-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
(meta) Not enough Christians on the forums
- Thread starter Kapalika
- Start date
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
I agree. I also wish there were more Christians on here. There also doesn't seem to be hardly any orthodox Catholics on here. I know of myself and I think one other person who believes all of the teachings of the Catholic Church who posts here from time to time and that's about it.
Misunderstood
Active Member
I am Christian and am not afraid to debate, but stay out of most as it seems some posters like to attack before trying to understand. In other words they will argue against a reply before understanding what was said, with that the argument just goes in circles.
Christians are always asked for proof, we cannot provide concrete proof. Like we cannot go pick up a rock and say see here is the proof, but we still believe very much a rock (God) exists. Ours is a more philosophical argument and we feel there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove God.
So with no evidence the debate never ends, as those who do not believe want solid evidence and do not want to try to understand what is being said and criticize without asking for clarification, and if clarification is given it is attacked without understanding. So it just goes around and around.
Christians are always asked for proof, we cannot provide concrete proof. Like we cannot go pick up a rock and say see here is the proof, but we still believe very much a rock (God) exists. Ours is a more philosophical argument and we feel there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove God.
So with no evidence the debate never ends, as those who do not believe want solid evidence and do not want to try to understand what is being said and criticize without asking for clarification, and if clarification is given it is attacked without understanding. So it just goes around and around.
Liu
Well-Known Member
Now that's a reasoning I can get behind.
Understanding Christians doesn't have that high a priority level to me (must be the different culture, here in Germany fundamental ones seem much rarer than from what I hear about in the States).
But I completely see your point, and such a debate would certainly have my interest.
My point applies, though, also on that level it won't be enjoyable for them to have their believes questioned. Having our believes questioned might not even be that enjoyable for you and me, who may want it to be able to improve from it.
I looked at this one:
And while Ken Ham uses a lot of straw man arguments and some of his arguments for his own believes truly were hilarious, I easily could imagine much lower levels of arguing. Many of the arguments he had against naturalism as an ideology are valid. Of course it still doesn't make his own believes any more likely than those of naturalists as he claims, though, and he didn't even address that point much.
So I agree, a debate some levels above that certainly might be engaging.
That sounds like a kind of problem that might be solved by both parties focusing on clarifying what exactly it is they argue for.
Having thin skin might be a personal issue, but I have the impression that some religions allow for un-challenged believes much more than others. In my religion for example, letting one's own believes be challenged, or being critical about them oneself, is something one is actively encouraged to do. I don't think that Christianity encourages its members to the same.
Even though I have chosen my acquaintances carefully, I'm geographically surrounded by Christians or at least a lot of people who nominally identify as Christian (a large number, from the vibe I get really don't honestly care much or feel strongly about it). This area has a weird diversity of Christian denominations but also it's one of the most unchurched states in the USA so many don't really give a damn.
Christianity isn't something I think about a lot, at least not anymore than any other religion I don't believe in. But it is the one I encounter the most often on a daily basis (despite that, most of my acquaintances are not Christian even if they are religious). So understanding it and how it interacts with the people who believe in it has some practical benefits for me. Whenever I get into a discussion or debate with someone in real life about religion, I can call on my experience in online discussions and debates, which is much more common than in real life anyway.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
If you have that deep an understanding of Christianity, I would suggest it would be most useful to save yourself. As to your observations re the lack of Christians here. Lets look at some facts. As we knew would happen, Christians ( according to the UN) are now the most persecuted religion in the world. Further, in the United States where islam has become a protected class in the minds of liberals and the flavor of the month and Christian specific views of right and wrong, as opposed to a sliding scale, we are Considered an enemy. I am always amused by virtually any discussion of Christian theology or doctrine being crashed by strident atheists, who, of course, hijack the discussions with the same questions that have been answered to our satisfaction over and over again, some for thousands of years. So most Christians don't bother, they don't need these discussions, or the arguments or the abuse. I am a little different from they, having been a committed atheist who through the study of philosophy and cosmology became a committed Christian, and also being bullheaded and enjoying debate, I stay and take on all comers, or not as I choose. Does this answer your question?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
WRONG !
The fact that I understand it but don't accept it as true is a testament to my conviction of my own religion.
Maybe I should say this another way... there is a difference between understanding a belief system, and accepting it. The truth of the matter is, the more I've come to understand Christianity the more strongly I feel about my non-belief of it on theological, philosophical, scientific and moral grounds.
This is mirrored by how I feel a stronger acceptance of my own religion the more I learn about it's theology and scriptures, as well as general philosophy and science. The fact that I also have had various kinds of experiences related to my spiritual beliefs helps too. And although my understanding of my religion has evolved over time, I can't see myself adopting another system, least of all one that is so foreign to my fundamental beliefs and values.
As much as I know interfaith discussions are not for debates... I need to call into attention how obviously stupid the assertion is that the world's largest religion is the most persecuted in the world. Try again when Christians have experienced something like the Jews or Native Americans have. Don't expect me to engage you any further, in this thread, on this subject, at the very least to avoid a debate.
I know I said I wanted to debate Christians, but it seems you would, as you have here, quickly take it away from the intended discussion to your highly distorted perception of history and politics. Honestly, some of the things you said in your post were pretty disgusting to me so It would feel more like a chore. Add to that, I don't think I could hold a debate with you if this is a sampling as I don't see any merit in your reasoning. It just looks like an attempt to push other views not relevant to the conversation. For those reasons I don't think I would wish to debate you.
Edit: This post shows something I had in the back of my mind earlier. When we don't have enough of any religion here, only the more radical ones who stay are heard. I don't know if most Christians prefer different boards or if a lot got scared off at one point or what, but surely we can do something to make the ones who do come feel more welcome.
Last edited:
Beth Stitely
Member
I'm a Christian.
It's true, I find this a difficult forum. I am only here because of a dear friend whom I deeply respect.
Is this a place where people are genuinely seeking? or is this a place where people desire to validate themselves?
Matt 7:6
It's true, I find this a difficult forum. I am only here because of a dear friend whom I deeply respect.
Is this a place where people are genuinely seeking? or is this a place where people desire to validate themselves?
Matt 7:6
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Yes, I am a 'radical" and "fundamentalist" Christian, and darn proud of it. You wanted to know why Christian's aren't represented in the numbers you think they should be, I gave you some answers.. I have neither a "highly distorted", perception of politics or history, I never say anything I cannot support. I have a "Different" view of politics and history than you, therefore, regardless of the facts, it is also "distorted" in your eyes. Well, my post is disgusting to you, and your alleged religion is disgusting to me, so we are even on that score. I suspect you may be typical of many, your motive isn't a free and open exchange of idea's, you believe you have a "deep understanding" of Christianity, and want to use it to score debate points, and put Christians in their place. There is nothing in and of itself wrong in that, just the chimera that your motive may be founded on something else. Radical means totally committed, and I am, fundamentalist means holding to the fundamental truths, without the dilution of compromise with societal failure and evolution. Debate has rules, having been on a debate team in years long past, I am familiar with them. Here, ad hominem attacks and insults are common "debate" tactics by many. Employed first against me, I make the unsuitability of the tactics extremely clear to it's practitioner I really couldn't care less whether you "engage" me or not. There are always many, some with the finest motives, some with the basest, who want to do so. I see my purpose as defending my Faith, directly, and firmly with logic and reasoning, as well as knowledge gained by education, study, and life experiences. I will VIGOROUSLY do so. If you have problems with Christianity being the most persecuted religion today, take it up with the UN, it was their finding. Adieu
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Addendum, if you are a practitioner of some form of Hinduism, I retract the " disgust" statement, if you , as in the little examplar of your faith states, are involved with anything "satanic", it stands. Once again, adios.
Beth Stitely
Member
1 Peter 3:15b-16
Jer 12:5
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I wish there was more Buddhist.
As a Christian, I think it has more to do with subject matter than the absence of Christians. By and large, there really isn't a discussion about our beliefs because most people have already made up their minds on what they believe.
But we are here and if the subject is interesting enough, usually there is a Christian perspective post.
Last edited:
Great point, Beth. In my view, as I just mentioned in the previous post, most people on this forum have already made up their minds about their belief system.
Certainly, I have never had someone ask me a question about why or what I believe and how I came to that conclusion.
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
As a not very orthodox Christian, I find it very frustrating to debate non-Christians on Christianity itself... There's an expectation that "christian" equals a certain very specific orientation toward faith, which does not describe me, so I feel as though I'm being asked to act as a proxy or foil for fundamentalism despite having little experience with it. I spend more time in the Pagan DIR as that part of my faith is less contentious as a rule. I do enjoy a good scriptural or theological discussion when they come around, but it is a rare thing alas.
Misunderstood
Active Member
Mandi, I hope what you said in your opening post is correct as I see many Christian have come to comment as it seemed you were serious about wanting to interact. However I have not seen any posts of yours and felt you were sincere. Then I saw the post from 'Saint Frankensten' in that he has the OP set to ignore. That gave me some concern, but did not give it much thought.
I know 'Shmogie' came on a bit strong, but stated his opinion well and passionately and I felt kept to the OP. I think it is good to talk to someone who is passionate about their beliefs because this is usually someone who has thought about it a lot.
Anyway the first part of your response was good and I understand your point.
But after that I feel you completely dismissed what he said and became very critical of him. He was giving you a reason why Christians do not debate here because of persecution. It does not matter if it is true or not, if they feel it is true to them, it is a true fact in their mind. He said the UN said 'Christians are the most persecuted' I saw that myself back when ISIS was lining up and chopping off the heads of Christians. At that time it may have been true maybe not, but I don't think it meant anything about persecution in the past and who was persecuted more.
I really see nothing disgusting in his first post to you. But you have attacked his perception of history and politics, without knowing why he feels that way. But now he is gone from the conversation and now there are two not wanting to debate you ( 'Saint Frankensten' and 'Shmogie').
I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but if you truly want to debate Christian's you may not want to be so quick to attack, at least until there is something better to attack on rather than a reasonable response to your question.
I know 'Shmogie' came on a bit strong, but stated his opinion well and passionately and I felt kept to the OP. I think it is good to talk to someone who is passionate about their beliefs because this is usually someone who has thought about it a lot.
Anyway the first part of your response was good and I understand your point.
But after that I feel you completely dismissed what he said and became very critical of him. He was giving you a reason why Christians do not debate here because of persecution. It does not matter if it is true or not, if they feel it is true to them, it is a true fact in their mind. He said the UN said 'Christians are the most persecuted' I saw that myself back when ISIS was lining up and chopping off the heads of Christians. At that time it may have been true maybe not, but I don't think it meant anything about persecution in the past and who was persecuted more.
I really see nothing disgusting in his first post to you. But you have attacked his perception of history and politics, without knowing why he feels that way. But now he is gone from the conversation and now there are two not wanting to debate you ( 'Saint Frankensten' and 'Shmogie').
I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but if you truly want to debate Christian's you may not want to be so quick to attack, at least until there is something better to attack on rather than a reasonable response to your question.
Took me almost an hour and a half to write this post lol.
Actually I never asked why (went back and double checked), I was trying to open a discussion about how we could change it. The why doesn't matter so much unless it's a way posters generally act.
-> Perhaps I judged too quickly, but it was mostly the tone that hit a nerve. I apologize if I came off too strongly.
As for my "alleged religion", I would like to point out that just as I had quickly judged your view without much information, you've judged my religion with almost no information. If I made a blunder, it doesn't help you to repeat it to "even the score". Most of the time I'll recognize it and apologize later anyway, which would leave you in a position to have to take it back as well. To Jesus's credit "Turn the other cheek" is a good way to avoid escalating a situation over a misstep.
Actually, I change my mind about the debate thing. If you want, I would be willing to debate you about the original intention of what the common Christian New Testament says about retaliation and persecution. However, I'd only agree to that debate if we left it as more of a scriptural debate. Otherwise we might start debating about modern day events or the Spanish Inquisition which is a totally different can of worms.
Alternatively, I would be willing to debate you about some aspect of my own religion.
I am anything but typical in most aspects of myself, and I think even this thread shows that in relation to this topic.
Perhaps not with you, but if anyone would be willing to debate on the historical congruency of theology of the fundamentalist worldview. That's one I always wanted to tackle.
I understand your position, but I feel that when you approach with that mindset, you are more likely to fall prey to fallacies if otherwise good evidence is in conflict with your beliefs. I'm more Socratic, so I've allowed my views to adapt to new information before. So I think we might be different in that respect.
There is so much misinformation floating around today. Without you providing some kind of proof or context I find it highly likely that you probably just read a distorted version of the event on an agenda-based site. Lots of sites do this all the time and it's not exclusive to any one political ideology, worldview or religion. So until I can get your source and vet it I'll have to assume it's not true in the face of how absurd it seems to me.
The ignore is mutual and it's a personal matter that has nothing to do with the forums.
I thought about this yesterday night, and considered perhaps I over reacted. However it was a gut reaction because it seemed like he was making it out that "liberals" persecute Christians in favor of Islam and that somehow Christianity, the most powerful and largest religion is the greatest victim in today's world where in my view they are the second most likely to mistreat others where they are the majority. There's a certain double standard it takes to have his kind of view when you enjoy the freedom, safety and advantages in a country like America.
I could give a lot of specific examples from my own life about the double standard up to and including straight up religious discrimination in the workplace. Although I'll note that this kind of double standard isn't exclusive to religion and most of the time it has nothing to do with religion, but it also often has had to do only with religion. For some people, even when they are being the jerk, they are still somehow the victim, religion or not.
They line up and chop the heads off of everyone. They are fairly small and surrounded by enemies from all sides and in all religions. They are after everyone even other Muslims (according to some of their propaganda they hate 'apostate' muslims more than non muslims). If they were only against Christians it would be a valid point, although there are enough radicals targeting non-Christians elsewhere that it wouldn't convince me, not that we would want anyone to be killed to win such an argument.
The fact is in most parts of the world Christians don't face any persecution and only occasionally a relatively minor amount discrimination and usually have certain privileges and advantages over people of other faiths on a social (such as in America) if not legal level (many European countries have official religions which are Christian).
For the sake of the forums I'll say that you may not agree with that, but understand that is where I was coming from. I would like to say that I wish I could offer to debate you on this topic if you feel this is a discussion worth having, but I think I have unfortunately shown that on the subject of religious persecution and discrimination in today's world it may hit too close to home for me.
Actually I never asked why (went back and double checked), I was trying to open a discussion about how we could change it. The why doesn't matter so much unless it's a way posters generally act.
-> Perhaps I judged too quickly, but it was mostly the tone that hit a nerve. I apologize if I came off too strongly.
As for my "alleged religion", I would like to point out that just as I had quickly judged your view without much information, you've judged my religion with almost no information. If I made a blunder, it doesn't help you to repeat it to "even the score". Most of the time I'll recognize it and apologize later anyway, which would leave you in a position to have to take it back as well. To Jesus's credit "Turn the other cheek" is a good way to avoid escalating a situation over a misstep.
Actually, I change my mind about the debate thing. If you want, I would be willing to debate you about the original intention of what the common Christian New Testament says about retaliation and persecution. However, I'd only agree to that debate if we left it as more of a scriptural debate. Otherwise we might start debating about modern day events or the Spanish Inquisition which is a totally different can of worms.
Alternatively, I would be willing to debate you about some aspect of my own religion.
I am anything but typical in most aspects of myself, and I think even this thread shows that in relation to this topic.
Perhaps not with you, but if anyone would be willing to debate on the historical congruency of theology of the fundamentalist worldview. That's one I always wanted to tackle.
I understand your position, but I feel that when you approach with that mindset, you are more likely to fall prey to fallacies if otherwise good evidence is in conflict with your beliefs. I'm more Socratic, so I've allowed my views to adapt to new information before. So I think we might be different in that respect.
There is so much misinformation floating around today. Without you providing some kind of proof or context I find it highly likely that you probably just read a distorted version of the event on an agenda-based site. Lots of sites do this all the time and it's not exclusive to any one political ideology, worldview or religion. So until I can get your source and vet it I'll have to assume it's not true in the face of how absurd it seems to me.
The ignore is mutual and it's a personal matter that has nothing to do with the forums.
I thought about this yesterday night, and considered perhaps I over reacted. However it was a gut reaction because it seemed like he was making it out that "liberals" persecute Christians in favor of Islam and that somehow Christianity, the most powerful and largest religion is the greatest victim in today's world where in my view they are the second most likely to mistreat others where they are the majority. There's a certain double standard it takes to have his kind of view when you enjoy the freedom, safety and advantages in a country like America.
I could give a lot of specific examples from my own life about the double standard up to and including straight up religious discrimination in the workplace. Although I'll note that this kind of double standard isn't exclusive to religion and most of the time it has nothing to do with religion, but it also often has had to do only with religion. For some people, even when they are being the jerk, they are still somehow the victim, religion or not.
They line up and chop the heads off of everyone. They are fairly small and surrounded by enemies from all sides and in all religions. They are after everyone even other Muslims (according to some of their propaganda they hate 'apostate' muslims more than non muslims). If they were only against Christians it would be a valid point, although there are enough radicals targeting non-Christians elsewhere that it wouldn't convince me, not that we would want anyone to be killed to win such an argument.
The fact is in most parts of the world Christians don't face any persecution and only occasionally a relatively minor amount discrimination and usually have certain privileges and advantages over people of other faiths on a social (such as in America) if not legal level (many European countries have official religions which are Christian).
For the sake of the forums I'll say that you may not agree with that, but understand that is where I was coming from. I would like to say that I wish I could offer to debate you on this topic if you feel this is a discussion worth having, but I think I have unfortunately shown that on the subject of religious persecution and discrimination in today's world it may hit too close to home for me.
I think that verse expresses how many people sometimes feel on debate forums. I find this often true of politics for me but usually not religion, to be honest.
Do you feel this is also why there isn't much discussion in the Christian DIR? The forum isn't all about debates.