Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:20:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1058 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> This whole rigamarole on salvation is what bugs me most about
> Christians. Unless they can point out a supportable flaw in your
> reasoning using reason and not emotional appeals to the "message" of
> Christianity, then this strikes me as a basis to declare that it is
> impossible to "debate" a Christian.
Exactly. Which is one thing I'm looking for. Supportable flaws in my
reasoning using reasoning, not emotion. I don't care if it's from a
Christian or not.
My initial post served a few functions.
A. To test whether or not the Christian debate could be accurately predicted
by me (and therefore would be non-progressial-- I won't say useless, see below)
B. To state my opinions publically such that they might be subject to attack.
C. To attempt to show my own opinions such that others might adopt them if
they found them sound.
> So Christians, rise to the challenge if you can, otherwise, agree that
> you can not support your conclusions by using the tools of debate and
> critical thinking. If we can not use critical thinking and debate to
> better understand Christianity, then this debate is totally worthless.
Big nitpick here. Also with Lar's reply. Your definition of worth is assumed
to be towards finding "the correct" belief. However, I find value in other
aspects of the debate, honestly.
I've got a theory about morality. I've also got theories about God's
existence, etc. It is important to me to locate the source of disagreement
in Christians. Granted, I think I know that source as to disagreeing with me
on God's existence and the like, but I don't know what their issues would be
with my moral theory. And as far as I know, that problem can be either with
my logical method or a disagreement on fundamental assumptions. Hence, my
question is are there any logical flaws? And also if any fundamental
assumptions are percieved incorrect, which ones?
Also, the debate serves one more major purpose that I'm sure we're all not
quick to own up to. The ability to convert other people to our own way of
thinking. Which is also another goal that I didn't mention above, which I
should have. Ok, I went back and added it.
As much as non-Xians loathe those Xians that go around trying to convert
everyone for their attempts, we're often times guilty of the same (except, I
would argue, in much less quantity). And is it WRONG to try and convince
someone that you're right? If eating slushies was found to cause death in 5
years, am I wrong to go around trying to get people not to eat slushies by
telling them what I've found? BUT! If they still want to eat slushies even
after I've told them, are they wrong to do so?
By my own definitions of morality, I hold that it's fine for Christians to
go around trying to convert people. HOWEVER, it is wrong of them to believe
that if I don't accept their conversion, that I'm wrong.
> I
> for one am not going to accept that your "morality" is right without
> being able to critically examine your assumptions.
Well-- I think the issue isn't that YOU can't critically examine the
assumptions... you already know them and can do so on your own. However, I
bet you don't agree with the assumptions:
A. God exists by subjective proof
B. God is perfect by proof in His demonstration of Himself to the subject
C. God holds Christian morality as similarly perfect (similarly proven as B.)
I bet you're more inclined to debate that subjective proof is not proof at
all per your own definitions of proof, implying a distinct definition of
truth. Hence, you are not going to accept that their morality could be right
at ALL because you CAN critically examine their assumptions, and have found
them to be inaccurate.
Please correct me if I've erred above--
Christians- have I stated your assumptions and conclusions correctly?
Non-Christians- have I stated your assumptions and conclusions correctly?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) My point is that if the X (which really can be any group - I've just been picking on Christians because they are the most visible here) say "Our way is right, and you must not question it, just accept it." (which is how I read much of what has (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) You're right. When I read Frank's para, above, I did an un-shorthanding where "worthless"=="not likely to have a clean resolution, and likely to go on for a while" (not to be confused with my own use of worthless...) You've explained how you (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| David Eaton wrote: <...snip interesting set of propositions...> (...) This is closest to the general Unitarian Universalist Christian theology (I say "general" because UU theology doesn't require a single answer). However there are some possible (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
