Impossible to argue with christianity

[Joab]

How can we argue with something that doesn't exist.

There is no CHRISTIANITY, there are thousands.

Christians can't even agree on which god they worship.

The gunfire comes from all points of the theological compass, If they can't agree on what christianity is how are we meant to argue against them. They argue with themselves. Sheesh

Is it possible for any christian to argue for christianity without contradicting christianity?

[alive]

How can we argue with something that doesn't exist.

There is no CHRISTIANITY, there are thousands.

Christians can't even agree on which god they worship.

The gunfire comes from all points of the theological compass, If they can't agree on what christianity is how are we meant to argue against them. They argue with themselves. Sheesh

Is it possible for any christian to argue for christianity without contradicting christianity?

Leave them alone... The entertainment value alone is priceless...

[Divine Insight]

When you stop and think about it, the act of arguing for Christianity is actually quite absurd.

If there truly did exist a God who wanted us to make a personal choice to believe in Christianity, then there would be absolutely no point in arguing with anyone about their belief or non-believer. Because to do so would be to doubt the God.

In other words, if there is a God who has created a system of justice where non-believers are cast into hell, AND this God is righteous, just and perfect, then no one could possibly be cast into hell who doesn't deserve it.

Therefore to try to evangelize someone or convince them of Christianity is actually to interfere with God's justice system. Evangelism would be nothing more than a gross display of distrust in God. Distrust of God's system of justice.

If I actually believed in the religion I wouldn't so much as tell anyone about it. Why should I? It's God's system of justice. No one can go to hell who doesn't deserve it, and everyone who should be "saved" would certainly be saved.

My attempt to even try to convince anyone one way or the other would be nothing short of an attempt to effect the outcome of a judgement on a particular person.

And that would imply that my actions could either save or condemn someone who wouldn't otherwise have been saved or condemned.

But that would totally VIOLATE the idea that God had already had a fail-safe system of justice in place already.

So Christianity cannot be true as taught anyway, unless the God of Christianity is totally untrustworthy to save the righteous and condemn the evil without my help.

[Joab]

When you stop and think about it, the act of arguing for Christianity is actually quite absurd.

If there truly did exist a God who wanted us to make a personal choice to believe in Christianity, then there would be absolutely no point in arguing with anyone about their belief or non-believer. Because to do so would be to doubt the God.

In other words, if there is a God who has created a system of justice where non-believers are cast into hell, AND this God is righteous, just and perfect, then no one could possibly be cast into hell who doesn't deserve it.

Therefore to try to evangelize someone or convince them of Christianity is actually to interfere with God's justice system. Evangelism would be nothing more than a gross display of distrust in God. Distrust of God's system of justice.

If I actually believed in the religion I wouldn't so much as tell anyone about it. Why should I? It's God's system of justice. No one can go to hell who doesn't deserve it, and everyone who should be "saved" would certainly be saved.

My attempt to even try to convince anyone one way or the other would be nothing short of an attempt to effect the outcome of a judgement on a particular person.

And that would imply that my actions could either save or condemn someone who wouldn't otherwise have been saved or condemned.

But that would totally VIOLATE the idea that God had already had a fail-safe system of justice in place already.

So Christianity cannot be true as taught anyway, unless the God of Christianity is totally untrustworthy to save the righteous and condemn the evil without my help.

It may seem to some that at least a few of his followers don't actually trust god to get the job done, well judging by their behaviour at least.

I mean apparently god can't keep homosexuals out of 99's church without the unfailing support of 99, according to how I read his sermons.

Have I got that right 99?

[KCKID]

When you stop and think about it, the act of arguing for Christianity is actually quite absurd.

If there truly did exist a God who wanted us to make a personal choice to believe in Christianity, then there would be absolutely no point in arguing with anyone about their belief or non-believer. Because to do so would be to doubt the God.

In other words, if there is a God who has created a system of justice where non-believers are cast into hell, AND this God is righteous, just and perfect, then no one could possibly be cast into hell who doesn't deserve it.

Therefore to try to evangelize someone or convince them of Christianity is actually to interfere with God's justice system. Evangelism would be nothing more than a gross display of distrust in God. Distrust of God's system of justice.

If I actually believed in the religion I wouldn't so much as tell anyone about it. Why should I? It's God's system of justice. No one can go to hell who doesn't deserve it, and everyone who should be "saved" would certainly be saved.

My attempt to even try to convince anyone one way or the other would be nothing short of an attempt to effect the outcome of a judgement on a particular person.

And that would imply that my actions could either save or condemn someone who wouldn't otherwise have been saved or condemned.

But that would totally VIOLATE the idea that God had already had a fail-safe system of justice in place already.

So Christianity cannot be true as taught anyway, unless the God of Christianity is totally untrustworthy to save the righteous and condemn the evil without my help.

It may seem to some that at least a few of his followers don't actually trust god to get the job done, well judging by their behaviour at least.

I mean apparently god can't keep homosexuals out of 99's church without the unfailing support of 99, according to how I read his sermons.

Have I got that right 99?

It would appear that you've got it right. Good point. God appears to be most dependent on the loyalty of His flock to do the work for Him. Which might raise the question in the minds of some, what exactly DOES God do?

[Wootah]

When you stop and think about it, the act of arguing for Christianity is actually quite absurd.

If there truly did exist a God who wanted us to make a personal choice to believe in Christianity, then there would be absolutely no point in arguing with anyone about their belief or non-believer. Because to do so would be to doubt the God.

In other words, if there is a God who has created a system of justice where non-believers are cast into hell, AND this God is righteous, just and perfect, then no one could possibly be cast into hell who doesn't deserve it.

Therefore to try to evangelize someone or convince them of Christianity is actually to interfere with God's justice system. Evangelism would be nothing more than a gross display of distrust in God. Distrust of God's system of justice.

If I actually believed in the religion I wouldn't so much as tell anyone about it. Why should I? It's God's system of justice. No one can go to hell who doesn't deserve it, and everyone who should be "saved" would certainly be saved.

My attempt to even try to convince anyone one way or the other would be nothing short of an attempt to effect the outcome of a judgement on a particular person.

And that would imply that my actions could either save or condemn someone who wouldn't otherwise have been saved or condemned.

But that would totally VIOLATE the idea that God had already had a fail-safe system of justice in place already.

So Christianity cannot be true as taught anyway, unless the God of Christianity is totally untrustworthy to save the righteous and condemn the evil without my help.

It may seem to some that at least a few of his followers don't actually trust god to get the job done, well judging by their behaviour at least.

I mean apparently god can't keep homosexuals out of 99's church without the unfailing support of 99, according to how I read his sermons.

Have I got that right 99?

Moderator Final Warning
Hi Joab,

It is entirely uncivil and not the way of DC&R to refer to other posters, especially who have nothing to do with the thread.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Joab]

When you stop and think about it, the act of arguing for Christianity is actually quite absurd.

If there truly did exist a God who wanted us to make a personal choice to believe in Christianity, then there would be absolutely no point in arguing with anyone about their belief or non-believer. Because to do so would be to doubt the God.

In other words, if there is a God who has created a system of justice where non-believers are cast into hell, AND this God is righteous, just and perfect, then no one could possibly be cast into hell who doesn't deserve it.

Therefore to try to evangelize someone or convince them of Christianity is actually to interfere with God's justice system. Evangelism would be nothing more than a gross display of distrust in God. Distrust of God's system of justice.

If I actually believed in the religion I wouldn't so much as tell anyone about it. Why should I? It's God's system of justice. No one can go to hell who doesn't deserve it, and everyone who should be "saved" would certainly be saved.

My attempt to even try to convince anyone one way or the other would be nothing short of an attempt to effect the outcome of a judgement on a particular person.

And that would imply that my actions could either save or condemn someone who wouldn't otherwise have been saved or condemned.

But that would totally VIOLATE the idea that God had already had a fail-safe system of justice in place already.

So Christianity cannot be true as taught anyway, unless the God of Christianity is totally untrustworthy to save the righteous and condemn the evil without my help.

It may seem to some that at least a few of his followers don't actually trust god to get the job done, well judging by their behaviour at least.

I mean apparently god can't keep homosexuals out of 99's church without the unfailing support of 99, according to how I read his sermons.

Have I got that right 99?

It would appear that you've got it right. Good point. God appears to be most dependent on the loyalty of His flock to do the work for Him. Which might raise the question in the minds of some, what exactly DOES God do?

Yeah Kid I guess you noticed that I was only using he who cannot be named as an example of the point both DI and I were making.

The point is, for those who may have missed it, that the christian god seems incapable of defending his religion. Much more than that he seems incapable of unifying his faithful.

So disregarding rudeness let's return to the OP question.

Can any christian argue for christianity without contradicting christianity.

[Moses Yoder]

If I were an atheist I would focus on arguing against the Bible. For instance, where it says that Jesus said "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you" I would really put all of my energy into showing why that is evil.

[Joab]

If I were an atheist I would focus on arguing against the Bible. For instance, where it says that Jesus said "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you" I would really put all of my energy into showing why that is evil.

I'm content with the question I have posed. Thanks anyway.

No offense or incivility meant.

[Jax Agnesson]

How can we argue with something that doesn't exist?

Why would anyone want to argue against something that doesn't exist?

If they can't agree on what christianity is how are we meant to argue against them?

By what law are we 'meant to argue against them'?
If someone specific says something specific that you disagree with, then you have a basis for argument.
Person A says a talking snake told an innocent girl to eat an apple, and an angry god punished all womankind from then on to have agony in childbirth.
I may say I doubt that.
Person B says the message of God's love is the main thing, and all the rest is decoration.
I might feel I have grounds to challenge that.
Person C says homosexuality is evil, because God says so.
I will certainly can argue against that.
Person D says the divine origin of Christianity is demonstrated by the important role that Christian thought has played in the development of modern ideas.
I may feel entitled to dispute that.
But persons A B C and D, although they all call themselves Christian, are not all making the same claims.
There is no requirement to challenge simultaneously all of the mutually-contradictory claims made by 'Christians', nor those made by the self-professed adherents of any other broad religious or political movement.
My preference is to argue about the things that really matter to me (like human rights) and let the rest go.