Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
This argument can wholly be simpllified as, "I am defining Religion and Christianity, as whatever I want to justify my argument." The only thing irrelevant is your defintion. There is no strict definition on what a Christian is, there are no mandates, its not a set of rules. Its simply a set of beliefs. People who identify as Christians hold those beliefs as their own values, but depending on their own interpretation. You're trying to somehow rationlize this and I'm telling you that it pointless. You don't seem to understand what faith is. What religion actually is. All you're doing is making assumptions about something you don't understand to fit your perogative. I don't know how I can make this any more simpler, if you can't understand this then you obviously don't have the comprehension skills for this level of rational thought and abstraction: Religions are just a set of beliefs/values, ideas, they are not even physical objects. They cannot do anything. People might use it to commit any number of atrocities, but it is the people who commited those actions. You don't blame water for tortuting people in water boarding. You don't lock that water in a container and store it underground for 20 years to rehabilitate it. Its fucking water. Everything else you've said is a pointless assumption that you have made. You say their is a rigid defintion for Christianity, when many Christians don't even regard other Sects as Christian because they don't have the same beliefs. You attempt to frame Christianity and Religion as a whole in a rational sense so you can critizice it while paradoxically building your argument around the idea that Religion is irrational. It is irrational, it is subjective, because its based of faith (belief i.e "Because I said so") not fact. Some Christians might claim that the Bible is entirely factual, and that is what they belief, obviously its wrong, its obviously irrational, and its obviously faith. If their is a requirement it is subjective, only up to whatever the person observing it defines it as. What is objective is what religion is and that is a set of beliefs as I have said before.
The irrationality of this argument is mindboggling, you are effectively trying to tell me that rocks systematically attack people. EDIT: Lets further hit home how idiotic this point is in the rock metaphor. Because Rocks are heavy objects, it coerces people to put them down, but if they are angry at someone, they might want to put it down on their heads, solving to dual purpose of putting the rock down and solving their anger problem. Obviously, if someone isn't above the person they want to hit, then they have to throw the rock to move it. Better yet, please explain to me how rocks weren't used as tools by slavers to pacify slaves through punishment. |
lol ok lets go back through this slowly... this is what i said:
"the point remains that what defines them as christian is the beliefs they have"
This is your reply:
"The only thing irrelevant is your defintion. There is no strict definition on what a Christian is, there are no mandates, its not a set of rules. Its simply a set of beliefs. People who identify as Christians hold those beliefs as their own values, but depending on their own interpretation."
"All you're doing is making assumptions about something you don't understand to fit your perogative."
lol... so... uh... i'm not understanding your issue with what i said... since... uh... you basically retyped the exact same thing lol
"Religions are just a set of beliefs/values, ideas, they are not even physical objects. They cannot do anything. "
Physical objects by themselves generally do absolutely nothing unless some force is applied... so that's kind of pointless to say
what is relevent here is intent... intent is what causes people to interact with their surroundings whether its getting food from your fridge because you're hungry or punching someone because they angered you do you disagree?
assuming you agree we therefore have to ask if someone's beliefs may influence their intent and to me the answer seems quite obvious as a resounding yes but thats me
"People might use it to commit any number of atrocities, but it is the people who commited those actions. You don't blame water for tortuting people in water boarding. You don't lock that water in a container and store it underground for 20 years to rehabilitate it. Its fucking water."
Good point but again it leads back to intent why does anyone perform any action? because of their intent which to me is influenced by their beliefs
you don't lock people up based solely on them having physical bodies either do you?... no... you do so because of their actions... which are brought about by their intent...
"You say their is a rigid defintion for Christianity, when many Christians don't even regard other Sects as Christian because they don't have the same beliefs. You attempt to frame Christianity and Religion as a whole in a rational sense"
what i said of christiantiy is bascially identical to what you said... as demonstrated above... regardless the point about the different sects as i said previously is completely irrelevent i'm honestly at a loss to why you keep bringing it up lol
"The irrationality of this argument is mindboggling, you are effectively trying to tell me that rocks systematically attack people."
Actually quite the opposite what i said was that beliefs influence intent/behavior and i'm guessing that even a 10 year old would be able to grasp that tangible objects like rocks are completely different to intangible concepts like intent and behavior...
the point i've been driving at since the beginning is as you say its absurd to believe that a rock by itself will attack someone but in the hands of someone with a certain intent it could be used as a tool in an attack...
