Enough with the baiting already why not

Are you living in some sort of parallel universe!? Do you not understand the basic concepts of before and after, or cause and effect!? Your original response to my point that baiting and weak questioning of a few verses will not defeate Christianity was.

Who and when have everything to do with it; or at least when does, "who" is only incidentally relevant.
Long BEFOREthe Catholic and later the Protestant churches came to dominate Europe, Christianity was illegal. During this time it was not only legal but quite common for people to publicly attack any part of srcipture they felt like. If it were so easy to defeat Chrisitan beliefs in this manner then they would not have survived to become legal. Only AFTER Christianity became mandatory was questioning of it supressed. If it had been deafeated by the 350 or so years of supression then Christianity could never have come to dominate Europe to begin with.

If Christianity could be defeated by simple questioning then it would have been defeated early on. That it survived those formative years and that it came to dominate Europe are prima facia evidence that Christianity cannot be defeated by simple questioning. This does not mean that Christianity is good, or that it is bad, but merely that it is quite a hardy belief system to say the least.

p.s. Although Christianity cannot be defeated by simple questioning it may in theory be vulnerable to more modern, complex, and indepth scrutiny.

 

professor jumbo,

off the main topic of baiting people, which i agree is silly.
(discussion, debate, and general questioning, though, are not-)

it seems that the argument you make that
'if christianity could have been easily proven false, it would already have been done'
is very poor logic.

by the same reasoning, anything that happens could have happened at an earlier time, and any concept not yet conceived by man should not come to be, that it should already have been understood.
just saying... it's a poor argument, and it is just as possible that christianity is heading out the door that we have another two thousand years of it.

as for the argument that the system has already been under periods of heavy inquiry (not to mention derision!) does not mean that under this period of time the church might cave; after all, you'd concede that our point of view about ourselves as a people, and as a world, has changed drastically since the 'mid-fourth century'. what have we learned since then? the earth does not stand still, atoms do not stand still, nothing is what is used to seem to our senses on their own. what about soul, or god?

as you said above, the christian belief system seems to be a hardy one,
or at least our christian minds seem to be that willing! =p

we should not throw in the towel with the idea that what would happen should already have done so.


peace =)

sophia

 

You miss the basis of my argument. It is an argument from history, and no it is not analogous in the slightest to saying that every concept that can be developed has been developed. Asking one-liner questions about God killing children in the old testament is by no means a new concept. My argument is based on the fact that such simple questions have been asked of Chrisitianity for 2,000 years now in various parts of the world and in various ways. Such questioning was supressed in Europe for roughly 1,350 years, but never was it supressed everywhere.

Given that such questions have been asked and answered countles times with the same effect it is blatently absurd to expect that asking them yet again will render a drastically different result. In fact, to expect such would fit the definiton of insanity to a T.

A brief alagory or such like: Let us say that you have a pet dog that you love very much. You almost never see the dog but are convinced that it loves you. Sometimes you think you see it far away, and it still seems to leave you "presents" now and again. Years ago you spent alot of time with it, and it used to maul you frequently but it stopped doing that after it knocked you out of the way of that speeding truck but ended up getting hit itself.

Now I find it odd that you love this dog that used to bite you and that you now never see. I ask why you love this dog, why you think it is still alive, and how you can possibly think that it loves you if it used to maul you all of the time. I then demand that you stop thinking that this dog likes you or even that it exists. You reply that it would not have saved your life that day if it didn't love you. It hasn't mauled you since before the incident with the truck and seems to have changed greatly since then, you can overlook the past maulings. You have seen it from a distance you, and those dead squrrels and piles of poo in the lawn must be the dogs doing.

I, being thoroughly unsatisfied with your reply, decide to ask and demand the same thing again. You give the same answer, with which I remain unsatisfied. However, rather than accepting the fact that your position about the dog is what it is I decide instead to ask you the same question fifty seven more times. You of course give the same reply. Now would it make any kind of sense for me to think that you would drastically change your position regarding the dog if I were to ask you yet again?

 

Not all of us Christians are crazy right wing fundie types. My earthly father is a Pastor and he's a peace loving liberal Democrat.


Most Christian Fundie types are the way the are because they believe in Calvinist Theology which emphasizes Gods authority and views Him as being quite arbitrary. They also focus on outward behaviour and do not believe in the freedom of choice.

A minority of Christian denominations believe in the theology developed by the Wesley brothers and Jacob Arminius. This theology emphasizes Gods love and freedom of choice and focuses on leading people into a personal relationship with Christ as a way of changing peoples hearts which brings about a change in behaviour.

One of these days I'll post a thread explaining the two opposing theologies and why Calvin's idea are wrong.

 

I'll be looking forward to that.

you can always tell a Calvinist because they act like children with a strict, authoratarian, even sadistic parent; they spend their lives walking on eggshells and they don't get along very well with other kids.

Their God is a bully and so are all of his kids.

 

The sooner the better! I'll be looking forward to reading it as well.

 

Encore! Encore!

I am sick and fucking tired of American Christians acting like they are martyrs because not everyone wants their religious morals and ideals legislated into law. They are the political majority right now, yet they still boo-hoo like it isn't good enough. Christians are suffering no oppression in America, they are happy with their rights and now moving on to restrictions. It is secular america fighting for the rights, and christian america fighting for restrictions. And it wont be good enough for them until they impress every last one their religious ideals onto every person in the country.

This is supposed to be a free country. Freedom of speech, expression, rreligion, ect...What they don't seem to understand is that not everyone in this country has to use their freedoms the same way. Just because you have chosen to exercise your freedom by participating in the christian religion and claiming their paticular ideals as your own does not mean everyone in the country should only exercise it in that same way. Some may exercise their freedom of religion, speech, ect...in a way that contradicts christian viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have that freedom anymore - of course listening to the current christian right that's just the way they want it to be...

Which amazes me, btw...I would think that American christians would very much support seperation of church and state, because the church could be just as easily (if not more) corrupted by the state then the state could by the church. But christians have a history of letting their religion get out of hand (and very bloody) once they mix it with politics. Will they ever learn? Time will tell, I guess...

 

I think the idea's supposed to be that you're free to practice whatever religion you choose as long as you choose christianity, or their particular flavor of it.

 

something I think alot of the christians in here tend to forget (as with many other aspects of reality) is that this isn't a church, it's a forum. It's where people go to discuss something.


And it's not "the christian's forum" it's the christianity forum; it's where people go to discuss christianity.

If someone walks in here (even with an attitude) and asks questions or disagrees or submits contrary evidence or proposes alternate interpretations it's not like they're someone who walked into a church and interupted the service; it's most likely someone who's had to deal with christianity and christians (as everyone of us in western civilization has had to and still has to) in one way shape or form all their lives and wants to come to some kind of resolution about it within themselves. Something everybody in our culture has a right--and probably a need--to do.

 

You're so full of shit jumbo ~ you might like to study history.......starting with Constantine's Nicean decrees.

 

How can you possibly fail to comprehend the simple ideas of before and after? I thought that I had explained it in terms so basic and elementary that it could not possibly be missed. I supposed that I'll have to try again.

Before the reign of the emperor Constantine Christianity was illegal. If, during the period in which it was illegal, Christianity had been destroyed by simple questioning then it would never have been made legal at all. We know that this simple questioning did happen. We know that it took place continually over a period of about 350 years. We also know that it did not destroy Christianity. All of this being the case we can safely concluded that simple one-off questions will not bring about the end of Christianity.

Now please, tell me why it is so diffulct for you to understand this. It is no more complicated than 1+1=2. I have continually attempted to explain this, yet you seem to insist that history began 1650 years ago with the reign of the emperor Constantine. There was history before Constantine you know. I guess that this comes as a shock, and you are probably in denial right now. However, I truly don't understant why any of this is difficult for you. Come on man, throw me a bone here.

 

Jumbo, i think i know what your saying...

your not saying that because it survived the questining, that that is super proof to its validity...but saying that why bother trying to convert all christains now cause it accomplishes nothign

 

Obviously the presumption of intelligence cannot be extended to you or your "thought processes".
The christian religion was never "illegal" pre-Constantine. It co-existed in it's rudimentary forms along with all religions in the diaspora. That is how it came to be utilized by Constantine. Pre-christians were persecuted because of the political instabiloity they initiated, and Constantine's solution was to use it for his benefit rather than have it instill potential civil war. That is obviously too far beyond your capicity to comprehend. Christianity was never "questioned" as you allege.
And who are the "we" that "know that it took place continually over a period of about 350 years. We also know that it did not destroy Christianity" ?? and where is the historicity of your preseumed event?? Dream on Jumbo. Do your 1+1=3 thing again!

 

Actually "Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered the destruction of all Christian churches and the general persecution of Christians. " (from atheist.about.com).

I haven't found anything else concrete to establish the illegality of Christianity in the roman empire in the period from 65 A.D. - 299 A.D. but there are numerous articles about it (that site books, but don't have specific quotes). If I still have my college history book at home, I will give you the facts.


Gotta go now, late for somethin...

 

It becomes clear to me now that I am dealing with a conspiracy nut. You might as well have just said that the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat, the holocaust never happened, the illuminati are controlling the world, etc. Your rant is pure fantasy at best.

First off, Constantine's resons for converting to Christianity are irrelevant to prior persecution. Again, it's those tricky concepts of before and after that are giving you problems. I know that it's tough to understand, but please try.

Begining with the curcifiction the followers of Christ were rounded up by Roman authorities and forced to recant, those who refused were executed. Nero (emperor 54a.d.-68a.d), in 64 a.d. blamed a large fire on the Christians and had many executed. Prior to that Nero had initiated low-level persecution of Christians since the beginning of his reign, this persecution continued throughout his reign. The empeor Decius (249-251 a.d.) commanded that all citizens either worshipp the Roman gods or be executed. The only sizeable groups to defy him were the Christians and Jews, who were executed in large numbers. Christians were persecuted thoughout the riegn of Diocletian (283-305). Several Emperors after Constantine reversed his decision and began persecution of Christians yet again. It was only with the reign of the emperor Theodesious that Christianity became the sole legal religion of Rome.

I have only scratsched the surface here. Do a google search for ten persecutions of the early church.

 

Burbot, yes that is essentially what I am saying. That Christianity has survied 2,000 years of everything from simple questioning to violent persecution to world domination is evidence that it cannot be easily destroyed, especially by one-liners about obscure OT passages. The continued existence and obvious hardiness of Christianity has no bearing on the correctness of the Christian message one way or the other.

 

World domination? When? It certainly doesn't dominate the world to-day. and even less so in the past.

 

That was a bit of an exageration, I was using it more or less metaphorically. However, during the latter days of European colonialism Christianity was a dominant religion at least politically over all but central Africa, Japan, old Persia, and the remotest areas of central Asia. This is not to say that it was very popular everywhere, but that it was at the very least the religion of the effective ruling group.

 

Mmm.. I guess it depends on what you define as 'religion'. When something is used simply as a tool in the hands of cynical colonialists (and would be colonialists) I don't call it religion. I call it mamon. I don't think they knew a lot about God, those colonialists. Far less in some instances than the inhabitants of countries they took over. They were more interested in power and wealth. A lot of the missionary activity was more about control on one hand, and justifying the whole colonial enterprise to their own consciences on the other.
It's interesting that in the places you mentioned, it's only really stuck in Africa in any big way. And of course, in South and Central America.

 

Oh, yes certainly. I do not doubt that religion was used as both a tool for colonization and a justification for it. I'm not sure just I would call it. Mamon is okay I guess, and "Christianity" is no better than a provisional label in this case. It had the theological trappings of Christianity, but behaviorally it was about as far from Christianity as you can get. Unfortuantely, what else is there to call it? Mamon is often too general.

I had not thought about it before but yes it is rather interesting that in Africa Christianity has stayed around while in the middle east, India, south east Asia, and western China Christianity left when the colonial governing structure pulled out. In the case of the middle east it is even more interesting. One would expect there to have been dormant Christian loyalties in an area that for 600 years was the heartland of Christianity.