Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Harbal]

Quite true. A Lithuanian who says he's a Scotsman isn't a Scotsman. A Scotswoman who says she's a Scotsman isn't a Scotsman. So what's your point, really?

No point, really; I was just thinking how Scotsmen tend to have their nationality stripped from them more than most others.

Words do have ranges of meaning. Even "Scotsman" has a limited range of meaning. That which is simply outside the reasonable range of meanings of "Scotsman" is not a Scotsman.

Likewise, words like "Theist" or "Christian." A person who believes in no gods is, by definition, not a "Theist." A person who does not follow Christ is not, by definition, a "Christian." What they profess they are, what they claim they are, is really irrelevant to that definition. Men lie and are mistaken. Unless the label fits somewhere within the definitional range of the word, it's a label misapplied.

So the "No True Scotsman" fallacy also has a limited range. It can only apply where the speaker is not invoking the relevant criteria to the definition, but is rather invoking some irrelevant criterion in its place. If your allegation would be that I have invoked an improper criterion of "Christian," you'll need, in refuting that, to show what it was, and that it was indeed irrelevant. In other words, you would have to be able to say what the correct criterion would have been. I can tell you that a "Scotsman" would have to be both "Scots" and "a man."

What is the correct criterion, in your view, for the word "Christian"? You have mine; and if you say it's a "Scotsman" case, then what's yours?

So to be a Christian, one has to "follow" Christ, but follow him in what respect exactly, and to what extent? Does he have to live his life 100% according to the teachings of Christ, or will 90%, or 75%, do? What if he just follows Christ a little bit; where is the cut off point after which he is not entitled to call himself a Christian?

[Immanuel Can]

No point, really; I was just thinking how Scotsmen tend to have their nationality stripped from them more than most others.

Words do have ranges of meaning. Even "Scotsman" has a limited range of meaning. That which is simply outside the reasonable range of meanings of "Scotsman" is not a Scotsman.

Likewise, words like "Theist" or "Christian." A person who believes in no gods is, by definition, not a "Theist." A person who does not follow Christ is not, by definition, a "Christian." What they profess they are, what they claim they are, is really irrelevant to that definition. Men lie and are mistaken. Unless the label fits somewhere within the definitional range of the word, it's a label misapplied.

So the "No True Scotsman" fallacy also has a limited range. It can only apply where the speaker is not invoking the relevant criteria to the definition, but is rather invoking some irrelevant criterion in its place. If your allegation would be that I have invoked an improper criterion of "Christian," you'll need, in refuting that, to show what it was, and that it was indeed irrelevant. In other words, you would have to be able to say what the correct criterion would have been. I can tell you that a "Scotsman" would have to be both "Scots" and "a man."

What is the correct criterion, in your view, for the word "Christian"? You have mine; and if you say it's a "Scotsman" case, then what's yours?

So to be a Christian, one has to "follow" Christ, but follow him in what respect exactly, and to what extent?

No, no...that's a follow-up question, and not the answer to the one you were asked. I'll answer that, gladly; but you get your answer if you answer mine: what's your definition of a "Christian"?

[Harbal]

Words do have ranges of meaning. Even "Scotsman" has a limited range of meaning. That which is simply outside the reasonable range of meanings of "Scotsman" is not a Scotsman.

Likewise, words like "Theist" or "Christian." A person who believes in no gods is, by definition, not a "Theist." A person who does not follow Christ is not, by definition, a "Christian." What they profess they are, what they claim they are, is really irrelevant to that definition. Men lie and are mistaken. Unless the label fits somewhere within the definitional range of the word, it's a label misapplied.

So the "No True Scotsman" fallacy also has a limited range. It can only apply where the speaker is not invoking the relevant criteria to the definition, but is rather invoking some irrelevant criterion in its place. If your allegation would be that I have invoked an improper criterion of "Christian," you'll need, in refuting that, to show what it was, and that it was indeed irrelevant. In other words, you would have to be able to say what the correct criterion would have been. I can tell you that a "Scotsman" would have to be both "Scots" and "a man."

What is the correct criterion, in your view, for the word "Christian"? You have mine; and if you say it's a "Scotsman" case, then what's yours?

So to be a Christian, one has to "follow" Christ, but follow him in what respect exactly, and to what extent?

No, no...that's a follow-up question, and not the answer to the one you were asked. I'll answer that, gladly; but you get your answer if you answer mine: what's your definition of a "Christian"?

If someone says they are a Christian, and there is no obvious reason to think they are lying, I would just accept it. I don't have an actual definition of "Christian".

[Alexiev]

If someone says they are a Christian, and there is no obvious reason to think they are lying, I would just accept it. I don't have an actual definition of "Christian".

This is a problem for Evangelicals. Catholics, Orthodox, and some protestant groups affirm membership through ritual: baptism, confession and other sacraments. Born Again Christians reject the sacraments. Yet it is impossible to determine what others believe. So evangelicals confirm their faith through a range of political and social behaviors: opposition to abortion rights being one. If you don't toe the line, your faith (and membership) is suspect.

[Immanuel Can]

So to be a Christian, one has to "follow" Christ, but follow him in what respect exactly, and to what extent?

No, no...that's a follow-up question, and not the answer to the one you were asked. I'll answer that, gladly; but you get your answer if you answer mine: what's your definition of a "Christian"?

If someone says they are a Christian, and there is no obvious reason to think they are lying, I would just accept it. I don't have an actual definition of "Christian".

So then, either you believe that human beings are incapable of lying or making an error, or the truth is that you have no criteria for what makes a "Christian" a "Christian." But then, how do you know my criteria for "Christian" aren't exactly the right ones? You don't know what they are, and don't have any criteria against which to measure them?

This means your implied "Scotsman" criticism was based on....what? Clearly, you have no way of knowing if I did anything wrong or not.

Now, to your question. I promised I'd answer, and so I shall.

There are two issues: one is the person -- "Is X a Christian." The other is the action: "Is what X did a 'Christian' thing to do?" But this creates a problem. That is, that somebody who is genuinely an X could conceivably do something that was unsuitable to an X. He could be an X person, but perform an un-X-ish deed.

To illustrate. My father has told me to be kind to my neighbour. Yet, out of spite or error, I burn my neighbour's house down. Am I still the son of my father? Yes. But have I conducted myself in a way unworthy of sonship? Yes. I have need to repent of that. Still, I will be my father's son -- in person, but not in action. I am 100% my father's son, we might say; but that does not mean my actions on a given occasion are uniformly 100% worthy of that fact. And if, in fact, I am not my alleged father's son, then I am 0% in both categories: both my actions and my relationship have nothing to do with my alleged father -- even if I claim they do.

Biblically speaking, Christians are told that they can have no certainty about the "person" issue, since only God looks at the heart. It is possible, in the extreme, for even a wicked man to repent in later life, and to become genuinely a Christian. Why not: the Apostle Paul did that very thing himself. He started as a vicious persecutor of the church, and ended up as an apostle. So his relationship to God was the profound reality, when we assess him; but his early life was totally unexemplary of that destiny he was eventually to reach. And his later life did not make his earlier life right -- as he, himself confessed freely, later on. (See 1 Cor. 15:9)

But Christians are not merely invited but commanded to make an approximate estimation of that very question, by Jesus Christ Himself, based on the "action" issue. They are told, "by their fruits (i.e. their deeds) you shall know them." (Matthew 7:15-20). And they are told this specifically in the context of the anticipated existence of many false claimants to relationship with God. They say they are sons, but they are not. "Such people claim they know God, but they deny him by the way they live. They are detestable and disobedient, worthless for doing anything good." (Titus 1:16, NLT) In other words, your self-identification criterion, your idea that a person who says he is a "Christian" automatically is, is explicity rejected by the Bible, and by Christ Himself.

The contested case, according to Alexiev, is Torquemada. So I must ask: how do the "fruits" of his actions convince you that he is not one of the false claimants that Christ promised us would abound? And if we are invited, on the basis of his actions, to dismiss him as such a claimant, and that by no less an authority than Christ Himself, on what basis would you insist we must regard Torquemada as a Christian?

[Immanuel Can]

If someone says they are a Christian, and there is no obvious reason to think they are lying, I would just accept it. I don't have an actual definition of "Christian".

This is a problem for Evangelicals. Catholics, Orthodox, and some protestant groups affirm membership through ritual: baptism, confession and other sacraments.

It's really a problem for anybody, as my reply that is above shows.

Born Again Christians reject the sacraments.

No, they regard them as holding an important place, and being very worthy of doing, and of being a universal Christian responsibility. But not as imparting salvation by their mere ritual repetition. That's the key differentiator.

Yet it is impossible to determine what others believe.

Not really. See my message to Harbal.

So evangelicals confirm their faith through a range of political and social behaviors:

Wow, sorry: this is totally incorrect, actually.

Evangelicals do not believe "a range of political and social behaviours" produce salvation, anymore than they believe that rituals do. They don't even think those things provide "confirmations." Political and social behaviours must be based on Biblical principle, but are not salvific in any way, nor are they confirmatory of faith. The similarity among them is produced by the primary principal of adhering to Scripture, rather than of choosing one's political and social activities arbitrarily or by preference.

[Alexiev]

Evangelicals do not believe "a range of political and social behaviours" produce salvation, anymore than they believe that rituals do. They don't even think those things provide "confirmations." Political and social behaviours must be based on Biblical principle, but are not salvific in any way, nor are they confirmatory of faith. The similarity among them is produced by the primary principal of adhering to Scripture, rather than of choosing one's political and social activities arbitrarily or by preference.

Thanks for explaining what everyone knows and what has nothing to do with my post.

Karl Marx is the new Satan!

Biblical principle: you shall not suffer a witch to live.

[Immanuel Can]

Evangelicals do not believe "a range of political and social behaviours" produce salvation, anymore than they believe that rituals do. They don't even think those things provide "confirmations." Political and social behaviours must be based on Biblical principle, but are not salvific in any way, nor are they confirmatory of faith. The similarity among them is produced by the primary principal of adhering to Scripture, rather than of choosing one's political and social activities arbitrarily or by preference.

Thanks for explaining what everyone knows and what has nothing to do with my post.

If "everyone" knew it, why did "everyone" get it so obviously wrong?

Karl Marx is the new Satan!

No: just a true son of the old one. By his "fruits," you know him.

[Immanuel Can]

So, back to the OP.

If Theism and Moral Realism "are separate concepts," as the OP suggests, then Moral Realism would have to be a concept that stands on its own two feet, independent of Theism.

Can anybody give an account of Moral Realism that DOES NOT require any kind of Theism as a prerequisite?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's do a specific case, one that is from reality.

A kid shoots up a school. He does so, because he wants the school or his peers to feel the pain he feels as a rejected, despised, overlooked person...which he genuinely feels he is. So he selects the method most likely to gain him instantaneous recognition as angry, and to generate instantly the pain he thinks he feels every day. His desire and his methods are perfectly reconciled. And subjectively, it's exactly what he wants to do, and exactly the means most likely to produce it, as he sees things, subjectively.

Why shouldn't he?

[Harbal]

No, no...that's a follow-up question, and not the answer to the one you were asked. I'll answer that, gladly; but you get your answer if you answer mine: what's your definition of a "Christian"?

If someone says they are a Christian, and there is no obvious reason to think they are lying, I would just accept it. I don't have an actual definition of "Christian".

So then, either you believe that human beings are incapable of lying or making an error, or the truth is that you have no criteria for what makes a "Christian" a "Christian."

Well, within certain parameters, I can accept that a Christian is whatever somebody claiming to be one says it is.

But then, how do you know my criteria for "Christian" aren't exactly the right ones? You don't know what they are, and don't have any criteria against which to measure them?

But I don't care if you are a Christian or not, so whatever criteria your claim to be one is based on is purely a matter for you, and of no interest to me. If I were in need of medical attention, then it would matter to me that the person claiming to be a doctor actually was a doctor, but I cannot envisage a situation where it would matter to me that someone claiming to be a Christian genuinely was one according to a particular set of criteria.

Now, to your question. I promised I'd answer, and so I shall.

There are two issues: one is the person -- "Is X a Christian." The other is the action: "Is what X did a 'Christian' thing to do?" But this creates a problem. That is, that somebody who is genuinely an X could conceivably do something that was unsuitable to an X. He could be an X person, but perform an un-X-ish deed.

But what is a Christian thing to do, it seems to me, is very subject to individual opinion and interpretation.

The contested case, according to Alexiev, is Torquemada. So I must ask: how do the "fruits" of his actions convince you that he is not one of the false claimants that Christ promised us would abound? And if we are invited, on the basis of his actions, to dismiss him as such a claimant, and that by no less an authority than Christ Himself, on what basis would you insist we must regard Torquemada as a Christian?

If the institution of the Christian Church recognised him as one of its members, then how can he not be regarded as a Christian?

[Age]

Does "immanuel can" claim to be a so-called "christian"?

If yes, then how does "immanuel can" define the 'christian' word, exactly?

And, could "Immanuel can" just be another one of the false claimants, which the just another human being named "jesus christ" claimed there would?

[Immanuel Can]

If someone says they are a Christian, and there is no obvious reason to think they are lying, I would just accept it. I don't have an actual definition of "Christian".

So then, either you believe that human beings are incapable of lying or making an error, or the truth is that you have no criteria for what makes a "Christian" a "Christian."

Well, within certain parameters, I can accept that a Christian is whatever somebody claiming to be one says it is.

Interesting. Christ cannot. You can. Okay.

But then, how do you know my criteria for "Christian" aren't exactly the right ones? You don't know what they are, and don't have any criteria against which to measure them?

But I don't care if you are a Christian or not,

Well, then, you're in no real position to make any claims about "Christians," right? You don't know how even to recognize one, it seems.

Now, to your question. I promised I'd answer, and so I shall.

There are two issues: one is the person -- "Is X a Christian." The other is the action: "Is what X did a 'Christian' thing to do?" But this creates a problem. That is, that somebody who is genuinely an X could conceivably do something that was unsuitable to an X. He could be an X person, but perform an un-X-ish deed.

But what is a Christian thing to do, it seems to me, is very subject to individual opinion and interpretation.

Well, that's at the very best a rather partial supposition, really. Christians are well-equipped with objective principles based on Scripture. There is still some need for an ethic relating to practical application, of course -- one has to know, for example, to whom to apply the dictum, "thou shalt not murder," in the case of the unborn -- and that's the only place some "interpretation" comes in, but interpretation isn't merely "opinion." Interpretation has textual grounds; opinion need have none. However, the moral terrain is much more well-defined for a Christian than it can be for a Subjectivist who is thrown upon his own wavering impulses for all the "moral" information he can have.

The contested case, according to Alexiev, is Torquemada. So I must ask: how do the "fruits" of his actions convince you that he is not one of the false claimants that Christ promised us would abound? And if we are invited, on the basis of his actions, to dismiss him as such a claimant, and that by no less an authority than Christ Himself, on what basis would you insist we must regard Torquemada as a Christian?

If the institution of the Christian Church recognised him as one of its members, then how can he not be regarded as a Christian?

He was a Catholic by claim, appointed directly by the Pope, and in practice an instrument of the Spanish State. In no way were his actions "Christian." So using the Christ-given grounds of judgment, you'd have to say he was not...the "fruit" of his deeds prove him false.

[Harbal]

So then, either you believe that human beings are incapable of lying or making an error, or the truth is that you have no criteria for what makes a "Christian" a "Christian."

Well, within certain parameters, I can accept that a Christian is whatever somebody claiming to be one says it is.

Interesting. Christ cannot. You can. Okay.

It's a long time since Christ was allegedly here, and things have changed a lot, so who is to say what he would have to say in this day and age? I don't doubt that you will know what he would have to say, of course.

But I don't care if you are a Christian or not,

Well, then, you're in no real position to make any claims about "Christians," right?

I think of myself more as being in no position to tell anyone they are not a Christian if they say they are one.

But what is a Christian thing to do, it seems to me, is very subject to individual opinion and interpretation.

Well, that's at the very best a rather partial supposition, really. Christians are well-equipped with objective principles based on Scripture. There is still some need for an ethic relating to practical application, of course -- one has to know, for example, to whom to apply the dictum, "thou shalt not murder," in the case of the unborn -- and that's the only place some "interpretation" comes in, but interpretation isn't merely "opinion." Interpretation has textual grounds; opinion need have none. However, the moral terrain is much more well-defined for a Christian than it can be for a Subjectivist who is thrown upon his own wavering impulses for all the "moral" information he can have.

I don't know what scriptures say, so I can only take the word of those who say they do know, not that it makes any difference to me what they say.

If the institution of the Christian Church recognised him as one of its members, then how can he not be regarded as a Christian?

He was a Catholic by claim, appointed directly by the Pope, and in practice an instrument of the Spanish State. In no way were his actions "Christian." So using the Christ-given grounds of judgment, you'd have to say he was not...the "fruit" of his deeds prove him false.

For hundreds of years, and probably even now, the Catholic Church has been the ultimate Christian authority, so I assume that what they say goes, as far as many Christians are concerned.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, within certain parameters, I can accept that a Christian is whatever somebody claiming to be one says it is.

Interesting. Christ cannot. You can. Okay.

It's a long time since Christ was allegedly here, and things have changed a lot, so who is to say what he would have to say in this day and age? I don't doubt that you will know what he would have to say, of course.

No, I'll leave you to make things up. I don't need to: I know exactly what He already said. The Christian route is to judge by the fruit.

But I don't care if you are a Christian or not,

Well, then, you're in no real position to make any claims about "Christians," right?

I think of myself more as being in no position to tell anyone they are not a Christian if they say they are one.

Understandable, since you don't know what one is, and you reject the test given by Christ Himself. I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it, then, and you don't, it seems.

I don't know what scriptures say,

And yet I quoted them to you exactly. And still, you claim not to know what they say.

For hundreds of years, and probably even now, the Catholic Church has been the ultimate Christian authority,

No, the Catholic Church has been an authority for Catholics. For dissenters, whether Cathars, Gnostics, Waldensians, Protestants...and the many, many other groups that took exception to Catholic violence and the autocratic imposition of arbitrary teachings by the clergy, they've been an authority for precisely nothing. And one Person over whom the RC's have never had the slightest authority is Christ.

As a Christian, I naturally believe Christ, not the Pope, and not modern relativists, who can't even locate a real Christian.