The Case for Christianity

[steve_bank]

Second comment: the modern “force” is not in any way equivalent with the ancient “spirit.” Force in the modern usage is clearly specified by Newton’s second law. The ancients had no access to this conceptual framework and there is no relation at all between “spirit” and “force.”

They are not equivalent, but the word force has any uses.

Trump is a 'force of nature'. Joe i a force to be reckoned with.

'Human inertia', the inertia of 2000 year of Chrtianity is hard to overcome.

Newton' Laws in different forms are used as metaphor. Entropy.

 

[steve_bank]

Here is a thought.

Maybe Brunswick i not using AI, she is an AI somebody created.

Posting is the creator's Turing Test.

 

[pood]

Second comment: the modern “force” is not in any way equivalent with the ancient “spirit.” Force in the modern usage is clearly specified by Newton’s second law. The ancients had no access to this conceptual framework and there is no relation at all between “spirit” and “force.”

They are not equivalent, but the word force has any uses.

Trump is a 'force of nature'. Joe i a force to be reckoned with.

'Human inertia', the inertia of 2000 year of Chrtianity is hard to overcome.

Newton' Laws in different forms are used as metaphor. Entropy.

Sure, but she specifically specified the modern scientific meaning of the word, and that is F=ma and it has no bearing whatever with the ancient meaning of “spirit.”

In any case, etymology and word-splitting have nothing to do with making a case of the literal Christian God. Same thing with logos. It’s biblical. So what? It actually originated in ancient Greek and took on different shades of meaning. Its original meaning seems to have been logic or language as opposed to mythos, story-making and myth-making. The biblical writers, no doubt under Greco-Roman influenced, hijacked the word to say that Jesus was the word, the logos, and somehow spoke the word into existence, but in actuality the Jesus resurrection tale belongs more properly to mythos.

And while all this can be interesting to hash over, none of it gets her close to making the case for the literal biblical god.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Buddhism teaches that humans suffer because of attachment to the past and the wanting of things. Due to the impermanence of ourselves, materialism can't possibly work at easing our desires as we are changing every moment of our lives. It is literal fact.

Christianity teaches us that we are awful mofos and God needed to get himself killed to make up for how bad we were. That is just fucked up.

 

[James Brown]

Looks like Brunswick has moved on. Last seen here June 30.

Did we ever see the Case for Christianity? I may have missed it.

 

[steve_bank]

Second comment: the modern “force” is not in any way equivalent with the ancient “spirit.” Force in the modern usage is clearly specified by Newton’s second law. The ancients had no access to this conceptual framework and there is no relation at all between “spirit” and “force.”

They are not equivalent, but the word force has any uses.

Trump is a 'force of nature'. Joe i a force to be reckoned with.

'Human inertia', the inertia of 2000 year of Chrtianity is hard to overcome.

Newton' Laws in different forms are used as metaphor. Entropy.

Sure, but she specifically specified the modern scientific meaning of the word, and that is F=ma and it has no bearing whatever with the ancient meaning of “spirit.”

In any case, etymology and word-splitting have nothing to do with making a case of the literal Christian God. Same thing with logos. It’s biblical. So what? It actually originated in ancient Greek and took on different shades of meaning. Its original meaning seems to have been logic or language as opposed to mythos, story-making and myth-making. The biblical writers, no doubt under Greco-Roman influenced, hijacked the word to say that Jesus was the word, the logos, and somehow spoke the word into existence, but in actuality the Jesus resurrection tale belongs more properly to mythos.

And while all this can be interesting to hash over, none of it gets her close to making the case for the literal biblical god.

Moved it over to Spirit thread on philosophy.

You and I agree there is no factual case for Christianity to begin with.

To understand meaning of religion and its terms you have to understand people, feelings, and perceptions within yourself. Academic debate over word gets you nowhere in terms of understanding

The old saying, philosopher know thyself.

Religion is not a scientific logical academic debate over facts.

You go rond and round refuting religion logicality with no effect, that should yell you something.

Yet on philosophy[shy you spin elaborate metaphysical inventions and see to belve in them.

Whn I quesion it or any partt of philopshy you give me the angy emoji.

Phioapher know your self.....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like Brunswick has moved on. Last seen here June 30.

Did we ever see the Case for Christianity? I may have missed it.

Their case was they thought it made sense, and even if you didn't believe in it, if you behaved well you were embodying Christianity. Not a particularly compelling argument.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Looks like Brunswick has moved on. Last seen here June 30.

Did we ever see the Case for Christianity? I may have missed it.

Their case was they thought it made sense, and even if you didn't believe in it, if you behaved well you were embodying Christianity. Not a particularly compelling argument.

Just that. She was well-spoken (unless the AI accusations are correct, and I don't have AI radar skills), but what she had to say was so wishy-washy that it could apply to any religion in any society today. All the wretched stuff and nonsense in the Bible? Forget it, it was man-made, let's just look at the motivational material. Dogma, Nicene Creed, denominational craziness? Inessential. Her promotional plugs for Jesus were pallid. In essence, a low-pressure, liberal faith statement, which has no more validity than the full-on lock-step rigidity of the born agains. Faith requires a rules change in logical debate, no matter the level of piety.

 

[DBT]

After all, faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Which makes it kind of hard to defend.

 

[bilby]

The case for Christianity:

It feels right to me, so therefore it is undoubtedly and unquestionably true.

(This is also the case for every other religion, past, present and future; Indeed, it is the acid test for whether a notion is religious, or merely speculative).

 

[lostone]

Speculation is OK, but when it turns into faith, it becomes toxic. Sometimes it is a thin line.

 

[Elixir]

It feels right to me, so therefore it is undoubtedly and unquestionably true.

That’s fine, depending on what “it” is. If it is of any consequence, it needs to be both explanatory and predictive to earn my provisional belief or “faith”.
If it is materially and substantially inconsequential, it only needs to consistently feel right.
After a lot of decades I began to notice how many things in the latter category were/are in fact just wrong, but I have mostly avoided making decisions based on those things, so minimal harm done.
There is much we don’t understand.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Looks like Brunswick has moved on. Last seen here June 30.

Did we ever see the Case for Christianity? I may have missed it.

Their case was they thought it made sense, and even if you didn't believe in it, if you behaved well you were embodying Christianity. Not a particularly compelling argument.

Newsflash for dumbass Christian fundies: Zoroastrianism and Buddhism are both way older than your dumbass religion, and both have some of the same things Jesus taught. Get the fuck over yourselves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indeed, which made the claims by the poster all the weirder as they claimed to be an anthropologist, which I would have presumed would have required at least having a baseline understanding of world religions.

I always like telling the story about how someone was trying to tell a couple people and myself that on Buddha's death bed, he asked for Jesus's forgiveness. I informed the guy that Buddha allegedly existed hundreds of years before Jesus. So much for poor man evangelism.

 

[Politesse]

A lot of people think they are "anthropologists", having read a book or two on the subject...

 

[ideologyhunter]

Fine, but I still say I could deliver a baby, if there was an emergency in, say, a stalled elevator. I read a piece about it in Woman's World, recently.

 

[DLH]

Looks like Brunswick has moved on. Last seen here June 30.

Did we ever see the Case for Christianity? I may have missed it.

Their case was they thought it made sense, and even if you didn't believe in it, if you behaved well you were embodying Christianity. Not a particularly compelling argument.

Just that. She was well-spoken (unless the AI accusations are correct, and I don't have AI radar skills), but what she had to say was so wishy-washy that it could apply to any religion in any society today. All the wretched stuff and nonsense in the Bible? Forget it, it was man-made, let's just look at the motivational material. Dogma, Nicene Creed, denominational craziness? Inessential. Her promotional plugs for Jesus were pallid. In essence, a low-pressure, liberal faith statement, which has no more validity than the full-on lock-step rigidity of the born agains. Faith requires a rules change in logical debate, no matter the level of piety.

It always amuses me when the skeptical don't see the irony.

 

[DLH]

After all, faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Which makes it kind of hard to defend.

Nonsense. What is evidence?

 

[DBT]

After all, faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Which makes it kind of hard to defend.

Nonsense. What is evidence?

That is how the word faith is defined in relation to religion, faiths, or any form of belief held without evidence.

You don't have evidence, you have faith.

That's how faith is defined in Hebrews, that faith is its own justification.

Evidence is a form of information that anyone can access and examine. What is written in a holy book is not evidence for the truth its claims.....as you know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like Brunswick has moved on. Last seen here June 30.

Did we ever see the Case for Christianity? I may have missed it.

Their case was they thought it made sense, and even if you didn't believe in it, if you behaved well you were embodying Christianity. Not a particularly compelling argument.

Just that. She was well-spoken (unless the AI accusations are correct, and I don't have AI radar skills), but what she had to say was so wishy-washy that it could apply to any religion in any society today. All the wretched stuff and nonsense in the Bible? Forget it, it was man-made, let's just look at the motivational material. Dogma, Nicene Creed, denominational craziness? Inessential. Her promotional plugs for Jesus were pallid. In essence, a low-pressure, liberal faith statement, which has no more validity than the full-on lock-step rigidity of the born agains. Faith requires a rules change in logical debate, no matter the level of piety.

It always amuses me when the skeptical don't see the irony.

I think the word you are looking for is hypocrisy. That isn't particularly accurate either.

The issue at hand is that there was really never provided a case for Christianity by the OP'er. At best, their argument was 'people needed spirituality'. The OP'er barely interacted with feedback and just kept on Taco Bell'ing their position (people need spirituality), while not providing an actual case for Christianity.