except Steve. Fuck that guy

We know a song about that.

BTW, to answer the OP's question (still I don't see it as relevant), I believe that if a Christian were to convince himself/herself that Chrsitianity is false, then he/she would most likely either (1) choose another religion or become a 'secular Christian', i.e. a non-believer that still follows some ethical teachings and sees the techaings as meaningful. Of course, others might reject completely.

I'm so glad you asked me, because not many people know this. He didn't just carry his cross up the hill, when he got to the top, he was nailed there to it and left until dead — unenlightened

To be fair, that's how Saint Paul himself apparently read the story and he believed that one should follow Jesus' example, at least as he seems to say in the letter to the Philippians (source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202&version=NIV, emphasis mine):

Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Thanks. I wouldn't call myself a Christian, but I appreciate the story, and hate it when people wilfully distort the meaning or claim the copyright on interpretation. We are surely all God's people, and none are excluded - that's the story. — unenlightened

This is also correct if one takes literally this passage, for instance (source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202&version=NIV):

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

The difficulty for followers though is that he did it for others, whereas followers tend to do it for their own salvation, to the extent that they make any sacrifice at all. — unenlightened

But isn't it the case that many people, even most, sacrifice every day for others - even some at crucifixion level intensity?

And now a question: in various places in the NT it says Jesus died for our sins. Where before that does it say that he would die for our sins?

I believe that if a Christian were to convince himself/herself that Chrsitianity is false, then he/she would most likely either (1) choose another religion or become a 'secular Christian', i.e. a non-believer that still follows some ethical teachings and sees the techaings as meaningful. Of course, others might reject completely. — boundless

I used to be a Catholic. In some contorted ways, I probably still am. I do not believe that "Christianity is false". Christianity is just not good at defending itself. Everybody and their little sister can insult the religion and nobody cares. Well, in that case, I don't care either.

My "thesis," to use your term, is that the Creed starts with the words, "We believe...." As such, I'm satisfied it's not just a throw-away line at the beginning of a prayer, but instead a much thought out and carefully weighed expression of how they thought Christians ought to profess their - their what? - their faith. Nor would I call this a "thesis," it is a fact.

You, it appears, want to know either before or at the moment of belief, which turns their thought backwards. Theirs was believe so that you may understand - they were pretty careful in statements about knowledge, that being got, if at all, in the next life. And they were at times harsh with those who claimed knowledge. Thus those claiming knowledge, or that God is real, may and can call themselves Christians, but theirs a personal, likely heretical, practice outside the bounds of correct practice.

But isn't it the case that many people, even most, sacrifice every day for others - even some at crucifixion level intensity? — tim wood

That's a lovely thought, and I do not want to deny it. Then yes, as our current pope said to a small boy who was afraid that his unbelieving dead father was in hell, there are many Christians, and many of the best of them do not know it of themselves. But God sees our heart. Well he didn't say that, but he gave comfort to the child in that sort of vein.

I used to be a Catholic. In some contorted ways, I probably still am. I do not believe that "Christianity is false". Christianity is just not good at defending itself. Everybody and their little sister can insult the religion and nobody cares. Well, in that case, I don't care either. — Tarskian

Yeah, so much better, are religions that encourage homicide when members get all offended. :roll:

No. I wasn't making any such argument. I was just pointing out what is easily recognized with sufficient knowledge of history. — wonderer1

So you were just pointing something out for no reason and with no point or purpose or argument? This is highly unlikely.

My "thesis," to use your term, is that the Creed starts with the words, "We believe...." As such, I'm satisfied it's not just a throw-away line at the beginning of a prayer, but instead a much thought out and carefully weighed expression of how they thought Christians ought to profess their - their what? - their faith. Nor would I call this a "thesis," it is a fact. — tim wood

No, your thesis is that Christians who believe in God's existence do not necessarily affirm that it is true that God exists. Given that you aren't honest enough to admit this after so many posts, I think we can be done. I don't like talking to folk who rely on evasion, equivocation, and ambiguity to avoid engaging in real philosophy.

It's not an argument indeed. It is a piece of history; the plain fact of the matter is that the term "Christian" has always been disputed from its inception and such identity labels nearly always are disputed. — unenlightened

"The term 'Christian' has often been disputed; therefore it is not possible or permissible to exclude the LDS from Christianity."

That's an argument, but it's not a good one.

Thanks. I wouldn't call myself a Christian, but I appreciate the story, and hate it when people wilfully distort the meaning or claim the copyright on interpretation. We are surely all God's people, and none are excluded - that's the story. — unenlightened

Your last sentence seems to represent a copyrighted interpretation, no?

We know a song about that. — unenlightened

I'm glad you mentioned this, and Dylan's version is also highly appropriate. Why were Jesus and Stephen killed? Because two versions of the story collided and neither party was willing to budge. Both sides refused the relativism which claims that it's all for naught and there are no right answers. Dylan sees the wisdom and inevitability in this.

That's an argument, but it's not a good one. — Leontiskos

Then don't make that argument, and don't accuse me of making it.

Your last sentence seems to represent a copyrighted interpretation, no? — Leontiskos

No I am reciting a creed, not The creed. We can discuss, as long as you do not have exclusive rights to the truth.

Then don't make that argument, and don't accuse me of making it. — unenlightened

So then what were you doing with it? Is this supposed to be another example of saying something with no rhyme or reason?

No I am reciting a creed, not The creed. We can discuss, as long as you do not have exclusive rights to the truth. — unenlightened

Everyone who holds things believes they are true, and if "Christianity" is to mean anything at all then it must exclude some stories. The level of inclusivity that many desire is simply not compatible with sensible speech. Not everyone who claims to be a thing is necessarily that thing, on pain of absurdity.

Everyone who holds things believes they are true, and if "Christianity" is to mean anything at all then it must exclude some stories. The level of inclusivity that many desire is simply not compatible with sensible speech. — Leontiskos

And I hold that Christianity purports to be an universal religion. What it excludes is hatred, Some folks have not heard the Good News, others have not Yet accepted it, but none are excluded.

No. I wasn't making any such argument. I was just pointing out what is easily recognized with sufficient knowledge of history.
— wonderer1

So you were just pointing something out for no reason and with no point or purpose or argument? This is highly unlikely. — Leontiskos

Sometimes I post things in hopes of recognition occurring. Suppose we take Christianity specifically out of the picture.

Do you see a downside to divisiveness in religions? For example, dividing people into Brahman/Dalit or Muslim/dhimmi?

Is "sheep" vs "goats" any less divisive?

Do you see a downside to divisiveness in religions? For example, dividing people into Brahman/Dalit or Muslim/dhimmi?

Is "sheep" vs "goats" any less divisive? — wonderer1

Do you truly not recognize that you are making an argument here? That you are attempting to get the interlocutor to infer a conclusion?

And I hold that Christianity purports to be an universal religion. What it excludes is hatred, Some folks have not heard the Good News, others have not Yet accepted it, but none are excluded. — unenlightened

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? The Christian who says that a Mormon is not a Christian is not saying that the person is excluded from abandoning Mormonism and accepting Christianity. It would be incorrect to say that because some people are not Christians therefore they are excluded from ever becoming Christian. The first step in becoming a Christian is recognizing you are not a Christian. This holds for anything, not just Christianity.

Again, I see a lot of non sequitur in relation to this question of whether Mormons are Christians, and the force is coming from pluralistic culture rather than from any special Christian premise.

Do you truly not recognize that you are making an argument here? That you are attempting to get the interlocutor to infer a conclusion? — Leontiskos

I see it more as sowing seeds.

Matthew 13:

3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

I have some experience with seeding paradigm shifts in the minds of Christians. I'm happy with doing what I find works for me, and pretty unconcerned with you getting it for now.

I see it more as sowing seeds. — wonderer1

Sowing seeds has an inferential purpose.

If someone claims that they have said something on a philosophy forum for no reason at all, I would suggest that they simply lack self-knowledge. Folks hereabout keep mentioning that Christians are disputatious, and I assure you that it is not for no reason at all. They do it because they think it proves a point. It's only when one points out that the putative point is fallacious that they fall back on the idea that they made the statement for no reason at all. But that's icing on the cake in a thread like this.

My "thesis," to use your term, is.... — tim wood

No, your thesis is.... — Leontiskos

It's too bad you're not at least a little bit familiar with Christian thinkers and Christian thought across almost one thousand years. You might then have a grasp of the distinction between a belief and affirming a fact, a distinction they found important and which they wrestled with. And which lack apparently makes my posts unintelligible to you, which thus dismissing, and telling me what I'm saying, leaves you talking to yourself - and I can understand that you would find that unpleasant and a waste of time.

Sowing seeds has an inferential purpose. — Leontiskos

To think that an inferential purpose is the only psychologically pertinent purpose for sewing seeds is psychologically naive. Although I'll certainly grant that it is common to think that way when one is accustomed to think in the folk psychology terms promoted by a religion. I have faith in your ability to develop a more psychologically informed view though. I recommend reading Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

If someone claims that they have said something on a philosophy forum for no reason at all, I would suggest that they simply lack self-knowledge. — Leontiskos

Of course I didn't say what I said for no reason at all. I just don't think you are in a position to understand my reason, in light of your lack of recognition of the role of your subconscious in your thinking. Also, I don't expect such a lack of self-knowledge on your part to make much difference to the results of your subconscious considering whether Christianity is divisive and in a socially destructive way. (Of course I'm inclined to experimentation and open to seeing how the results of this experiment go.)

Folks hereabout keep mentioning that Christians are disputatious, and I assure you that it is not for no reason at all. They do it because they think it proves a point. It's only when one points out that the putative point is fallacious that they fall back on the idea that they made the statement for no reason at all. But that's icing on the cake in a thread like this. — Leontiskos

Your uses of "they" are ambiguous, and I'm not seeing any clear connection to discussions I have read on the forum. So if you want a response to this, I'll need clarification.

Although I'll certainly grant that it is common to think that way when one is accustomed to think in the folk psychology terms promoted by a religion. I have faith in your ability to develop a more psychologically informed view though. — wonderer1

I suppose I would pay your attempted insults more mind if I thought you had any pull or intelligence. Self-knowledge is at an all-time low, here. In fairness, I am making the assumption that you are not the 13 year-old you act like. If you are then your IQ rises considerably.

I suppose I would pay your attempted insults more mind if I thought you had any pull or intelligence. Self-knowledge is at an all-time low, here. — Leontiskos

I guess we'll see.

Christianity is just not good at defending itself. Everybody and their little sister can insult the religion and nobody cares. Well, in that case, I don't care either. — Tarskian

What do you mean by 'defending itself'?? How should religious people defend their religion?

IMO the best 'defence' may be to give an 'exemplary' life. I mean probably the best way for christians to defend their religion would be to lead a loving life and a life of service, i.e. 'carrying the cross' or 'having the mindset of Christ Jesus' as said in the quote in the post above.

Certainly, the fact that, say, historically people have used to make 'forced conversions' and has been imposed violenty probably is also a major motive of the modern crisis of the religion.
Also, in the Gospel of John we read (18:36, NIV):

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Also, 'consorship', instead of say, trying to make a philosophical defence against oppoents, has been a disastrous way of 'defending themselves'.

What do you mean by 'defending itself'?? How should religious people defend their religion? — boundless

I would say that because Christianity is unfashionable at the moment, anyone can make terribly fallacious arguments against Christianity or Christians and no one bothers to correct them. The thinking is something like, "Yeah, these arguments are garbage, but we know Christianity is false or unimportant anyway, so who cares?"

I would say that because Christianity is unfashionable at the moment, anyone can make terribly fallacious arguments against Christianity or Christians and no one bothers to correct them. The thinking is something like, "Yeah, these arguments are garbage, but we know Christianity is false or unimportant anyway, so who cares?" — Leontiskos

Well, yes, there's also that but not only that. And also it is perfectly understandable if christians do not make a philosophical apology for those arguments.

but we know Christianity is false — Leontiskos

Just for the heck of it, what (do you say), exactly, about Christianity is true? And just to be clear, I haven't seen evidence in your posts that you understand the question. But you can start by being careful with what "true" means to a Christian in terms of his Christian faith, and just how that truth works, and why - who knows, you may surprise!

Looking over the vast range of what "Christianity" has come to mean for different persons over centuries of life, the common insistence amongst the different groups that only one way is correct has become more 'universal' than any particular set of creeds, liturgy, or view of the world reflected in each iteration. — Paine

It seems that many here are under the mistaken impression that Christianity is and always was monolithic. The Church Fathers were were perhaps the first to change what was a pluralistic movement into a unified Church with "official doctrines and practices. They never did quite succeed.

Early on it was believed that Jesus was a messianic rabbi, a son of God, not "The Son". Under pagan influence the Hebrew בן (bên) came to take on different meanings. The First Council of Nicaea attempted to settle the dispute over the nature or ontological status of Jesus. The controversy has never been resolved, but the majority of bishops backed by the emperor Constantine accepted the position that Jesus is homoousios, the same in essence as God. "Full God". Christians were and some still at divided on this question. Others believe that Jesus was deified, something others are also capable of becoming. Still others believe he was "just a man", but not just any man. And here we find various stories within Christianity of this man and his significance.

:up: :up:

I put you on ignore for reasons that have been made manifest, but I can write another post. My response will help show why you are on ignore.

It seems you think that God's existence cannot be proved, and therefore it cannot be affirmed. So then you look at Christians who say they believe in God and you conclude, "Ah, they can't be affirming that God exists, so they must be believing in God without affirming God's existence." You think that in doing this you are taking up a very intelligent and benevolent position, and you disdain the peons who say that Christians affirm the existence of God. It goes without saying that you can't find a source to support your position for the life of you, and of course anyone with two brains cells to rub together knows that Christians (and all theists) affirm the existence of God. Be that as it may, you continue to pat yourself on the back and evade every inquiry into the substance of your strange position. You may have even read a theological text or two and confused yourself further by reading your stupid theory into the text.

When your position is scrutinized, instead of giving a transparent answer you evade and pivot to the standard variety of atheist apologetics, "Well then you must be able to prove that God exists, so do it!" You would turn a thread on Christian alternatives into a thread on proofs for the existence of God, just like all the banal atheists roaming the internet. Of course there are serious inquirers into the existence of God, but you don't seem to be one of them, and this thread is not about that topic. "I can't prove God's existence, therefore Christians don't affirm God's existence," is a deeply impoverished argument.

The notion that you think your stupid position makes you sophisticated is curious. It is like the fellow who thinks he is sophisticated because he refuses to admit that 2+2=4, and everyone who wants to do geometry or algebra or calculus just ignores his raving and goes about their business. Or like I said earlier, it is like the flat-Earther. You are of course free to start a thread about your stupid idea. Call it, "Do Christians really think God exists?" I don't think it will fool even the theologically illiterate users within this thread, and I certainly have no interest in arguing with flat-Earthers, but you can carry on in that way if you like.