Logic problem: The founding principles of the U.S. and Christianity.

[CliveStaples]

A conversion system that claims you are born on your way to eternal torture and that you can only be saved by becoming a slave to one specific being isn't coercion? What is it then, a polite suggestion?

I understand "conversion system" to mean "the means by which a believer acts in order to produce belief in a non-believer". Everything you mention above has to do with "existence" and "obligation" claims made by the belief system, and has nothing to do with conversion.

Take a religion that posits something really horrible, something like "We should violently kill everyone over the age of 50." Despite the fact that this religion advocates violence, it could very well have a non-violent non-coercive conversion system. In fact, it might not have a conversion system at all.

---

Christianity is a militant religion, perhaps even more so than Islam. Just look at all the carnage left behind done in the name of a "Convert or Die" attitude.

This has nothing to do with what kind of conversion practices Christianity teaches. Suppose a religion contains only the single belief "A god exists." Some of its adherents use a "Convert or Die" approach to convert atheists. Would you say that this belief system is militant?

Any Christain belief is inherently antagonistic toward science and reason. The Rennasaince finally dragged Europe out of the Dark Ages where Christianity reigned supreme in it's practice of selling indulgences to bribe Kings and mass torture of anyone who might have been a "heretic". Jesus Christ violates the very first commandment which says there shall be no IDOLS placed before me. The Christian Bible is a total contradiction that places the believer in the same sad, angry state. "God" is external, not internal. "God" is a strict father figure, not a motherly love. Jesus is a pathetic victim that which modern man aspires to be like??? Fudge that! The Buddha shows a much saner and internal way, into the light of awareness!

I'm not really sure where to believe. Lots of Christians throughout the ages were scientists and philosophers; it was the religious scholars who maintained and produced writings through the Dark Ages.

It seems like you're just painting all Christians with an anti-intellectual brush--and you're not even giving an argument for it. You're just claiming that their beliefs are antithetical to science and reason. Why should I believe you?


Also, I'm not quite sure how things like "A topological space is a set X together with a set T consisting of subsets of X such that: 1) X and the empty set are in T; 2) T is closed under arbitrary union; 3) T is closed under finite intersection" are somehow incompatible with "Christianity is true". I'm a big fan of math (and to a lesser extent its grubby-fingered grandchild, physics) so I'd be very anxious to find out that my commitments to reason and science are somehow at odds with my religious beliefs. Please explain further.

---

Christianity is coercive, even if those advocating it do not intend to be. Sadly they often do, and so I can list just about any sort of distasteful coercion you care to imagine as being leverged in service of the christian faith. These are terrible things done by terrible people, you might say (which would be true). Neverless, had these people merely preached the gospel without taking any action whatsoever they would still be leaning heavily on coercion by fear and ignorance. So you can take your pick between the evils done, or the evils inherent, but either way, it's coercion.

Or any of the more specific examples from american politics recently.

I didn't come to Christianity in a state of ignorance or fear. The pastor at the church that my parents took me to every Sunday didn't try to prey on fear or ignorance, either. So I don't find your argument at all persuasive.