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)?

[YahDough]

.

Notice that YahDough attempted to prove "who decided" and "what was accomplished" with bible quotes. Since neither of those quotations can be shown to be truthful and accurate they are not evidence in debate.

My reference to Bible scriptures is evidence, not "proof" of the truth I presented. Would you have felt better had I not made reference to the scripture which supported my understanding? I would guess probably not. I provided the reference for the sake of those who are interested in the written rhema.

One CAN address either of the OP questions with reasoning and evidence.

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

1) Who decided?

God, the Father. Jn:3:16

2) What is accomplished (or intended)

Peace with God and everlasting life in Christ for the chosen. Rom:5:1:, Jn:3:16

What is the evidence that "God the father" decided – WITHOUT attempting to use "because the bible says so."

Becaue "I" think/believe so. It makes sense to me. The Spirit of Truth has shown me.

What is the evidence of "Peace with God and everlasting life in Christ" – WITHOUT attempting to use "because the bible says so."

Because "I" believe/think so. It makes sense to me. The Spirit of Truth has shown me.

Both you and YahDough are welcome to discuss the OP if you can do so without attempting to use the bible as proof of truth.

I generally use the Bible to "support" the truth, not prove it. That is not against forum rules. I suppose die-hard atheists don't like scripture references, but I'm sure struggling Christians might.

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

1) Who decided?

Paul and his blend of Judeo-"Christianity" with the mystical religion, Mithraism.

2) What is accomplished (or intended)?

The purpose of all revealed religions is to accumulate power to the clerical elite, often in alliance with the political entities using similar demagogic tactics. The telltale sign for either is the accumulation of followers by indoctrinating them into a total dependence on blind (unreasoned) faith.

[ttruscott]

...

Both you and YahDough are welcome to discuss the OP if you can do so without attempting to use the bible as proof of truth.

I understood that the rule has been interpreted to mean that quoting the Bible as a definition of accepted Christian truths (but not as proof of those truths), was acceptable.

Therefore if the truth as a Christian sees it is that GOD decided how reality should work and he may quote the Bible to prove he is actually quoting Christian doctrine, not to prove the truth of that doctrine.

Otherwise we'd end up in a sophistry of needing to define and prove very word about your mythical tank and its purported mythical purpose. We can go back to "Cogito, ego sum" in every discussion or we can have an ordinary conversation about what we believe and why and sometimes how the criteria we use to choose our pov is different.

Is there another reason I'm missing for asking spiritually based question than to reject the spiritual answers to prove that Christian cannot prove empirically their beliefs, when we in fact admit that most readily and are happy to admit that

we live by faith, not sight ? or in other words, we live by hope, not proof?

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

Both you and YahDough are welcome to discuss the OP if you can do so without attempting to use the bible as proof of truth.

I understood that the rule has been interpreted to mean that quoting the Bible as a definition of accepted Christian truths (but not as proof of those truths), was acceptable.

Forum Rules and Guidelines make no mention of "Christian truths" (whatever that may be construed to mean). Christian beliefs are very different from truths – thought believers may consider them "truths" for personal use (but not in debate).

It would be prudent to consult C&A Sub-forum Guidelines http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ebd97820a7

Note that the bible can be used to indicate what some Christians believe but CANNOT be used to indicate that the beliefs are true.

Bold added to emphasize relevant points

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.

6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists.

7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.
Therefore if the truth as a Christian sees it is that GOD decided how reality should work and he may quote the Bible to prove he is actually quoting Christian doctrine, not to prove the truth of that doctrine.

Is there further doubt about how the bible can be referenced in debate?

Is there another reason I'm missing for asking spiritually based question than to reject the spiritual answers to prove that Christian cannot prove empirically their beliefs, when we in fact admit that most readily and are happy to admit that we live by faith, not sight ? or in other words, we live by hope, not proof?

You (generic term) are more than welcome to LIVE by faith and hope rather than sight and proof. However, you are NOT welcome to debate as though your beliefs were evidence of truth and accuracy.

In other words, you are welcome to hope for an "afterlife" and to believe that dead bodies come back to life after days in the grave or that various animals converse with humans – but you are not welcome to present such things as factual (or "truth") in reasoned, honorable debate on this level playing field.

Since we are not in church or in a Christians-only environment Apologists are expected and required to present credible non-biblical evidence that their claims of knowledge are true. I stand ready to consider and possibly refute any actual evidence presented – and to point out "evidence" that is nothing more than imagination, claims, opinions, hearsay, folklore, legend, fable, fiction, etc.

[ttruscott]

...

Note that the bible can be used to indicate what some Christians believe but CANNOT be used to indicate that the beliefs are true.

Ahhh, thanks for sharing your agreement.

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

But do not non-believers get to debate from the position that Christianity is NOT true? Would it not be more fair or at least, finally fair, if non-believers cannot assume that Christianity is false, imaginary or a sign of a mental unbalance?

You (generic term) are more than welcome to LIVE by faith and hope rather than sight and proof. However, you are NOT welcome to debate as though your beliefs were evidence of truth and accuracy.

I (specific term) have never done this or at least seldom done this if I made a slip in the long ago.

Since we are not in church or in a Christians-only environment Apologists are expected and required to present credible non-biblical evidence that their claims of knowledge are true. ...

Since our evidence IS 1. the Bible, 2. the life of Christ (mostly found in the Bible), 3. the lives and testimony of other Christians and 4. our personal interactions with the indwelling Holy Spirit,

my point was that since this rule puts an end to half of our evidence and the remaining half is unacceptable as totally personal and subjective, that asking Christians to debate under this restriction has no purpose except to then be able to tell them they have no acceptable evidence, making it an empty exercise.

So, not only do we not get to assume Christianity is true while non-believers can assume it is false but all our evidence is completely outlawed by fiat. Riiiiight, no set up here...although I do know that some moderators understand this and grant a Christian leeway with the debate rules or all discussion would end; end of forum except for the non-believers back-slapping club,

Do non-believers really need to stack the deck in their favour to 'win' a debate or is the focus merely to keep our non-evidence suppressed or ???

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

Note that the bible can be used to indicate what some Christians believe but CANNOT be used to indicate that the beliefs are true.

Ahhh, thanks for sharing your agreement.

That's not agreement, it is simply Forum Rules and Guidelines. The bible cannot be used to prove that bible statements are true. The koran cannot be used to prove that koran statements are true. Is that a problem for religionists?

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

But do not non-believers get to debate from the position that Christianity is NOT true?

Anyone is free to debate any position they choose – but they are NOT free to demand that their position be accepted as truth.

Would it not be more fair or at least, finally fair, if non-believers cannot assume that Christianity is false, imaginary or a sign of a mental unbalance?

Anyone can "assume" whatever they wish but they cannot use their assumptions as proof in debate.

Has anyone attempted to use a Non-Theistic assumption to prove Christianity is false -- verbatim quotes, URLs? Or have they demonstrated that Christians CANNOT support their claims and stories?

Would you like to require that all who debate here assume that Christianity is not false? If so, Ted, the C&A sub-forum would duplicate Holy Huddle, TE&D, or sermons in church. Is that what you need to be comfortable or successful in debate?

Since we are not in church or in a Christians-only environment Apologists are expected and required to present credible non-biblical evidence that their claims of knowledge are true. ...

Since our evidence IS 1. the Bible, 2. the life of Christ (mostly found in the Bible), 3. the lives and testimony of other Christians and 4. our personal interactions with the indwelling Holy Spirit,

Yes, Ted, your "evidence" is ONLY the bible and testimonials about or by bible believers.

That is tantamount to NOTHING of significance in debate. That level of "evidence" may be compelling or convincing in church or among fellow believers, but it just does not fly when there is capable opposition.

Do you have ANYTHING in the way of evidence that is NOT part of the religious promotional literature or verbiage of your belief system – ANY disconnected and/or verifiable evidence to support ANY of the religious claims and stories.

The honest answer, Ted, is that you (generic term) have absolutely nothing outside your own religious literature and dogma to show that what you say is true and accurate.

my point was that since this rule puts an end to half of our evidence and the remaining half is unacceptable as totally personal and subjective,

Exactly. ALL that Christendom has to "prove" its claims and stories consists of its own literature and "personal experiences" – neither of which can be shown to be anything more than products of the imagination, emotions,

that asking Christians to debate under this restriction has no purpose except to then be able to tell them they have no acceptable evidence, making it an empty exercise.

What would Christians need to be able to debate effectively?

Would others have to agree to accept the bible as proof of truth?

Would others have to agree to accept testimonials about claimed personal experiences a proof of truth?

Tell me (us) Ted, what would the ground rules have to be for you to feel as though you were not at a disadvantage?

So, not only do we not get to assume Christianity is true while non-believers can assume it is false but all our evidence is completely outlawed by fiat.

You are free to assume that Christianity is true and others are free to assume it is false. HOWEVER, those are just OPINIONS which are without merit in debate.

Riiiiight, no set up here...

Why claim a "setup" when the site owner and Administrator (who has final word in all matters) is a devout Christian? Do you propose that Otseng sets up fellow Christians for slaughter?

Frankly, I take offense when Christians declare that this Forum, owned and administered by a Christian, is aligned against them – because they cannot defend their positions and look for scapegoats to avoid admitting that they and their beliefs are not up to the task on a level playing field. Sure they can prevail where opposition is not permitted, but NOT so here.

although I do know that some moderators understand this and grant a Christian leeway with the debate rules or all discussion would end;

Astute observation. Even with a slight advantage, Christians cannot fare well in debate – because they attempt to defend an indefensible, unverifiable, illogical, irrational position (in my opinion).

end of forum except for the non-believers back-slapping club,

It must be frustrating for Christians / Theists to observe that Non-Believers seem to have a much stronger debate position (and perhaps be more capable in debate?).

Do non-believers really need to stack the deck in their favour to 'win' a debate or is the focus merely to keep our non-evidence suppressed or ???

How, exactly, is the "deck stacked?" Each of us is treated equally, all are expected to abide by Forum Rules and Guidelines (and to substantiate claims if challenged).

Those who do not fare well in debate often attempt to blame "unfairness" or "persecution" or "disadvantage" or "favorable treatment of others"; however, the responsibility is really theirs personally. 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.

Would YOU accept unverifiable religious promotional literature (comparable to the bible) as proof of truth for a competing religion? Would you accept testimonials from Zulu worshipers (or whatever) as proof that their "god" existed and wanted Christians killed (or whatever)? Would "visions" reported by strange cults convince you that they were truthful and accurate?

[RaiderGonzo]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]



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.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 17 by RaiderGonzo]



That would be what the religious establishment would want us to believe.

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

[myth-one.com]

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

1) Who decided?

2) What is accomplished (or intended)?