What is Christianity "designed to accomplish"?

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads someone commented on what Christianity was designed to accomplish.

1) Who decided?

2) What is accomplished (or intended)?

[ttruscott]

Good morning,

I'll speak to this one point:

...

If they cannot defend their position with credible evidence they deserve to not fare well. Because someone's evidence is weak to non-existent does NOT entitle them to demand that others accept their meager offerings of opinion, conjecture, testimonials and unverifiable tales as though they were proof of anything.

...

Credible and weak and non-existent are words that merely reflect someone's chosen pov as to how the usefulness of the evidence must be adjudicated, not in fact, proof of a lack of evidence or its falsity.

A lack of empirical evidence is not proof anecdotal evidence is false or mere conjecture. Such discounting of experiential claims is in the same realm of manipulating people's attitudes to discount all personal witness as used by pedophiles who constantly ridicule their victim's honesty and grip on reality to increase their own safety from exposure.

The Bible, the Gita, the Koran are evidence of....something. To try to measure the truth of the content by an empirical yardstick is profoundly foolish as spiritual content cannot be so measured. I like to compare it to using 'music to measuring elephants' for its jarring comedic effect. To use the lack of a proper measuring stick as proof there is nothing there to be measured is self serving at best as it defines your decision to put your faith in empiricism, while saying nothing about my faith in the spiritual.

The Christian rational claims those who do not believe do not because they are sinners while the empiricist claims those who do believe are irrational to believe deeply personal experiences are meaningful without proof they are anything more than imaginations or hallucinations. So be it. To pray to GOD is acceptable if quaint but to hear HIM reply is considered as a mental malfunction on a dangerous level while unbelief is seen as an ordinary acceptable personal choice rather than the cause of all the evil and suffering on earth.

Debate based upon empirical proof would seem to be a materialist's tool to try to prove to the spiritualist that he has left reality while the spiritualist claims it only proves the materialist's blindness to spiritual truths. Thus the tool itself, though trusted fully and implicitly by the materialist, is found wanting and untrustworthy by the spiritualist as completely inadequate to discover any truth about spiritual things at all.

And that is why I content myself to trying to answer the accusations that the Christian rational is internally irrational rather than trying to convince anyone that my experience is trustworthy...

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

If they cannot defend their position with credible evidence they deserve to not fare well. Because someone's evidence is weak to non-existent does NOT entitle them to demand that others accept their meager offerings of opinion, conjecture, testimonials and unverifiable tales as though they were proof of anything.

Credible and weak and non-existent are words that merely reflect someone's chosen pov as to how the usefulness of the evidence must be adjudicated, not in fact, proof of a lack of evidence or its falsity.

Agreed. Evidence is evaluated by those to whom it is presented.

In these debates my impression of "to whom it is presented" means THOSE WHO READ these threads even more than those who debate. Those readers evaluate the merits of what is presented as "evidence." I trust that many agree with me that personal opinions and testimonials are VERY weak forms of evidence and that unverifiable ancient tales / folklore / religious promotional literature are no better.

A lack of empirical evidence is not proof anecdotal evidence is false

That is correct. However, presence of anecdotal evidence is NOT assurance that it is true or accurate. Anyone can claim anything (anecdote) and perhaps convince those who are gullible (easily fooled or defrauded) and who do not investigate veracity of claims.

or mere conjecture

Note: Conjecture means (is defined as): "Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork – A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork"

Notice that "guesswork" indicates there is no assurance that the pronouncement is accurate.

Such discounting of experiential claims is in the same realm of manipulating people's attitudes to discount all personal witness as used by pedophiles who constantly ridicule their victim's honesty and grip on reality to increase their own safety from exposure.

To what "experiential claims" do you refer? Would that include such things as, "An angel came to me in a dream and assured me that my wife's pregnancy was a case of divine impregnation" (as Joseph was claimed to have believed)?

The Bible, the Gita, the Koran are evidence of....something.

Yes, evidence of SOMETHING – perhaps human tendency to believe tall tales without bothering to investigate whether they are true.

To try to measure the truth of the content by an empirical yardstick is profoundly foolish as spiritual content cannot be so measured.

How, then, does one determine which of the thousands or millions of spiritual tales to accept, which of the thousands of spiritual "gods" to worship?

I like to compare it to using 'music to measuring elephants' for its jarring comedic effect. To use the lack of a proper measuring stick as proof there is nothing there to be measured is self serving at best as it defines your decision to put your faith in empiricism, while saying nothing about my faith in the spiritual.

Your faith is your personal business that is not my responsibility to evaluate or comment upon. However, if you air your laundry in public, make claims of knowledge of supernatural entities and events, claim to know what is best for anyone other than yourself, I am likely to comment or challenge.

The Christian rational claims those who do not believe do not because they are sinners while the empiricist claims those who do believe are irrational to believe deeply personal experiences are meaningful without proof they are anything more than imaginations or hallucinations. So be it. To pray to GOD is acceptable if quaint but to hear HIM reply is considered as a mental malfunction on a dangerous level

Many claim to hear voices from various "gods" and "spirits." Some act upon those supposed voices in their head (including occasional criminal actions). Some of the most severe are institutionalized – others become preachers, religious spokesmen, televangelists, or fervent believers.

while unbelief is seen as an ordinary acceptable personal choice rather than the cause of all the evil and suffering on earth.

Do you intend to suggest and defend that unbelief in "gods" is the cause of all evil and suffering on Earth?

Debate based upon empirical proof would seem to be a materialist's tool

What alternative to empirical proof or verification / substantiation of claims would you suggest?

Those who dislike (or lack) empirical proof may be more comfortable in Holy Huddle, TD&D, or in church where "proof" can be bible quotations or emotional statements.

[bjs]

In one of the threads someone commented on what Christianity was designed to accomplish.

1) Who decided?

The founder of the religion.

2) What is accomplished (or intended)?

The wording is confusing here. Are you asking what Christianity was designed to accomplish, or are you asking if it has been accomplished?

If you are asking what Christianity was designed to accomplish then the answer is: Peace with God.

If you are asking if it was accomplished then that is a more difficult question to answer. Many Christians claim that they have peace with God, but how do we prove this true? We have the claims made by individuals about their own experiences. If you have a means of testing if someone else’s experiences are real then I am all ears. Lacking that, you can be believe that what someone else says about their own experiences are you can disbelieve what someone else says about their own experiences.

[myth-one.com]

.
In one of the threads someone commented on what Christianity was designed to accomplish.

1) Who decided?

God designed Christianity and decided its purpose.

2) What is accomplished (or intended)?

The purpose of Christianity is to spread the good news of the gospel to all the world:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

This command to the Christian Church is oftentimes called the "Great Commission."

=============================================================================

In fact, the gospel must be preached in the entire world before the end of this age, the age of man, can occur:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14)

And the gospel must first be published among all nations. (Mark 13:10)

But it will not be the Church which fulfills the Great Commission! Shortly before the second coming in Revelation, God has to send an angel to accomplish the task assigned to the Church:

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. (Revelation 14:6)

Part of this good news is not that most humans will suffer eternally in hellfire!

That would definitely not be good news.

Nonetheless, most Christian Churches believe and teach that everlasting torture is the wages of sin.

Consequently, most Christian churches do not even teach the true gospel!

And they can't teach what they do not know!

Thus they will fail -- as prophesied!

[RaiderGonzo]

.

Personally, I believe that what Christianity is to accomplish is to serve as witnesses of God, and represent His image in a Saintly manner to the world.

Is there evidence that Christianity actually represents God's image in a saintly manner?

Many Christians who post in these thread fail to convey the "saintly" aspect and often quite the opposite.

If an organization sets out to accomplish something but fails to do so, what does that convey about the organization or its cause?

Well personally I think that one misses the whole point when an organization is taken as the spokesperson for the true gospel. Christ never came to establish any organization, religious or otherwise; He came to proclaim the Kingdom of God. That Kingdom is not of this world, for it is a spiritual one; it thrives in one's heart and in one's mind. It is established, per say, in a physical world through the outpouring from the heart and mind into every day living.

As you have correctly stated, organizations fail to accomplish such a Kingdom, for they follow the same inner heart workings of this world.

As to the Saintly aspect, well, I'm sure most of us can agree that it isn't a pound on your chest and visual play on guilt that is displayed by many. The Saintly representation is described in scripture as to putting on Christ, in other words, to live as He did, filled with the things from above. All the truly respected qualities in a man, admired and recognized by all men of all times and of all true understanding. Without blame, and in true dedication for righteousness.

Surely you would say, what man can exhibit such exemplary behavior and discipline? Christ did, whether you believe the gospels or not, it is understood that that is the ultimate perfect example of a man living a correct life towards his fellow man, and that is the Saintly example that a Christian must live by.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well personally I think that one misses the whole point when an organization is taken as the spokesperson for the true gospel.

How does one learn about the "true gospel?"

The bible was produced by an organization and was translated / transcribed / edited / revised / changed / promoted by other organizations -- so it IS a reflection of the viewpoints of organizations.

All of the Old Testament reflects Jewish organizations and the New Testament reflects heavily the teachings of Paul/Saul and unidentified gospel writers more than those of Jesus.

So, where does one come by knowledge of the teachings of Jesus or God?

Surely you would say, what man can exhibit such exemplary behavior and discipline?

I would say that there have probably been thousands of men and women who have exhibited exemplary behavior and discipline.

Christ did, whether you believe the gospels or not, it is understood that that is the ultimate perfect example of a man living a correct life towards his fellow man, and that is the Saintly example that a Christian must live by.

Some claim that Jesus represented "the ultimate perfect example" -- not everyone agrees -- and some claim that Jesus was a god.

[RaiderGonzo]

.

Well personally I think that one misses the whole point when an organization is taken as the spokesperson for the true gospel.

How does one learn about the "true gospel?"

The bible was produced by an organization and was translated / transcribed / edited / revised / changed / promoted by other organizations -- so it IS a reflection of the viewpoints of organizations.

All of the Old Testament reflects Jewish organizations and the New Testament reflects heavily the teachings of Paul/Saul and unidentified gospel writers more than those of Jesus.

So, where does one come by knowledge of the teachings of Jesus or God?

Surely you would say, what man can exhibit such exemplary behavior and discipline?

I would say that there have probably been thousands of men and women who have exhibited exemplary behavior and discipline.

Christ did, whether you believe the gospels or not, it is understood that that is the ultimate perfect example of a man living a correct life towards his fellow man, and that is the Saintly example that a Christian must live by.

Some claim that Jesus represented "the ultimate perfect example" -- not everyone agrees -- and some claim that Jesus was a god.

By hearing the Word, faith comes., the Word of God is the good news of the gospel., you are drawn to His gospel because it is written for you., it is not a secret text that no one cannot master, for it is a gospel of good news., all it takes is for you to stop being hostile to its message and read., let the Good Spirit do the rest in your heart and mind., it's not that hard., not unless you're afraid to come to the light which may expose the innermost side of you.

[OnceConvinced]

By hearing the Word, faith comes., the Word of God is the good news of the gospel., you are drawn to His gospel because it is written for you.,

I can speak as one who was a committed Christian, in a relationship with Jesus for over 30 years of my life. Never doubted God at all until near the end. The faith I had was strong for around 30 years, but ultimately I lost that faith as I began to realize certain truths.

it is not a secret text that no one cannot master, .,

There are many Christians who believe it is a secret text and that you need a certain decoder known as the "holy spirit" to understand it. I personally disagree. I say it's all about perspective. If you look at it from specific perspectives you get different messages.

for it is a gospel of good news

I used to believe it was good news but now I see it as very bad news. An innocent man died a horrible torturous death for my atrocities and the atrocities of billions of others. The fact it was a human sacrifice makes it even worse news. Good news? No way. Nobody innocent should ever die for the atrocities of someone else, even if they volunteered.

all it takes is for you to stop being hostile to its message and read.,

I for one was welcoming of the bible for many years of my life, believing it to be the infallible word of God. I read it through twice throughout those years as well as reading and studying numerous passages many many times. In the end it lead me to Atheism as it does for most who truly study the Bible properly.

let the Good Spirit do the rest in your heart and mind., it's not that hard.

Many Christians on this website have told me that I was never a true Christian so I was never truly in God or the holy spirit. If 30 plus years of dedicated Christianity was not enough for someone as open as I was to Jesus, to become a true Christian, full of the holy spirit then it's it clearly not as easy as Christians like to make out.

, not unless you're afraid to come to the light which may expose the innermost side of you.

For someone to be afraid of something they first have to believe it's real.

BTW Raider, welcome to the site. You seem like a nice guy. Good to have some more Christians to debate with.

[RaiderGonzo]

Gracias for the Welcome Once(Saved)Convinced

hey, how 'bout them Raiders? LOL

RAIDER NATION 4 LIFE!

Christ Lives in You my brother

[Zzyzx]

.
Hmmm . . . Once Convinced beat me to a lot of this but I'll say it anyway. He is a very credible source and a very civil, considerate, and capable debater. Christians would do well to think deeply about what he says.

By hearing the Word, faith comes.,

From whom does one "hear the word?"

I am not inclined to hear voices in my head, to have visions or hallucinations, to dream about gods, or to listen to preachers (or anyone who cannot demonstrate that they have verifiable knowledge of supernatural entities).

Also, I don't watch television so I can't hear the word from televangelists. So where?

the Word of God is the good news of the gospel., you are drawn to His gospel because it is written for you.,

I have read the gospels and find them totally UN-convincing. They seem like warmed over folklore and legends written by people who were not very wise or very well informed about the world we inhabit. They seem to think that animals converse with humans, that many dead bodies come back to life after days (or longer) in the grave, that virgins are impregnated by spirits, that people walk on water, that storms are calmed on command, that water magically turns into wine, that the Earth stopped rotating so favored people could slaughter others, etc.

it is not a secret text that no one cannot master, for it is a gospel of good news., all it takes is for you to stop being hostile to its message and read.,

Many who debate here were once fervent believers who were not at all hostile to the gospels, but eventually they decided that they were NOT holy, inspired, word of god, or even truthful.

let the Good Spirit do the rest in your heart and mind., it's not that hard.,

Perhaps if one needs external guidance, life direction, decision making, hope, etc the "good spirit" can be envisioned as helping them. Is there any way to determine if what they "experience" is anything other than their own mind and imagination?

not unless you're afraid to come to the light which may expose the innermost side of you.

After seventy-five years living in this skin, I am well aware of the "innermost side" of me – the good, the bad, and the neutral.

Many spiritualists of all ilk have claimed that they offered "enlightenment" but can show no evidence that they speak truth. "Take my word for it" doesn't impress or convince me at all. "Read the bible" is gross ignorance because I HAVE read the bible and have decided that there are far better sources of inspiration and information – far better morals and ethics elsewhere (including my own).