Christianity

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil, it's a fancy way of telling you to shut up if you don't have anything worthwhile to say. I was even so kind as to remind you that your conduct had been improving up until that last post.

[Imadrongo]

Pincho,

And it is the fact that christians do not really question Christianity that makes them different.

This is not a criticism of Christianity, but of idiocy. Separate the two in the future.

Yes. We need to post this on the gateway along with your reformed definitions of genius, wisdom, male, female, etc.

Christianity now refers to Trevor Salyzyn's philosophy. What the rest of the world calls Christianity will now be called "idiocy"!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil, I am not Christian in any way. I have already told you a name you could use to describe my philosophy, but you conveniently ignored it.

My defense of Christianity -- a religion of which I am not a member -- could be interpreted as an attack on knee-jerk atheists, which is probably why it offends you so much.

[Pincho Paxton]

This is not a criticism of Christianity, but of idiocy. Separate the two in the future.

Well, have you ever questioned the building of an ark that can contain two of all animals on Earth? What solution did you come up with? Does the solution make sense? Did the animals arrive from Africa? How did they get to the Ark? Or was it just Goats, and sheep? Why were they taken to seperate countries after the flood? Do you even care if there is no answer? Is it faith that makes you not care? would you have the same faith for a big whale in space? Why not, is it different to a big ark?

You see, you do not really question Christianity. You just use a single word to cover your back... FAITH.

And Faith works with anything that I wish to tell you when you are first born.

[Pincho Paxton]

My defense of Christianity -- a religion of which I am not a member -- could be interpreted as an attack on knee-jerk atheists, which is probably why it offends you so much.

If you are not a member, then you do not believe it yourself! So why defend something that you do not believe? Now I am totally puzzled...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Pincho, my defense of Christianity in this thread has focused primarily on St. Augustine, and if you had read my defense of him, you would see that I fully understand and appreciate the fact that Christianity deceives people.

There are two reasons that I defend Christianity:
1) I believe that some people are such poor thinkers that a pleasing lie can often help non-thinkers behave morally (in the same way that a Disney movie helps children behave well).
2) I believe that knee-jerk atheists behave poorly by not studying Christianity. They should not take the word of rednecks and fundamentalists as to what Christianity is about, but rather should focus their attention on Kiekegaard, Augustine, Aquinas, and other such prominent theologians and philosophers.

However, since Christianity is founded on deception and I personally value truth, I cannot be a Christian, as much as I can defend it.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,
So it is okay to believe a lie as long as it makes one moral? Would it be bad to believe the truth if it made one immoral? What I realize, though you will deny it, is that the only reason you believe in your truth is for your comfort in the same way that this is true with the average Christian (standard definition of the term). Thus I say that truth is no end in itself for us, only a means to utility. And believing otherwise is just a means to utility also.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

It's alright for someone else to believe a lie, if a) they are not interested in the truth, and b) they are going to behave reprehensibly without believing the lie. Christianity was an attack against a far worse state of affairs, and it won. Anyone who is not interested in truth deserves to be a Christian. There is nothing better for them. Marriage, Church, and excrutiatingly unpleasant hard-work toward the collective good: that is their fate.

If you are going to reject both truth and Christianity, you are worse than a Christian. Unthinking, knee-jerk atheists are hedonists and assholes. I have nothing pleasant to describe that group.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

It's alright for someone else to believe a lie, if a) they are not interested in the truth, and b) they are going to behave reprehensibly without believing the lie.

In other words, both truth and lies are means to your end -- morality, non-suffering, peace, etc. Truth is not an end in itself, simply a means. Thank you for finally agreeing with me on this.

If you are going to reject both truth and Christianity, you are worse than a Christian. Unthinking, knee-jerk atheists are hedonists and assholes. I have nothing pleasant to describe that group.

Just as the Christian despises all those who have fun in life, who can laugh and not take things too seriously, so do you. You are really closer to them than you think. The only difference is that you say they deny truth but that is okay because they are moral while they say you deny truth but that is okay because you are moral. Both of you value morality above all, and both of you have no problem lying to yourselves (though you both believe you have the truth and everyone else wrong) to this end.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil, you fail to recognize that I have already said that truth is a necessary value, not the primary one.

However, I could say that Christianity is punishment for not caring about truth.

There is a reason that those who do not care about truth are punished with Christianity: because they are hedonists and assholes. Oftentimes, they are also murderers. Those who value truth above all else do not require any motive to protect other people -- they do not need a second value -- because these values already are implied with the method of transmitting truth.

Christianity is a fall-back. It's where I would throw a lazy, unthinking, asshole so that he never can do any damage to truth.

[Kitoak]

Kit: I don't need to be a Christian to make an argument about Christianity. As well, the definition of Christianity is by no means clear (I have seen Christians argue that Jesus is not the son of God, so your definition is not true), and unfounded attacks against the religion are common -- particularly among otherwise intelligent people. These are facts you are ignoring.

Debating whether or not these attacks are fair and justified is a perfectly valid train of thought. Relating it to arguments about capital punishment only makes this claim more relevant: there is a significant moral issue at stake that affects the lives of many people. The worth of Christianity, like the worth of capital punishment, should be discussed -- dismissing it as "all your own point of view" is laziness. It is not insight. Moral discussions are always about points of view, but that is not sufficient reason to avoid discussions of morality.

Trevor,

Kit: I don't need to be a Christian to make an argument about Christianity. As well, the definition of Christianity is by no means clear (I have seen Christians argue that Jesus is not the son of God, so your definition is not true), and unfounded attacks against the religion are common -- particularly among otherwise intelligent people. These are facts you are ignoring.

But to make an honest arguement and unbias statement about christianity, you do either need to do it based on the doctrine or particular actions. If its based on actions, those actions can only be limited to those christians you have met, and not all christians have study the doctrine in which their relgion is based on. Now lets take the term Christianity, is based on the believe that Jesus is Christ, the savior, the son of God. Not one Christian doctrine doesn't have this. IF so please quote the religion and doctrine you are refering to, I would be most willing to take a look, as I've studied and have degree in Theology. So my premsis is not with out basis as you so claim. Last, there have not been any facts stated with evidence to support them, so my point was that facts were being left out, and only based on bias and point of view, (point of view, being individulal experinces that people then draw assumptions without all the facts behind them), not that it isn't something to discuss, but an arguement of these kinds can render no set conclusion unless both points of view are reviewed (i.e. both sides just like a court room). I also don't believe I ever stated that these arguements were common or not, or that it mattered if they were common or not, but the basis these take place loose all foundation, and that a foundation for the arguement should first be presented, and not based on bias assumptions by people who never read the doctrines by hind those religions, because it doesn't make for an intelligent converstation, only thing that will occur is trolls stirring up half truths.

Debating whether or not these attacks are fair and justified is a perfectly valid train of thought. Relating it to arguments about capital punishment only makes this claim more relevant: there is a significant moral issue at stake that affects the lives of many people. The worth of Christianity, like the worth of capital punishment, should be discussed -- dismissing it as "all your own point of view" is laziness. It is not insight. Moral discussions are always about points of view, but that is not sufficient reason to avoid discussions of morality.

I never said it wasn't a valid train of thought only the path going there was not proper founded for a complete view of the arguement. Had I been truly lazy, I wouldn't have replied, and seems like you just dismissed the claim and not even review your train of thought.

Had you looked a little closely you would have found the answer in my post. That is, arguements, attackes, and name calling, can't serve a purpose unless, a proper foundations of what issues has been established. So for example if someone calls me a name because I'm a christian, or a devil worshipper, my first question is why, and what reason do they have for the attack, what paradigians are the basis for the dislike or attack. IF someone does it just because?!?!? its unfair, bias and isn't worthy of anyones time, and the person not answering sees it for what it is, and isn't lasy or ignoring facts.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Excellent, Kit. You're a theologian. Precisely what I was looking for; there's only so long a non-Christian can defend what he views as a reprehensible doctrine against something he views as even more reprehensible (in this case, the reflex-atheism of postmodernists). My own knowledge of Christianity only goes so far.

What, in your view, recommends Christianity as a doctrine?