Evidence for Christianity [SPLIT TOPIC].

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Things are never that simple.

 

[Laurens]

How would Christians know that Jesus was Christ without prophecy and the OT? The OT is fundamental to the religion. It's one big spider's web of claims and ideas, some dependent on others, some in isolation, but so many are important for the overall construct to exist. So, evidence for any of these claims is evidence for Christianity. As I have said many times; this evidence may be vastly insufficient, but that it exists at all is the point.

There are two issues I can think of that put a vast dent in this evidence that you speak of above.

Firstly it is very apparent that the accounts of Jesus were written in such a way as to make them appear fulfil OT prophecy. I spoke of this previously in this topic. Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to fabricate an account of how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem, both accounts are quite different, both appear to be independent attempts to square the stories of Jesus with the OT.

I know you say this might be vastly insufficient evidence, so don't think I am directing this at you personally, but you have to ask which is more likely; that an omnipotent, omniscient God exists, who inspired writings that accurately predicted future events. Or early Christians began to go around preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, which would inevitably face opposition from Jews who might say "but Jesus was from Nazareth, our prophecy states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem"---thus requiring that the early Christians begin to adapt their stories of Jesus to square it with the challenges given to them by the Jews.

Which leads me to the second issue; all the Jews agree that Jesus does not fulfil their Messianic prophecies and are thus still waiting for them to be fulfilled. The Jewish Messiah was thought to be a great King like David who would crush the oppressors of the Israelites and lead them to glory, not a peasant carpenter who died humiliatingly at the hands of the enemy.

I don't think scriptural prophecy can be considered good evidence at all, especially without other evidence to corroborate it.

 

[AronRa]

Both of the threads where this would be appropriate have been inappropriately locked.



Now Jason is declaring himself a 'world authority' on atheism, but he is beyond this discussion because he is 'on sabbatical' for two years. So that's the new excuse to weasel out of this discussion. In other videos, he accuses me of being the one trying to run from him.

 

[australopithecus]

He lost as soon as he decided he needed to write you a paper rather than debating you. Now he wants to turn it into a book, and do whatever else he's procrastinating with.

The thread re: Jason was locked because it had turned into nothing more than "LOL LOOK WHAT JASON DID LOL", which is way more attention than he deserved anyway.

 

[Engelbert]

How would Christians know that Jesus was Christ without prophecy and the OT? The OT is fundamental to the religion. It's one big spider's web of claims and ideas, some dependent on others, some in isolation, but so many are important for the overall construct to exist. So, evidence for any of these claims is evidence for Christianity. As I have said many times; this evidence may be vastly insufficient, but that it exists at all is the point.

There are two issues I can think of that put a vast dent in this evidence that you speak of above.

Firstly it is very apparent that the accounts of Jesus were written in such a way as to make them appear fulfil OT prophecy. I spoke of this previously in this topic. Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to fabricate an account of how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem, both accounts are quite different, both appear to be independent attempts to square the stories of Jesus with the OT.

I know you say this might be vastly insufficient evidence, so don't think I am directing this at you personally, but you have to ask which is more likely; that an omnipotent, omniscient God exists, who inspired writings that accurately predicted future events. Or early Christians began to go around preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, which would inevitably face opposition from Jews who might say "but Jesus was from Nazareth, our prophecy states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem"---thus requiring that the early Christians begin to adapt their stories of Jesus to square it with the challenges given to them by the Jews.

Which leads me to the second issue; all the Jews agree that Jesus does not fulfil their Messianic prophecies and are thus still waiting for them to be fulfilled. The Jewish Messiah was thought to be a great King like David who would crush the oppressors of the Israelites and lead them to glory, not a peasant carpenter who died humiliatingly at the hands of the enemy.

I don't think scriptural prophecy can be considered good evidence at all, especially without other evidence to corroborate it.

I never said that there was good evidence, or that it was persuasive or substantive of Christianity as a whole. I only said that there was some evidence. Your arguments probably would dent further the case for Christianity and I would probably agree with the points you make, although the last point can be seen as fulfilled in a metaphorical sense (Christianity is the most widespread global religion). I never claimed that the evidence in favour of Christianity was enough to largely substantiate Christianity in any of its various manifestations, just that there is some evidence in its favour, however good or bad it is. I would still say that there is some evidence for Christianity, although I have conceded that in some senses you might acceptably argue that there is none.

 

[Engelbert]

So...

AronRa is relatively popular.
AronRa uses the phrase there is no evidence for Christianity.
Engelbert believes that due to his popularity, AronRa should retract and reword the phrase.

This is because:
Engelbert believes that the phrase is not quite true.
Engelbert believes the phrase is a polemic.

Then:
Engelbert asserts that this is deliberate.
Engelbert further asserts that it is probably designed to enflame Christianity's proponents.

And:
AronRa agrees that it is deliberate.
AronRa disputes that it is designed to enflame by saying it is designed to focus in on several related issues (which he lists), but namely the fulcrum of Christianity, Jesus Christ and his divinity.

The audience generally agrees with AronRa's position.

So:
Engelbert goes on to show why he believes the phrase is not-quite-true.
Engelbert neglects the reason for bringing up the phrase issue in the first place.

That's pretty much it, right?

I would be interested in reading the argument behind the rest of Engelbert's reasoning.

This is not too far from the situation as it happened. What is my reasoning? Do you mean my reason for criticising, or my reason for believing it is a false statement, or both?


Well, I believe that it is more than, "not quite true". I believe that the phrase is largely false, even if it is arguable in some senses, which makes it contentious or controversial. Its use is the spread of questionable information amongst many people, as well as the antagonism of theists. These are essentially my reasons for saying anything at all. If any acknowledgement was made that there are problems with the phrase, or that it can be falsified in some senses, then perhaps this thread would have been much shorter. These are the main reasons for saying anything at all. It ‘seems’ apparent that many people on this site believe it to be completely true as a phrase or very largely true. It is asserted so strongly, that your subtle interpretation of it as a polemic (though it might not be true in all senses), is not necessarily shared or perhaps even spotted by all those who follow such discussions as this, who may well see it as a universal and complete truth. Surely freethinkers, should endeavour to address such issues.

Aronra talks about representing academic issues accurately, so I have questioned one of his positions on an important and relevant academic issue. If most of the people on this website agree with Aronra, that does not make either Aronra, or the people on this website correct, though they could well be. If I went in to a church and said that there was no such thing as God, I bet that most people would disagree with me there too. Home advantage can be influential sometimes. Even if it can be true in some senses, it is certainly false in many or even most senses. If this is the case or there is even a small amount of validity to this assertion of mine, then it should be acknowledged too if we are to discuss academic matters properly. Aronra either rejected or ignored this point as far as I am aware and it was a focal point that I have made since the beginning. If no admission that it has any validity was to be made, then why shouldn't I have made a case for it, since I think it to be correct? These are the reasons you wonder about in your post.

So.

You have called his argument a polemic. Perhaps it is a polemic. But then, I could argue that there are no fish in the sea, if I define fish in a specially engineered way or say that, by "the sea" I actually mean the Dead Sea. Semantic engineering can give us any results we desire, if used carefully and effectively.

So, here is one of my fundamental points. This has been made in various ways throughout. Language has a multiplicity to it. It is duplicitous. This is a point that requires acceptance. Words can have multiple correct uses. Given Aronra’s definitions, perhaps his phrase is verifiable. Given many other acceptable and correct definitions, then his phrase will be falsified. This is a simple point of accuracy. This point about language is something that should have been engaged with more properly. It was ignored or rejected. Rejecting this point is incorrect. Ignoring it is sleight of hand. I think a little of both has occurred. Perhaps the crux of this matter is that we have a fundamental disagreement over the word evidence. That could well be the crux (though I think there is more to the issue).


Here follows some data that might be more persuasive to you.

Several (primary) Definitions from resources of stature for the word evidence:

Cambridge Dictionaries – one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true.

Collins English Dictionary- ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

Wiktionary – 1. Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.
2. Anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged matters of
fact in a trial.

Oxford Advanced learner’s Dictionary - the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true

Wikipedia - Evidence, in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Dictionary.com - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Merriam Webster Dictionary - an outward sign: indication

Aronra – "Evidence is an alignment of facts consistent with only one available indication over any other. Facts are points of data which are either not in dispute or are indisputable in that they are objectively verifiable."

Evidence can take many forms. It can be defined in many different ways. Aronra’s definition is neither the primary, nor the only definition of the word evidence. Evidence in its primary use and understanding is somewhat less emphatic and exclusive than it has been defined by Aronra. Evidence primarily defined does not exclude bad evidence, weak evidence, testimonial evidence, circumstantial evidence, historical evidence or evidence that is not based in fact. It includes things that are simply “grounds for belief” whether persuasive or not. It is more inclusive than the allowance of only undisputed facts and the exclusion of anything else.

To be clear. I do not reject Aronra's definition of evidence. I reject it as the only definition or form of evidence. I reject it as the primary definition and I reject it as the only valid definition of evidence to the exclusion of all others. I endorse it as one means of defining evidence. Evidence includes empirical and proven facts, but is not limited to them. It includes the use of any reasonable material that supports a case, or is an indicator of the validity of a statement, proposal, event or theory. Evidence can be defined correctly in many different ways, not just the empirically exclusive manner that Aronra has laid out. The primary definition in the Merriam Webster Dictionary is, "an outward sign: indication" as well as "something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter". A primary or usual definition of evidence might well include Aronra's definition, but is not limited only to his definition.



I have been so surprised at the extent of the rejection of my points on this site, some of which may have been in error but certainly not all, that I took a step back. I did a little more reading, thinking and decided to send some emails to some secular university professors in the relevant field. I have received one reply from 3 messages sent so far. It broadly supported the general contention I have made throughout this thread, that the phrase in question is false. I may send some further messages, as I am truly interested to see how many other professors in the relevant field are as "obtuse" as I have been.

If Aronra and myself are disagreeing over the nature of evidence, then this should have been elucidated, clarified and explored more thoroughly, as I continuously made this point. Sure, Aronra gave me his definition of evidence. But he must be aware that other academics such as historians, philosophers and lawyers use the word evidence in a different manner. Surely this is a primary issue that should have been openly acknowledged. “My definition of evidence is …. Etc. But a historian defines evidence in this manner …. Etc. A philosopher defines evidence in this manner … etc. A general use of the term evidence is …. Etc. A legal use for the word evidence is … etc.” These are acknowledgments and points of clarity that should have been accepted and explored at the beginning. I alluded to many of these points, but was either ignored or rejected. The course in this thread has been less the course of an academic discussion and more the course of an agenda driven discussion.

If you are going to use controversial means of attack, then you should at least acknowledge the potential problems with those means or the potential arguments that exist against them when questioned about them specifically, even if you take an opposing position. (The opposition here is not just a minority opinion, but an opinion held in secular academia in the relevant departments.) Why not make this clear? Well I have various suspicions for why. Even if Aronra's phrase can be confirmed, given his specific definitions, the phrase in many senses and probably its primary sense, is false.

So, in researching this issue further, contacting members of academia in the relevant fields seemed to be a sensible thing to do, as I have said. Here follows the response I have had from a senior lecturer of philosophy at a British university, who studies, researches and writes about the philosophy of religion professionally. I may send out some more emails, as other responses may differ.

Thanks for your mail. I don't envy your engagement with online discussions! Anyway, as for the issue of evidence for Christianity, it seems to me that there clearly is some and it is to be found in the New Testament and associated writings. Now whether this constitutes good evidence, or sufficient evidence for Christianity is another matter entirely, but it is still evidence nevertheless. In debates, and even in debates featuring philosophers of religion, it is sometimes thought that any evidence for the supernatural or for God is also evidence for Christianity. But this surely does not follow. The evidence for that religion (as with many others) is revelation.

This answer seems so obvious to me that I fear I may have misunderstood the nature of the debate, or overlooked some subtlety of it, so if my answer seems out of place then by all means please ignore it.

All the best

Now, this is the instant response of a man who spends his working life studying the matter at hand and many related matters. This is but one response. Perhaps all the others (if I receive any) will contradict, but if I have been obtuse this whole time, then I share my foolishness with at least one academic who is paid to study these exact matters. I may yet be wrong about everything. I have made a partial concession already. However, the fact that contradicting secular views from academia exist to Aronra’s pronounced statement, is something that should have been acknowledged a long time ago, since the point was very clearly raised and clarity is something prominent figures should be and claim to be interested in. Perhaps we will not agree on this matter, but at least an acknowledgement of the existence of dissenting views would have been fair. I don’t think that I have called anyone obtuse, though I may have felt very much like doing so on occasion. My partial concession may yet be retracted, though perhaps in a colloquial sense a partial acceptance of the statement, “There is no evidence for Christianity” given specific definitions, may still be arguable, although it has exceptions.

Of course I suspect that queries of the identity of this university professor will arise. I will not be releasing the details of this professor publicly, since that would be doc-dropping, I haven’t asked for his permission and he may receive a flurry of unwanted mail. However, I would invite anybody who queries the reliability of this message to ask any secular department members, researchers or teachers in the relevant subjects the question at hand to see what the replies are and to see if there is any concordance elsewhere. Please ask only secular professors, if you deem the opinions of the religious to be biased. I would deem the relevant subjects to include, philosophy, history, sociology and Religious studies. If there are a variety of views, the idea that evidence (good or bad) exists for Christianity among secular scholarship, will certainly be one of them.

What would you say to any of this post? Are there any valid dissenting arguments to Aronra’s phrase? Is it reasonable to question someone on a perceived academic inaccuracy, being used and spread widely or to respond when called obtuse? If Aronra’s phrase is just a tool to focus in on the central issues as you have described it, then why are its problems as a tool not readily acknowledged when openly quizzed about them, rather than an enforced assertion that the statement “There is no evidence for Christianity” is a universal truth? As far as I can remember, the idea that any genuine dissenting academic 'and' secular positions existed to the phrase was never acknowledged or mentioned, never accepted and was rejected or ignored when I raised it or any related issues. Surely a simple acceptance of the existence of these issues may have seen the discussion take a very different course a long time ago. I suspect that they were left aside or ignored for several different reasons.

 

[Laurens]

I never said that there was good evidence, or that it was persuasive or substantive of Christianity as a whole. I only said that there was some evidence. Your arguments probably would dent further the case for Christianity and I would probably agree with the points you make, although the last point can be seen as fulfilled in a metaphorical sense (Christianity is the most widespread global religion). I never claimed that the evidence in favour of Christianity was enough to largely substantiate Christianity in any of its various manifestations, just that there is some evidence in its favour, however good or bad it is. I would still say that there is some evidence for Christianity, although I have conceded that in some senses you might acceptably argue that there is none.

I understand you're not saying you believe the evidence for Christianity is good.

My point is that the kind of evidence you are suggesting amounts to nothing. The widespread nature of Christian belief for example is not really a piece of evidence. The amount of people that believe something is in no way correlated with its truth.

What I would mean when I say "there is no evidence for Christianity" is that none of the evidence put forth is good enough to substantiate the claim that it is true.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Having read through this thread, I confess that I have a certain sympathy with Engelbert.

In effect, his criticism of Aron Ra's initial statement - and subsequent defence - has been (despite the "beating about the mulberry bush" regarding what constitutes evidence) based on the underlying idea of "What is Christianity?"

To reduce "Christianity" to "(belief in) the divinity of Jesus" is little better than defining "Catholicism" as "(belief in) the infallibility of the Pope".

With all due respect to those in the contra Engelbert camp, it seems to me that there's something of a "Scotsman" fallacy hanging in the air.

Notwithstanding the fact that there's no evidence for the supernatural claims of Christianity - or, indeed, any religion - given that Engelbert has pointed out he's not a Christian, that should have been enough to indicate that he didn't accept any claims for divinity - much less supernatural - otherwise why hadn't he converted to Christianity!?

I'm sure I don't need to remind Aron - or anyone else, for that matter - the etymology of "Christ".

If one is going to insist that "Christianity" means belief in the divinity of Jesus, then one's going to run into all sorts of problems.

Historically, early Christianity comprised all sorts of beliefs about the existence and nature of Jesus Christ: from physical presence to purely spiritual; from a holy man "anointed/favoured" by God to "a son of God" to "the Son of God", and so on. For example, the Ebionites, who didn't accept the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, etc.

Which of these are "Christianity"?

Come the first Council of Nicaea in AD 325, a "Christian" was defined in the Nicene Creed, which started the Catholic ("universal") Church: those who didn't accept this were not considered "Christians", which resulted in a number of beliefs and sects being declared anathema, heresies.

Nevertheless, they still saw themselves as "Christian".

Are these heresies "Christianity"?

Later additions and alterations - notably in the 6th century - resulted in the further split with the Orthodox ("right believing") Christians going their own way in keeping with the original unchanged Nicene Creed, leaving the - now - Roman Catholic Church to go "off at a tangent".

Which of these are "Christianity"?

Then came the Protestant Reformation, centring around the infallibility of the Pope and whether it should be both holy tradition and scripture or just Sola Scriptura. Since then, Protestantism has split into a liquorice all-sorts comprising tens of thousands of sects - particularly in America - with all sorts of beliefs from conservative fundamentalism to "wishy-washy" Unitarianism, Episcopalian, etc.

Are these "Christianity"?

The point I'm trying to make is that "Christianity" - particularly in its modern form - is a "big tent" word which comprises a huge amount of leeway in beliefs.

There are Roman Catholics who - in the light of modern science - don't accept the "Virgin Birth", which makes it difficult to claim to be RC, given that that's why Jesus is alleged to be "divine".

Yet if you were to say that they're not Catholic, they'd be offended and would argue that they are "Catholic" because they accept everything else.

All that the "divine" definition leaves one with is "hard core" Catholics and "fundie" Protestants - dismissing the vast majority of those who believe in a Christian God and hold to a Christian philosophy of compassion (based on the parables of the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, etc).

Robin Lane Fox [2006, 8], in The Unauthorized Version, notes that:

When I had almost finished, a friend reminded me that I had once remarked to him that I believed in the Bible but not in God.

He later says [416-417] that the Bible contains "human truths", not divine:

From Eden to the Apocalypse, the Bible is a record of human error and wickedness. They are two of the human truths in its stories (from David to Judas Iscariot), and my unauthorized version has traced them in the authors themselves: they, too, err and lay claim to false identities; they are only too human in their views of others, from the psalmists' bitter hatred against their enemies to the divine approvals of genocide or the slaughter of most of humanity in the Revelation of John. There is no comforting progression from a barbarous God of war to a milder God of love: Omega ends in John's Revelation by behaving much as Alpha had begun to behave with the Flood. These ideas of God are human creations, and, like the stories of Creation, they remain contradictory to the end, After Eden, how could human texts be otherwise?

The scriptures are not unerring: they are not the 'word of God'; what we now read is sometimes only one textual version among earlier alternatives; its story may be demonstrably false (Joshua's conquests and Jesus' Nativity); it may ascribe sayings to people which they never said. Throughout, my unauthorized version has tried to reach for what the authors meant, insisting that it can undercut what Churches, literary critics or modernising readers now claim that the scriptures mean. To Christians, that present meaning may be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, promised (according to the beloved disciple) as a help in seeing what scriptures are saying (John 16:13). Others may wonder if the spirit is indeed so holy when interpretations have often been so false, saddling us with original sin, the virgin birth, or belief that bits of the Old Testament predict the New.

...

They are witnesses to ideas of God to which the modern world has many heirs. Their events and stories are often untrue because they are contradictory or because they do not correspond to facts we know outside. Yet they show us a truth, that people in Israel or the early Christians believed this or that to be so.

As such it's "evidence" of/for "Christianity" - not necessarily of divinity or supernaturalism.

Turn the question around.

What is it to be "an American"?

One could draw up a long list and argue as to which is the "core" criterion.

Er,... I hope my tone didn't come across as "antagonistic" - much less "shrill and strident"(!): it wasn't intended as such.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Prolescum]

The day you come across as antagonistic is the day the sky falls on our heads, James


By Toutatis.

I still believe it is quite apparent that AronRa is dealing with the central premise of, I suppose we could call the colloquial inference of Christianity, but concede that the overall approach, and that phrasing in particular, as is evident, can cause considerable issues. I also concede that my belief is based upon my own experience of AronRa, and therefore agree that given some circumstances, his phrase is likely to cause confusion.

Engelbert, your patience is greater than mine.

One note, though... I don't know how many, nor if any, members consider themselves freethinkers; I certainly don't. I believe it is a term (much like sceptic) that is, or should be, given only by others... but then again, once you label me, you negate me.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank you, Prolescum.

I should add that I'm not "having a go" at Aron either - just the over-simplification of what comprises Christianity.

Most Christians nowadays would resemble secular Jews in the nature and strength of their beliefs, which effectively makes them humanists.

Indeed, many Catholics can't explain "Transubstantiation".

He also mentioned that there were no "factual" statements in the Bible - obviously correct only if referring to scientific ones; it's another matter if one's referring to historical statements.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Engelbert]

Thanks kindly for your post James. You touched on some points that I alluded to at times in the thread and also some interesting points which I did not. Thanks for your post.

 

[Engelbert]

The day you come across as antagonistic is the day the sky falls on our heads, James


By Toutatis.

I still believe it is quite apparent that AronRa is dealing with the central premise of, I suppose we could call the colloquial inference of Christianity, but concede that the overall approach, and that phrasing in particular, as is evident, can cause considerable issues. I also concede that my belief is based upon my own experience of AronRa, and therefore agree that given some circumstances, his phrase is likely to cause confusion.

Engelbert, your patience is greater than mine.

One note, though... I don't know how many, nor if any, members consider themselves freethinkers; I certainly don't. I believe it is a term (much like sceptic) that is, or should be, given only by others... but then again, once you label me, you negate me.

Cheers Prolescum.

Although, about your note; you refer to 'freethinker' almost as though it is a title of nobility (not quite). You almost give it the respect of an academic qualification such as a doctorate, or perhaps the respect that you might give to a knighthood. This might be fair, but I would give it a little less exclusivity and reverence than you seem to attribute to it. That's not to devalue it, but I think it is well defined as a term that describes anyone who is prepared to engage their mind, to ask questions and to truly think about matters, for better or worse.

 

[Prolescum]

Although, about your note; you refer to 'freethinker' almost as though it is a title of nobility (not quite).

Certainly not, I'm both a literal and figurative republican
The terms don't receive undue reverence, but those who apply them to themselves often do so without qualification, therefore if those titles are given, they may have meaning to me.

 

[Engelbert]

Fair enough. It was an exaggerated comparison to nobility rather than an exact one.

I have qualified my use of the term, so hopefully you don't think it was used too inappropriately, given my definition. It's not a usual term that I would use to describe myself, but an occasional or colloquial one, if that. As I have said, I would usually go with agnostic. You seem to elevate it as a term at least a little, whereas I would probably use it more inclusively to the extent that many people on this site would be freethinkers, rather than just a few. There's a difference between our uses, but I'm not saying that either is wrong.

 

[Prolescum]

Fair enough. It was an exaggerated comparison to nobility rather than an exact one.

I know, I was playing with it

I have qualified my use of the term, so hopefully you don't think it was used too inappropriately, given my definition. It's not a usual term that I would use to describe myself, but an occasional or colloquial one, if that. As I have said, I would usually go with agnostic.

It's fine, it was just a note on my view.

You seem to elevate it as a term at least a little, whereas I would probably use it more inclusively to the extent that many people on this site would be freethinkers, rather than just a few.

I don't think I elevate it at all, hardly ever use it as I don't like cringing

As a quality, I think it has meaning when conferred by others, not by oneself. That's it, really. It's often just this.

 

[Hamster]

Indeed, many Catholics can't explain "Transubstantiation".

what is difficult about a miracle that changes wine and a cracker to a cup of blood and bits of the flesh of Jesus ?

true if you believe Jesus was a man it makes catholics ritual cannibals but no one is perfect.

:roll:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Indeed, many Catholics can't explain "Transubstantiation".

what is difficult about a miracle that changes wine and a cracker to a cup of blood and bits of the flesh of Jesus ?

true if you believe Jesus was a man it makes catholics ritual cannibals but no one is perfect.

:roll:

My point was that if even Catholics aren't necessarily "Catholic" as defined by core beliefs, one can't expect Christians to be "Christian" according to a simple definition.

About half of those polled (52%) say, incorrectly, that Catholicism teaches that the bread and wine used for Communion are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus. Just four-in-ten people correctly answer that, according to the Catholic Church, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus. Even many Catholics are unaware of their church’s teaching on this topic; while 55% of Catholics get the question right, more than four-in-ten Catholics (41%) say the church teaches that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s body and blood, and 3% say they do not know what the church’s teaching is. Still, Catholics perform better on this question than does any other religious group.
- The Pew Research Forum's Religious Knowledge Survey 2010

Kindest regards,

James

 

[prycejosh]

MOD NOTE - This thread is split from the Jason's paper thread. If you have a relevant post that hasn't been copied over please feel free to do so.



To Aronra.


I still disagree with much of what you said in your last reply to me. I just typed out a long response, but will refrain for the time being from posting it. I had a criticism of your words last time regarding your repeated statement, "There is no evidence for Christianity."

I would stand by this criticism. I wonder if you just say such a thing to create conflict, interest and therefore a little entertainment, or to try to entice Christians into discussion, because it is a demonstrably false statement. I know what you want in general and what you have demanded of Jason, because you have been clear and explicit elsewhere, but this is a repeated and untrue statement that I can only think is a jibe or a jab in the hope that a reaction will come, or perhaps it is a response to some less than acceptable behaviour from the opposition. This latter explanation is more understandable, though it doesn't change the accuracy of the original statement and I have seen you say such things about Christianity on other occasions unprovoked as well.

I will still submit that it is a false statement and I suspect it is a means of angering a theist, venting or stoking the fire. Is this the case? Your wider explanations do not excuse such repeated use of something that is untrue. Once is a mistake, but many times repeated is a mantra and if it's false, then it becomes a false mantra, despite what you mean by it when you explain at length.

the evidence for christianity is the landsite of the jews, testimonies that the christians have to say, i myself can say god exists. in the bible it says do this and this will happen. do that and that will happen. it is all tru because i can say ive done things and things have happened. ive also been spritually acttacked by demons so demons exist. but nobody talks about them thats very smart of them. they do that on purpose and blind you from seeing god. when you get judged by jesus hel point all this out to you and you will agree instantly.

 

[SpecialFrog]

the evidence for christianity is the landsite of the jews

Is New York City evidence for Spider Man?

i myself can say god exists. in the bible it says do this and this will happen. do that and that will happen. it is all tru because i can say ive done things and things have happened.

What have you done and what has happened as a result? Why did this convince you that God exists?

 

[Mugnuts]

the evidence for christianity is the landsite of the jews

Is New York City evidence for Spider Man?

:lol: I just said the same thing in another thread