Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Ok, here we go: "I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER!" Atleast not now. But, you can't condemn religions, just because they don't hand out answers immediatly.
No, just the opposite. They give answers, but they're either wrong or not testable/verifiable. But they pretend to be infallible, or at least to have a hold on the "truth," despite the empirical processes that make science so much more reliable (and less dogmatic).
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Ok, that makes absolutly no logical sense at all. In fact, religions can be argued logically, the only problem it that the secular world refuses to listen. However the same can be said for some religious people. Give me a miniute.
I don't think you understood what I said.
The argument was about "religions" as social organizations (a limited approach which I agreed to above) and their stance on the fallibility of their truth.
Yes, it can be said, that in individual circumstances, there are Christians who have philosophically come to the idea that God might exist, but everything in the universe came about naturally. There are Christians who manipulate many parts of the doctrine to conform to their own ideas about the universe.
This is, imho, a good thing. From diversity of opinion, some new directions in the faith can be made.
However, the unfortunate part for the non-post modernist using this tactic, is this: Once you say that the organizational definition of Christianity is defined by the individual variance among its followers, you discover not only so much variety that it becomes impossible to actually define any particular religion, but in fact people who vehemently self-identify with the same faith who have radically different constructions of what their faith entails.
Christianity cannot not simultaneously be defined as the religion where Jesus was both a divine part of God and not part of the one God. There is also the fact that African, Indian, Asian, American, and European traditions differ so greatly that they are fairly unique entities to themselves.
So, my assumption is that, as a Christian, you have certain ideals about what makes a Christian faith, and how Christianity is defined in general. These ideals are arbitrary universally, and only apply to those who agree with those boundaries. You can say there is variance, but for there to be no absolute religious truths, you are defining Christianity so broadly as to encompass any possible ideology. In fact, in that situation, Christianity would no longer be a term of any effective use, because it is everything, having no definition.
(waits for the R score...)
Originally posted by inimalist
So, my assumption is that, as a Christian, you have certain ideals about what makes a Christian faith, and how Christianity is defined in general. These ideals are arbitrary universally, and only apply to those who agree with those boundaries. You can say there is variance, but for there to be no absolute religious truths, you are defining Christianity so broadly as to encompass any possible ideology. In fact, in that situation, Christianity would no longer be a term of any effective use, because it is everything, having no definition.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think you understood what I said.The argument was about "religions" as social organizations (a limited approach which I agreed to above) and their stance on the fallibility of their truth.
Yes, it can be said, that in individual circumstances, there are Christians who have philosophically come to the idea that God might exist, but everything in the universe came about naturally. There are Christians who manipulate many parts of the doctrine to conform to their own ideas about the universe.
This is, imho, a good thing. From diversity of opinion, some new directions in the faith can be made.
However, the unfortunate part for the non-post modernist using this tactic, is this: Once you say that the organizational definition of Christianity is defined by the individual variance among its followers, you discover not only so much variety that it becomes impossible to actually define any particular religion, but in fact people who vehemently self-identify with the same faith who have radically different constructions of what their faith entails.
Christianity cannot not simultaneously be defined as the religion where Jesus was both a divine part of God and not part of the one God. There is also the fact that African, Indian, Asian, American, and European traditions differ so greatly that they are fairly unique entities to themselves.
So, my assumption is that, as a Christian, you have certain ideals about what makes a Christian faith, and how Christianity is defined in general. These ideals are arbitrary universally, and only apply to those who agree with those boundaries. You can say there is variance, but for there to be no absolute religious truths, you are defining Christianity so broadly as to encompass any possible ideology. In fact, in that situation, Christianity would no longer be a term of any effective use, because it is everything, having no definition.
(waits for the R score...)
Excellent post. I'm probably profiling it.
👆
Originally posted by Mindship
Isn't the central tenant of Christianity forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ? Anything more than this is "superfluous"; anything less is not being a Christian, regardless of variance.
That sounds good, but I'm really not interested in labeling people "christian" or not.
The point being, that is a definite quality of Christianity. It would, in my opinion, constitute something that Christians cannot say "I don't know" to, as a group, but possibly as individuals.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, just the opposite. They give answers, but they're either wrong or not testable/verifiable. But they pretend to be infallible, or at least to have a hold on the "truth," despite the empirical processes that make science so much more reliable (and less dogmatic).
Of course there is the ever present possibility that, even though we can't test it or "prove" it, it still just might be true. Honestly, there is much that will never be explained into human understanding. There is much that will never be proven. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I mean, science preaches evolution, and Multitudes accept it on faith, but it hasn't been proven. All the evidence pointing toward evolution is mostly conjecture, but people accept it as fact. How is religion so different? Personally, I meet Evolution half way. I don't believe that humans came from monkeys, which came from an amphibious creature, etc. But I do believe that the human body did evolve from the primitive "Cave Man" to the modern man. But there in no PROOF.
I have a book, originally written by a guy who was attempting to destroy Christianity. His research into it ended up turning him into a great evangelist. It is a book of apologetics for the christian faith... unfortunately I have lost it. 🙁 I don't know how, it was a HUGE book. It is titled "The New Evidences that Demand a Verdict" I would recommend you all read it. It's very good. has some great information in it. I would tell you some of it, but I would just end up butchering it since it has been like 2 years since I read it. But if I find it, I'll be glad to share some of what is mentioned in it.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think you understood what I said.The argument was about "religions" as social organizations (a limited approach which I agreed to above) and their stance on the fallibility of their truth.
Yes, it can be said, that in individual circumstances, there are Christians who have philosophically come to the idea that God might exist, but everything in the universe came about naturally. There are Christians who manipulate many parts of the doctrine to conform to their own ideas about the universe.
This is, imho, a good thing. From diversity of opinion, some new directions in the faith can be made.
However, the unfortunate part for the non-post modernist using this tactic, is this: Once you say that the organizational definition of Christianity is defined by the individual variance among its followers, you discover not only so much variety that it becomes impossible to actually define any particular religion, but in fact people who vehemently self-identify with the same faith who have radically different constructions of what their faith entails.
Christianity cannot not simultaneously be defined as the religion where Jesus was both a divine part of God and not part of the one God. There is also the fact that African, Indian, Asian, American, and European traditions differ so greatly that they are fairly unique entities to themselves.
So, my assumption is that, as a Christian, you have certain ideals about what makes a Christian faith, and how Christianity is defined in general. These ideals are arbitrary universally, and only apply to those who agree with those boundaries. You can say there is variance, but for there to be no absolute religious truths, you are defining Christianity so broadly as to encompass any possible ideology. In fact, in that situation, Christianity would no longer be a term of any effective use, because it is everything, having no definition.
(waits for the R score...)
I follow christianity to the roots of the beliefs. I study the bible, I read it as a whole, not in pieces like some people do. In truth that is the only way to truly understand a religion.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
I follow christianity to the roots of the beliefs. I study the bible, I read it as a whole, not in pieces like some people do. In truth that is the only way to truly understand a religion.
lol, yes, ok
this means there are questions about the truths of christian dogma that you cannot answer "I don't know" to, you are drawing a line in the sand and saying this is christian and that is not.
This is the entire point of what we have been arguing.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Of course there is the ever present possibility that, even though we can't test it or "prove" it, it still just might be true. Honestly, there is much that will never be explained into human understanding. There is much that will never be proven. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I mean, science preaches evolution, and Multitudes accept it on faith, but it hasn't been proven. All the evidence pointing toward evolution is mostly conjecture, but people accept it as fact. How is religion so different? Personally, I meet Evolution half way. I don't believe that humans came from monkeys, which came from an amphibious creature, etc. But I do believe that the human body did evolve from the primitive "Cave Man" to the modern man. But there in no PROOF.I have a book, originally written by a guy who was attempting to destroy Christianity. His research into it ended up turning him into a great evangelist. It is a book of apologetics for the christian faith... unfortunately I have lost it. 🙁 I don't know how, it was a HUGE book. It is titled "The New Evidences that Demand a Verdict" I would recommend you all read it. It's very good. has some great information in it. I would tell you some of it, but I would just end up butchering it since it has been like 2 years since I read it. But if I find it, I'll be glad to share some of what is mentioned in it.
As for the book, apologetics for any religion exist in numerous forms. One more book likely won't do much more than trumpet the same arguments we've heard time and time again. As it is, the validity of the Bible and Jesus story seem to be its main focus (I did a few searches on it) and those are secondary to our purposes anyway. Besides, I've probably read most of them before...no new information about the Bible has surfaced recently. It is just repackaged in various forms, with slight variance in the sources that are cited to back the religion.
As for your summation of evolution, "mostly conjecture" leads me to believe that you aren't truly familiar with the theory. Scientists don't believe in conjecture. Science itself doesn't deal with conjecture. It deals with facts. Items that have been tested, re-tested, and re-tested until they are as factual as, say, the earth revolving around the sun. The wealth of evidence science has amassed in the fields of genetics and biology all confirm evolution's validity. ID, or whatever variation you ascribe to, is all about claiming holes in evolutionary theory, while offering no alternative except "it must have been God." No one who understands the facts accept evolution on faith.
Find another theory that meshes with the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and is testable or even logically possible, then we'll talk.
Originally posted by inimalistUnderstood, and I would tend to agree (without further examination, anyway).
The point being, that is a definite quality of Christianity. It would, in my opinion, constitute something that Christians cannot say "I don't know" to, as a group, but possibly as individuals.
Originally posted by inimalistMe likey.
I don't think you understood what I said.The argument was about "religions" as social organizations (a limited approach which I agreed to above) and their stance on the fallibility of their truth.
Yes, it can be said, that in individual circumstances, there are Christians who have philosophically come to the idea that God might exist, but everything in the universe came about naturally. There are Christians who manipulate many parts of the doctrine to conform to their own ideas about the universe.
This is, imho, a good thing. From diversity of opinion, some new directions in the faith can be made.
However, the unfortunate part for the non-post modernist using this tactic, is this: Once you say that the organizational definition of Christianity is defined by the individual variance among its followers, you discover not only so much variety that it becomes impossible to actually define any particular religion, but in fact people who vehemently self-identify with the same faith who have radically different constructions of what their faith entails.
Christianity cannot not simultaneously be defined as the religion where Jesus was both a divine part of God and not part of the one God. There is also the fact that African, Indian, Asian, American, and European traditions differ so greatly that they are fairly unique entities to themselves.
So, my assumption is that, as a Christian, you have certain ideals about what makes a Christian faith, and how Christianity is defined in general. These ideals are arbitrary universally, and only apply to those who agree with those boundaries. You can say there is variance, but for there to be no absolute religious truths, you are defining Christianity so broadly as to encompass any possible ideology. In fact, in that situation, Christianity would no longer be a term of any effective use, because it is everything, having no definition.
(waits for the R score...)
I would chime in but I see no need.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
I follow christianity to the roots of the beliefs. I study the bible, I read it as a whole, not in pieces like some people do. In truth that is the only way to truly understand a religion.