Feedback on discussion

[FallentoReason]

Remember you ask.

I'm just wondering why sometimes during discussion between an atheist and theist there is a claim x made by the atheist with backing evidence y but the theist won't accept it. Before we all jump the gun here I think it's important to acknowledge that there's different situations of this happening. Sometimes it's an outright fact like e.g. Mark not containing verses 16:9-20 but other times it can be a little more ambiguous.

Anyways, the feedback I'm after (from theists) is to do with my argumentation style in general. Why don't you accept the arguments presented? Am I going about it wrong? Am I simply not logical or missing something out everytime? I feel like at times there's no traction between our arguments. Or is it simply that you must avoid the heartbraking truth at all costs?

Maybe it's not me. Maybe it's just how faith works. It doesn't matter how grim the situation looks, faith magically 'fixes' what can be shown to not be true.

I hope this sort of made sense. I'm about to go to bed and pretty much half asleep already...

In the case of Mark 16, Most Christians understand that whether the orginal letter continued past verse 9 or not, is not our concern. Our concern ends with the cannon of scripture as presented. Not what it could, should, or as some hoped for it to be. God tells us in several different ways that we are responsiable only for what He has given us. Not for a complete understanding of a given version of Christianity. What He has seen fit to give us, in the way of the bible More over Mark 16, we are responsiable for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your problem or rather your attacks on christianity seem to be based on the idea that thier is only one way to worship God. and that one way, can only be based in a given religious expression/version of Christianity. Your efforts seem to focous on undermining the church and the Legialistic aspects of corporate worship. (Jesus and Paul have already beat you to the punch on this point, and condemned this type of worship.) Which is the reason your arguements fail to 'upset' Christians who have not based their faiths in legalistic worship. Based Christianity is not the religion you think it to be. Or rather the religion you have been attacking. Biblically based Christianity is the freedom to Worship God anyway one's ablities will allow. That is why if your arguements do not apply to a given persons way of worship it can be easily dismissed no matter what silver bullet/faith breaking 'fact' you think you have found.

The problem you are having is that you have distorted Christianity in you own heart/mind away from biblical Christianity. This may allow you to easily construct arguements that may destroy your version of christianity, but does not even begin to scratch a faith built upon scripture.
In the end the only one you are tripping up is yourself. Because in your own mind/world you have built a case based on reason and logic, but have unleashed on a straw man version of Christianity rather than addressing the points of biblically based Christian Faith. In essence You have "fallen to" the wrong "reasons".

Thanks for this response Drich.

Help me to understand better what I'm doing. What is it exactly that I do that you see as a strawman against Christianity? I thought I was mostly engaging in scripture which means by default I was arguing about Biblically based Christianity.

[Drich]

Thanks for this response Drich.

Help me to understand better what I'm doing. What is it exactly that I do that you see as a strawman against Christianity? I thought I was mostly engaging in scripture which means by default I was arguing about Biblically based Christianity.

The 'strawman' is based on your personal understanding of Christianity, and not an accurate repersentation of Biblical Christianity. Your using the bible as a standard or a set of Guidelines to define how a Christian is to act. When if you actually read the bible it frees us from this type of 'worship.' Subsequently everything you address is from this stand point. Your stances can often be refered to as 'legalism.' Which is a practice condemned by Christ. As such for the Christian most of your 'points' can be dismissed.

[CaseyTheAthie]

Thanks for this response Drich.

Help me to understand better what I'm doing. What is it exactly that I do that you see as a strawman against Christianity? I thought I was mostly engaging in scripture which means by default I was arguing about Biblically based Christianity.

The 'strawman' is based on your personal understanding of Christianity, and not an accurate repersentation of Biblical Christianity. Your using the bible as a standard or a set of Guidelines to define how a Christian is to act. When if you actually read the bible it frees us from this type of 'worship.' Subsequently everything you address is from this stand point. Your stances can often be refered to as 'legalism.' Which is a practice condemned by Christ. As such for the Christian most of your 'points' can be dismissed.

So the BIBLE has no governing status over BIBLICAL Christians? I def don't get it. I'm a Mathematician that does not have to follow a math book... Thats my correlation to what you just said and as you can see I'm lost...

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='331136' dateline='1346688042']

The 'strawman' is based on your personal understanding of Christianity, and not an accurate repersentation of Biblical Christianity. Your using the bible as a standard or a set of Guidelines to define how a Christian is to act. When if you actually read the bible it frees us from this type of 'worship.' Subsequently everything you address is from this stand point. Your stances can often be refered to as 'legalism.' Which is a practice condemned by Christ. As such for the Christian most of your 'points' can be dismissed.

So the BIBLE has no governing status over BIBLICAL Christians?

Define governing.

I def don't get it. I'm a Mathematician that does not have to follow a math book... Thats my correlation to what you just said and as you can see I'm lost...

It seems to me that you have a firm grasp as to what has been said here. Do you have a specific question.

[FallentoReason]

Your using the bible as a standard or a set of Guidelines to define how a Christian is to act.

This.

So when you repeatedly kept saying we should all seek God as outlined (your favourite word) in Luke 11, that really meant 'free worship God and try and get some tingly feeling'? Nothing related to the Bible right?

Pretty sure hypocrisy isn't something 'Christ' liked either.

[CaseyTheAthie]

[quote='Drich' pid='331136' dateline='1346688042']

The 'strawman' is based on your personal understanding of Christianity, and not an accurate repersentation of Biblical Christianity. Your using the bible as a standard or a set of Guidelines to define how a Christian is to act. When if you actually read the bible it frees us from this type of 'worship.' Subsequently everything you address is from this stand point. Your stances can often be refered to as 'legalism.' Which is a practice condemned by Christ. As such for the Christian most of your 'points' can be dismissed.

So the BIBLE has no governing status over BIBLICAL Christians?

Define governing.

I def don't get it. I'm a Mathematician that does not have to follow a math book... Thats my correlation to what you just said and as you can see I'm lost...

It seems to me that you have a firm grasp as to what has been said here. Do you have a specific question.

So, please forgive my crue correlation again, if my book says 1+1=6 and I say 1+1=2 I'm not mathematically wrong because I did it m own way, as long as it was still math?

[Drich]

Your using the bible as a standard or a set of Guidelines to define how a Christian is to act.

This.

So when you repeatedly kept saying we should all seek God as outlined (your favourite word) in Luke 11, that really meant 'free worship God and try and get some tingly feeling'? Nothing related to the Bible right?

Pretty sure hypocrisy isn't something 'Christ' liked either.

You've lost me here. What are you talking about?

I am saying the bible is not a list of rules that defines Christianity. One can not simply follow 'christian rules' and become a Christian as Per Christ in Mat 7. Now your turn what are you trying to say?

---

Define governing.

It seems to me that you have a firm grasp as to what has been said here. Do you have a specific question.

So, please forgive my crue correlation again, if my book says 1+1=6 and I say 1+1=2 I'm not mathematically wrong because I did it m own way, as long as it was still math?

what?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see what all the fuss is about, it's very easy to understand what Drich is criticizing here. You don't get to use your understanding of what scripture says.....you're supposed to use his.

[FallentoReason]

I don't see what all the fuss is about, it's very easy to understand what Drich is criticizing here. You don't get to use your understanding of what scripture says.....you're supposed to use his.

Which came from scripture! Sometimes it's very hard to tell if Drich trolls on purpose or if it's a genuine apologetic line...

---

You've lost me here. What are you talking about?

I am saying the bible is not a list of rules that defines Christianity. One can not simply follow 'christian rules' and become a Christian as Per Christ in Mat 7. Now your turn what are you trying to say?

From what I've gathered, you're rendering all my arguments as invalid because they're against scripture, which according to you isn't the thing through which a Christian defines themselves. Correct so far?

If we're on the same page so far, then I stand by what I said, which is that you're being a hypocrite by saying Christians essentially don't need scripture but yet you love telling us what's outlined in it as if a relationship with God is black and white. In other words, do as it is outlined in *book, chapter, verse* and you will find what you're looking for.

You're contradicting yourself it seems.