Blasphemy a crime under UN resolution

[Haunted]

If I might interject here.

Yet in all of your examples the exaggerations are clearly plausible.
The dead thing in Matthew wasn't even an exaggeration of something lesser, it was something completely distinct. And quite clearly, not plausible.

[exnihilo]

We're getting lost in the numbers here, the point about the Christian country was that people raised in Christian countries are usually Christian and people raised in Muslim countries are usually Muslim. That point stands, it matters not a whit that you don't think most people in Britain profess Christianity nowadays, this IS indisputably a Christian country, the religion is woven inextricably into the fabric of the nation.

Incidentally, you really can't say that one gospel is a valid historical source because the other gospels and other bits of the NT agree with what it says. That's not corroboration. Corroboration needs to come from another source entirely, not from a different part of the same source.

[Humphrey]

If I might interject here.

Yet in all of your examples the exaggerations are clearly plausible.
The dead thing in Matthew wasn't even an exaggeration of something lesser, it was something completely distinct. And quite clearly, not plausible.

You think the impregnation of Caesar Augustus' mother by a serpent is plausible?. Hmmm, maybe; i'd expect him to at least have a forked tongue. We are told by Suetonius in De Vita Caesarum that:

'When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo.

There then follows a rather tiresome list of omens and miracles; including a big pillar of fire which rises up from an alter into the sky. If you want to be the son of god you have to have lots of these. If you don't have them then noone is going to take you narrative seriously. In the modern era its the other way round.

[elyettoner]

We're getting lost in the numbers here, the point about the Christian country was that people raised in Christian countries are usually Christian and people raised in Muslim countries are usually Muslim. That point stands, it matters not a whit that you don't think most people in Britain profess Christianity nowadays, this IS indisputably a Christian country, the religion is woven inextricably into the fabric of the nation.

Incidentally, you really can't say that one gospel is a valid historical source because the other gospels and other bits of the NT agree with what it says. That's not corroboration. Corroboration needs to come from another source entirely, not from a different part of the same source.

The Gospels were written as different sources for different audiences by different people. As were the epistles. The fact that they are now included in the same book doesn't mean they're part of the same source. It's a bit like using a modern day collection of historical sources. They might be included in the same volume on the same topic, but they're not the same source.

About 77% of the US is Christian, I'd call that majority.

As I said, statistics don't reflect reality. How many of those people said they were Christian because they were American? Bearing in mind as well that not all those who call on God's name will be accepted by him as being his (as Andy quoted somewhere above).

Of course it is preached, just not in plain sight. Again, *insert other religion here* suffers the same in *insert country where other religion isn't cool here*. So far there is nothing to distinguish your religious group from any of the others.

OK, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. It is preached, but on a very, very small scale. Not to the extent that you can claim they're Christians because of culture.

LOL, that's right, converting to christianity is something that takes only a deep metaphysical journey of self discovery, but Islam is just something you do on a rainy afternoon.

There we go again. No, that's not what I said. I'm sure many become Muslims after "a deep metaphysical journey of self discovery" and that some become Christians on a whim (incidentally, I'd suggest become a Christian has nothing to do with "self discovery" and everything to do with discovering who God is and the relationship he has with us). I merely suggest that in areas of extreme persecution (and yes, I accept there are areas where Muslims are persecuted) conversion is naturally likely to be with extreme conviction in many more cases due to the circumstances.

Take a look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_World.svg
Are you referring only to the dark green states (all SEVEN of them) only when you speak of christian persecution?
Muslims have a majority in 57 countries
Total Muslim population: ~1.5 billion
Muslim population of dark green states: ~326 Million
Muslim population of other states: ~ 1.174 Billion

Just because Christianity isn't officially persecuted or even though it might be officially protected that doesn't mean to say there's no persecution there. I notice the map you provided a link to has Turkey as a secular state, yet Christian deaths due to persecution happen on a fairly regular basis. See this link as one example
http://www.genocidewatch.org/Turkeymist ... nNov05.htm

I also notice Morocco isn't dark green, yet persecution is common there also. I know a missionary who has worked in Morocco who has talked about the fears new Christians there have. This article seems to corroborate this (I freely admit to having merely done a Google search so that you can see some evidence) http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/a ... 014411.php.

You can't base this on a mere map showing where Islam is a state religion.

I never said 'thrown out' I said thrown into dispute, or question if you will. We discussed the historicity of the gospels and the pauline epistles on a previous thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28756&p=315496#p315496 though feel free to come back to anything I said there.

Yes we did, and the moment you suggested Romans was all about Paul and included very little theology I realised there was little point discussing this with you. There are three relativly short passages about Paul himself in a book of sixteen chapters. I'd be interested to learn how chapters five and six, for example, are all about Paul. Anyone here can read Romans and draw their own conclusions, so I have no intention of entering into a discussion on this issue.

If someone were making the distinction between literal and metaphorical in the way that christianity does

You'll have to be more specific here. How exactly does Christianity do this? And how much of a generalisation is "christianity" in this case? I may be inclined to agree with you; as I've said in a previous post on this thread, I don't believe being Christian means throwing out reason and accepting everyone you're told. Claiming something's a metaphor in the middle of an historical account just because it's difficult to explain is very poor practice; you wouldn't accept the argument in any other field, so why here? However, you're rather vague statement means at the moment I won't commit to agreeing with you fully.

[exnihilo]

That might be valid had they never been edited and redacted, but they have. Which makes using them as support for one another as valid as describing a wolf on the basis of Grimm's fairy tales.

[Haunted]

You think the impregnation of Caesar Augustus' mother by a serpent is plausible?. Hmmm, maybe; i'd expect him to at least have a forked tongue. We are told by Suetonius in De Vita Caesarum that:

You tacked that on at the end as a religious examples, and the fact that it is also bizarre and ridiculous is part of what I'm trying to say.

[Frank]

incidentally, I'd suggest become a Christian has nothing to do with "self discovery" and everything to do with discovering who God is and the relationship he has with us

Yes, because that isn't self discovery...

In any case, rejecting the statistics (if validly) strikes me as the same issue I have with Andy B's outlook on all this. I suppose I can draw analogy with the No True Scotsman argument. That is: "Well, they say they're Christian, but they're not real Christians..."

How does one measure this other than via statistics? A more in depth study would reveal the degree to which those Christians vary in their opinions and whatnots. I'd suspect a similar amount of Muslims remain 'Cradle Muslims', perhaps even merely being cultural Muslims without an overwhelming understanding of their self (sorry: Allaha-ified) discovery. It strikes me as telling that the Allah/God distinction isn't huge.

Incidentally, Humphrey, your historical examples were quite amusing. I chuclked audibly.

[Haunted]

As I said, statistics don't reflect reality. How many of those people said they were Christian because they were American? Bearing in mind as well that not all those who call on God's name will be accepted by him as being his (as Andy quoted somewhere above)

Before Flew lost his mind, this is what he would've identified as the "No true Scotsman fallacy". You cannot presume to tell 200 Million people what they really think.

OK, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. It is preached, but on a very, very small scale.

Like in China? One of your examples of a very large underground church.

Not to the extent that you can claim they're Christians because of culture.

I don't doubt that there are genuine conversions being made. What I am saying is this is not the majority. And, to what you said earlier, I also believe that vast majority of christians to be so in name only because of cultural background. However, the difference is, you are using these cultural christians as an argument that there are no true christians in order to further your belief that these true christians are in a diminishing minority and suffer persecution and that in such countries dominated by these cultural christians, conversions to other religions go unchecked. You mention that conversion to Islam in the US isn't that big a deal because there are no true christians there (I wonder what things would be like in a truly christian nation...).

I merely suggest that in areas of extreme persecution (and yes, I accept there are areas where Muslims are persecuted) conversion is naturally likely to be with extreme conviction in many more cases due to the circumstances.

This I do not dispute, but you implied that it is only the persecuted christians who hold the truest convictions. It would seem your original point that "christians are more persecuted" is slowly being watered down.

Just because Christianity isn't officially persecuted or even though it might be officially protected that doesn't mean to say there's no persecution there. I notice the map you provided a link to has Turkey as a secular state, yet Christian deaths due to persecution happen on a fairly regular basis.

That's because Turkey is a secular state. But a secular state doesn't mean there aren't cultural tensions. Turkey certainly has a troubled past, see Armenian genocide.

I also notice Morocco isn't dark green, yet persecution is common there also.

I never said that the non-dark green states would be persecution free zones, that would be silly. Merely that in these places you cannot claim that the persecution is state run. You could find christians anywhere (even in America) that claim to be persecuted. Morocco just happens to be >99% Muslim. ANY other group is going to suffer from severe ethnic tensions.

You can't base this on a mere map showing where Islam is a state religion.

And you can't base things on personal feelings and anecdotes. I will not dispute that christians suffer in many Islamic states, but this doesn't make christianity special or different from Islam. Muslims suffer persecution also. You were originally trying to argue that christianity is different to all other religions because it just happens to true. All other religions clearly don't have the same evidence you true christians do and therefore you conclude that their conversions just aren't as sincere. Especially when we think about the poor christian converts in the violent Islamic theocracies, clearly christianity must be special. It doesn't matter whether Muslims or Hindu's or Jews get persecuted for their beliefs.

Yes we did, and the moment you suggested Romans was all about Paul and included very little theology

I never said theology, I said there was not much about the life and times of Jesus. A mention of the resurrection and, I think, the last supper gets a verse but that's about it. The rest is quite loaded with theology about sin and salvation and pauls concern for jews and desire to convert spain and so forth.

You'll have to be more specific here. How exactly does Christianity do this?

I admit I am using the word 'christianity' here to represent some ominous force when I should be using the word 'christians'. Christians are the ones who decide what part of the bible is true and what is not. There is no central authority on this (except those self claimed authorities, hello Catholics) and so it is impossible to argue that all christians are guilty of this. But if we look at the majority (hello Catholics) we can see over time that the interpretations change in order to fit reality.

Claiming something's a metaphor in the middle of an historical account just because it's difficult to explain is very poor practice; you wouldn't accept the argument in any other field, so why here? However, you're rather vague statement means at the moment I won't commit to agreeing with you fully.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It is poor and does not reflect well on any supernatural intelligence if this was truly his 'Word'.

[Andy Monkey B]

Flip me, my internet stops working for a few days and this topic just goes bananas in my absence. Give me a few days to catch up (and maybe a few more to write my dissertation) and i might jump into the fray again.

[elyettoner]

As I said, statistics don't reflect reality. How many of those people said they were Christian because they were American? Bearing in mind as well that not all those who call on God's name will be accepted by him as being his (as Andy quoted somewhere above)

Before Flew lost his mind, this is what he would've identified as the "No true Scotsman fallacy". You cannot presume to tell 200 Million people what they really think.

At the end of the day, the only ones that know if a particular person is a Christian is that person and God. Biblically works speak as evidence of the truth of a person's faith but given those works aren't always done in a way the public can see I don't want to say who is and isn't a Christian or who does and doesn't truly believe. But as I said above, someone who claims to be Christian and doesn't believe in a god quite clearly is not a Christian.

OK, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. It is preached, but on a very, very small scale.

Like in China? One of your examples of a very large underground church.

In this example Christianity is preached on a large scale, but the culture is still not conducive to becoming a Christian.

Not to the extent that you can claim they're Christians because of culture.

I don't doubt that there are genuine conversions being made. What I am saying is this is not the majority. And, to what you said earlier, I also believe that vast majority of christians to be so in name only because of cultural background. However, the difference is, you are using these cultural christians as an argument that there are no true christians in order to further your belief that these true christians are in a diminishing minority and suffer persecution and that in such countries dominated by these cultural christians, conversions to other religions go unchecked.

That's not what I'm arguing. I've never said there are no true Christians in these areas. That would logically mean that I'm not a true Christian. I've also not claimed that Christians in the West are persecuted. I do believe Christians are not in the majority (though not necessarily a minority).

You mention that conversion to Islam in the US isn't that big a deal because there are no true christians there (I wonder what things would be like in a truly christian nation...).

No I didn't. Nowhere have I stated that Islam is growing in the West because there are no true Christians.

I merely suggest that in areas of extreme persecution (and yes, I accept there are areas where Muslims are persecuted) conversion is naturally likely to be with extreme conviction in many more cases due to the circumstances.

This I do not dispute, but you implied that it is only the persecuted christians who hold the truest convictions. It would seem your original point that "christians are more persecuted" is slowly being watered down.

If that was the implication you took then I apologise, that was not intended. I have no doubt that many Muslims convert out of conviction.

I also notice Morocco isn't dark green, yet persecution is common there also.

I never said that the non-dark green states would be persecution free zones, that would be silly. Merely that in these places you cannot claim that the persecution is state run. You could find christians anywhere (even in America) that claim to be persecuted. Morocco just happens to be >99% Muslim. ANY other group is going to suffer from severe ethnic tensions.

I'm sorry, that's the way it appeared. I never said persecutions were always state run, in fact in the post in which I made the original comment I stated that persecution also takes place in countries where it is officially protected.

For those in many predominantly Muslim countries this is the case, even if the law protects them.

You can't base this on a mere map showing where Islam is a state religion.

And you can't base things on personal feelings and anecdotes. I will not dispute that christians suffer in many Islamic states, but this doesn't make christianity special or different from Islam. Muslims suffer persecution also. You were originally trying to argue that christianity is different to all other religions because it just happens to true. All other religions clearly don't have the same evidence you true christians do and therefore you conclude that their conversions just aren't as sincere. Especially when we think about the poor christian converts in the violent Islamic theocracies, clearly christianity must be special. It doesn't matter whether Muslims or Hindu's or Jews get persecuted for their beliefs.

I don't base these things on personal feelings, and the few anecdotes I've included here are examples (one minute you condemn me for using Flew as an example and not the guy from the takeaway, which would be an anecdote, the next... what do you want me to say?). And if Christianity is true and other religions are false then that is a pretty big difference. However, claiming that I don't believe their conversations are sincere because what they believe isn't true is not something I've said and is not something I believe. And I've never said Christianity must be special because Christians get persecuted. If you'll allow me to go back to the original reason for mentioning persecution: people are unlikely to become Christians without evidence, that is, on a whim, when the consequences for that conversation are severe and could result in their death. It was a means of demonstrating that there is evidence for Christianity. No where have I said that it doesn't matter that Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddists, Hari Krishners, Mormons, Jedis, Scientologists or whatever other religion, philosophy or belief system you care to bring up are persecuted; it's outrageous that anyone is.

You'll have to be more specific here. How exactly does Christianity do this?

I admit I am using the word 'christianity' here to represent some ominous force when I should be using the word 'christians'. Christians are the ones who decide what part of the bible is true and what is not. There is no central authority on this (except those self claimed authorities, hello Catholics) and so it is impossible to argue that all christians are guilty of this. But if we look at the majority (hello Catholics) we can see over time that the interpretations change in order to fit reality.

Claiming something's a metaphor in the middle of an historical account just because it's difficult to explain is very poor practice; you wouldn't accept the argument in any other field, so why here? However, you're rather vague statement means at the moment I won't commit to agreeing with you fully.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It is poor and does not reflect well on any supernatural intelligence if this was truly his 'Word'.

I don't think it reflects badly on the "supernatural intelligence", I think it reflects badly on those who read it and make these unfounded interpretations.

"How stupid of Yann Martel for writing a book that can be made to say whatever the reader wants by making ridiculous and unfounded jumps!" Doesn't make sense, does it?

[Haunted]

At the end of the day, the only ones that know if a particular person is a Christian is that person and God. Biblically works speak as evidence of the truth of a person's faith but given those works aren't always done in a way the public can see I don't want to say who is and isn't a Christian or who does and doesn't truly believe. But as I said above, someone who claims to be Christian and doesn't believe in a god quite clearly is not a Christian.

Lets rewind this particular train.
I have made it known that the majority of 'christians' just happen to have predominantly christian backgrounds and cultures, I am implying this is more than a coincidence. I accept that there will be some out there who make genuine heartfelt conversions, but my point remains. You pointed this out, mentioning the existence of christians in islamic states, I do not dispute that. However, the same goes for hindu's in islamic states, or muslims in christian societies. There is nothing to distinguish between them, but you tried to suggest there was when you said

I also don't deny that there have been Muslim converts in Western countries (I don't agree those countries are predominantly Christian), but I think there is a difference. As far as I'm aware, those preaching Islam or converting to Islam don't face death in the West for doing so. For those in many predominantly Muslim countries this is the case, even if the law protects them. In this country, people who are not brought up Muslim know more or less the basics of what Islam is about, which is certainly not the case in mainly Muslim countries. Additionally, those converting to Christianity in countries where death or severe persecution (we're not talking a few insults, here) need to be very sure that they're doing the right thing.

Hopefully you may now realise that christians are not the only persecuted faith group in the world. Think of the Bosnian genocide or those buddhist statues the Taliban destroyed. Christianity is no different.

In this example Christianity is preached on a large scale, but the culture is still not conducive to becoming a Christian.

So?

I've never said there are no true Christians in these areas.

Maybe not 'none' but it's clear you don't see the 77% of the US who identify themselves as christian, as christian. The implication is that they are not these true christians that must exist somewhere.

I've also not claimed that Christians in the West are persecuted. I do believe Christians are not in the majority (though not necessarily a minority).

And again you are basing this on personal feelings.

No I didn't. Nowhere have I stated that Islam is growing in the West because there are no true Christians.

The intention behind the statement was to indicate there are people who become Christians where Christianity isn't preached because of severe persecution. I'd also suggest that there are fewer people who are likely to have converted on a whim or without having carefully considered it because of the consequences.

You are implying that Islamic conversions are not as serious as christian conversions because of the local politics of the regions where they take place. By specifically saying that there will be fewer christians who 'convert on a whim' you imply that there are many more Muslims who do just that.

If that was the implication you took then I apologise, that was not intended. I have no doubt that many Muslims convert out of conviction.

Then we agreed that there really isn't a difference as you originally suggested?

I'm sorry, that's the way it appeared. I never said persecutions were always state run, in fact in the post in which I made the original comment I stated that persecution also takes place in countries where it is officially protected.

Persecution is so subjective and vague that it takes place anywhere and everywhere. Nowhere will you find a region where religious people aren't complaining about persecution. It's a direct consequence of thinking in terms of 'them and us' that is intrinsic to most faith groups.

I don't base these things on personal feelings

I have provided you with evidence that 77% of the US are christian, you dispute this on the basis of personal feelings, ala No true scotsman.

and the few anecdotes I've included here are examples (one minute you condemn me for using Flew as an example and not the guy from the takeaway, which would be an anecdote, the next... what do you want me to say?).

Why you didn't mention 'the guy from the takeaway' was a rhetorical question, I said it to illustrate why you chose Flew. It was an appeal to authority.

And if Christianity is true and other religions are false then that is a pretty big difference.

If, if and if. It should be very telling that we can't objectively tell the difference whether christianity is true or not. If christianity was completely false, the world would look identical as it is now. Or would you imply that something would be different?

people are unlikely to become Christians without evidence, that is, on a whim, when the consequences for that conversation are severe and could result in their death.

Yes they are. People will believe almost any bullshit, look at the UFO cults and the 2012 morons. When the stakes are higher it just means you only get the proper fringe lunatics. Look at the Branch Davidians, all risked death and died for the sake of their weird cult. I might also ask what you think about the Hindu converts in Muslim countries who are just as likely to face death?

It was a means of demonstrating that there is evidence for Christianity.

It would be much wiser and more reasonable to simply explain what this evidence actually is.

I don't think it reflects badly on the "supernatural intelligence", I think it reflects badly on those who read it and make these unfounded interpretations.

I would've thought the "Word" of the perfect being would be a little more perfect. Are these really the divinely inspired words of a cosmic super intelligence or just yet another collection of the ramblings of dark age man?

[elyettoner]

In this example Christianity is preached on a large scale, but the culture is still not conducive to becoming a Christian.

So?

So the point that this is an example of people not becoming Christians as a result of their culture.

I don't base these things on personal feelings

I have provided you with evidence that 77% of the US are christian, you dispute this on the basis of personal feelings, ala No true scotsman.

Based not upon personal feelings, but upon evidence of and the generally accepted principle that many claim to be of a particular faith as a result of their culture or background without actually believing it. The evidence you provide is not that 77% of the US are Christian, but that 77% of the US claim to be Christian.

and the few anecdotes I've included here are examples (one minute you condemn me for using Flew as an example and not the guy from the takeaway, which would be an anecdote, the next... what do you want me to say?).

Why you didn't mention 'the guy from the takeaway' was a rhetorical question, I said it to illustrate why you chose Flew. It was an appeal to authority.

As I said then, it was an example which I was sure you would know and which you did.

And if Christianity is true and other religions are false then that is a pretty big difference.

If, if and if. It should be very telling that we can't objectively tell the difference whether christianity is true or not. If christianity was completely false, the world would look identical as it is now. Or would you imply that something would be different?

Yep, if Christianity was completely false there would be nothing.

people are unlikely to become Christians without evidence, that is, on a whim, when the consequences for that conversation are severe and could result in their death.

Yes they are. People will believe almost any bullshit, look at the UFO cults and the 2012 morons. When the stakes are higher it just means you only get the proper fringe lunatics. Look at the Branch Davidians, all risked death and died for the sake of their weird cult. I might also ask what you think about the Hindu converts in Muslim countries who are just as likely to face death?

All well and good, but you assume they've made these decisions on a whim.

With regards to all of the above I'm going to leave it there. I think we're merely going round in circles and will probably continue to do so.

I don't think it reflects badly on the "supernatural intelligence", I think it reflects badly on those who read it and make these unfounded interpretations.

I would've thought the "Word" of the perfect being would be a little more perfect. Are these really the divinely inspired words of a cosmic super intelligence or just yet another collection of the ramblings of dark age man?

Your premise here is that God intends his word to be clear. Can you be sure that this is the case? Jesus telling parables is an example of him purposefully making his Word difficult to understand. Those who were willing to think about it were the ones who came to understand what he was saying.

[macgamer]

There is state run persecution in North Korea and the People's Public of China. In the latter case the persecution is of those who are not members of the patriotic or state run church, which is controlled by bishops appointed by the state. There are many priests and bishops and probably lay people of the underground church who have died in prison.

[Haunted]

So the point that this is an example of people not becoming Christians as a result of their culture.

And I don't dispute that it happens, only that it doesn't apply to the majority.

Based not upon personal feelings, but upon evidence of and the generally accepted principle that many claim to be of a particular faith as a result of their culture or background without actually believing it.

Is this 'evidence' going to be anything other than anecdotal? And 'generally accepted principle' sounds awfully like a cover for 'feeling'. It's almost certainly true that not everyone of the 77% are using the same definition of 'christian', but there is no authority on what the definition is, therefore if someone claims to be christian, it is prudent to take this claim at face value. As it stands you are trying to suggest that about half of that 77% are not true christians in order to support your assertion that christianity is a minority in the US. Rather shaky reasoning and with a dubious motive in mind.

Yep, if Christianity was completely false there would be nothing.

No universe? No gauge bosons? The assumption that the universe requires a creative intelligence in order to even exist is unsubstantiated. Try removing the mental block you have installed and imagine the world, not without christianity, but where christianity is just yet another of man's funny little social clubs like Islam and Hinduism and Sikhism. Now tell me, what's different.

All well and good, but you assume they've made these decisions on a whim.

No, my point is that this is something YOUR assuming when it comes to other religions. Christianity is not the only faith people convert to in the presence of mortal danger, that's my point.

Your premise here is that God intends his word to be clear. Can you be sure that this is the case? Jesus telling parables is an example of him purposefully making his Word difficult to understand. Those who were willing to think about it were the ones who came to understand what he was saying.

Yes, I agree. It may well be some failure on my part to understand it. However, this requires invocation of the "god works in mysterious ways" argument, which is pretty unimpressive and keeps christianity in the same league as every other supernatural worshipping clique. Much more likely, I would think, is that the word of god would somehow be better than all the cheap rip-offs being peddled as faiths around the world, yet it isn't. How strange.

Also, you ignored this rather important point

It would be much wiser and more reasonable to simply explain what this evidence actually is.

So far, it's all talk and no substance.

[elyettoner]

Yep, if Christianity was completely false there would be nothing.

No universe? No gauge bosons? The assumption that the universe requires a creative intelligence in order to even exist is unsubstantiated. Try removing the mental block you have installed and imagine the world, not without christianity, but where christianity is just yet another of man's funny little social clubs like Islam and Hinduism and Sikhism. Now tell me, what's different.

I said wasn't going to continue replying to most of what we've been discussing and I'll mostly stick to that. I'm not interested in arguing over things which, at the end of the day, actually make little difference to what Christianity claims. I'll make an exception on the above point.

Allow me to make an adjustment to what I said. Without Christianity there would be a universe and possibly gauge bosons (I say possibly because I haven't the foggiest what they are, even after looking them up on Wikipedia). What I should have said is that if the claims of the Bible are not true, there would be nothing. If they are true and there were no Christianity, the history of the world would be very different and Western culture unthinkably so, but the universe and gauge bosons (possibly) would still be here. Without God, however, there would be no world. There would have been no big bang, no gases and particles before the big bang, nothing.

As for Christianity being a social club: many churches, unfortunately, have become little more than social clubs. Tea, biscuits, carpet bowls, embroidery, flower arranging... How nice. I'd argue Christianity, however, while, yes I guess it is a bit of a social club, is much, much more. A club where each spur each other on in knowing God better, in sharing each other's burdens, in honouring and worshipping our Lord and Saviour and in looking forward together to the eternal life that we'll share in God's glory. It's like no social club I've ever known. As for other religions, as far as I'm aware they all teach how to get to a god or transcendence or nirvana or something, Christianity is the only one where God comes down to man and the only one (as far as I'm aware) which promises a relationship with God. Which makes sense. Why create us just to lord it over us like someone playing The Sims rather than interact with us?

Your premise here is that God intends his word to be clear. Can you be sure that this is the case? Jesus telling parables is an example of him purposefully making his Word difficult to understand. Those who were willing to think about it were the ones who came to understand what he was saying.

Yes, I agree. It may well be some failure on my part to understand it. However, this requires invocation of the "god works in mysterious ways" argument, which is pretty unimpressive and keeps christianity in the same league as every other supernatural worshipping clique. Much more likely, I would think, is that the word of god would somehow be better than all the cheap rip-offs being peddled as faiths around the world, yet it isn't. How strange.

The Bible does say we cannot fully understand the ways of God, in fact it goes as far as to say God's ways seem foolish to man. Crikey, if most of us grapple to understand quantum physics then how are we to fully understand the one who invented it? Everything works in mysterious ways until we understand it and I believe that one day we will understand God. If God used human wisdom and human thinking to do things he wouldn't be that amazing, would he? In fact, he wouldn't really be worth worshipping. However, as I've said before and I'll say again, belief in God isn't blind faith, it isn't believing against reason or evidence. I may not fully understand God, but I haven't just accepted what someone's told me nor what I've read in the Bible without questioning. If that were the case you'd have every justification in considering me a numpty. I think this idea of faith being unreasonable is a very modern idea which, yes, some events in history may have supported, but which for the large part is one big fallacy.

Incidentally, there was an interesting comment in the Telegraph along these lines today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... flict.html

Also, you ignored this rather important point

It would be much wiser and more reasonable to simply explain what this evidence actually is.

So far, it's all talk and no substance.

OK, but before going into this I want to establish two things:

i. I will not accept the burden of proof and I am not arguing that this evidence is proof of God or of the truth of Christianity. As God is not an empirical being he cannot be proven and comparisons with Father Christmas cannot be made. If you're willing to accept this, we'll proceed. If you're not then I will not take part in this discussion.

ii. I would request that you respond to what I've written, not what you wish I'd written or assume I've written and without putting words in my mouth. If what I've said is unclear please ask for clarification. I will do the same with you.

[Senethro]

if it ain't science its shite

you can get the same treatment as the religion of judaism/islan/hindusim or you can fuck off

no special rules for you unless you can somehow demonstrate that christianity deserves special attention

[macgamer]

if it ain't science its shite

Sounds like Scientism to me. This is approach to science is affected by the same thing you are critiquing religion of. You need to bare the philosophy of science in mind when putting your trust in truths which you claim science is able to deliver. Empirical sciences are based on certain assumptions.

[RedCelt69]

Yep, if Christianity was completely false there would be nothing.

Define Christianity. And define nothing.

Edit: Never mind. I notice that afterwards, you clarified what you meant.

What I should have said is that if the claims of the Bible are not true, there would be nothing.

Which claims? All of them, or just the ones that you interpret not to be metaphorical? I emphasised "you" because there are many Christians who would claim that it is heretical to say that any of the bible is metaphorical.

If they are true and there were no Christianity, the history of the world would be very different and Western culture unthinkably so

Well... Christianity could be completely true... but without the conversion of Constantine I, the world would be very different. Otherwise, Christianity would just be another fringe religion like Zoroastrianism. True or not.

but the universe and gauge bosons (possibly) would still be here. Without God, however, there would be no world. There would have been no big bang, no gases and particles before the big bang, nothing.

So what's this God person made from? Nothing?

As for Christianity being a social club: many churches, unfortunately, have become little more than social clubs. Tea, biscuits, carpet bowls, embroidery, flower arranging... How nice. I'd argue Christianity, however, while, yes I guess it is a bit of a social club, is much, much more. A club where each spur each other on in knowing God better, in sharing each other's burdens, in honouring and worshipping our Lord and Saviour and in looking forward together to the eternal life that we'll share in God's glory.

Ah yes... something I refer to as the Smug Club. Smug in the "knowledge" that they'll be going to heaven, whilst all those "misguided fools" get to dine with Beelzebub. I have personal acquaintances (unfortunately, familial) who go to church every Sunday and base the entirety of their life around their church. They don't buy books unless they confirm what they already know... and they don't listen to music unless it is "Christian". Basically, think of a family who won't buy any merchandise if it isn't by a particular manufacturer. And yet, despite cloaking themselves in everything and anything remotely inspired by Christ, they singularly and spectacularly miss the whole point of Jesus' message. They treat their fellow man like shit. Especially if they deem their fellow man to be anything other than Christian. Considering that (to them) any Christians who aren't Evangelical Christians aren't worthy to call themselves such... that leaves a considerable proportion of society open to abuse.

It's like no social club I've ever known. As for other religions, as far as I'm aware they all teach how to get to a god or transcendence or nirvana or something, Christianity is the only one where God comes down to man and the only one (as far as I'm aware) which promises a relationship with God. Which makes sense. Why create us just to lord it over us like someone playing The Sims rather than interact with us?

Other than convince me that you are ignorant of the teachings of world religions, the above tells me that you buy into the whole trinity deal. Now... had I not managed to side-step Christian indoctrination, as a Christian I would be very clear on one thing: Jesus never said that he was God. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, he didn't even claim to be the son of God (other than the sense that we are all God's children). Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man. So - unless you're basing your assertion on some later re-writings and interpretations, the creator god has not come "down to man".

[Senethro]

And when thinking about things that are difficult to investigate under those assumptions you say "There is insufficient evidence. I don't know." Anyone who does more is a fraud.

[macgamer]

A BBC article on the Templeton Prize http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7946092.stm which has some degree of pertinence to this discussion.