Why do relatively few Christians debate here?

[Zzyzx]

.
According to polls 80% of the US population self-identifies as Christian and 20% identify as Non-Christian; however, in our debates here there is certainly not a similar distribution. Yet, Christians appear to be well represented on other sites.

Why?

[NancyDL]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I dunno. I'm new here, I haven't really had a chance to dig in and get the flavor of the debates, but this is my guess: There's quite a variety of teachings that carry the label of "Christian". Some, especially in recent years, bear little relation to and even contradict the teachings of Jesus as set forth in the New Testament and other recorded Gospels.

To introduce myself: I'm Nancy. I live in Canada. I'm 73 years old. I consider myself to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus, but I'm hesitant to adopt the label "Christian" because it's just too loaded. Jesus taught forgiveness, non-judgment, faith, welcoming, sharing, non-acquisitiveness. He was very clear about the fact that his teachings would be a departure from those based on the old scriptures. In other words, he said "Goodbye" to the judgmental and harsh teachings in the old Jewish Bible, and he replaced them with the new. It is my view that we should do the same.

What Jesus brought us was a way of living peacefully on the earth. He did not intend for us to attempt to make ourselves special because of our beliefs, nor did he enjoin us to lay a bunchs of judgment on our fellow humans, nor did he encourage us to mix his teachings up with politics.

So what I'm interested in discussing or debating here is what Jesus really taught and how can we get back to the basics. How can we live as he would want us to live?

[NancyDL]

[Replying to post 7 by postroad]

Postroad wrote:

"There is nothing that will get you banned faster from a Christian dominated site than having a deep knowledge of the Bible and not being a believer."

That's a pretty strong statement, but you don't back it up with evidence, so there's really no basis for discussion. My experience has been the opposite of what you state.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 7 by postroad]

Postroad wrote:

"There is nothing that will get you banned faster from a Christian dominated site than having a deep knowledge of the Bible and not being a believer."

That's a pretty strong statement, but you don't back it up with evidence, so there's really no basis for discussion. My experience has been the opposite of what you state.

My guess is that he is speaking from personal experience. His is the same as mine. The 'Christian' websites I've visited boot you off if they detect you are not an orthodox Christian or challenge the "Holy Bible" as being the work of men, not 'god.' Since you claim [without evidence] to have had the opposite experience, perhaps you can publish the the URL of the forum or forums you reference?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I dunno. I'm new here, I haven't really had a chance to dig in and get the flavor of the debates, but . . . .

Have you tried actually reading some of the posts? That might help you get "the flavor of the debates."

[Danmark]

....I'm hesitant to adopt the label "Christian" because it's just too loaded. Jesus taught forgiveness, non-judgment, faith, welcoming, sharing, non-acquisitiveness. He was very clear about the fact that his teachings would be a departure from those based on the old scriptures. In other words, he said "Goodbye" to the judgmental and harsh teachings in the old Jewish Bible, and he replaced them with the new. It is my view that we should do the same.

What Jesus brought us was a way of living peacefully on the earth. He did not intend for us to attempt to make ourselves special because of our beliefs, nor did he enjoin us to lay a bunchs of judgment on our fellow humans, nor did he encourage us to mix his teachings up with politics.

So what I'm interested in discussing or debating here is what Jesus really taught and how can we get back to the basics. How can we live as he would want us to live?

You make some good points Nancy, but I think you are in the wrong section of the forum. "Christianity and Apologetics" is a section for disputing or defending the 'truth' of Christianity or the Bible as the 'word of god.' You may find what you are looking for in "Holy Huddle" or one of the areas of this forum where the truth of Christianity is presumed, and the issues relate to the practice and doctrines involved.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 7 by postroad]

Postroad wrote:

"There is nothing that will get you banned faster from a Christian dominated site than having a deep knowledge of the Bible and not being a believer."

That's a pretty strong statement, but you don't back it up with evidence, so there's really no basis for discussion. My experience has been the opposite of what you state.

It's a strong statement that should be expanded, perhaps, but is mostly accurate. Many, many, many "Christian debate" sites will punish or ban nonbelieving members for simply asking difficult questions for which there is no prepared, pat, "talking point" answer already established in the community.

In EVERY experience I have witnessed (or very rarely taken part in), the Christian site admins punish or ban those nonbelieving members who simply have the ability to keep the focus of the discussion squarely where it began--a question or observation whose consequence is extreme cognitive dissonance. When it comes to standing on preconceived dogma and refusing to change regardless of that positions hypocrisy or falsity, Christian "debate" websites have perfected that move.

[ElCodeMonkey]

It seems some people can't help but demonstrate their lack of patience and respect for other individuals. This comes across as "rude". So if, hypothetically, someone says "Yawn" or "yeah right" or "Oh really?" or "Yada yada" or "blah blah" for example, this would be fruit demonstrating a "root" of impatience and dismissal of another person's beliefs. It's called being rude and disrespectful and can certainly be seen as being uncivil or in some cases an attack. We could all do better by leaving out the words of emotion and simply focusing on facts no matter how much anyone else gets emotional. I'll leave it to everyone else to determine who is being rude and who is not. Though I would find it interesting if Otseng could provide percentages of people banned or shackled who wore/wear the different labels of "Agnostic" or "Christian" or "No Identification" etc. Perhaps it would be interesting if not proof of anything. After all, no "REAL" Christians would find themselves shackled or banned. And no "REAL" atheists... wait... that doesn't even make sense .

[Goat]

Ooberman

99%, Other than a general gripe against atheism, what is your problem? If you would debate more, you might win more debates...

I have tried. It appears that fighting and insults are what is sought here. I offer the threads here as evidence.

"Who made God?"

Why is there suffering in the world?

"The Bible has contradictions?"

"Evolution ended theology?"

"I just can't believe?"

Yada, yada. The atheist position is based on nothing supporting the queries of the atheist. Nothing caising them to contradict nature. Now without doubt, I truly have resepct for some atheist positions, but not when they are based on superiority of the powers of reason or the ability to reason of the professing atheist. And certainly absolutely no respect for atheism based on evolution such as Dawkins' dribble.

Dawkins "cares" about his fellow man. Which is absurd based on observable nature. Dawkins wouldn't lift a finger for dispatching a worthless diseased person and more than likley would look for a comforting environment for his/her illness to work out its path. Now, unless finding jobs for people is the reason we would care for the sick and infirmed, what evolutionist would agree to take care of the worthless? Symbiosis? maybe, but only to a point. Once the poor, weak and diseased become a burden on the healthy and valuable in the human species, death must be implemented as effecively and as quickly as possible on the unimportant among us. And yet, it is an atheist that screams for social justice quite loudly quite often. And in so many instances, it contradicts nature and an unguided nature.

And yet, the standard atheist attitude is one of superior intellect and academic standing over and above any theist.

Peshaw!!

"Where's the evidence for God?" In the supernatural behavior of the caring for others in the atheist. There is no reason for caring and compassion in a Godless heart. Not if the natural world is any test of reality.

I see a lot of pieces of misunderstanding and contradiction here.

One, I see the statement that starts 'yada yada yada', very disprespectful.

then I get the statement that theism is respectful. That is a contradiction.

Then, I see the misconception in the statement [i[] There is no reason for caring and compassion in a Godless heart'.[/i]. This seems to be I find this very ironic indeed, because I see many athiests more caring and compassionate than many who make this statement. The ones that do seem to be much more willing to deny basic human rights to women and Gays for example.

I really have trouble understanding your rational complaint. What are you trying to argue with reason and logic?

Theism is rational, reasonable and most definately respectful.

Why not focus on the atheist positions you respect?

There's not that many.

Give us an example of what you think a good debate topic would be?

Not aborting healthy offspring for convenience as nature values the healthy.

Why would any materialist and especially an evolutionary biologist support abortions IF the unborn offspring is shown to be normal and healthy?

Atheism as a morally chosen worldview, should abhor abortion, promiscuity that is non procreative, same gender sexual behavior in higher thinking lifeforms and using mind altering drugs for recreation.

There's four.

Watch the reaction of the hornets nest!

[NancyDL]

[Replying to post 7 by postroad]

Postroad wrote:

"There is nothing that will get you banned faster from a Christian dominated site than having a deep knowledge of the Bible and not being a believer."

That's a pretty strong statement, but you don't back it up with evidence, so there's really no basis for discussion. My experience has been the opposite of what you state.

My guess is that he is speaking from personal experience. His is the same as mine. The 'Christian' websites I've visited boot you off if they detect you are not an orthodox Christian or challenge the "Holy Bible" as being the work of men, not 'god.' Since you claim [without evidence] to have had the opposite experience, perhaps you can publish the the URL of the forum or forums you reference?

You have a point. I am not often tempted to post on venues where what you call "orthodox Christians" and what I might call "ultra conservative Christians" hold sway, i.e. those who believe that their interpretations of "The Holy Bible" (including the Torah) were written by God, and who see those who disagree as spawn of Satan. The exceptions come when I feel the urge to ask questions about specific issues, i.e. the gay question, the idea that the US is a "Christian nation", the claim that the rich have their riches because they have been blessed by God. (etc.) Even so, I've never been given the boot.

[NancyDL]

[Replying to post 74 by Danmark]

That was my first post, written in response to the first post I read. My subsequent posts were in response to other posts I read.