Use the whole thing or nothing at all.

[sawthelight]

A quick definition to guide this debate:

- System of language: the language that has been made using: grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure to make a logical point. Humans have created and developed this system of language and it applies globally. No one is exempt.


Now Christians, using the system of language which humans have developed and made into a system, try to convince the masses of the world that their religion is the right religion.

"Join us," they say. "Serve God with us to receive eternal life."

It seems that Christians only use half the tools of language to justify their claims.

However to use the system of language to the fullest extent would only prove that Christianity is contradictory, illogical, and nonsense all in all.

So this seems to be why Christians make no sense. They only stick to a rigid set of communication which is restricting themselves from using language completely to justify their religion.

Take the chicken for example. We can raise it and prepare it for consumption. Humans eat the meat, the bones can be used for chicken broth, the intestines and guts can be used to feed pigs, and the dung of chicken can be used to make compost. Here we can use the whole tool to the fullest with no waste.

Yet Christians waste words by sticking to only one set of rigid style of communication. Thus to use language to the full extent would prove Christianity wrong.

What about the linguistic tools of logic? consistency? factually/literal correctness? These tools of language see little day of light in the justification of Christianity.

To them it seems to be mostly about metaphorical fable fantasies. Anything that is abstract and illogical. These are the tools of language they seem to prefer.

They should use the whole system of language or not use it at all to make their points.

[JehovahsWitness]

They should use the whole system of language or not use it at all to make their points.

How exactly would one make a point without the use of a language system?

[Wootah]

Moderator Action
HI sawthelight,

Please use the whole system of language and pose a question for debate when creating a thread.

Possibly an example demonstrating what you mean as well.

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[sawthelight]

They should use the whole system of language or not use it at all to make their points.

How exactly would one make a point without the use of a language system?

Everyone uses a language system to make a point. That is just the way it is. But is the point in question, valid?

What I am saying is that Christians should use the whole system such as literal interpretations and the logic of sound arguments instead of relying on metaphors and abstract ideas.

Going abstract and metaphorical heavy to prove that Christianity is the true religion only proves that they stick to one side of linguistic tools while rejecting the other literal meanings).

So to accept both literal and metaphorical meanings of the Bible would deem the Bible unsound and illogical as the wrong religion according to the system of language we humans have created (which is to make sense of words used).

Another example besides the chicken example I used earlier is: the mustard seed example.

Literalists will say that Jesus was being literal with the mustard seed being the smallest of all seeds when Jesus made that claim. Yet many Christians will not accept the literal meaning but only the metaphorical meaning. Thus not using the whole system of language but one part to justify Christianity.

To use the whole system of language would implode Christianity when measured with integrity of our language.

[JehovahsWitness]

Everyone uses a language system to make a point. That is just the way it is. But is the point in question, valid?

What I am saying is that Christians should use the whole system such as literal interpretations and the logic of sound arguments instead of relying on metaphors and abstract ideas.

Are not metaphors part of "the language system"? If not what are they part of?

[sawthelight]

Everyone uses a language system to make a point. That is just the way it is. But is the point in question, valid?

What I am saying is that Christians should use the whole system such as literal interpretations and the logic of sound arguments instead of relying on metaphors and abstract ideas.

Are not metaphors part of "the language system"? If not what are they part of?

Yes metaphors are part of the language system.

However what I am trying to say is that Christians should not rely heavily on metaphors to justify their religion. That is my point: Christians cling to one set of linguistic tools, discarding the rest that would also apply, to justify their religion.

Using mostly metaphors to tell others that this is the supposed literal real religion is an oxymoron. To condense it, it's like saying Christianity is metaphorically literal. Makes little sense.

Attempting to use more literal interpretations to justify Christianity as the literal real religion would make more sense. To condense it, Christianity would be literally the real literal religion (a.k.a "They ain't playin'"). Makes more sense.

But we know that interpreting it more literally will cause Christianity to implode. Why do you prefer not to take it literal?