- Aug 11, 2017
- 25,854
- 8,380
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Soooo...this is one thing that separates Christianity from other religions. You know...like something the OP was asking for.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Uh-huh. So what?
Soooo...this is one thing that separates Christianity from other religions. You know...like something the OP was asking for.
You missed what the OP was asking for.Soooo...this is one thing that separates Christianity from other religions. You know...like something the OP was asking for.
that shows it is actually of divine origin, some way which could not have been the product of mere mortal minds.
Put it like this:So, you are saying here that if something is not the product of "mere mortal minds" it is "actually of divine origin"?
You missed what the OP was asking for.
It said:
"My purpose in this thread is for Christians to have the opportunity to argue that Christianity is clearly different from other religions in a way that shows true divine guidance."
Of course there are things that separate Christianity from other religions. Every religion is unique, otherwise it would be a different religion.
Christianity is the only religion that begins with the letters.It's the only religion to have a holy book that repeats the same story four times. It's the only religion to have a God who is three persons in one. It's the only religion to have begun two thousand and twenty years ago. None of these prove that the Christian God is real.
So when you say "What other religion has their god suffered for his followers?"
The answer is: probably none.
So what?
We would, of course, be very interested if you could find some way in which Christianity is unique that shows it is actually of divine origin, some way which could not have been the product of mere mortal minds.
Any religion can and does say "our religion is true, and there's plenty of evidence to be found."Christ’s sacrifice was of divine origin. He is God incarnated into man, He died and was resurrected. If your expecting proof then you won’t find it but if you want evidence there’s plenty to be found.
Christianity is a pretty broad notion in terms of the specifics that you could enumerate: are you Unitarian/Binitarian/Trinitarian/Modalist/etc, are you Calvinist/Arminianist/Universalist/etc, the list goes on. Granting the truth of something so vague as "Jesus saves" is skipping right over the problem of trying to lump everything into it except for descriptive purposes and categorizing relative to other positions, like, say, Abrahamic covering anything related to the Abrahamic origin in regards to Judaism, as it followed to Christianity and Islam. Christianity can cover pretty much anything related to venerating Jesus as the important figure in terms of the Gospels and such.the title of the OP begins with the words “If Christianity IS TRUE” this implies that Christianity is substantiated and is asking for it’s differences from other religions. It’s not questioning the validity of Christian claims.
I don't think you understand how evidence works: it's not merely that you can conclude something based on your interpretation of it, but that any reasonable person can conclude such a thing and it isn't subject to vacuous interpretations afterwards. You're likely arguing that what you find compelling is evidence, rather than more precisely sufficient evidence, which is distinct from demonstrable/falsifiable evidence.Christ’s sacrifice was of divine origin. He is God incarnated into man, He died and was resurrected. If your expecting proof then you won’t find it but if you want evidence there’s plenty to be found.
And that's meant to reflect what kind of response that can be reasonably deduced online? Honestly, it sounds like you're not wanting to actually engage, but just get an answer and then use it as potential fodder for pointing out atheists as being irrational or the like, it would be pretty disingenuous.Got it.
I don't think you understand how evidence works: it's not merely that you can conclude something based on your interpretation of it, but that any reasonable person can conclude such a thing and it isn't subject to vacuous interpretations afterwards. You're likely arguing that what you find compelling is evidence, rather than more precisely sufficient evidence, which is distinct from demonstrable/falsifiable evidence.
And I also don't think you're utilizing proof that accurately because scientists and philosophers don't use the term except in relation to math and logic, any other usage becomes vague and vernacular at best.
Christianity is a pretty broad notion in terms of the specifics that you could enumerate: are you Unitarian/Binitarian/Trinitarian/Modalist/etc, are you Calvinist/Arminianist/Universalist/etc, the list goes on. Granting the truth of something so vague as "Jesus saves" is skipping right over the problem of trying to lump everything into it except for descriptive purposes and categorizing relative to other positions, like, say, Abrahamic covering anything related to the Abrahamic origin in regards to Judaism, as it followed to Christianity and Islam. Christianity can cover pretty much anything related to venerating Jesus as the important figure in terms of the Gospels and such.
I have engaged all through the thread. Please read my posts. I understand your position.And that's meant to reflect what kind of response that can be reasonably deduced online? Honestly, it sounds like you're not wanting to actually engage, but just get an answer and then use it as potential fodder for pointing out atheists as being irrational or the like, it would be pretty disingenuous.
Admissible, but not conclusive unless the situation is that unambiguous, which is rarely the case, especially when physical evidence apart from the eyewitness testimony is generally going to be more consistent, barring contamination of the crime scene.Eyewitness testimonies are admissible as evidence in a court of law. The word proof is often used in a court of law when referring to conclusive evidence.
Because the denominational differences are arguably important, particularly as regards claims about how one is saved and reconciled to God: universalism directly contradicts Calvinism and Arminianism, for instance, they can't all be true. The question requires more precision: what brand of Christianity is concluded to be true in the discussion, since a religious spectrum exists for Christianity and thus would create contradictions if you're claiming they're all true.All of these denominations agree that Jesus is incarnated into man, and that He was resurrected. So I don’t see the relevance of bringing up differences between denominations pertaining to what I provided.
If you understand, then why seemingly refuse to engage further if you're already certain you understand. Not even sure what you supposedly understand, since that kind of reflects assumptions about what I said that I may not have actually said, but were interpreted as such by youI have engaged all through the thread. Please read my posts. I understand your position.
I apologize for not being more clear. I understand that you do not believe. I respect that.If you understand, then why seemingly refuse to engage further if you're already certain you understand. Not even sure what you supposedly understand, since that kind of reflects assumptions about what I said that I may not have actually said, but were interpreted as such by you
Why does it bother you that I respect your view?But is my disbelief rational? You seem to insinuate that Paul is compelling as someone conveying Christianity because of his particular scenario: but really that seems to be a common theme in general. My dismissal of Paul seems to just be something you accept and not investigate further as to my justification for why I don't take him as reliable based on your arguments that his persecution of Christians means the conversion was genuine and lends some kind of credibility to Christianity itself (it doesn't)
If a person disbelieves in Christianity, then converts and they're meant to be taken more seriously than someone who just believed, even though the Bible seems to suggest that those who aren't skeptical like Thomas was, are to be praised more in their belief without having seen as he did. How can a skeptic be somehow more praiseworthy in any sense except that they fulfill the narrative Christianity in particular tends to present of the "prodigal son" returning to the forgiving "father"
It's not that at all, it's more that it seems to be almost unimportant as regards my motivations, so to speak. You offer the notion of Paul as somehow a unique aspect of Christianity and I point out that we can find other examples elsewhere, to say nothing of a more underlying issue of someone's motivations for conversion in the narrative making them seem more petty than sincere at times.Why does it bother you that I respect your view?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?