• 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!

A defense for and proof for Christianity

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Different cult, same sham to elicit money from the credulous under the pretext of invisible friends in high places
You really don’t understand, do you! Simply going about making assumptions and calling out institutions in the name of “reason,” while your own arguments are ... unreasonable. YOU don’t find value in it, so there’s no “reasonable” explanation for anyone else finding value in it, either. There must be some skeleton in your spiritual closet to cause this much umbrage on your part.

At any rate, we’re not here either to provide counseling or to be a punching bag for your spiritual frustrations. Until, therefore, your arguments become valid and reasonable, they’re an annoyance, much like a fart in an elevator — and just about as useful to honest converse.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Faith in the conduct of one's wife can be adduced from evidence. Faith in a deity, particularly the theistic kind, is not predicated on any evidence whatsoever. If one has evidence, then religions, deists and theists would't need faith. One simply isn't comparing oranges with oranges in your analogy.
You’re barking up the wrong tree — at least as far as my own experience is concerned — and that if people whom I know. Why would (or should) one need evidence for mythic constructs? Aren’t the search for meaning and the fostering of kindness valuable without having to “prove” the FSM?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Like I said, it appears you are arguing against yourself. Hear's why one needs proof. You make extraordinary claims that are without any proof. In doing so you lose credibility and therefore why would one give credence to your claims? Again you state that there is a deity but you cannot do any more than simply ascribe natural phenomenon as evidence for supernatural intervention. Reasserting the claim does not evidence the claim. I am sure you believe your own experiences of 'the supernatural' and who am I to deny them to you? What you cannot extend from your own experience is a material reality for the claims you make and these claims cannot be falsified, making them even less believable and of no value to anyone else in the only world we have. The trope of the personal God is even less compelling given its self-serving resilience and utter immunity to proof. As for miracles I suggest you avail yourself of David Hume's view on such claims. As for not comprehending the difference between deism and theism, well, this attests to the paucity of understanding you have on these matters, and it shows. Louis Farrakhan's crackpot Nation of Islam claims to have used religion to assist addicts. I take it if you wish to grant 'healing' to the Church then you have to extend the same rationale to the Mosque? Your conundrum and not mine. A final word on proof. I hold a belief that you are not subject to gravity as other people are. You are free to ascend the highest building near you and simply step off. Do not worry, my 'supernatural and personal relationship' with my deity reassure me that you will be fine...let me know how that goes for you? Should fail to attend to the task it may be that you do have more value for evidence and less for faith than you appear to claim.
Your one-track hunt is, perhaps valid for those who are literalists. For people like me, it’s merely an irritating rabbit hole. Not all religion is defined by a literalist approach to Divinity. I have yet to hear your meaty argument against more intuitive approaches. In those cases, your argument here is rather vapid.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I realize that many Christians here don't believe I or anyone could defend Christianity unless they are defending
conservative Evangelical Christianity or come at it from a conservative view point.
But sense i have been debating under the thread about Jesus resurrection and debating against the proof that Christians use that Jesus rose from the dead,I wanted to put a positive thread up.

I do not believe in living in the past so finding a grave or old writing on papyrus about Jesus to me is silly, I don't think its necessary to physically prove Christianity is real, and I don't Christians ever will. I know Christians here
disagree with me.

However , the thing is that I don't need historic science to prove my faith, I am a Zen Buddhist and I don't believe there's any real proof for Buddha either.

I just think having faith in my own higher power is proof for me. I am going to start visiting the Quakers however, and they do not convert folks at church, and they don't have a preacher, but do have a Christian sermon once a month and bible study once a month.

They told me if its God will for someone to come to Christ they can build a relationship with their higher power God and God will lead them. I feel strongly about that if Hod wants me to be a Christian it will be between me and him and not though an alter call or joining a church. I am not against becoming Christian that way, if God leads me then that'll be.

So here is my defense for Christians.In AA there is a lot of people who use both the church ministry and Alcoholics Anonymous to get clean.

There are Christianized half way houses in Tx. which claim a higher rate of success then regular halfway houses, some of them claim 40 or 50 percent clean and sober rate for people staying sober for 5 years or more.That maybe the truth I am not, sure but there are a lot of folks coming from those type of halfway houses who do stay clean for a long time.

Despite the fact that I argue not all scholars believe Jesus was real( there is a lot of historians and scholars who claim to believe in mythology),there are a lot of smart brilliant people who are Christians. I'm watching the Johnny Cash story Walk The Line right now and he and his wife were brilliant and talented and they were Christians.

The bible being printed in the olden days m during the 15 and 1600s, was a miracle because once folks came to America and could read the bible and interpret it for themselves more people started learning to read.Unfortunately in Europe at one time the Priests who were Catholic would not let people read, everything was read and interpreted for them.

However I believe a lot of folks learned to read and write in the 1800s and 1700s just so they could read the bible, and a lot of children learned to read, because teachers use to use the bible in teaching children to read. So the bible has been useful as a teaching tool for students in the 1800s.

The church does a lot of good stuff, much of our help for the disaster relief for the hurricane comes from churches.Not sure what we would do without all the help that the churches give our community.

That being said there's been a lot of good come from Christianity.I do not need an old relic from the past for proof of any religion its up to my higher power. Right now I just pray to God. But will be going to the Quakers,I look forward to seeking the voice of God.
So, to summarize, your apologetic consists of: “Xy does some nice things.” If that’s the case, I don’t think there’s any arguing against that statement. While true, though, “some nice things” is not the only, or even, IMO, the best defense for Xy. But it’s a beginning.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
And again no citation for your statistics. I have already acknowledge an understanding of the claims for the success of the Philadelphia Programme. Nonetheless it is still a cult, founded in Akron based on a Christian interpretation of God. I think you need to reprise your understanding of the word atheist. Buddhism and Unitarians have beliefs in the supernatural and atheists do not, given the lack of evidence for the premise.
Hinduism dressed up in drag as Buddhism believes in the Supernatural. Just to clarify.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes thats






Yes that's right the Atheist will always win when it comes to having proof for a higher power. But on a personal level when it comes to addiction and lifestyle I see those who believe in a God with the upper hand , and I think its easier for

those who have a religious life to get sober and recover from addictions. So and the proof for that are in the statistics. I'm not offering up any proof but on a personal level as far as addiction goes I can say that there is proof.
I think any source for hope and support are invaluable. Some churches are pretty good at that sort of thing; others fail abysmally.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And again no citation for your statistics. I have already acknowledge an understanding of the claims for the success of the Philadelphia Programme. Nonetheless it is still a cult, founded in Akron based on a Christian interpretation of God. I think you need to reprise your understanding of the word atheist. Buddhism and Unitarians have beliefs in the supernatural and atheists do not, given the lack of evidence for the premise.
I think you need to reprise your understanding of the word “supernatural.” Not all Christian theological constructs are concerned with anything outside the natural world.
 
You really don’t understand, do you! Simply going about making assumptions and calling out institutions in the name of “reason,” while your own arguments are ... unreasonable. YOU don’t find value in it, so there’s no “reasonable” explanation for anyone else finding value in it, either. There must be some skeleton in your spiritual closet to cause this much umbrage on your part.

At any rate, we’re not here either to provide counseling or to be a punching bag for your spiritual frustrations. Until, therefore, your arguments become valid and reasonable, they’re an annoyance, much like a fart in an elevator — and just about as useful to honest converse.


Having inevitably had you rant, you still have the burden of proof to resolve. I know you cannot do that. Still, if false consolation is your harbour, you are well inclined to weigh anchor there. Copying and pasting other people's comments and passing them off as your own is so obvious, unless of course you have spontaneously developed the ability to form a sentence. Not quite a miracle, and just a susceptible to inquiry. Now, if you can contain your vitriol and demonstrate any evidence you are welcome to try. Reading your innuendo and hurt feelings writ large, it is at least consistent with the behaviour of the faithful. They claim a higher purpose and yet still struggle to remain civil when their illusions are challenged.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Having inevitably had you rant, you still have the burden of proof to resolve. I know you cannot do that. Still, if false consolation is your harbour, you are well inclined to weigh anchor there. Copying and pasting other people's comments and passing them off as your own is so obvious, unless of course you have spontaneously developed the ability to form a sentence. Not quite a miracle, and just a susceptible to inquiry. Now, if you can contain your vitriol and demonstrate any evidence you are welcome to try. Reading your innuendo and hurt feelings writ large, it is at least consistent with the behaviour of the faithful. They claim a higher purpose and yet still struggle to remain civil when their illusions are challenged.
Yeah, knew you just couldn’t be the bigger person and admit you were wrong. You’re STILL wrong in your assumptions. You still know nothing about my theological stance, and yet you blithely go on asking for “evidence.” And then call my emotional health into question. How typical of the self-aggrandizement of the “I-live-in-the-real-world” atheist. You couldn’t be more obvious if you were a hooker on a street corner, and possibly less scrupulous.

There IS no “burden of proof,” because I haven’t claimed ANYTHING to be in existence, other than my own search for meaning.

Did I claim a “higher purpose.” No, I claimed a human purpose. If I was uncivil it was in response to your demeaning assumptions of some guilt on my part, for which you still have no evidence, other than assumption.

Your self-assumed superiority here is an all too obvious mask for your own shame at having been called out. Everyone here with a brain stem can see it.

Have any other cards to play other than “evidence?” Because this isn’t that card game. I’d love to see some creativity in your argument arsenal. Because all you’re giving me here is boredom.
 
Oh dear. The myopia is embarrassing. The accusations and assumptions are all yours. Ignore the necessary integrity of proving a claim if you must, whilst demeaning those who seek real answers.. Clearly you have weighed anchor and are content with your false consolations. Truth is not derived from revelation or mythical woo. As for creativity, that's the preserve of those whose casuistry and solipsism keep faith a topic of discussion in the material world.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
This history of UU is liberal Christianity. The UU is tax exempt. like all churches. The piece from the website you quotes states a welcome for all faiths. A large clue even for the slowest of minds. Given that atheists attend doesn't attest to anything other than their curiosity and confusion and the simple fact that UU is a cult, as are all religious affiliations. What is signally off base is the UU's claim to be Christian and the attending atheists claim that they do not accept the existence of the supernatural. Your two wrongs do not make a right. What is further off base, so much so that it is not even in the ball park, is your lack of reasoning, use of logic and understanding of the terms on which you discuss. Still, as a member of faith you have no need for truth, accuracy, dialectic rigour, logic or evidence. Faith will do. Different cult, same sham to elicit money from the credulous under the pretext of invisible friends in high places.

Your wrong about UU it is not a Christan church anymore. Its not just that Atheists attend. UU no has a process where some UUs have a dominant religion or theme. That means they celebrate the religions of one specific religion they use rituals for that one religion and they preach a lot of topics for that one religion.

Others who are Atheist or another religiona re welcome and they come and do not participate in the rituals , but the sermon is something that can be applied to all religions. One of the types of churches is Atheist and those churches don't celebrate holidays and do not have ritauls they address Atheist issues.

So some UUs are nothing but all Atheist, you are wrong again! I was in a Pagan church it was all PAgans and we did not have any Christians there. You are so far off base UU is not a Christian denomination and unless you are attending a church is egotistical for you to speak for the UU church sense you don't have first hand knowledge that I do. Its ignorant.
 
You would need to demonstrate the claim that the sermon is something that can be applied to all religions. I sincerely doubt that, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll await the text of a sermon before I point out the obvious inane fatuity of your claim.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
I was a member there for 11 years I do not have to explain or prove but if you google Pagan UUs or Atheist UUs you'll find it. But I went to the church for years and speak from personal hands on experience therefore proof is not required.

Information for Pagan style UUs and Atheist UUs are on the net and easy to find but you have never been to a UU church and therefore are making claims about UU you know nothing about. I have personal experience and do not need to prove to you anything .

Its wrong for you to assume you know more about a church when you have no personal experience and assume you know more then a member, its really egotistical.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
I have not found the Atheist communities yet but here is proof you are wrong about UUs being a Christian church BTW there are Atheists who go to Pagan churches and believe in the philosophy and teachings of the Gods and Godesses without believing in the Gods and Godesses.

There are lots of Buddhist Atheists as well as Pagan Atheists. Actually China is regarded as an Atheist country itself which makes me think you know very little about atheism.

Here's the page to CUUPS the organization for Pagan UU churches.
Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans
 
I asked for a copy of the sermon, not the manifesto (which isn't new to me). Remind me again about your ignorance of the terms deism and theism? If you have anything to add that is novel, feel free. Lectures on China and the activities of people who claim one philosophical position whilst demonstrating another is your conundrum, not mine. I can attend, and indeed have attended, many religious services. So what? I do not claim to believe the illusion, superstition and lies I hear whilst there. So, as a recap - a copy of a sermon please. When in receipt I will show how your claim that the sermon can be acceptable to all religions remains, and always will, inane fatuity. A corollary correction. The UU was founded on liberal Christian theology. Nowadays it is a one-stop collection of the confused, the eternal seeker, the spiritual but not religious, and ever other term of woo available. They remain tax exempt because they are a registered religion.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
FRom Wiki
Unitarian Universalism (UU)[2][3][4] is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning".[5][6]Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.[7]

The beliefs of individual Unitarian Universalists range widely, including atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism, Judaism, Islam,[8]Christianity, neopaganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Humanism, and many more.[9]

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) was formed in 1961 through the consolidation of the American Unitarian Association, established in 1825, and the Universalist Church of America,[10] established in 1793. The UUA is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and serves churches mostly in the United States. A group of thirty Philippine congregations is represented as a sole member within the UUA. The Canadian Unitarian Council (CUC) became an independent body in 2002.[11] The UUA and CUC are, in turn, two of the seventeen members of the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists.[12]

Contents
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Sermon from UU If you don't accept this I will assume your not smart enough to argue with anymore.

 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Oh dear. The myopia is embarrassing. The accusations and assumptions are all yours. Ignore the necessary integrity of proving a claim if you must, whilst demeaning those who seek real answers.. Clearly you have weighed anchor and are content with your false consolations. Truth is not derived from revelation or mythical woo. As for creativity, that's the preserve of those whose casuistry and solipsism keep faith a topic of discussion in the material world.
The myopia’s all yours, mate.
I’M NOT. MAKING. A. CLAIM. I don’t know how much plainer I can put it for you. I’m not arguing for the existence of God. How in the world can someone make a claim for somethng they’re not claiming? The “accusations and assumptions” are yours and you may as well own up to them, because they’re out there for all to see.

Reading back over your posts, I don’t find any evidence that you are “seeking real answers.” I find that you’re making assumptions about everyone who makes a faith claim. Clearly, your claim of “weighing anchor” is projection, and, I believe, in an intentionally provocative way. Your accusations of “casuistry” and “solipsism” are, likewise hyperbolic and provocative. And untrue.

I’ve got your number. And you know it. So does everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Top