What is Christianity's Weakest Link
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Several points:
One, it's not clear what "Christianity" is. The people who call themselves "Christians" have vastly different definitions of what it means to be a "Christian". To say nothing of the vast disparities between the behaviors of the people who call themselves "Christians".
Two, lack of or unclarity about authoritative institutions in the form of organizations of believers, teachers, and secondary literature (ie. commentaries to and interpretations of sacred texts); instead, there is a miriad of smaller traditions or even just individuals who each have their somewhat different interpretation of the sacred texts, and more or less their own definitions of terms. As such, it's not clear what "Christianity" is about; and the few things that some people who call themselves "Christians" do agree on are so general or so abstract that they are useless, impossible to implement in daily practice.
Three, the above wouldn't be so bad, were it not that many people who call themselves "Christians" agree on one thing: That one has to choose one of their interpretations at one's peril, for if one chooses wrongly, one will go to hell for all eternity.
In practice, what is commonly referred to as "Christianity", is basically some kind of "freestyle religion" that teaches eternal hell for all who don't choose the right one among all those freestyles offered by people who call themselves "Christians".
Freestyle and threates of eternal hellfire are an absurd combination.
Lg,
A supernatural object has no precedent and is a fantasy, i.e. a god/spirit/soul etc.
If we cannot pinpoint a natural process that leads to a natural substance then suggesting a supernatural cause is not a credible option (no precedent) and this would imply we would NEVER discover a natural process, and as history shows it often takes time to discover the causes of things which at first we do not understand.
So what's your point? Blood is a natural substance. We know natural processes can lead to natural results.
A supernatural object has no precedent and is a fantasy, i.e. a god/spirit/soul etc.
If we cannot pinpoint a natural process that leads to a natural substance then suggesting a supernatural cause is not a credible option (no precedent) and this would imply we would NEVER discover a natural process, and as history shows it often takes time to discover the causes of things which at first we do not understand.
actually all we see are metonymic slices of cause and effect. And as it relates to your original statement on the issue, if you can't see the cause, there's no need to speculate.
So why do you speculate?
not sure if I follow you here
anything that doesn't have a precedent is a fantasy?
Well how come the big bang was/remains part of the fundamental pedagogy of astronomy?
so its more like an assumptive truth of logic?
kind of like if one man can dig a 10ft hole in 10 hours, ten men could dig a 10ft hole in one hour?
Lg,
There is a difference between inductive probability and fantasy speculation. One has a statistical basis the other has zero basis. Religious claims fall into the latter case of course.
No. I said “A supernatural object has no precedent and is a fantasy”. Natural objects have ample precedent.
Huh? I do not see how any of what you said relates to anything I said.
Cris
Where?
In Isaac Asimov novels?
do you follow?
so how many cases of "changing blood" has been observed when you draw up the statistics for it?
the big bang has a precedent?
Where?
In Isaac Asimov novels?
we have successfully pinpointed that one man can dig a 10ft hole in 10 hours therefore it it truthful and absolutely not an issue of fantasy to advocate that ten men can dig a 10ft hole in 1 hour.
do you follow?