Indeed, they have a whole new set of absurdities to play with...

A pragmatic basis for rejection of Christianity: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-09-04/dont-believe-in-god-you-might-sleep-better-at-night

As to Hanover's "brand of" that he found, what difference does it make to be punished for one's own sin versus the sin of one's parents? Who is deciding what 'sin' but with whatever group you are subject to, protected and or threatened by. One concedes with respect to the fear of death, or even worse torture.

There is a hellish aspect to double-binds. Conditions where one is absolutely damned by the vision of his/her course of action. Somewhere a person has been told to choose between the life and death of a loved one by perceived coercion but the choice is false insofar as the outcome is unchanged (the choice is and or is not a choice). Crimes are committed.

I think God's condition is one that resembles a double-bind of either perpetrator or victim. As is the case with sin, we are potentially all victim-perpetrators unaware, or aware insofar as we have the capacity to be aware. Maybe the trolley problem is lurking and the trolley is moving way too fast. Whatever happens, happens.

St Paul clearly teaches that each Christian is the bride of Jesus. He can't marry a group as a group, so the meaning of the Church as the bride of Christ is clearly that each Christian marries Jesus when he becomes a Christian — Gregory

Which groups do you feel need to be "arranged" in matrimony?

I'm not going to argue with you over exegesis. I'll just say that even traditionalists priests who believe homosexuality is a sin will sometimes openly call themselves one of Christ's brides

Keep in mind that priests believe that they eat Jesus's live body every day at Mass. Uh this theology is supposed to save the West? I prefer The Big Bang Theory kids to that

The "bathwater" are the beliefs peculiar to Christianity, such as the beliefs I've mentioned, which can easily be thrown out without disposing of the ideas of pagan philosophy, the "baby."

Nothing to do with it. What I'm talking about, is the relationship of natural law and ethical principles, mind and cosmos, humanity's place in the cosmos. Much of the philosophical foundations of these ideas is associated with Christianity, and often discarded on that basis. That is why popular science intellectuals, like the late Stephen Hawkings, will refer to humanity as 'biochemical scum', the late great Bertrand Russell as 'the accidental collocation of atoms'. A lot of people believe all that, without even thinking about it or knowing what it means.

As regards the 'doctrine of original sin' and 'the fall of man' - these are symbolic representation of facts of the human condition. Obviously a lot of religious doctrine is encoded in tropes and metaphors which are unintelligible to current culture, but that doesn't mean the underlying conditions to which they refer have simply vanished or gone away. What's more likely is that they will simply manifest in different forms, different tropes, and different metaphors.

As I already referred to a few posts back

Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies. — Joseph Campbell

That descibes about 95% of what passes for conversation on this topic, on this forum.

I 'rejected Christianity' aged 13 and am not a churchgoer or biblical believer. But I still think religion stands for something real and meaningful.

these are symbolic representation of facts of the human condition. — Wayfarer

Gotta love how versatile theology is. "there's a meaning there, even if it makes no sense..."

Obviously a lot of religious doctrine is encoded in tropes and metaphors which are unintelligible to current culture, — Wayfarer

:rofl:

Gotta love how versatile theology is. "there's a meaning there, even if it makes no sense..." — Banno

It makes no sense to you, you show no interest in it or knowledge of it, other than barging into conversations with pictures from popular media and casual sarcasm.

I think there is a serious case against Christianity and many reasons for doubting it, but ridicule doesn't convey anything about that.

That's right.

But I still think religion stands for something real and meaningful. — Wayfarer

What?

So if we place the accounts of Jesus's resurrection next to all the other reported miracles, it looks a lot less impressive. — Gregory

If you have no interest in it, there's no point trying to explain it. Can't you just stick to your threads about Justified True Beliefs and whether the cup really is in the cupboard?

Anyway, I will go away again, posting here is just a habit, and probably a time-wasting habit.

If you have no interest in it, there's no point trying to explain it. — Wayfarer

If I wasn't interested I would not post. Indeed, the topics supposedly addressed by religion are the most important of all. My objection is to religion obscuring what is important.

I will go away again, posting here is just a habit, and probably a time-wasting habit. — Wayfarer

Yep. TIme to go do some weeding. In the garden. Outside.

Interestingly enough the Bible seems to make proving it impossible. Not a mystery with a bit of thought but interesting nonetheless. Passages such as there will be those who do great and wonderous things, miracles, etc. but they are misleading. As well as the bit in Revelation that states no one shall add to it.

The premise of your OP seems to have nothing to do with Christianity specifically but rather applies to all religious texts. Nothing that nobody saw today can be known. Even extends beyond religion it would seem. On the topic of resurrection from a spiritual/metaphysical standpoint it isn't uncommon. It was alleged to have been performed by Jesus as well. Others have done this through what is said to be darker means ie. necromancy or "lichs". And of course from a scientific lens, there are things like zombi powder or nerve toxins and the like (see Romeo and Juliet). To a person living in times before our own any such act would in fact appear to be divine.

Point being I'd like to see an argument specific to Christianity that doesn't simply apply to all religion across the board.

ugh

Uh this theology is supposed to save the West? — Gregory

Whether you like the fact that christian theology is like this, does not change the fact that you only live the way you live, in the world you live in, thinking the way you think, thanks to those same dogmas. You may disagree with the doctrines, but they practically built what you live in today. If you prefer, there are two other Abrahamic religions in the world - Islam and Judaism - but I am pretty sure that a free and individual life like the one that Christianity provided you will not have. And if you decide to follow the path of questioning - like atheism - like myself - or agnosticism -: - The future is reserved for hegemony, and a theist one.

they practically built what you live in today. — Gus Lamarch

Thank you for clarifying, I was wondering what infinite stupidity was responsible for the incompetence in which we live.

Did the I Ching predict this for you? It is contingent that Christianity preceded freedom. It could have been another way. slave is not condemned in the Bible, for example

Thank you for clarifying, I was wondering what infinite stupidity was responsible for the incompetence in which we live. — JerseyFlight

Today's stupidity and incompetence is the result of the secularization of Christianity, not of the christian faith. Christian faith with all its dogmas, laws, morals and values ​​still exists and is there to be studied, the point is that with secularization, decadence arises and with it, nihilism. Without a homogeneous faith, which dictates how life should be lived - according to God - Man gets lost in his own sea of subjectiviness. There is no more the absolute, because the only absolute thing that existed was God, and we have killed him.

Did the I Ching predict this for you? — Gregory

History tells those who dare to study it that everything attached to it tends to repeat itself. From Thebes, to Rome, to the West. The world is born, grows, has its apex, and collapses. The collapse is always preceded by a time of extreme economic wealth, globalization, high-level of education, tolerance and extreme individual freedom.

It could have been another way. — Gregory

It could, but it wasn't. There is no changing the past.

slave is not condemned in the Bible, for example — Gregory

So far only I have been the one to declare my point in how to adapt to theism. And it was through an "conscious-unconscious" belief in it. So, what do you bring me as an alternative to Christianity?

the only absolute thing that existed was God — Gus Lamarch

I wasn't aware of this? You mean a real, concrete absolute, verifiable just like the moon? Or do you mean that humans believed that God was absolute?

the point is that with secularization, decadence arises and with it, nihilism. — Gus Lamarch

Preconditioned by what? Every cult projects nihilism in the absence of its values, this is all part of the original conditioning. You are speaking of a symptom caused by the very thing you defend.

You propose a Christianity which doesnt t retain belief that it can prove its own truth. This is a fiction. Christian arguments are refutable, so it is not a valid "alternative" . We have to try something else

Today's stupidity and incompetence is the result of the secularization of Christianity, not of the christian faith. Christian faith with all its dogmas, laws, morals and values ​​still exists and is there to be studied, the point is that with secularization, decadence arises and with it, nihilism. Without a homogeneous faith, which dictates how life should be lived - according to God - Man gets lost in his own sea of subjectiviness. — Gus Lamarch

Oh dump the blinders already.

History tells those who dare to study it [...] — Gus Lamarch

• Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)
• during Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian, that's like 19 on a street with 20 people (Wikipedia), give that some thought
• Centuries of Christian anti-Semitism led to Holocaust, landmark Church of England report concludes (Gabriella Swerling; The Telegraph; Nov 2019)
• Victims of the Christian Faith (Kelsos via Church and State; Aug 2002)
• Flesh Inferno: Atrocities of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition (Simon Whitechapel; Apr 2003)
• Racism in Watchtower publications (John Cedars; Aug 2019)
• America’s Biggest Christian Charity Funnels Tens of Millions to Hate Groups (Alex Kotch; Sludge; Mar 2019)
• Are All Men Created Equal? (Ronald Hanko; Protestant Reformed Churches in America), apparently not, and, with such reasons, discrimination, and worse, are justified
  "femina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum" (woman is defective and misbegotten)
  — Summa Theologiae (1274), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
• Study Shows White Evangelicals Want Christian Supremacy, Not “Religious Freedom” (Hemant Mehta; Dec 2019)
• Onward, Christian fascists (Chris Hedges; Jan 2020)

So, what do you bring me as an alternative to Christianity? — Gus Lamarch

If you want a religious tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

jorndoe provided a validate rebuttal to your claims. For my part your insistence on religion is just bizarre, it displays uncritical allegiance to shallow platitudes that circulate through apologetic domains.

So if we place the accounts of Jesus's resurrection next to all the other reported miracles, it looks a lot less impressive.

So we are free to believe what we want.

I also wanted to point out that Christians have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark, and even Paul were real Apostles and could write Scripture. — Gregory

I see nothing unreasonable in Gregory's statement. There is a view, put forward strongly by Josh Mcdowel and others, that there is somehow 'proof' for Christianity and the existence of Jesus. There is, I believe, what is called circumstantial evidence, however, one is free to believe what one wants:

As I understand it, there are some artifacts that support the view that Jesus existed and what happened was described in the Gospels (with some differing accounts). I am not sure that Occam's razor, when applied to the story of Christianity, would not yield the simplest possible explanation is that a figure named Jesus existed, people believed He performed miracles, He was crucified, and that He rose from the dead. In fact, crucifixion was very real at that time, so were the instances of various rebels and movements during that time, under Roman rule, I think that is not disputed.

It may be that there is no way of verifying any of the historical records that have been handed down to us. If may be that there are ways to verify the historicity of a document, but that could be applied to the New Testament writings as well.

It comes down to belief, which the Bible and Christian tradition has made no secret about, that it is belief without proof. In fact, the very same New Testament Gospels record not only the appearance of Jesus to his disciples and to many others after His death, but that having seen Jesus in person after his death, appearing to them 'some did not believe'.

So we are free to believe what we want. I want to however explore the view that Christian Apologists use in defending the Gospels a little too strongly - it is fine to preach to the choir, but when approaching people who are do not believe in the gospel story, modern day Greeks as it were, a different approach is perhaps more useful.

The Wikipedia article on Josh MacDowell says it very well, in my opinion:

McDowell's approach to apologetics falls under what Protestant theologians classify as "classical" and "evidential." In either of these approaches to Christian apologetics, it is assumed that arguments defending the Christian faith can legitimately be directed to both believers and unbelievers because the human mind is viewed as able to comprehend certain truths about God. Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, questions this methodology by arguing that since unbelievers partially suppress and resist the truth about God (as Paul states in Romans 1:18–20), the problem of unbelief is also an ethical choice and not simply a lack of evidence.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell

Two different approaches.

a) "it is assumed that arguments defending the Christian faith can legitimately be directed to both believers and unbelievers because the human mind is viewed as able to comprehend certain truths about God"

b) "Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, questions this methodology by arguing that since unbelievers partially suppress and resist the truth about God"

I personally think the second one is more on practical, since even Christians suppress the truth and have biases in their beliefs and exhibit wilful ignorance in some instances. In any case, one must be very careful not when approaching anyone with prejudices that one wishes to change, and the more scientific mind would be better approached by not telling them that they were made by God and should be able to comprehend the truth for this reason alone.

Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)
during Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian, that's like 19 on a street with 20 people (Wikipedia), give that some thought
Centuries of Christian anti-Semitism led to Holocaust, landmark Church of England report concludes (Gabriella Swerling; The Telegraph; Nov 2019)
Victims of the Christian Faith (Kelsos via Church and State; Aug 2002)
Flesh Inferno: Atrocities of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition (Simon Whitechapel; Apr 2003)
Racism in Watchtower publications (John Cedars; Aug 2019)
America’s Biggest Christian Charity Funnels Tens of Millions to Hate Groups (Alex Kotch; Sludge; Mar 2019)
Are All Men Created Equal? (Ronald Hanko; Protestant Reformed Churches in America), apparently not, and, with such reasons, discrimination, and worse, are justified
"femina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum" (woman is defective and misbegotten)
— Summa Theologiae (1274), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Study Shows White Evangelicals Want Christian Supremacy, Not “Religious Freedom” (Hemant Mehta; Dec 2019)
Onward, Christian fascists (Chris Hedges; Jan 2020) — jorndoe

The old tactic of showing only the rotten - and rare - cases of degradation in Christianity. Classic!

Stauch, Marc; Wheat, Kay (2015). "12.1.2.1:The Sanctity of human life by H.Kuhse". Text, Cases & Materials on Medical Law.

"If we turn to the roots of our western tradition, we find that in Greek and Roman times not all human life was regarded as inviolable and worthy of protection. Slaves and 'barbarians' did not have a full right to life and human sacrifices and gladiatorial combat were acceptable... Spartan Law required that deformed infants be put to death; for Plato, infanticide is one of the regular institutions of the ideal State; Aristotle regards abortion as a desirable option; and the Stoic philosopher Seneca writes unapologetically: "Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal... And whilst there were deviations from these views..., it is probably correct to say that such practices...were less proscribed in ancient times. Most historians of western morals agree that the rise of ...Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life is valuable and worthy of respect."

Lecky, W.E.H. (1920). HIstory of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne. Gushee, David P. (2014). In the Fray: Contesting Christian Public Ethics, 1994–2013.

"Christianity formed a new standard, higher than any which then existed in the world...The justice teachings of Jesus are closely related to a commitment to life's sanctity..."

Duffy, Eamon (1997). Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes.

"The Industrial Revolution brought many concerns about the deteriorating working and living conditions of urban workers. Influenced by the German Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler, in 1891 Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum novarum, which set in context Catholic social teaching in terms that rejected socialism but advocated the regulation of working conditions. Rerum Novarum argued for the establishment of a living wage and the right of workers to form trade unions."

Just a few references in terms of the benefit that Christianity has brought to humanity. Feats as "the improvement of the working conditions of the proletariat during the industrial revolution", which the current socialists and leftists claim as the feats of their ideology, were also accomplished by the effort of Christianity. It must be really desperate to know that by deconstructing the Christian faith, you end up deconstructing yourself...

during Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian, — jorndoe

And here you use the argument that the german masses that joined the Nazi party at the time, really knew and followed the true dogmas and morals that the party elite followed. This argument of yours is nothing more than historical revisionism that favors your tantrum against Christianity.

It is funny that all this discussion puted here is only possible thanks to christian values and development. You, with all your resentful arguments against Christianity, are living proof of what I affirm.

You propose a Christianity which doesnt t retain belief that it can prove its own truth. — Gregory

And here you are, questioning this very belief you believe to not be truthful. So go then and convert to Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, it doesn't matter what religion you'll follow. This secularism will too happen to it sometime in the future. History proves it.

For my part your insistence on religion is just bizarre, it displays uncritical allegiance to shallow platitudes that circulate through apologetic domains. — JerseyFlight

I practically projected to you how the real "intelectuals" of this forum noticed how meager your way of thinking and arguing is, and how your pseudophilosophy is nothing more than an ideological doctrine, and yet, here you are, continuing to expel words without any depth. I think that expecting you to realize that is asking too much from someone so mediocre ...

And here you are, questioning this very belief you believe to not be truhful. So go then and convert to Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, it doesn't matter what religion you'll follow. This secularism will too happen to it sometime in the future. History proves it. — Gus Lamarch

No I only realize that none of those religions are provable, so I believe whatever I want to believe (in the sense of "belief"). I don't contradict truth

in 1891 Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum novarum, which set in context Catholic social teaching in terms that rejected socialism but advocated the regulation of working conditions. Rerum Novarum argued for the establishment of a living wage and the right of workers to form trade unions." — Gus Lamarch

What about Leo X's decree against Luther? Are we to burn heretics to death like it suggests?