Rational defense of Christianity?

[Mudhammam]

Jeez where did you find that pretty piece of art!

Meh frand Goggles.

[Drich]

What would be considered to be a blasphemous question?

In my case, I asked if a God might exist that appears to be the Christian God to Christians, Hindu God(s) to Hindus, etc. This would open the possibility that people have true interactions with God in spite of their religions being false. Religious people would simply hear God in their own religious language using the religious vocabulary available.

Apparently that was a scary question, so they deleted my thread and told me I was blaspheming and flaming. I was actually being polite and respectful; they just didn't like my idea IMO.

What if we weren't all supposed to hear God on our terms? What if we were meant to seek Him beyond our comfort zones even if we are Christians?

---

Wow, christians really can't be very secure that what they believe is true if they have to ban people for answering questions.

Then again, that's pretty much what indoctrination is. Questions are bad, I'll scold/hit/kill you.

If my atheism was so weak that I had to run away from theists asking me questions, I'd be pretty embarrassed and would need a rethink.

And what if your beliefs were so strong they could any scrutiny thrown at it? Would you seek out questions where ever they could be asked and answered?

---

I sympathize with you. Unfortunately the churches are full of Christians that don't know who Christ is.

I suspect that they say the same thing, only they're pretty sure that their version is the correct one. And no doubt that some of them have experiences that 'prove' that their version is the one. And that some of them have used 'reason' and 'logic' to determine that their version is the one. And that none of them can corroborate any of this sufficiently to get the rest to abandon their own claims, much less provide the evidence necessary to unite them in one set of beliefs. I just wish that they'd all understand how this looks from the outside.

I was an embarrassment to Jesus,

You've got plenty of company on that score.

---

The tree represents choice. Since the tree was placed in the garden from the beginning, it means God intended that we be given choice.

If god had not placed that tree in the garden, would Adam and Eve have been deprived of a choice to serve or reject god?

Without the knoweledge of sin then there is no rejection of God's word/will.

[dyresand]

One would wonder why defend Christianity because ill list out rational arguments against it.

1. if said christian was back during biblical days of the crusades the person thinking they are doing a good thing would participate in killing and spreading the word through violence.

2. put that person during the colonial days more than likely that person would see dark skinned people as less than human sub human and cattle to be used as slaves because they are not a real human being. (sadly this mind set is not gone)

3. racism the bible says its okay so its fine (still very big issue)

4. The days of the KKK and the fight for equality... you cannot tell me that they won't be in the KKK because those people are southern baptists to the core..

all in all i am trying to say is Christianity does some fucked up stuff and is in no way good or even ethical.

[watchamadoodle]

One would wonder why defend Christianity because ill list out rational arguments against it.

1. if said christian was back during biblical days of the crusades the person thinking they are doing a good thing would participate in killing and spreading the word through violence.

2. put that person during the colonial days more than likely that person would see dark skinned people as less than human sub human and cattle to be used as slaves because they are not a real human being. (sadly this mind set is not gone)

3. racism the bible says its okay so its fine (still very big issue)

4. The days of the KKK and the fight for equality... you cannot tell me that they won't be in the KKK because those people are southern baptists to the core..

all in all i am trying to say is Christianity does some fucked up stuff and is in no way good or even ethical.

When I said "rational defense of Christianity", I was meaning defense against science, historical discrepancies, philosophy, etc. (as opposed to defending the actual behavior of Christians throughout history). Those things you mentioned are important issues too, but I don't see how we can blame Christianity for all those things. I agree that Christianity (along with industrialization) created the belief that Europeans were God's chosen people who needed to civilize and Christianize the savage heathens around them. Slavery in the US was partially justified by imagining that African slaves were getting a free education in European culture and religion and so forth. But probably without Christianity, Europeans would have thought of another justification.

I agree that Christians also need to defend the actual practice of Christianity. It doesn't make sense to believe that God is making Christians better people and ignore the fact that Christians haven't behaved any different than other types of believers - maybe even worse.

[abaris]

Those things you mentioned are important issues too, but I don't see how we can blame Christianity for all those things. I agree that Christianity (along with industrialization) created the belief that Europeans were God's chosen people who needed to civilize and Christianize the savage heathens around them.

But you have to blame christianity of that time for those things, since many of them were done in the name of christianity. The Crusades, the witchhunts, the inquisition. The lines get blured when it comes to the so called reconquista in Spain and the ensuing conquest of the Americas. These were primarily politically motivated, but with a strong religious element of converting the heathens. The lines are also blure when it comes to the 30 years wars. It was as political as it was religious.

[dyresand]

One would wonder why defend Christianity because ill list out rational arguments against it.

1. if said christian was back during biblical days of the crusades the person thinking they are doing a good thing would participate in killing and spreading the word through violence.

2. put that person during the colonial days more than likely that person would see dark skinned people as less than human sub human and cattle to be used as slaves because they are not a real human being. (sadly this mind set is not gone)

3. racism the bible says its okay so its fine (still very big issue)

4. The days of the KKK and the fight for equality... you cannot tell me that they won't be in the KKK because those people are southern baptists to the core..

all in all i am trying to say is Christianity does some fucked up stuff and is in no way good or even ethical.

When I said "rational defense of Christianity", I was meaning defense against science, historical discrepancies, philosophy, etc. (as opposed to defending the actual behavior of Christians throughout history). Those things you mentioned are important issues too, but I don't see how we can blame Christianity for all those things. I agree that Christianity (along with industrialization) created the belief that Europeans were God's chosen people who needed to civilize and Christianize the savage heathens around them. Slavery in the US was partially justified by imagining that African slaves were getting a free education in European culture and religion and so forth. But probably without Christianity, Europeans would have thought of another justification.

I agree that Christians also need to defend the actual practice of Christianity. It doesn't make sense to believe that God is making Christians better people and ignore the fact that Christians haven't behaved any different than other types of believers - maybe even worse.

There is a fine line they need to cross before they start acting like Islamist extremists. Some have already and are in jail or blew themselves up already. Truthfully i could defend Christianity by saying its morals changed due to ethical morality and the ever evolving system of law and group morals changing over time making them more moral as people but not that much partly due to held beliefs of immoral actions.

[Tonus]

If god had not placed that tree in the garden, would Adam and Eve have been deprived of a choice to serve or reject god?

Without the knoweledge of sin then there is no rejection of God's word/will.

Then why put the tree in the garden? Would their lives have been negatively impacted if they did not have knowledge of evil? It seems as if the tree only affected one particular choice: whether or not to serve god. Why give them that choice at all, if the only possible outcomes were (1)to maintain the status quo or (2)to completely wreck things and usher in a period of thousands of years of human misery and death?

[dyresand]

Without the knoweledge of sin then there is no rejection of God's word/will.

Then why put the tree in the garden? Would their lives have been negatively impacted if they did not have knowledge of evil? It seems as if the tree only affected one particular choice: whether or not to serve god. Why give them that choice at all, if the only possible outcomes were (1)to maintain the status quo or (2)to completely wreck things and usher in a period of thousands of years of human misery and death?

Missing part in the bible it was edited out god had a wife who put it there.
But you know how bronze age people are.

[abaris]

Why give them that choice at all, if the only possible outcomes were (1)to maintain the status quo or (2)to completely wreck things and usher in a period of thousands of years of human misery and death?

It's even more absurd than that. Given the christian believe of god being omniscient it was only the shadow of a choice, since god knew beforehand that placing that tree would result in them eating from it. So, following that logic, god wanted menkind to suffer and only put on a charade to suit his own perverted needs.

[robvalue]

I can't believe we're talking about a tree again :p I thought most christians had accepted this is just a silly story. Anyone know roughly what percentage still take these stories literally?