explicit or implied] to the fundamental emotion of 'love' that is activated within the brain.

As such 'love' in the mystical and divine sense must be,

Agape, mystical love, divine love = fundamental love emotion + mystical elements or divine elements.​

Note;

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)​

The 'heart' and 'mind' refer to the fundamental neural network of love within the brain in connection with the heart. If not, where else? from the stomach, groins?

Here is a comment on Johnston's Book;
Mystical Theology: The Science of Love

However: (i) the book's major downfall seems to be that it deploys the phrase "a cloud of unknowing" as a sort of bail-out phrase for something the author either does not know, or does not have the skilfulness to really 'convey.' Indeed the phrase is so often deployed in this manner one sees it literally dragged kicking and screaming throughout the entire text. The next bailout phrase seems to be "the dark night."
"Love" is also deployed without any effort to distinguish it from common mediocre (crumbling) notions of the term, which get thrown around like bags of sand in everyday usage. These seem to be like a kind of hangover of Johnson's from writing too many earlier books 'about' mysticism, just as one might write 'about' poetry;
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0006277098/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1#customerReviews​

One point is I have read Johnston's books only for reference which does not mean I agree totally with his views.

Another critical point is your knowledge is SO narrow and shallow but you want to sound like you know a lot.
So far you are making noises only but have not provided any sound and rational arguments with evidences.

 

[dlamberth]

It would be wiser of you not to jump to conclusion too hastily.

I have read Johnston's 'Silent Music' and the one on his Autobiography, quite some time ago. I have not read his other books, e.g.
The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion

One of my interest is in all things spirituality which encompassed mysticism, religions [Eastern, Western, Middle], various spiritual approaches, self-development techniques, etc.

Johnston is an expert on Christian meditation and Eastern meditation, especially Zen.
I am VERY familiar with Zen Buddhism and its meditation techniques.

The point with the term 'love' is one cannot move the concept of 'love' from its fundamental groundings.

Here is some notes on the book;

Johnston begins with the mystical tradition itself, its roots and origins, its appearance and significance in the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the early Church. He explains what mysticism is and is not, and how it is inextricably bound up with love. It is at the level of mysticism, he maintains, that the two traditions of East and West can at last understand one another and begin to work together to heal a broken world. The Inner Eye of Love escorts the reader through the stages of the mystical journey, from initial call to final enlightenment. Johnston compares and contrasts the Oriental and Christian experience, continually revealing new points of commonality The much discussed "dark night of the soul" is seen here in a positive way, as an emptying preliminary to the overbrimming of the soul with the knowledge and love of God.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/082321778...ProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div
​

If Johnston believe there are commonalities between the East [Zen, etc.] and West, example the concept of 'love' then that is restricted to the fundamental emotion of 'love' that all and nothing more than that.
Note Love - Wikipedia

Zen [non-theistic] do not agree with 'love' that is divine.

There is no way Johnston can talk of 'love' without reference [explicit or implied] to the fundamental emotion of 'love' that is activated within the brain.

As such 'love' in the mystical and divine sense must be,

Agape, mystical love, divine love = fundamental love emotion + mystical elements or divine elements.​

Note;

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)​

The 'heart' and 'mind' refer to the fundamental neural network of love within the brain in connection with the heart. If not, where else? from the stomach, groins?

Here is a comment on Johnston's Book;
Mystical Theology: The Science of Love

However: (i) the book's major downfall seems to be that it deploys the phrase "a cloud of unknowing" as a sort of bail-out phrase for something the author either does not know, or does not have the skilfulness to really 'convey.' Indeed the phrase is so often deployed in this manner one sees it literally dragged kicking and screaming throughout the entire text. The next bailout phrase seems to be "the dark night."
"Love" is also deployed without any effort to distinguish it from common mediocre (crumbling) notions of the term, which get thrown around like bags of sand in everyday usage. These seem to be like a kind of hangover of Johnson's from writing too many earlier books 'about' mysticism, just as one might write 'about' poetry;
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0006277098/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1#customerReviews​

One point is I have read Johnston's books only for reference which does not mean I agree totally with his views.

Another critical point is your knowledge is SO narrow and shallow but you want to sound like you know a lot.
So far you are making noises only but have not provided any sound and rational arguments with evidences.

For so many of the Mystics, what's going on for them with Love that its so central to their mysticism? Is there a relationship with Johnston with Love and when he says that mysticism is experience?

 

[Joyousperson]

For so many of the Mystics, what's going on for them with Love that its so central to their mysticism? Is there a relationship with Johnston with Love and when he says that mysticism is experience?

I believe those mystics who got involved with the concept of 'love' e.g. divine love are lesser than the mystics [e.g. Zen mystics] who recognize the inevitable love emotion but will never get entangled with the emotion of love.

The higher mystics will merely 'be' and not being too involved with concepts like 'love' 'agape' love of God for these still involved some inklings of 'attachments.'

 

[dlamberth]

I believe those mystics who got involved with the concept of 'love' e.g. divine love are lesser than the mystics [e.g. Zen mystics] who recognize the inevitable love emotion but will never get entangled with the emotion of love.

The higher mystics will merely 'be' and not being too involved with concepts like 'love' 'agape' love of God for these still involved some inklings of 'attachments.'

Well, it's not the emotion of Love or even any "concepts" of Love that the mystics are talking about. I think that's where your miss-understanding what's going on here. The Mystics point towards a Mystical Love which is not the same as the love you have been pointing towards.

Quoting William Johnston again: "Mystical Love is open to the infinite which can only happen through the process of detachment, through emptiness, and nothingness, the void, the mu. All of this nothingness does not kill love. By no means. It simply detaches it from it's expressions and from it's restriction for Love is deeper and more mysterious than any of it's expressions."

As I know that you know, Buddhist do not make much about Love and do not talk about Love. But this does not mean that Love is absent.
I take refuge in the Buddha
I take refuge in the dharma
I take refuge in the sangha

Isn't the Triple Jewel a total commitment. And is not this commitment an expression of Love?

 

[Joyousperson]

Well, it's not the emotion of Love or even any "concepts" of Love that the mystics are talking about. I think that's where your miss-understanding what's going on here. The Mystics point towards a Mystical Love which is not the same as the love you have been pointing towards.

Quoting William Johnston again: "Mystical Love is open to the infinite which can only happen through the process of detachment, through emptiness, and nothingness, the void, the mu. All of this nothingness does not kill love. By no means. It simply detaches it from it's expressions and from it's restriction for Love is deeper and more mysterious than any of it's expressions."

As I know that you know, Buddhist do not make much about Love and do not talk about Love. But this does not mean that Love is absent.
I take refuge in the Buddha
I take refuge in the dharma
I take refuge in the sangha

Isn't the Triple Jewel a total commitment. And is not this commitment an expression of Love?

If Johnston claimed mystical love does not even involve the basic emotion of love, then he should not have used the term 'love' to confuse people.

Note the most fundamental denominator of 'love.'

Most commonly, love refers to a feeling of strong attraction and emotional attachment.
Love - Wikipedia​

I agree with Johnston's point re "the process of detachment, through emptiness, and nothingness, the void, the mu" which is fundamental to Zen.
But to bring in the concept of love [basically mean attachment], to the above denotes there are some smallest degree [deeper as Johnston reflected] of the emotion of love involved.

Btw, if it not 'concept of love' which is the most realistic then what?
Concept - Wikipedia

It is possible now, if not soon, one can test and verify the above via brain imaging of Johnston or any mystic's brain when they expressed such "mystical love". In this case the neural network in the brain that are associated with the love 'emotion' will show in the fMRI images.
Note this research on 'romantic love' and scientist will get closer to 'love in general'.
Love's all in the brain: fMRI study shows strong, lateralized reward, not sex, drive

Buddhism proper do recognizes and understands the concept of love as an emotion [inherent in humans] and Buddhists do talk and discuss about love. But better Buddhists take steps to ensure they do not get "entangled" blindly with such an emotion.

Note Aristotle on emotions, in this case, 'Anger';

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but

• to be angry with the right person and
• to the right degree and
• at the right time and
• for the right purpose, and
• in the right way

- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
-Aristotle​

The Buddhist approach is the same as the above with emotions and recognizing that emotion is a fundamental emotion.

It is unlike you who deny 'mystical love' is fundamentally an emotion albeit of the smallest degree.
Did Johnston insist specifically 'mystical love' has nothing to do with emotion at the most fundamental refine level at all?

No, a commitment to the Triple Gem has nothing to do with the emotion of love but basically it is a necessity for the well being of the individual and the collective where applicable. Here is an analogy;

If one eat a variety of vitamins, it does not mean one loves vitamins but understand it is as a 'necessity' that it is good for health. Some may not even like it but eat vitamins for health sake.
No doubt there are those who eat vitamins with a feeling of love for it and goes crazy for it. This is imputing an emotional factor of love into eating vitamins and it can be dangerous if certain vitamins are taken excessively.​

It is possible for some Buddhists to feel love for the Triple Gem and other Buddhist practices, which in this case they have not progressed to what is the proper practices of Buddhism which is total engagement [where applicable] whilst total detachment.

I had stated 'agape' is not the typical kind of 'love' which is commonly expressed between humans and with things, but agape still involves the 'love' emotional circuit at a very finer and deeper sense.

 

[dlamberth]

If Johnston claimed mystical love does not even involve the basic emotion of love, then he should not have used the term 'love' to confuse people.

For mystics, it's a non-duality sort of thing in how they approach this stuff. So they don't attach any concept to things like Love. It's all about "inner experience" for the Mystic. For some reason that's not being understood.

, if it not 'concept of love' which is the most realistic then what?
Concept - Wikipedia

Again, Mystics free themselves from concepts. Concepts get into the way.
But they do work through inner Experience-Wiki

It is possible now, if not soon, one can test and verify the above via brain imaging of Johnston or any mystic's brain when they expressed such "mystical love". In this case the neural network in the brain that are associated with the love 'emotion' will show in the fMRI images.
Note this research on 'romantic love' and scientist will get closer to 'love in general'.
Love's all in the brain: fMRI study shows strong, lateralized reward, not sex, drive

Mysticism is "inner experience". Again for emphasis.. Mysticism is "inner experience". My question is, how does anything in the above have anything to do with what the Mystic is experiencing?

It is unlike you who deny 'mystical love' is fundamentally an emotion albeit of the smallest degree.

The emotions happen after the mystical event, not during. Ecstatic moments are totally free of emotion, even to the smallest degree. The instant emotions or any other thinking breaks in, the moment of the mystical experience will stop.

Did Johnston insist specifically 'mystical love' has nothing to do with emotion at the most fundamental refine level at all?

Johnston spends some time talking about the various images of Love to educate the reader about how mystical love is something else.

No, a commitment to the Triple Gem has nothing to do with the emotion of love ..

No one here said that Triple Gem does have anything to do with emotional Love. I certainly don't believe so. Emotion need not be a part of commitment, but the moment that one commits, an attachment happens. In Love there is attachment.

I had stated 'agape' is not the typical kind of 'love' which is commonly expressed between humans and with things, but agape still involves the 'love' emotional circuit at a very finer and deeper sense.

From a dualistic perspective, that's all true. But the picture does change quite a bit while in a non-dualistic mode.

 

[Joyousperson]

For mystics, it's a non-duality sort of thing in how they approach this stuff. So they don't attach any concept to things like Love. It's all about "inner experience" for the Mystic. For some reason that's not being understood.

If they do not attach to any concept of things like 'love' then why are they [re Johnston] using the term 'love'.
Yes, it is about an inner experience, but if one were to invoke and associate the term 'love' to that experience, then somewhere the emotion circuit in the brain is triggered at the unconscious levels of the brain.

In contrast, the Buddhist use the term 'nothingness' for non-duality, i.e. it is just "is" or 'being' and nothing else, no love nor any other subjective feelings nor concepts.

Again, Mystics free themselves from concepts. Concepts get into the way.
But they do work through inner Experience-Wiki

Not in the case of Johnston et al who somehow imputed the concept of 'love' into his "inner experience". Otherwise he should have just introduced the the term 'nothingness' or 'emptiness'.
I read Johnston mentioned this is where his approach is different from Zen because to him God is love.

Mysticism is "inner experience". Again for emphasis.. Mysticism is "inner experience". My question is, how does anything in the above have anything to do with what the Mystic is experiencing?

Obviously the mystics are not brain dead when having an inner mystical experience.
Yes, it is an inner experience, but the neurons in the brain of mystics are still firing, thus the ability of neuroscientists to capture which neurons associated with that experiences are active in terms of fMRI images.

The emotions happen after the mystical event, not during. Ecstatic moments are totally free of emotion, even to the smallest degree. The instant emotions or any other thinking breaks in, the moment of the mystical experience will stop.

Note emotions are triggered initially at the subconscious levels and felt as feelings in the conscious levels. Then these feelings also re feed back to the subconscious and compound higher feelings and this continuously repeat itself till the system breakdown for the person to be an emotional wreck [if negative emotions].

In Johnston and cases of his likes, he may have some deeper inner experiences but they are in parallel to some inkling of emotional triggers at the fundamental levels in the deep subconscious levels and this is reflected in the subsequent terms he used at the conscious level, i.e. the concept of love.

Johnston spends some time talking about the various images of Love to educate the reader about how mystical love is something else.

That he had to use the term 'love' is indication that his emotion of love is triggered in some low degrees at the subconscious level which he was not aware of.

No one here said that Triple Gem does have anything to do with emotional Love. I certainly don't believe so. Emotion need not be a part of commitment, but the moment that one commits, an attachment happens. In Love there is attachment.

In effective commitment for the optimal well being of the individual, there is no 'love' in any emotional sense in any attachment to anything.
There may be a sense of 'love' in a less effective case of attachment.

From a dualistic perspective, that's all true. But the picture does change quite a bit while in a non-dualistic mode.

In the case of Johnston's experience and the concept of agape, it is not a case of full non-duality as the 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' of Buddhism. In Johnston's case there are trace elements of refine emotions of love triggered at the very fundamental unconscious levels of the brain.

The reason is the existential crisis [wrote in earlier posts] within Johnston's case is too strong for him to be capable of total detachment into full non-duality.

 

[caerlerion]

I'm going to go ahead and add one more reason to my earlier list:

• The immense, unapologetic hypocrisy of so many Christians. It has especially bubbled to the surface thanks to the internet. Christians are supposed to be transformed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Made into a new creation in the image of Christ. What I instead have seen is a sharp rise in xenophobia, racism, dishonesty, apathy, and a preference for violence to solve problems. I understand this is a significant criticism, but I do think it is true. I saw it in my churches. I see it here on this message board. The hypocrisy alone is infuriating. The embrace if racism and hatred and deception is infuriating. That alone doesn't turn me away from Christianity. What turns me away is that so many Christians embrace these negatives, when the Holy Spirit is supposed to be radically changing them, quickly leading them into love and holiness. If that's not happening... then it tells me there is no such transformation.

 

[Joyousperson]

I'm going to go ahead and add one more reason to my earlier list:

• The immense, unapologetic hypocrisy of so many Christians. It has especially bubbled to the surface thanks to the internet. Christians are supposed to be transformed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Made into a new creation in the image of Christ. What I instead have seen is a sharp rise in xenophobia, racism, dishonesty, apathy, and a preference for violence to solve problems. I understand this is a significant criticism, but I do think it is true. I saw it in my churches. I see it here on this message board. The hypocrisy alone is infuriating. The embrace if racism and hatred and deception is infuriating. That alone doesn't turn me away from Christianity. What turns me away is that so many Christians embrace these negatives, when the Holy Spirit is supposed to be radically changing them, quickly leading them into love and holiness. If that's not happening... then it tells me there is no such transformation.

This is why I raised this thread
Who is a Christian?
to establish 'What is Christianity' and 'Who is a TRUE Christian' in accordance to the intent of the Christian God.

What is Christianity by definition has to originate from the Christian God via Christ [Jesus] as recorded in the Gospels with the OT [relevant verses], Acts, Epistles as secondary texts.

A Christian is one who had entered into a personal relationship with God [Jesus] via a personal covenant [divine contract, bond] and to comply with all the covenanted terms to the best of one's ability.

Ethically and morally, there is the overall overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even one's enemies'. Thus a Christian has to comply to as close as possible to the above pacifist maxim.

Your above criticisms above is directed as secular or lay-Christians [anything goes] who are not aligning with the main principles of Christianity as stipulated in the Gospels. At best these are pseudo-Christians.

 

[caerlerion]

to establish 'What is Christianity' and 'Who is a TRUE Christian' in accordance to the intent of the Christian God.

This is a No True Scotsman, and not a valid rebuttal of my point, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Joyousperson]

This is a No True Scotsman, and not a valid rebuttal of my point, as far as I'm concerned.

My point do not fit in with the True Scotsman fallacy in a rhetorical claim.

What is Christian and Who is a Christian can be established objectively via the Gospels.

Truth in this sense is compliance with a stated set of criteria.
From the Gospels [re Jesus Christ] we can obtain a list of the essential criteria, say 500 criteria with various weightages of what is Christianity [the intended faith] and who is a Christian.

The ideal true Christian would be one who is complying with 100% or the 500 criteria.
A Christian who comply with 90% of the criteria is a 90% truer Christian and so on.

Note this analogy;
At present there are 'fake eggs' sold in the market.

To find out which is a true-real-egg, the approach is to list down what are the features, qualities, etc. of a real-egg [verified scientifically].
A true-real-egg can be determine by testing to find out how a tested egg fits the critical features and criteria of a real-egg.
This test is very objective.

The same can be done to find out who is a true-Christian objectively.

 

[dlamberth]

What is Christian and Who is a Christian can be established objectively via the Gospels.

It's the subjective approach that I apply to. I think that what's in a person's heart is way more useful in identifying who is a Christian. At least that's what works for me.

 

[Joyousperson]

It's the subjective approach that I apply to. I think that what's in a person's heart is way more useful in identifying who is a Christian. At least that's what works for me.

When one use the subjective basis there is a possibility one could end up with a cult.

Note the sect like the Children of God whose followers who were brainwashed to think they are good Christians by offering sex for conversion. Surely non of such a feature is stated in the Gospels by Jesus Christ.

There are also many 'Christian' sects who condone and promote violence and killing of non-Christians.
This would contravene God's Law where a Christian must love all, even enemies, thus no hatred or deliberate killing of non-Christians are stated in the Gospels.

In may be in a person's heart but that has to be objectively in alignment with God's doctrines.

Humans cannot make their own decisions as to What is Christianity and Who is a Christian based on their own subjective opinions and feelings.

 

[dlamberth]

When one use the subjective basis there is a possibility one could end up with a cult.

We end up with cults even with objective biases. I'd argue that its because of objectives biases of rules and laws that we have moved away from Christ.

Now, any true relationship with God will be subjective. Why? Because a true relationship with God will be of the Heart. That's where God dwells, if a person lets Him in. That's where God is experienced and becomes alive for a person.

In may be in a person's heart but that has to be objectively in alignment with God's doctrines.

I have an interest in medieval women Christian Mystics. Marguerite Porete was a French Beguine from Hainault who lived during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. She distinguishes between what she calls "The Great Holy Church", which is the Church that preaches Love and the "Little Holy Church", which preaches rules and law and order. One church is subjective and the other is objective. It's the objective Church, the church of rules and law and order which burned her at the stake in 1310. That's just one example of many with even greater human horror upon human where the objective church can lead to.

So from where I stand, I'd say that a person's Heart needs to be aligned with the "Heart of Christ" rather than doctrine, which is pretty subjective in nature. But at the same time is totally alive, vibrant and full of Love, compassion and often in service to those in need.

Humans cannot make their own decisions as to What is Christianity and Who is a Christian based on their own subjective opinions and feelings.

Of course we can, we do it all of the time. We each have our own relationship with God. And any relationship by it's very nature is going to be subjective. Otherwise I'd question if that relationship with God is really there in the first place.

When coming across self professed Christians who say that they know Christ, I first look at their fruit to know for sure what they say is true, which is all pretty subjective in nature. But it tells a person a lot about what comes from the Heart of another.

 

[caerlerion]

My point do not fit in with the True Scotsman fallacy in a rhetorical claim.

You claim you have the definition of a "TRUE Christian", and anyone who does not meet your definition is "no true Christian". That's exactly the No True Scotsman fallacy. I lose faith in an honest conversation with someone if they try to gaslight me.

You also did not interact with the point I was making. You waxed philosophically about something only tangential to what I was saying. I'm not interested in an argument by verbosity if it does not engage with what I actually said.

 

[Joyousperson]

You claim you have the definition of a "TRUE Christian", and anyone who does not meet your definition is "no true Christian". That's exactly the No True Scotsman fallacy. I lose faith in an honest conversation with someone if they try to gaslight me.

You also did not interact with the point I was making. You waxed philosophically about something only tangential to what I was saying. I'm not interested in an argument by verbosity if it does not engage with what I actually said.

It is not my direct personal definition of What is Christianity and Who is a Christian.

I abstracted the above definitions from the Gospels of the Bible.

 

[Joyousperson]

We end up with cults even with objective biases. I'd argue that its because of objectives biases of rules and laws that we have moved away from Christ.

Now, any true relationship with God will be subjective. Why? Because a true relationship with God will be of the Heart. That's where God dwells, if a person lets Him in. That's where God is experienced and becomes alive for a person.

As I had stated, it is not my personal definition.
What is of 'Christ' is from the Gospels - the central authority while the other books are secondary.
My objectivity is based on what is abstracted from the Gospels.
Wherein the Gospels are verses to support the Children of God sect's offer of sex for conversion?

I have an interest in medieval women Christian Mystics. Marguerite Porete was a French Beguine from Hainault who lived during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. She distinguishes between what she calls "The Great Holy Church", which is the Church that preaches Love and the "Little Holy Church", which preaches rules and law and order. One church is subjective and the other is objective. It's the objective Church, the church of rules and law and order which burned her at the stake in 1310. That's just one example of many with even greater human horror upon human where the objective church can lead to.

For Marguerite Porete's thinking, actions and experiences to qualify as Christian-proper, they have to align with the doctrines in the Gospels. It cannot be from somewhere else, e.g. Zen, Buddhism or Taoism.

How can the 'Little Holy Church' be objectively 'Christian' when they do not comply with the overall overriding pacifist maxim of the Gospels, i.e. love all - even one's enemies.

So from where I stand, I'd say that a person's Heart needs to be aligned with the "Heart of Christ" rather than doctrine, which is pretty subjective in nature. But at the same time is totally alive, vibrant and full of Love, compassion and often in service to those in need.

You missed my point.
I stated the doctrine of Christianity-proper must be aligned with what in the Gospels as primary.
As such a Christian-proper's 'heart,' thinking and actions must aligned with the doctrine and 'Heart of Christ'.

Of course we can, we do it all of the time. We each have our own relationship with God. And any relationship by it's very nature is going to be subjective. Otherwise I'd question if that relationship with God is really there in the first place.

As I had stated the theory and the actual practice must go together.
There are many who have had Christian-experiences but on investigation they have to align with the doctrine of Christianity-proper which can only be from the Gospels.

When coming across self professed Christians who say that they know Christ, I first look at their fruit to know for sure what they say is true, which is all pretty subjective in nature. But it tells a person a lot about what comes from the Heart of another.

Point is whatever that comes from the "Heart" it has to be verified to whether it is Christianity-proper or not. This can only be confirmed to the doctrines specified in the Gospels as central.

I have defined 'Who is a Christian' here;

A Christian is a person who;​

1. Believes in Jesus as son of God and his teachings [John 3:16, etc.],
2. Is Baptized accordingly,
3. Surrendered to God via Jesus as Son of God,
4. Entered into a covenant with God to comply with God's words in the Gospels to the best of his/her ability.
5. The person's thinking, actions and experiences align with the above. ['Heart' in alignment with the Gospels, Holy Spirit, God, Jesus].

How else would you define 'Who is a Christian' and What is Christianity?

My point is whatever the subjective feelings, thinking, actions, and experiences of a Christian they have to align with the doctrines of Christianity as in the Gospel(s) re Jesus Christ.

It is the same for all other believers of other religions.

 

[dlamberth]

I have defined 'Who is a Christian' here;

A Christian is a person who;​

1. Believes in Jesus as son of God and his teachings [John 3:16, etc.],
2. Is Baptized accordingly,
3. Surrendered to God via Jesus as Son of God,
4. Entered into a covenant with God to comply with God's words in the Gospels to the best of his/her ability.
5. The person's thinking, actions and experiences align with the above. ['Heart' in alignment with the Gospels, Holy Spirit, God, Jesus].

I understand all of those rules and regulations, and that that's what works for you. First and foremost though I'm still needing to see what's in a persons Heart while asking: Do I see God there?!?

How else would you define 'Who is a Christian' and What is Christianity?

Here's my take. First there's Christ. And over there is Christianity. And it's only rarely that they cross paths. With that as a baseline, I honestly don't know what Christianity is other than Doctrine.

My point is whatever the subjective feelings, thinking, actions, and experiences of a Christian they have to align with the doctrines of Christianity as in the Gospel(s) re Jesus Christ.

I've understood that that's been your point all along. And my point is that God can not be fit into doctrines. God is way too big for that. And what's cool about the Human Heart is that it can take in a lot more of God into a person's Soul than can any Doctrine. What that means is that a person can be outside of prescribed Doctrine and still know God through Christ.

It is the same for all other believers of other religions.

You lost me on what you mean here.

 

[Joyousperson]

I understand all of those rules and regulations, and that that's what works for you. First and foremost though I'm still needing to see what's in a persons Heart while asking: Do I see God there?!?

Note it is well understood, there is no way others can ever comprehend what is truly another's first-person's experience.
As such we have to ignore such expectations and tune to what can be objectively determined from the experiences of the majority that can be verified to some common objective grounds.

Here's my take. First there's Christ. And over there is Christianity. And it's only rarely that they cross paths. With that as a baseline, I honestly don't know what Christianity is other than Doctrine.

Yes, there is Christ, and whatever expressed by Christ and his thinking and actions are noted in the Gospels. This is the objective representation of Christianity.
In this case, one of the main principles of Christianity is 'love all - even enemies'.
Within humanity there is a consensus, there is a core meaning of 'what is love' as an emotions express in various forms. Those Christians who practice or express love spontaneously as per the Gospels would be practicing Christianity.
Even now in a crude manner and more precisely in the future, one will be able to verify one's love responses to the active 'love' circuits in the brain.

I've understood that that's been your point all along. And my point is that God can not be fit into doctrines. God is way too big for that. And what's cool about the Human Heart is that it can take in a lot more of God into a person's Soul than can any Doctrine. What that means is that a person can be outside of prescribed Doctrine and still know God through Christ.

What is God may not be able to fit into a doctrine.
But God's words via his Son as a human can fit into divine doctrines for believers to follow and practice, i.e. in the Gospels.

One cannot be outside the Gospels [all that of Christ] and still know God via Christ.
Note the example I gave, the Children of God who offered sex for conversion which is outside the gospel could not have known God via Christ.

You lost me on what you mean here.

I stated a Christian [as defined] is grounded within the Gospels re Jesus Christ. There is no other way.
It is the same with a Buddhist-proper who can only be defined via the Buddhist sutras and Gautama Buddha.
A Muslim-proper can only defined within Allah's Quran via angel Gabriel and Muhammad and no other ways.
It is the same for other mainstream religions.