Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christianity more logical, so a threat

GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:50:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

How does that follow?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:58:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:50:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

How does that follow?

I see several antiChristian or challenge Christianity threads. Looking down the list to make sure. Yep. No antiBuhdism, antiIslam, antiHinuism, antJudaism, anti Scientollogy threads. Looking down the list. Looking...looking...hmmm.... so you tell me. Is there something about Christianity that is enticing enough to make it the only real sore spot in all of religion worldwide to Atheists?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:02:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:55:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you heard of a non sequitur?

Sure have. An example is "John has a dog. He must be wealthy. In this case I have actually given a reason for the assertion. Now my question is,"have YOU heard of a non sequitor?"
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:03:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:58:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:50:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

How does that follow?

I see several antiChristian or challenge Christianity threads. Looking down the list to make sure. Yep. No antiBuhdism, antiIslam, antiHinuism, antJudaism, anti Scientollogy threads. Looking down the list. Looking...looking...hmmm.... so you tell me. Is there something about Christianity that is enticing enough to make it the only real sore spot in all of religion worldwide to Atheists?

OKay, so it doesn't follow.

Speaking generally, the population of Islamic, Hindu, etc etc is incredibly low, it stands to reason that the responses will be incredibly low as a result, or possibly even non-existent. Also, people are more inclined to argue against what they are familiar with, and can readily reference: I have a few versions of the Bible laying around my house as well as a few other religious texts, however the translation of which is shoddy so I would be poorly informed to attempt to use them. Finally, I find threads in which Christendom attempts to call out atheism, so specifically stating one is more logical or illogical based on simply what threads you find here by quantity as opposed to quality is a poor governing guide.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:09:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 7:02:57 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:55:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you heard of a non sequitur?

Sure have. An example is "John has a dog. He must be wealthy. In this case I have actually given a reason for the assertion. Now my question is,"have YOU heard of a non sequitor?"

Let's look at the demographics.
The MAJORITY on this site (by far) come from the United States or from Europe.
The MAJOR religion (by far) in those places is Christianity.
Therefore, the MAJORITY of people on here would be most familiar with Christianity.

People talk most about what is most familiar.
The religion that most people on this site will address will be Christianity (even if they are not Christian).

This follows EXTREMELY logically and clearly.
Your hypothesis is a non sequitur that has no basis in logic.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:09:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

Here are a few speculative reasons why Christianity is probably addressed more:

(1) More users here are Christian, so a counter-point or defense is more readily received if the argument is against Christianity.

(2) Most users here are more familiar with Christian theology than Islamic, and so, feel more justified to comment on that topic.

(3) Most users here are from communities where the religion is predominantly Christian and is, therefore, more of a typical, relevant topic.

(4) Many anti-religion topics and arguments are proposed against religion in general, but since the most likely responders are Christian, then topic will shift that way, due to specialization of defenses and responses.
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:43:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:58:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:50:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

How does that follow?

I see several antiChristian or challenge Christianity threads. Looking down the list to make sure. Yep. No antiBuhdism, antiIslam, antiHinuism, antJudaism, anti Scientollogy threads. Looking down the list. Looking...looking...hmmm.... so you tell me. Is there something about Christianity that is enticing enough to make it the only real sore spot in all of religion worldwide to Atheists?

GrittyWorm, you are failing to take culture into account. In countries that are almost exclusively Islamic, the atheists there tend to speak against Allah being real.

To be clear, atheists don't believe in any gods, but in the US and Europe, most people aren't challenging them on Zeus and Poseidon. If a large segment of the population started worshiping the tooth fairy, we'd start decrying her existence, too.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:45:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 7:03:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:58:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:50:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

How does that follow?

I see several antiChristian or challenge Christianity threads. Looking down the list to make sure. Yep. No antiBuhdism, antiIslam, antiHinuism, antJudaism, anti Scientollogy threads. Looking down the list. Looking...looking...hmmm.... so you tell me. Is there something about Christianity that is enticing enough to make it the only real sore spot in all of religion worldwide to Atheists?

OKay, so it doesn't follow.

Speaking generally, the population of Islamic, Hindu, etc etc is incredibly low, it stands to reason that the responses will be incredibly low as a result, or possibly even non-existent. Also, people are more inclined to argue against what they are familiar with, and can readily reference: I have a few versions of the Bible laying around my house as well as a few other religious texts, however the translation of which is shoddy so I would be poorly informed to attempt to use them. Finally, I find threads in which Christendom attempts to call out atheism, so specifically stating one is more logical or illogical based on simply what threads you find here by quantity as opposed to quality is a poor governing guide.

Why do you think Atheists are more familiar with Christianity?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:47:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 7:09:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

Here are a few speculative reasons why Christianity is probably addressed more:

(1) More users here are Christian, so a counter-point or defense is more readily received if the argument is against Christianity.

(2) Most users here are more familiar with Christian theology than Islamic, and so, feel more justified to comment on that topic.

(3) Most users here are from communities where the religion is predominantly Christian and is, therefore, more of a typical, relevant topic.

(4) Many anti-religion topics and arguments are proposed against religion in general, but since the most likely responders are Christian, then topic will shift that way, due to specialization of defenses and responses.

I understand the logic. My rebuttle is based on a thread I saw on here about the Urantia book and the religion of Urantia, and there were zero posts other than the OP. Why do you think that is?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:50:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 7:43:36 PM, Pollux wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:58:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:50:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

How does that follow?

I see several antiChristian or challenge Christianity threads. Looking down the list to make sure. Yep. No antiBuhdism, antiIslam, antiHinuism, antJudaism, anti Scientollogy threads. Looking down the list. Looking...looking...hmmm.... so you tell me. Is there something about Christianity that is enticing enough to make it the only real sore spot in all of religion worldwide to Atheists?


GrittyWorm, you are failing to take culture into account. In countries that are almost exclusively Islamic, the atheists there tend to speak against Allah being real.

To be clear, atheists don't believe in any gods, but in the US and Europe, most people aren't challenging them on Zeus and Poseidon. If a large segment of the population started worshiping the tooth fairy, we'd start decrying her existence, too.

Do you think Christian beliefs are more likely true than say Hinduism(relatives come back as cows), regeneration as another animal, etc. Shiva vs. Kali?)
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:57:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 7:50:05 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:43:36 PM, Pollux wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:58:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:50:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

How does that follow?

I see several antiChristian or challenge Christianity threads. Looking down the list to make sure. Yep. No antiBuhdism, antiIslam, antiHinuism, antJudaism, anti Scientollogy threads. Looking down the list. Looking...looking...hmmm.... so you tell me. Is there something about Christianity that is enticing enough to make it the only real sore spot in all of religion worldwide to Atheists?


GrittyWorm, you are failing to take culture into account. In countries that are almost exclusively Islamic, the atheists there tend to speak against Allah being real.

To be clear, atheists don't believe in any gods, but in the US and Europe, most people aren't challenging them on Zeus and Poseidon. If a large segment of the population started worshiping the tooth fairy, we'd start decrying her existence, too.

Do you think Christian beliefs are more likely true than say Hinduism(relatives come back as cows), regeneration as another animal, etc. Shiva vs. Kali?)

It depends on the particular belief. Certainly Christians are illogical to believe the God of the bible because biblegod is so hypocritical, violent, and morally repugnant.

As to Hindus and Buddhists, many view their gods as metaphors for challenges we all face throughout life, so for them a god is just a "word picture" that represents a particular idea.

Atheists lack belief in all gods. You are certainly atheistic in reference to all the thousands of gods that aren't the one you believed in.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:57:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 7:45:25 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:03:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:58:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:50:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

How does that follow?

I see several antiChristian or challenge Christianity threads. Looking down the list to make sure. Yep. No antiBuhdism, antiIslam, antiHinuism, antJudaism, anti Scientollogy threads. Looking down the list. Looking...looking...hmmm.... so you tell me. Is there something about Christianity that is enticing enough to make it the only real sore spot in all of religion worldwide to Atheists?

OKay, so it doesn't follow.

Speaking generally, the population of Islamic, Hindu, etc etc is incredibly low, it stands to reason that the responses will be incredibly low as a result, or possibly even non-existent. Also, people are more inclined to argue against what they are familiar with, and can readily reference: I have a few versions of the Bible laying around my house as well as a few other religious texts, however the translation of which is shoddy so I would be poorly informed to attempt to use them. Finally, I find threads in which Christendom attempts to call out atheism, so specifically stating one is more logical or illogical based on simply what threads you find here by quantity as opposed to quality is a poor governing guide.

Why do you think Atheists are more familiar with Christianity?

By familiar, I mean direct experience. Generally speaking again, in places where Islam is practiced by a large majority it usually means atheists are jailed, or less than nice things happen to them. I have never found Buddhism to be a religion per se, at least on the whole, and to me, the Hindi faith seems to be an eastern flavor of the old Greek and Roman mythos.

Though if it would some how ease your sensibilities: I don't believe in their God/s either.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:14:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 7:47:23 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:09:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

Here are a few speculative reasons why Christianity is probably addressed more:

(1) More users here are Christian, so a counter-point or defense is more readily received if the argument is against Christianity.

(2) Most users here are more familiar with Christian theology than Islamic, and so, feel more justified to comment on that topic.

(3) Most users here are from communities where the religion is predominantly Christian and is, therefore, more of a typical, relevant topic.

(4) Many anti-religion topics and arguments are proposed against religion in general, but since the most likely responders are Christian, then topic will shift that way, due to specialization of defenses and responses.

I understand the logic. My rebuttle is based on a thread I saw on here about the Urantia book and the religion of Urantia, and there were zero posts other than the OP. Why do you think that is?

Well, I am not at all familiar with that or the thread in question, so more speculation: it has little or no relevance to the real world and/or few have any applicable knowledge of it, therefore, interest in that topic is minimal.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,327
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up. Start with the Gospels and read through the Epistles.
As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
Jesus knew what was going to take place, it was His call and none of us can change that. Jesus was murdered for GOOD things, not bad things. It was the work that Jesus was doing that caused jealousy, not anything He did wrong. Good men and women are killed all the time for standing for what is right, that is compassion and the actions of others have no bearing on that.
Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:40:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

On the contrary, Christianity is so full of contradictions, controversy and blind faith that it is the choice of atheists to ridicule. Hinduism, Buddhism, are esoteric religions which require a lot of study and personal spiritual development which is outside the scope of most atheists. Christianity by comparison is the low hanging fruit.

Most Christians are scripturally illiterate and rather inept at defending their beliefs intelligently. Christians are stuck on stupid with stupid and atheists love stationary targets because moving goalposts are harder to deal with.

If atheists stopped bombarding Christian threads and topics Christians will never be challenged to understand by they know so little of what others know so much. So be careful what you wish for.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:47:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 9:40:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

On the contrary, Christianity is so full of contradictions, controversy and blind faith that it is the choice of atheists to ridicule. Hinduism, Buddhism, are esoteric religions which require a lot of study and personal spiritual development which is outside the scope of most atheists. Christianity by comparison is the low hanging fruit.

Most Christians are scripturally illiterate and rather inept at defending their beliefs intelligently. Christians are stuck on stupid with stupid and atheists love stationary targets because moving goalposts are harder to deal with.

If atheists stopped bombarding Christian threads and topics Christians will never be challenged to understand by they know so little of what others know so much. So be careful what you wish for.

Says the non human who can trace his ancestry back to Adam and Eve.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 9:47:54 PM, desmac wrote:
At 12/9/2015 9:40:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

On the contrary, Christianity is so full of contradictions, controversy and blind faith that it is the choice of atheists to ridicule. Hinduism, Buddhism, are esoteric religions which require a lot of study and personal spiritual development which is outside the scope of most atheists. Christianity by comparison is the low hanging fruit.

Most Christians are scripturally illiterate and rather inept at defending their beliefs intelligently. Christians are stuck on stupid with stupid and atheists love stationary targets because moving goalposts are harder to deal with.

If atheists stopped bombarding Christian threads and topics Christians will never be challenged to understand by they know so little of what others know so much. So be careful what you wish for.

Says the non human who can trace his ancestry back to Adam and Eve.

Just using your post to correct a typo I made.

" If atheists stopped bombarding Christian threads and topics Christians will never be challenged to understand why ( not by) they know so little of what others know so much. So be careful what you wish for."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:13:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up.
Muslims say that about the Qur'an too, don't they? That there's only one way to interpret it -- and it's always whatever way makes the text maximally praiseworthy, and utterly blameless, even though that interpretation must change constantly to keep up with the facts.

Do you believe them?

No?

Me either.

Does that suggest something to you?

Is it possible that if you take fragmented, unauthenticated, outdated dogma written by cruel and ignorant people and try to apply it far outside its own milieu using obscure and interpretative methodologies, that never produces a single 'right' way of interpreting it -- or indeed, any accountability for interpretation at all?

I'm inclined to suggest instead that like any other sociological category, Christianity is what Christianity does. In the long term, the 'reasons' (read: canonical justifications ) invoked for Christian behaviour is less significant than the behaviour taught and exemplified by people claiming that the religion improves them better than anything else can in the whole world.

And Christianity has had an awful long time to produce exemplary human beings, hasn't it?

Over all, do you think it has done so?

Yet surely, you'd hope and expect that if any text were divinely inspired, it'd do a better job of standardising follower understanding and interpretation. Engineering and accounting manage it; medicine and psychology manage it. Biology manages it, and it's enormously complex.

Yet 'divinely inspired' religious canon can't?

Piffle, EV. There has never been a 'true' Christianity in all its documented history. There are just different kinds of Christian ideologues pursuing their own naive, conceited, ideological ends, sometimes ethically, kindly and intelligently, but often not.

As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
At minimum I would hope 'spirituality' (your term) entailed kindness, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom, EV.

Those qualities are very important to me. I respect them wherever I encounter them, however they occur.

Do you believe you exemplify them?

Let's take a sample paragraph.

Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.

Could you please highlight for me the kindness, courage, honesty, humility or wisdom exemplified here?

No?

Why then should I have any interest in or regard for what you consider 'spiritual' or 'Christian' to be?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,327
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:19:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 9:40:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.

On the contrary, Christianity is so full of contradictions, controversy and blind faith that it is the choice of atheists to ridicule. Hinduism, Buddhism, are esoteric religions which require a lot of study and personal spiritual development which is outside the scope of most atheists. Christianity by comparison is the low hanging fruit.

Wrong, and we will never know because you refuse to debate your beliefs, only ridicule Christianity, that makes you impersonal and shallow.

Most Christians are scripturally illiterate and rather inept at defending their beliefs intelligently. Christians are stuck on stupid with stupid and atheists love stationary targets because moving goalposts are harder to deal with.

I've defended my beliefs intelligently, you have yet to do that.

If atheists stopped bombarding Christian threads and topics Christians will never be challenged to understand by they know so little of what others know so much. So be careful what you wish for.

Hypocrite, I'm still waiting for you to present what you know so much of, that will never happen apparently.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,327
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:21:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 10:13:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up.
Muslims say that about the Qur'an too, don't they? That there's only one way to interpret it -- and it's always whatever way makes the text maximally praiseworthy, and utterly blameless, even though that interpretation must change constantly to keep up with the facts.

Do you believe them?

No?

Me either.

Does that suggest something to you?

Is it possible that if you take fragmented, unauthenticated, outdated dogma written by cruel and ignorant people and try to apply it far outside its own milieu using obscure and interpretative methodologies, that never produces a single 'right' way of interpreting it -- or indeed, any accountability for interpretation at all?

I'm inclined to suggest instead that like any other sociological category, Christianity is what Christianity does. In the long term, the 'reasons' (read: canonical justifications ) invoked for Christian behaviour is less significant than the behaviour taught and exemplified by people claiming that the religion improves them better than anything else can in the whole world.

And Christianity has had an awful long time to produce exemplary human beings, hasn't it?

Over all, do you think it has done so?

Yet surely, you'd hope and expect that if any text were divinely inspired, it'd do a better job of standardising follower understanding and interpretation. Engineering and accounting manage it; medicine and psychology manage it. Biology manages it, and it's enormously complex.

Yet 'divinely inspired' religious canon can't?

Piffle, EV. There has never been a 'true' Christianity in all its documented history. There are just different kinds of Christian ideologues pursuing their own naive, conceited, ideological ends, sometimes ethically, kindly and intelligently, but often not.

As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
At minimum I would hope 'spirituality' (your term) entailed kindness, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom, EV.

Those qualities are very important to me. I respect them wherever I encounter them, however they occur.

Do you believe you exemplify them?

Let's take a sample paragraph.

Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.

Could you please highlight for me the kindness, courage, honesty, humility or wisdom exemplified here?

No?

Why then should I have any interest in or regard for what you consider 'spiritual' or 'Christian' to be?

Read it and tell me what you wrote measures up, quite simply put you are full of baloney.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:56:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 10:21:04 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:13:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up.
Muslims say that about the Qur'an too, don't they? That there's only one way to interpret it -- and it's always whatever way makes the text maximally praiseworthy, and utterly blameless, even though that interpretation must change constantly to keep up with the facts.

Do you believe them?

No?

Me either.

Does that suggest something to you?

Is it possible that if you take fragmented, unauthenticated, outdated dogma written by cruel and ignorant people and try to apply it far outside its own milieu using obscure and interpretative methodologies, that never produces a single 'right' way of interpreting it -- or indeed, any accountability for interpretation at all?

I'm inclined to suggest instead that like any other sociological category, Christianity is what Christianity does. In the long term, the 'reasons' (read: canonical justifications ) invoked for Christian behaviour is less significant than the behaviour taught and exemplified by people claiming that the religion improves them better than anything else can in the whole world.

And Christianity has had an awful long time to produce exemplary human beings, hasn't it?

Over all, do you think it has done so?

Yet surely, you'd hope and expect that if any text were divinely inspired, it'd do a better job of standardising follower understanding and interpretation. Engineering and accounting manage it; medicine and psychology manage it. Biology manages it, and it's enormously complex.

Yet 'divinely inspired' religious canon can't?

Piffle, EV. There has never been a 'true' Christianity in all its documented history. There are just different kinds of Christian ideologues pursuing their own naive, conceited, ideological ends, sometimes ethically, kindly and intelligently, but often not.

As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
At minimum I would hope 'spirituality' (your term) entailed kindness, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom, EV.

Those qualities are very important to me. I respect them wherever I encounter them, however they occur.

Do you believe you exemplify them?

Let's take a sample paragraph.

Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.

Could you please highlight for me the kindness, courage, honesty, humility or wisdom exemplified here?

No?

Why then should I have any interest in or regard for what you consider 'spiritual' or 'Christian' to be?

Read it and tell me what you wrote measures up, quite simply put you are full of baloney.
Thank you for your considered opinion, EV.

I understand that you believe the excerpts you cited represent 'true' Christianity, while other excerpts from the 1700 year-old Christian canon may be misleading or inaccurate.

You'd obviously be aware that many Christians disagree with you.

Since you've essentially made a claim to your own theological authority, here's how you can test it: show me how well you can impress our more militantly Christian fundamentalist members with your theological credentials and insights.

If you can't impress the likes of Ethang5, say -- a member who shares your core creed and scriptural reverence but not your interpretation -- on what basis should your claims about the 'true' nature of Christianity impress me?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,327
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:59:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 10:56:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:21:04 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:13:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up.
Muslims say that about the Qur'an too, don't they? That there's only one way to interpret it -- and it's always whatever way makes the text maximally praiseworthy, and utterly blameless, even though that interpretation must change constantly to keep up with the facts.

Do you believe them?

No?

Me either.

Does that suggest something to you?

Is it possible that if you take fragmented, unauthenticated, outdated dogma written by cruel and ignorant people and try to apply it far outside its own milieu using obscure and interpretative methodologies, that never produces a single 'right' way of interpreting it -- or indeed, any accountability for interpretation at all?

I'm inclined to suggest instead that like any other sociological category, Christianity is what Christianity does. In the long term, the 'reasons' (read: canonical justifications ) invoked for Christian behaviour is less significant than the behaviour taught and exemplified by people claiming that the religion improves them better than anything else can in the whole world.

And Christianity has had an awful long time to produce exemplary human beings, hasn't it?

Over all, do you think it has done so?

Yet surely, you'd hope and expect that if any text were divinely inspired, it'd do a better job of standardising follower understanding and interpretation. Engineering and accounting manage it; medicine and psychology manage it. Biology manages it, and it's enormously complex.

Yet 'divinely inspired' religious canon can't?

Piffle, EV. There has never been a 'true' Christianity in all its documented history. There are just different kinds of Christian ideologues pursuing their own naive, conceited, ideological ends, sometimes ethically, kindly and intelligently, but often not.

As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
At minimum I would hope 'spirituality' (your term) entailed kindness, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom, EV.

Those qualities are very important to me. I respect them wherever I encounter them, however they occur.

Do you believe you exemplify them?

Let's take a sample paragraph.

Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.

Could you please highlight for me the kindness, courage, honesty, humility or wisdom exemplified here?

No?

Why then should I have any interest in or regard for what you consider 'spiritual' or 'Christian' to be?

Read it and tell me what you wrote measures up, quite simply put you are full of baloney.
Thank you for your considered opinion, EV.

I understand that you believe the excerpts you cited represent 'true' Christianity, while other excerpts from the 1700 year-old Christian canon may be misleading or inaccurate.

You'd obviously be aware that many Christians disagree with you.

Since you've essentially made a claim to your own theological authority, here's how you can test it: show me how well you can impress our more militantly Christian fundamentalist members with your theological credentials and insights.

If you can't impress the likes of Ethang5, say -- a member who shares your core creed and scriptural reverence but not your interpretation -- on what basis should your claims about the 'true' nature of Christianity impress me?

Present the claims.

I've made a claim to YOUR authority, not mine. Read the Gospels and the Epistles and see what you are saying is hogwash, nothing you said is even remotely relevant.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:04:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 10:59:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:56:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:21:04 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:13:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up.
Muslims say that about the Qur'an too, don't they? That there's only one way to interpret it -- and it's always whatever way makes the text maximally praiseworthy, and utterly blameless, even though that interpretation must change constantly to keep up with the facts.

Do you believe them?

No?

Me either.

Does that suggest something to you?

Is it possible that if you take fragmented, unauthenticated, outdated dogma written by cruel and ignorant people and try to apply it far outside its own milieu using obscure and interpretative methodologies, that never produces a single 'right' way of interpreting it -- or indeed, any accountability for interpretation at all?

I'm inclined to suggest instead that like any other sociological category, Christianity is what Christianity does. In the long term, the 'reasons' (read: canonical justifications ) invoked for Christian behaviour is less significant than the behaviour taught and exemplified by people claiming that the religion improves them better than anything else can in the whole world.

And Christianity has had an awful long time to produce exemplary human beings, hasn't it?

Over all, do you think it has done so?

Yet surely, you'd hope and expect that if any text were divinely inspired, it'd do a better job of standardising follower understanding and interpretation. Engineering and accounting manage it; medicine and psychology manage it. Biology manages it, and it's enormously complex.

Yet 'divinely inspired' religious canon can't?

Piffle, EV. There has never been a 'true' Christianity in all its documented history. There are just different kinds of Christian ideologues pursuing their own naive, conceited, ideological ends, sometimes ethically, kindly and intelligently, but often not.

As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
At minimum I would hope 'spirituality' (your term) entailed kindness, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom, EV.

Those qualities are very important to me. I respect them wherever I encounter them, however they occur.

Do you believe you exemplify them?

Let's take a sample paragraph.

Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.

Could you please highlight for me the kindness, courage, honesty, humility or wisdom exemplified here?

No?

Why then should I have any interest in or regard for what you consider 'spiritual' or 'Christian' to be?

Read it and tell me what you wrote measures up, quite simply put you are full of baloney.
Thank you for your considered opinion, EV.

I understand that you believe the excerpts you cited represent 'true' Christianity, while other excerpts from the 1700 year-old Christian canon may be misleading or inaccurate.

You'd obviously be aware that many Christians disagree with you.

Since you've essentially made a claim to your own theological authority, here's how you can test it: show me how well you can impress our more militantly Christian fundamentalist members with your theological credentials and insights.

If you can't impress the likes of Ethang5, say -- a member who shares your core creed and scriptural reverence but not your interpretation -- on what basis should your claims about the 'true' nature of Christianity impress me?

Present the claims.

I've made a claim to YOUR authority, not mine. Read the Gospels and the Epistles and see what you are saying is hogwash, nothing you said is even remotely relevant.
I see you've ignored my reasoning in order to press a point of your own that I've already rejected -- and explained why I did.

Did you not understand my reasoning about why cherry-picked selections of the NT should have no bearing on how Christianity is perceived?

Was there any part of that reasoning you need explained in further detail?

If not, do you have a rebuttal for it, or would you prefer to continue arguing circularly, aggressively and dogmatically?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,327
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:07:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 11:04:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:59:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:56:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:21:04 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:13:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up.
Muslims say that about the Qur'an too, don't they? That there's only one way to interpret it -- and it's always whatever way makes the text maximally praiseworthy, and utterly blameless, even though that interpretation must change constantly to keep up with the facts.

Do you believe them?

No?

Me either.

Does that suggest something to you?

Is it possible that if you take fragmented, unauthenticated, outdated dogma written by cruel and ignorant people and try to apply it far outside its own milieu using obscure and interpretative methodologies, that never produces a single 'right' way of interpreting it -- or indeed, any accountability for interpretation at all?

I'm inclined to suggest instead that like any other sociological category, Christianity is what Christianity does. In the long term, the 'reasons' (read: canonical justifications ) invoked for Christian behaviour is less significant than the behaviour taught and exemplified by people claiming that the religion improves them better than anything else can in the whole world.

And Christianity has had an awful long time to produce exemplary human beings, hasn't it?

Over all, do you think it has done so?

Yet surely, you'd hope and expect that if any text were divinely inspired, it'd do a better job of standardising follower understanding and interpretation. Engineering and accounting manage it; medicine and psychology manage it. Biology manages it, and it's enormously complex.

Yet 'divinely inspired' religious canon can't?

Piffle, EV. There has never been a 'true' Christianity in all its documented history. There are just different kinds of Christian ideologues pursuing their own naive, conceited, ideological ends, sometimes ethically, kindly and intelligently, but often not.

As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
At minimum I would hope 'spirituality' (your term) entailed kindness, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom, EV.

Those qualities are very important to me. I respect them wherever I encounter them, however they occur.

Do you believe you exemplify them?

Let's take a sample paragraph.

Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.

Could you please highlight for me the kindness, courage, honesty, humility or wisdom exemplified here?

No?

Why then should I have any interest in or regard for what you consider 'spiritual' or 'Christian' to be?

Read it and tell me what you wrote measures up, quite simply put you are full of baloney.
Thank you for your considered opinion, EV.

I understand that you believe the excerpts you cited represent 'true' Christianity, while other excerpts from the 1700 year-old Christian canon may be misleading or inaccurate.

You'd obviously be aware that many Christians disagree with you.

Since you've essentially made a claim to your own theological authority, here's how you can test it: show me how well you can impress our more militantly Christian fundamentalist members with your theological credentials and insights.

If you can't impress the likes of Ethang5, say -- a member who shares your core creed and scriptural reverence but not your interpretation -- on what basis should your claims about the 'true' nature of Christianity impress me?

Present the claims.

I've made a claim to YOUR authority, not mine. Read the Gospels and the Epistles and see what you are saying is hogwash, nothing you said is even remotely relevant.
I see you've ignored my reasoning in order to press a point of your own that I've already rejected -- and explained why I did.

Did you not understand my reasoning about why cherry-picked selections of the NT should have no bearing on how Christianity is perceived?

Where did I cherry pick??

Was there any part of that reasoning you need explained in further detail?

No, obviously.

If not, do you have a rebuttal for it, or would you prefer to continue arguing circularly, aggressively and dogmatically?

Your points are ignorant, they don't deserve a rebuttal and you've ignored my request.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:15:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 11:07:08 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:04:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:59:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:56:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:21:04 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:13:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up.
Muslims say that about the Qur'an too, don't they? That there's only one way to interpret it -- and it's always whatever way makes the text maximally praiseworthy, and utterly blameless, even though that interpretation must change constantly to keep up with the facts.

Do you believe them?

No?

Me either.

Does that suggest something to you?

Is it possible that if you take fragmented, unauthenticated, outdated dogma written by cruel and ignorant people and try to apply it far outside its own milieu using obscure and interpretative methodologies, that never produces a single 'right' way of interpreting it -- or indeed, any accountability for interpretation at all?

I'm inclined to suggest instead that like any other sociological category, Christianity is what Christianity does. In the long term, the 'reasons' (read: canonical justifications ) invoked for Christian behaviour is less significant than the behaviour taught and exemplified by people claiming that the religion improves them better than anything else can in the whole world.

And Christianity has had an awful long time to produce exemplary human beings, hasn't it?

Over all, do you think it has done so?

Yet surely, you'd hope and expect that if any text were divinely inspired, it'd do a better job of standardising follower understanding and interpretation. Engineering and accounting manage it; medicine and psychology manage it. Biology manages it, and it's enormously complex.

Yet 'divinely inspired' religious canon can't?

Piffle, EV. There has never been a 'true' Christianity in all its documented history. There are just different kinds of Christian ideologues pursuing their own naive, conceited, ideological ends, sometimes ethically, kindly and intelligently, but often not.

As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
At minimum I would hope 'spirituality' (your term) entailed kindness, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom, EV.

Those qualities are very important to me. I respect them wherever I encounter them, however they occur.

Do you believe you exemplify them?

Let's take a sample paragraph.

Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.

Could you please highlight for me the kindness, courage, honesty, humility or wisdom exemplified here?

No?

Why then should I have any interest in or regard for what you consider 'spiritual' or 'Christian' to be?

Read it and tell me what you wrote measures up, quite simply put you are full of baloney.
Thank you for your considered opinion, EV.

I understand that you believe the excerpts you cited represent 'true' Christianity, while other excerpts from the 1700 year-old Christian canon may be misleading or inaccurate.

You'd obviously be aware that many Christians disagree with you.

Since you've essentially made a claim to your own theological authority, here's how you can test it: show me how well you can impress our more militantly Christian fundamentalist members with your theological credentials and insights.

If you can't impress the likes of Ethang5, say -- a member who shares your core creed and scriptural reverence but not your interpretation -- on what basis should your claims about the 'true' nature of Christianity impress me?

Present the claims.

I've made a claim to YOUR authority, not mine. Read the Gospels and the Epistles and see what you are saying is hogwash, nothing you said is even remotely relevant.
I see you've ignored my reasoning in order to press a point of your own that I've already rejected -- and explained why I did.

Did you not understand my reasoning about why cherry-picked selections of the NT should have no bearing on how Christianity is perceived?

Where did I cherry pick??

You selected excerpts from the Christian canon as being representative of 'true' Christianity, with the implication that any other excerpt should be seen as subordinate to those excerpts, rather than equally legitimate.

That isn't how all Christians interpret the canon, as well you know.

So your refutation comprises a claim to your own authority to select texts indicating what 'true' Christianity means.

I've asked you to substantiate that authority, since other Christians clearly reject it.

You've ignored that request and just repeated the demand on the (unestablished) presumption that I haven't already read the texts you nominated.

In fact, whether I've read them is irrelevant, since you haven't addressed the core question: on what basis do you consider those texts representative of 'true' Christianity? And what makes your particular interpretation of them authoritative?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,327
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:19:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 11:15:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:07:08 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:04:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:59:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:56:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:21:04 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:13:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:48:33 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:25:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:44:15 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Based on Atheists' constant bombarding of Christian threads and topics and ignoring of other religions, I conclude that Christianity must somehow be more logical or more possibly true, which scares Atheists. Otherwise the results wouldn't be as such.
You're right, Gritty!

The critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is full of proselytising Christians, but rather is a reflection of the deeper truth that the bloody history, shifty claims, historical and scientific ignorance, and fallacious, opaque reasoning of Christian theology is beyond critique.

But you're wrong that Christianity scares atheists.

What could be scary about a militant, supremacist, millenial blood-cult that promises eternal torture as the wages of intellectual dissent, and represents the excruciation and execution of innocence as an act of compassion?

That's not at all what Christianity is about, I don't care what religious people say or do and have committed, if you want to know what it actually is then actually read it and see if what you just wrote measures up.
Muslims say that about the Qur'an too, don't they? That there's only one way to interpret it -- and it's always whatever way makes the text maximally praiseworthy, and utterly blameless, even though that interpretation must change constantly to keep up with the facts.

Do you believe them?

No?

Me either.

Does that suggest something to you?

Is it possible that if you take fragmented, unauthenticated, outdated dogma written by cruel and ignorant people and try to apply it far outside its own milieu using obscure and interpretative methodologies, that never produces a single 'right' way of interpreting it -- or indeed, any accountability for interpretation at all?

I'm inclined to suggest instead that like any other sociological category, Christianity is what Christianity does. In the long term, the 'reasons' (read: canonical justifications ) invoked for Christian behaviour is less significant than the behaviour taught and exemplified by people claiming that the religion improves them better than anything else can in the whole world.

And Christianity has had an awful long time to produce exemplary human beings, hasn't it?

Over all, do you think it has done so?

Yet surely, you'd hope and expect that if any text were divinely inspired, it'd do a better job of standardising follower understanding and interpretation. Engineering and accounting manage it; medicine and psychology manage it. Biology manages it, and it's enormously complex.

Yet 'divinely inspired' religious canon can't?

Piffle, EV. There has never been a 'true' Christianity in all its documented history. There are just different kinds of Christian ideologues pursuing their own naive, conceited, ideological ends, sometimes ethically, kindly and intelligently, but often not.

As one who applies this myself I can tell you everything you listed is the opposite of what spirituality (Christianity) is but nice try.
At minimum I would hope 'spirituality' (your term) entailed kindness, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom, EV.

Those qualities are very important to me. I respect them wherever I encounter them, however they occur.

Do you believe you exemplify them?

Let's take a sample paragraph.

Jesus attempted (and did) to reach the souls the religious morons ignored and rejected, He had compassion and mercy and the stiff, ignorant religitards couldn't handle someone making a difference, someone breaking down the walls and letting the light come through.

Could you please highlight for me the kindness, courage, honesty, humility or wisdom exemplified here?

No?

Why then should I have any interest in or regard for what you consider 'spiritual' or 'Christian' to be?

Read it and tell me what you wrote measures up, quite simply put you are full of baloney.
Thank you for your considered opinion, EV.

I understand that you believe the excerpts you cited represent 'true' Christianity, while other excerpts from the 1700 year-old Christian canon may be misleading or inaccurate.

You'd obviously be aware that many Christians disagree with you.

Since you've essentially made a claim to your own theological authority, here's how you can test it: show me how well you can impress our more militantly Christian fundamentalist members with your theological credentials and insights.

If you can't impress the likes of Ethang5, say -- a member who shares your core creed and scriptural reverence but not your interpretation -- on what basis should your claims about the 'true' nature of Christianity impress me?

Present the claims.

I've made a claim to YOUR authority, not mine. Read the Gospels and the Epistles and see what you are saying is hogwash, nothing you said is even remotely relevant.
I see you've ignored my reasoning in order to press a point of your own that I've already rejected -- and explained why I did.

Did you not understand my reasoning about why cherry-picked selections of the NT should have no bearing on how Christianity is perceived?

Where did I cherry pick??

You selected excerpts from the Christian canon as being representative of 'true' Christianity, with the implication that any other excerpt should be seen as subordinate to those excerpts, rather than equally legitimate.

Like what?

That isn't how all Christians interpret the canon, as well you know.

So your refutation comprises a claim to your own authority to select texts indicating what 'true' Christianity means.

No, I put the authority back into YOUR hands, sir.

I've asked you to substantiate that authority, since other Christians clearly reject it.

Reject what? I asked you to present that claim, you did not.

You've ignored that request and just repeated the demand on the (unestablished) presumption that I haven't already read the texts you nominated.

I ASKED you to READ.

In fact, whether I've read them is irrelevant, since you haven't addressed the core question: on what basis do you consider those texts representative of 'true' Christianity? And what makes your particular interpretation of them authoritative?

I gave YOU the authority, you have yet to realize and concede that point, but you won't cause you are incompetent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:37:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 11:19:04 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:15:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:07:08 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Where did I cherry pick??

You selected excerpts from the Christian canon as being representative of 'true' Christianity, with the implication that any other excerpt should be seen as subordinate to those excerpts, rather than equally legitimate.

Like what?

That isn't how all Christians interpret the canon, as well you know.

So your refutation comprises a claim to your own authority to select texts indicating what 'true' Christianity means.
No, I put the authority back into YOUR hands, sir.
I ASKED you to READ.

Actually you asked me to reconcile my historical and intellectual characterisation of Christianity with cherry-picked texts from a large, disparate, unauthenticated and variously-interpreted canon.

So: why those texts in particular? Interpreted how?

Let's consider the thoughts of Augustine of Hippo, generally considered one of the greatest Christian theologians to have ever lived. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] From essentially the same Christian canon you use, he concluded that a good Christian could be a soldier and serve God and country honourably. It was Augustine who introduced to Christian thought the term 'just war' [http://www.unilibrary.com...]
-- a term still used by Christians today, to justify almost any war -- even those based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Does his view of killing for the state in a supposedly just cause represent 'true' Christianity or not?
To support it, Augustine quoted scripture (Romans 13:4 [http://biblehub.com...]). But you can as easily quote scripture (Exodus 20:13 [https://www.biblegateway.com...], Deuteronomy 5:17 [https://www.biblegateway.com...], and Matthew 5:39 [https://www.biblegateway.com...]) to oppose it.

Who then is the 'true' Christian? The one who murders while trusting the state's idea of justice, or the one who neglects state defense for the sake of preserving an enemy life -- even if that action endangers the lives of friends, family and allies?

That's a single example of long-running dogmatic Christian conflicts EV -- fundamental moral conflicts lasting 1500 years and more. I could cite a great many others.

So to rephrase my question: why are you asking me to read what 'true' Christianity is, when it's obvious that Christians themselves cannot reach scriptural accord on such fundamental moral questions as when it's okay to take a human life, and what diligence must be done before doing so?