Christian Paradox

[fr0d0]

Word swapping magic! Wow!

Yea, I like direct quotations too! High five! Next time try not to fuck up in the same sentence.

What?

More American imbeciles - yeah great... line em up.

It's the country with the most Christians and the largest world influence. You'd be dumb to dismiss something so glaringly obvious. Did you think that the UK is the world's authority on Christianity?

You have no idea what Christianity is about. Period. Go learn something then speak from authority - not the other way around as you're doing here. Of course this is where you get your petty accusations - you're talking about yourself obviously.

You're getting further and further from reality. Try to understand what you're saying.

You're saying religious teachings aren't knowledge. I referred you to bible studies, sunday school, and creationism, which are all taught as fact.

I could quote you examples of Atheists not being atheists too. What does that prove??

What concepts am I mixing? In my/ Christian definition we can know quite a lot. It's a pretty tight framework that is logically consistent. The error was yours in framing it inaccurately.

You're mixing concepts of knowledge and absolute truth. Your christian definition of knowledge apparently is putting in all sorts of crap that confuse you as to the actual meaning of the term.

Well that's a nice way of excusing a refusal to consider a point.

I didn't frame anything inaccurately. The context of your post was that we can never know anything.

That is an imbecilic conclusion

My point was that many Christians contend that they know (through subjective experiences) that there is a God.

And I accurately described how they know to you. This is non negotiable. You are speaking from a position of non understanding on the subject, and you have the audacity to tell me what I think?

I provided sources which bring this to light:

Here's an article that would hit home:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

This is happening in your country as well. Or will you make the point that this is not taught as knowledge, or people who are making this decision are on the fence about the existence of God?

'Briton' has a Christian population of about 6%. The people polled are not Christians.

People attending church in the UK at least monthly number 15% http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php

[tavarish]

'Briton' has a Christian population of about 6%. The people polled are not Christians.

People attending church in the UK at least monthly number 15% http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php

I call BS on you being real. No one is this diligent at failing over and over again.

Britons are people living in Britain.

Christian population of 6%. Hmm...

Let's take at the link YOU SENT ME.

Belief in the UK

We all know that church attendance has been falling and 50 years ago over half of people in the UK would go to Church. While belief in Christianity may have declined at 58% of the population it can still claim to have a majority of the population. Atheists and Agnostics represent 33% of the population and are still in the minority.

It's right below the 15% churchgoing statistic. This would be right in line with the claim that 40% advocate creationism.

Have some damned credibility. At least check what you're posting before you hit reply.

---

[quote='fr0d0' pid='56542' dateline='1266443836']
Word swapping magic! Wow!

Yea, I like direct quotations too! High five! Next time try not to fuck up in the same sentence.

What?

More American imbeciles - yeah great... line em up.

It's the country with the most Christians and the largest world influence. You'd be dumb to dismiss something so glaringly obvious. Did you think that the UK is the world's authority on Christianity?

You have no idea what Christianity is about. Period. Go learn something then speak from authority - not the other way around as you're doing here. Of course this is where you get your petty accusations - you're talking about yourself obviously.

Would you like an appeal to authority? Most of my friends are Christian. All of my family is Christian. I've been to Christian churches many times, varying denominations. I've had in-depth discussions with pastors and priests on more than one occasion, as well as lengthy debates with friends in which they brought up points that make more sense than anything you've ever posted. For a large part of my life, I was Christian and believed in God. I live in the most Christian nation and we currently have a Christian President and Congress. I've read most of the Bible, and am expanding on this knowledge daily.

But I have no idea what Christianity is about. Can you tell me?

I could quote you examples of Atheists not being atheists too. What does that prove??

You can quote me examples of people who don't believe in God as they believe in God?

What the hell are you talking about?

Well that's a nice way of excusing a refusal to consider a point.

It's a nice way to admit you don't understand the subject material.

That is an imbecilic conclusion

Very eloquently put. Grain of salt taken.

And I accurately described how they know to you. This is non negotiable. You are speaking from a position of non understanding on the subject, and you have the audacity to tell me what I think?

This is non-negotiable? Do you speak for all Christians? You come here, talk about audacity, and then say "this is non negotiable". Oh, the ironing.

I come from a position of observation, you apparently come from a position of rationalization and willful ignorance. You dodge questions and have real trouble understand most concepts that are written about on these forums. You're asked what your subjective evidence is for your belief, and you dodge left and right, while condemning others because they don't agree with your world view and call you out on your BS.

I haven't been here long, but I can see that you're a troll and are utterly outmatched intellectually by virtually everyone on this board, theists and all.

If you're ready to discuss subjects rationally, we can do so. Don't perpetuate the shitstorm.

[Xyster]

What concepts am I mixing? In my/ Christian definition we can know quite a lot. It's a pretty tight framework that is logically consistent. The error was yours in framing it inaccurately.

You're mixing concepts of knowledge and absolute truth. Your christian definition of knowledge apparently is putting in all sorts of crap that confuse you as to the actual meaning of the term.

LOL @ Framework of Christianity about the only thing Christians can agree on is Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Ive heard just about everything from ignore the old testement to Jesus was married. So noone can say that Christans belive in X to 100% certainty... thousands of differnt denominations and they all are slightly differnt.

[Minimalist]

the only thing Christians can agree on is Jesus died on the cross for our sins

Some early gnostic groups did not even agree on that.

n Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die.

From Wiki

They were all killed off by the eventual winners in a triumph of xtian love.

[downbeatplumb]

I saw a documentory of the dead sea scrolls yesterday (on sky player).

In one of these scrolls Jesus changed places with some schmuck who carries his cross and was crucified in his stead. (just like a scene from the life of Brian).

Oh and according to the quran Jesus was not killed on the cross, he was just very badly wounded and just got up and walked out of his tomb, (a bit unsteadily).

Although why muslims would mention jesus at all I'm not really sure.

[fr0d0]

We all know that church attendance has been falling and 50 years ago over half of people in the UK would go to Church. While belief in Christianity may have declined at 58% of the population it can still claim to have a majority of the population. Atheists and Agnostics represent 33% of the population and are still in the minority.[/i]

It's right below the 15% churchgoing statistic. This would be right in line with the claim that 40% advocate creationism.

Those would be nominal Christians... that is people who don't satisfy a basic test of actually committing to a belief, but rather accepting it as a default position that they don't really want to think about. If challenged, said people would more accurately be defined atheist.

Would you like an appeal to authority? Most of my friends are Christian. All of my family is Christian. I've been to Christian churches many times, varying denominations. I've had in-depth discussions with pastors and priests on more than one occasion, as well as lengthy debates with friends in which they brought up points that make more sense than anything you've ever posted. For a large part of my life, I was Christian and believed in God. I live in the most Christian nation and we currently have a Christian President and Congress. I've read most of the Bible, and am expanding on this knowledge daily.

But I have no idea what Christianity is about. Can you tell me?

You appear to have no idea what Christianity is about, based on what you've said here so far. In the interest of changing that impression... please set out your reasoning for believing when you did believe. If it was irrational, it was no reason to believe.

You're saying religious teachings aren't knowledge. I referred you to bible studies, sunday school, and creationism, which are all taught as fact.

I could quote you examples of Atheists not being atheists too. What does that prove??

You can quote me examples of people who don't believe in God as they believe in God?

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about classifications not applying when the people they are being applied to aren't acting in accordance with the classification.

I come from a position of observation, you apparently come from a position of rationalization and willful ignorance. You dodge questions and have real trouble understand most concepts that are written about on these forums. You're asked what your subjective evidence is for your belief, and you dodge left and right, while condemning others because they don't agree with your world view and call you out on your BS.

I haven't been here long, but I can see that you're a troll and are utterly outmatched intellectually by virtually everyone on this board, theists and all.

If you're ready to discuss subjects rationally, we can do so. Don't perpetuate the shitstorm.

That being an example of the shitstorm I presume? I apologise for my harsh words. Let's move on.

I'm saying your faith is based on SOMETHING, a subjective experience you perceive as knowledge of the divine.

You seem to place importance on this. All this is is the manifestation of belief. It cannot be it's foundation. I believe in God because I rationalise him to be.

[tavarish]

Those would be nominal Christians... that is people who don't satisfy a basic test of actually committing to a belief, but rather accepting it as a default position that they don't really want to think about. If challenged, said people would more accurately be defined atheist.

After making a claim that 50% of the UK population is lying about their religious views, the best thing to do would be to provide a credible source.

Thanks.

You appear to have no idea what Christianity is about, based on what you've said here so far. In the interest of changing that impression... please set out your reasoning for believing when you did believe. If it was irrational, it was no reason to believe.

I asked you to provide an explanation of what Christianity is about. I'm patiently awaiting your response. I'm serious now. Don't dodge the topic.

My personal beliefs were that I believed that Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross. I attended church sporadically, but prayed nightly and read the bible. I wore a cross and felt a very real presence over me in many situations. I truly believed that something was out there, watching and looking out for me and that I was in his good graces to be taken care of in the afterlife. I didn't do anything that would hinder my ascension into heaven, as I was scared of being condemned to hell.

After a while, I started examining my beliefs and realize that no matter how much I tried, they did not make the slightest bit of sense. I did not take the bible literally either. I tried to assess it for its moral values and parables, but could not come up with a conclusive reason to actually believe in the existence of such a deity. The religion is inherently self-serving, irrefutable, and self-validating.

Put plainly - it did not make sense at all. I could not bring myself to believe something which was obviously and blatantly put together by those who wanted to escalate their social and political strength. I can be made to convert if I see objective, verified evidence of God. Since this is not the case - and you contend that is cannot be - then there really is no reason for me to believe an unjustifiable claim.

I do agree that reasons to believe Christianity are irrational, therefore I do not believe anymore.

I'm talking about classifications not applying when the people they are being applied to aren't acting in accordance with the classification.

Christians, are those who believe in Jesus Christ, his teachings, and follow the Nicene Creed. Is there anything else major missing?

I find it hilarious that religious people look at other religious people who do things that they don't agree with, then revert to the argument "Well he wasn't a REAL Christian anyway".

That cracks me up.

I'm saying your faith is based on SOMETHING, a subjective experience you perceive as knowledge of the divine.

You seem to place importance on this. All this is is the manifestation of belief. It cannot be it's foundation. I believe in God because I rationalise him to be.

Exactly my point. You're using rationalization to support your belief.

[fr0d0]

After making a claim that 50% of the UK population is lying about their religious views, the best thing to do would be to provide a credible source.

Thanks.

I did. I guess it's how you read it.

You appear to have no idea what Christianity is about, based on what you've said here so far. In the interest of changing that impression... please set out your reasoning for believing when you did believe. If it was irrational, it was no reason to believe.

I asked you to provide an explanation of what Christianity is about. I'm patiently awaiting your response. I'm serious now. Don't dodge the topic.

The topic was tangental. I took no serious request for an answer. Since you wish to force the issue, I have no problem in answering, as always... Christianity is belief in Christ. A rationally held position in the belief in God.

Thankyou for answering. Except you either didn't answer or you are admitting that you had no rational reason to believe. This was mere lip service (taken from your own words... please correct me if I'm wrong). Children just accept and don't consider much, but still there must be rational reasoning to assume a position of belief.. it is unacceptable to God to believe without thought.

I do appreciate your answer though.

I find it hilarious that religious people look at other religious people who do things that they don't agree with, then revert to the argument "Well he wasn't a REAL Christian anyway".

That cracks me up.

We can't judge the person, just the act. If someone does something that is the opposite of Christ like then that person could be judged as doing something anti Christ. Do you think there's a line to step over that would make someone perfect/ Christ like forever?

I'm saying your faith is based on SOMETHING, a subjective experience you perceive as knowledge of the divine.

You seem to place importance on this. All this is is the manifestation of belief. It cannot be it's foundation. I believe in God because I rationalise him to be.

Exactly my point. You're using rationalization to support your belief.

No I rationalised to get to my belief. No amount of circumstantial evidence alters that, or will influence my decision should I rationalise 'not' belief.