Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by usfan, Mar 12, 2019.
^ thanks for validating my post
I will accept a slight challenge.
Christianity... Before you refute this argument, are all to be considered as Christians or only a few?
In other words, is Christianity, which you have a desire to 'sharpen' a world wide faith or a faith limited to specifics??
I will add in a few points from which you can refute.
Is the language spoken in Syria, for example, the same as the language we are conversing typographically in, the same?
So would the Christianity practiced and observed in Syria be the same as the Christianity practised and observed by 'English' speakers??
Is practiced spelled practiced or practised?? And from which English speaking 'region"??
Should the founding 'Christians' be the providers to the new born Christians or should the new born/babe Christians be the providers for the 'founding' Christians??
If The Apostle Paul 'oversaw' the Churches in the 'regions' he was 'over' as, is The Apostle Paul the ONLY 'evangel' which evangelized outside of Y'srael???
And if 'Christianity' began within the Churches which The Apostle Paul was overseer as, are all believers considered to be of those regional Churches; namely being 'overseen' by The Apostle Paul??
Although not in Scriptures, it is reported that Thomas was 'evangel' to India.
And so the question to which refutation is being asked for....
What IS Christianity in the first place?
If khris-tee-an-os', or, Χριστιανός, οῦ, ὁ, depending on 'gender', I suppose, is the Greek way of referring to the 'first' 'Christians' there was, but not yet probably even in the original 'language' which was spoken by the first 'Christians', seeing they lived in Antioch in Syria or very nearby; and seeing that Syria more probably NOT than so, DID NOT speak fluent 'Greek', what were 'they' truly called other than the Greek Χριστιανός, οῦ, ὁ, khris-tee-an-os', and what WAS their OWN definition of that 'term' which us rendered in Greek as Christianos??
Which was/is rendered in Greek as Christianos from where we now have the term 'Christian'.
Yet the first 'Christians' more probably NOT than so, speaking Greek.
And if you'd like to add more salt to the open sore, arguing over non English beginnings in English as IF they were could be the MORE necessary refutation being needed.
William the First, or otherwise known as, William the Conqueror, was the 'first' King of the 'current' England?? If true, even he did not speak today's English.
Christianity is composed Christian, many of them, not a few.
I don't have the desire to sharpen anything. Christianity is a world-wide faith and isn't limited to specifics.
No, they are not.
The overall general theory of Christianity should be the same in both places. However some of the specific rules might need to be different from place to place to deal with their individual issues.
Its spelled practised in British english when used as a verb. In all other cases its practiced. Depends on the area you live.
It should be an exchange. People should provide to each other.
You cannot have a logical discussion about Christianity because Christianity is based on things the human brain in it's natural state cannot understand. They are only understood with spiritual enlightenment.
Yes, because formal logic is itself a fallacy; at the end of the day, it's just an exercise in circular reasoning, and it remains such no matter how wide on makes the circle. Empiricism is built on a moral philosophy, not some absolute factual premise; 'facts' are only as reliable as the honesty of those who pretend to 'observe them.
As we know from recent studies of doctoral theses, a significant percentage of them use knowingly faked data, so there is no reason to assume there is any binding morality among alleged 'rationalists' as a group, either. We also know over half of Ph.D's suffer from mental illnesses as well, assuming those who collected this data aren't faking theirs.
If so, what does it matter?
Biblical principle #1: A tree is known by the fruit it bears. So whatever Hitler was or wasn't, did or didn't do, it doesn't change the fundamental tenets of Christianity. Only one man can be looked at as the embodiment of Christianity, and that is Christ himself.
There probably wasn't a single politician in a western society that could have been elected to an office had they not proclaimed to be a "Christian". Even in 2008 Obama felt it necessary to proclaim himself as a Christian when the reality is that he's probably an atheist.
Hitler was a "Christian" like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are faithful in marriage. LOL.
Hitler never received a majority of popular vote in German elections. The majority of Germans did not know about the Holocaust until after the war. To claim that German Christians wanted all the Jews dead is a wild claim that cannot be substantiated.
Yes. The Operation Reinhardt camps were placed in Poland for a reason, after all, and most of the rank and file guards had to be recruited from Slavic forces, as they had a hard time finding German soldiers who could do that sort of thing.
Here's what I don't get. How does the sacrifice of Jesus make any sense at all? Why would whether somebody finds themselves able to believe in that sacrifice make any difference in whether they are punished for their transgressions or not? It seems like a silly thing to emphasize, and an unjust system.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
Just have faith isn't an argument that works well. People born outside of christian societies are told to have faith in something else. Being born at the wrong place and time is hardly a reason for damnation. And faith is an invalid way of determining truth. It's popular because it's an apologist's way of saying to believe things that don't make sense - such as salvation being based upon believing in a sacrifice, as if somebody who were a god would be so petty.
lol it worked so well Christianity became the most dynamic social revolution in world history, and among all economic classes, and has lasted a couple of thousand years, and as it declines in the West it grows like weeds in Asia and Africa these days. Neo-paganism just isn't a good substitute and neither is the 'constructive rationalism' gimmick invented by neo-pagans; nobody, individuals nor groups, has complete knowledge of anything, so making 'rational' decisions is a mythology as 'faith based' as Christian tenets are. 'Faith' isn't an argument, it's a tenet; not the same thing.
Worked well to get desperate people to believe irrational things, sure.
Calling rationality irrational? Bit of a stretch. The hard part about rationality for most people is accepting what we don't know.
And here we the typical example of the ignorant not being able to either read correctly or attempting to respond to something they clearly don't understand, not being all that literate.
For those of who bothered to take Intro To Logic 102 after we got the easy credit for Logic 101, you will know that 'Ad Hominem' is also the name of a legitimate argument as well as part of the name of one of the 'major fallacies'. Some people really are stupid.
For those interested in the mythology of the 'rational constructionists' try Hayek's The Fatal Conceit for a detailed exegesis of that premise and why it's a failure as a real life premise on which to base an ideology on, a failure common to both right and left wing ideologies, by the way, but far more blatant in Marxist mythology, since Engels had to lie and fake a lot of math in Vol. ii of Das Kapital in order to make it 'work'. He also explains in detail how the 'irrational' Xians get a lot right, even though Hayek is himself an atheist personally. You will also find his defense of tradition enlightening as well.
People on internet forums are the only ones who care about logical fallacies. They'd much rather debate endlessly about logical fallacies than whether or not something is good for our lives.
I didn't attack you at all, though you seem quite upset by the idea of faith being irrational. Dismissing rationality as invalid and bolstering the validity of faith as a valid argument (or tenet) requires an actual argument. If you want to make a point, make it. I don't need a list of references or personal insults before you've made the point.
Separate names with a comma.