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?

[Joab]

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.

I think you responded to the preamble and ignored the OP question.

I don't mean that as a personal attack or as uncivil.

[Jax Agnesson]

I think you responded to the preamble and ignored the OP question.

I don't mean that as a personal attack or as uncivil.

No offence taken Joab.
As to the OP question for debate:

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

I think I was responding to that.
Christianity is a broad church, (literally) and there are lots of different adherents who define it in lots of different ways. Each claims to be a Christian. Some have a tendency to shout 'heretic' at anyone who disagrees with their particular interpretation.
But this is not peculiar to Christianity. Ask 100 Americans what it means to be American, and you might get half a dozen broadly similar answers. But ask 100 Americans what they would considers unAmerican, and you might get much wider disputes. Ask 100 Republicans what Republicanism stands for. Ask 100 Muslims what Islam is. Ask two Jews what Judaism is.. you'll get more than two answers.
Organised religions are similar to nationalisms, or party-political loyalties. They may start out as coherent ideologies, but then they grow, and to grow they have to accommodate other people, and other ideas. Christianity was a fragmented collection of local churches, before the Council of Nicea. There have been many attempts to stitch the pieces into a single quilt, over the centuries.
But, as Keats said 'Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.

[99percentatheism]

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?

Then why don't you stop "arguing" and go some where else?

But, without doubt, there seems to be a decidely monolithic Christian stance that the standard antagonist goes after. I never see people like you arguing againt "progressive" or "liberal Christianity."

There's only ONE Christianity that seems consistently argued against here at this site. Conservative Christian theology. And of course those that espouse it.

[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?

Then why don't you stop "arguing" and go some where else?

But, without doubt, there seems to be a decidely monolithic Christian stance that the standard antagonist goes after. I never see people like you arguing againt "progressive" or "liberal Christianity."

There's only ONE Christianity that seems consistently argued against here at this site. Conservative Christian theology. And of course those that espouse it.

You responded to the preamble but forgot to address the OP question.

I don't see progressive or liberal christians, as you classify those who follow the teachings of christ I assume, attacking or oppressing members of society that they may have a difference of opinion with. Hence why would I argue with their philosophy or stance.

I argue against what is wrong.

I meant no offense or incivility with this post.

[Artie]

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.

Atheism is an absence of belief in gods why would atheists have anything against the Golden Rule?

[ElCodeMonkey]

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.

Atheists aren't like Christians in that they don't believe the Bible is either ALL bad or ALL good. They're willing to notice that there are both good and bad things within it. So trying to argue that every little thing is bad is rather futile, useless, and would clearly go against our values and morals. Especially since Atheists aren't all evil baby-eaters that live to rape and pillage lost forever from morality in their lack of faith in a deity as the Bible would draw them up. They're simply free to decide for themselves what is right.

Christians, on the other hand, have quite the task of explaining how rape, genocide, slavery, and pillaging are all "good" things that God commanded. But, you can make any shoe fit if you chop off your toes. Just have to bend "what could be" that you actually have no evidence to support. Well, God "could"... have... umm... made them all flesh robots so nobody is really being hurt and it's just a test to see if they'll obey! Yeah, that works. Problem solved. It's no longer evil.

[Realworldjack]

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.

Atheists aren't like Christians in that they don't believe the Bible is either ALL bad or ALL good. They're willing to notice that there are both good and bad things within it. So trying to argue that every little thing is bad is rather futile, useless, and would clearly go against our values and morals. Especially since Atheists aren't all evil baby-eaters that live to rape and pillage lost forever from morality in their lack of faith in a deity as the Bible would draw them up. They're simply free to decide for themselves what is right.

Christians, on the other hand, have quite the task of explaining how rape, genocide, slavery, and pillaging are all "good" things that God commanded. But, you can make any shoe fit if you chop off your toes. Just have to bend "what could be" that you actually have no evidence to support. Well, God "could"... have... umm... made them all flesh robots so nobody is really being hurt and it's just a test to see if they'll obey! Yeah, that works. Problem solved. It's no longer evil.

Could you please show me where God commanded, rape, genocide, slavery, and pillaging? I have looked up the word genocide, and find it nowhere in the Bible, the same for pillaging. I have looked at the word rape, but can not find where it is commanded. As far as slavery, I can see where it is permitted but not commanded. Maybe I have missed something, please inform me. Thanks.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Could you please show me where God commanded, rape, genocide, slavery, and pillaging? I have looked up the word genocide, and find it nowhere in the Bible, the same for pillaging. I have looked at the word rape, but can not find where it is commanded. As far as slavery, I can see where it is permitted but not commanded. Maybe I have missed something, please inform me. Thanks.

Try Google searching instead. It works better. The words themselves need not appear in a search for the definition to have been implemented.

gen-o-cide
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

1 Samuel 15:3
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

That's called genocide. Genocide at its finest. Genocide not only of all Amalekites, but even of their animals!

Rape
to force to have sexual intercourse.

Numbers 31:17
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Now, perhaps the virgin women ALL had a case of Stockholm Syndrom, but chances are they didn't really want to become the wives of the murderers of their families and friends. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume they were forced into these relationships. This is called rape.

pil-lage
rob (a place) using violence, esp. in wartime.

slave
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.

That one has genocide, slavery, rape, AND pillaging all in one!

[Jashwell]

Is it possible for any Christian to argue for Christianity without contradicting Christianity?

I think that this is a non-issue, Christians don't need to argue for the beliefs of other Christians, they need to argue for their own beliefs.

Yes, in a sense, there are so many denominations of Christians that it's very likely that anyone arguing their interpretation of Christianity will undoubtedly clash with other interpretations, but it's only an issue if it contradicts their own understanding of Christianity.

In terms of "arguing for Christianity", or "arguing against them", the issue I think is that it assumes Christianity is a strict set of views. Claiming to be a Christian doesn't address what your positions are on a variety of matters - there are those who claim the label "Christian" as they believe in the moral teachings of Jesus, but don't actually believe in a God. (lookup Christian Atheists)

You can't "Argue for Christianity", but you could, for instance, argue that Jesus was resurrected 2000 years ago or argue that God, as described in the Bible, exists.
If you want to argue with a Christian, you need something to argue about, "Christianity" is too vague a term to reasonably discuss.

[Joab]

Is it possible for any Christian to argue for Christianity without contradicting Christianity?

I think that this is a non-issue, Christians don't need to argue for the beliefs of other Christians, they need to argue for their own beliefs.

Yes, in a sense, there are so many denominations of Christians that it's very likely that anyone arguing their interpretation of Christianity will undoubtedly clash with other interpretations, but it's only an issue if it contradicts their own understanding of Christianity.

In terms of "arguing for Christianity", or "arguing against them", the issue I think is that it assumes Christianity is a strict set of views. Claiming to be a Christian doesn't address what your positions are on a variety of matters - there are those who claim the label "Christian" as they believe in the moral teachings of Jesus, but don't actually believe in a God. (lookup Christian Atheists)

You can't "Argue for Christianity", but you could, for instance, argue that Jesus was resurrected 2000 years ago or argue that God, as described in the Bible, exists.
If you want to argue with a Christian, you need something to argue about, "Christianity" is too vague a term to reasonably discuss.

When did christianity become a vague term?

Which god does a christian worship? Is it Allah or Shiva? Christian atheists are like carnivorous vegans, have fun with that.

In fact which of the gods in the bible does a christian worship?