Spider said:

And he doesn't...still not seeing how I brought him claim to having been a Christian into the conversation.

You were insisting that in order for us to debate this particular topic, we need to either be Christians or else read these books you are recommending. I find that odd since this debate is philosophical in nature. I seem to also recall on a past thread where that book was refuted. Not by me but Abra and Redy I think it was. So there is no reason for you to continually advertise it as if it’s some sort of required curriculum Spider.

Krimsa,

They didn't refute the book. Abra threw up some strawmen and then proceeded to tear them down. Anyone can do that, but it doesn't mean that anything written by C S Lewis was refuted. Redy and Abra seem to feel that C S Lewis was very easy to refute. The problem with this is the incredible arrogance of that belief. C S Lewis was an incredibly intelligent and scholarly man. If one feels that C S Lewis can be easily and flippantly refute Mere Christianity without having read the entire book, that is sheer arrogance, not a refutation. Abra's refutations had already been addressed by C S Lewis in the book! Further, if I remember correctly, Redy simply stated that she wrote down a lot of refutations, I don't remember her supplying a single one. And of course she said she wrote her refutations as she read the book...a very poor way to refute a book. Because C S Lewis addresses the most common refutations in the text itself, so why waste your time? And while C S Lewis is making the case as a whole, trying to pick holes into it seems petty and premature. Maybe a point you disagree with NOW will be clarified LATER so that your refutation is no longer valid?

If you feel that they refuted Mere Christianity, but you haven't read the book yourself, then I believe you are simply prejudiced. You don't know what C S Lewis wrote, so how can you know that their reasoning was sound? Prejudice. What person who is interested in spirituality and religion would openly reject a scholarly and intelligent case for one religion without even reading it? Someone who is prejudiced against that religion. I'm afraid you might be offended, but I have to be honest and say that you seem to be very prejudiced against Christianity, which leads you to quickly accept any "refutation" that comes along for any arguments for Christianity.

I have not refuted anything myself Spider. I have not read that book. It would be the same if I had a book that I was very fond of and it related to Goddess worship and the archeological evidence that supports these earlier faiths thousands of years before the advent of Christianity.

Would you give that the time of day?

Probably not. You would toss it aside and declare it rubbish.

All I’m telling you is their arguments appeared quite strong on thread. I can’t say if they refuted it or not since I have not read that book. They were discussing certain areas of the book however and making strong cases against it. That’s not really what this was about anyway. It was simply that you insisted that we needed to read these books or be Christians and that’s nonsense, plain and simple. This is a philosophical debate.

And yes, I feel that for someone to argue against a position, they must understand that position. YOU BELIEVE THAT TOO. Don't you? I know you do. Everybody knows that one must KNOW a position or belief before one can argue AGAINST that belief.

So I have to wonder how someone can justify in their own mind attacking the beliefs of another when they do not understand those beliefs. I know you and others hide behind the "There are a bunch of denominations, so there!" argument, but but all must know that is a childish argument and one you would not accept from another.

"There are many different positions of the theory of Evolution, so I can say that the Theory of Evolution is that humans evolved from monkeys!" I don't accept the Theory of Evolution, but I would have to say something to someone who took that position.

So if you think that someone can argue against Christianity without understanding Christian beliefs...without knowing the correct exegesis...without studying the ancient languages, then I would suggest that you are simply justifying a behavior that you KNOW is wrong.

I know that there was goddess worship long before Christianity! Do you think I'm stupid? The Bible describes goddess worship among the Israelites. I might call the conclusions that the author draws rubbish, but I wouldn't deny that there were other religions, including goddess worship, before Christianity.



How can you say that without having read Mere Christianity? It's seems a very strong bias on your part to characterize Abra's arguments as "strong" when you haven't read what he was arguing against.



How can you say that? If you haven't read the book, how can you know they made a strong case? Abra took some paragraphs out of order and context and wrote refutations to strawmen that he created himself.

So what is the argument here spider? You’ve lost me. I told you that we did not need to be Christians or read these books in order to discuss the philosophical debate presented on this particular thread. That point stands.

Because you say so?

That's called a gratuitous assertion.

You don't have any arguments or evidence to support that position and you surely wouldn't support that position in any other discussion. Sorry, but your argument is specious and dishonest. You know I have made my point and you know you are wrong.

I think you are wrong because this is a PHILOSOPHICAL debate so for you to insist that we have to be Christians or Buddhists or Wiccans or anything else is irrelevant. Thats the way I feel. If you think that none of us are capable of discussing this topic because we are not Christians, then why even bother creating an argument. Go to Christian Singles. It’s annoying.

Oh dear, I can't allow you to do that. This is called a "Strawman fallacy". Please allow me to burn this strawman for you.



My point is and has always been that one should know and understand Christianity, if one is to argue against Christianity.

So you, Redy, Abra, etc...unless you can display a competent understanding of Christianity, your arguments against Christianity are simply prejudiced and overtly biased. Therefore any thinking person would reject those arguments. Just as a thinking person would reject arguments against Evolution, which revealed a shallow or non-existent understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

We've already gone through that.

The arguments of C. S. Lewis have been shown to be totally without merit.

So you are linking to articles that have already been demonstrated to be with out merit.



You have stated in the past that you do not believe in Hell.

Well, according to mainstream Christianity you are a heretic just like Bishop Carlton Pearson.

Clearly you have your own personal opinions of what Christianity means.

There are so many different opinions of what "Christianity" means that every person's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's now of days.

This is of course due to the fact that most Christians are Protestants and have protested against the Catholic Crurch and continue to protest against each other all the time.

There are more different denominations of Protestantism than there are religions in the world.

All I need to know is that the overwhelming Christian organizations in the USA preach hatred and bigotry int the name of Jesus


It is my belief that Jesus taught us not to judge our brothers.

Yet, to judge someone's relationship with God because they refuse to become a Christian bigot is the antithesis of Jesus.

Jesus taught brotherly love.

Christians denounce brotherly love and condemn same-gender relationship with a hateful vengence in the name of Jesus.

I don't believe that Jesus would have supported such bigotry, hatred, and judgment against another.

As long as people continue to preach hatred, ignorance against intellectual knowledge, and judgement against religious beliefs, I will continue to point out that they are the antithesis of Jesus.

I'm sick of people spreading hate in the name of Jesus.

It's despicable.



I know what Christians stand for.

They stand for bigotry, predjudice, and hatred carried out in Jesus' name.

Krimsa - we rarely argue with Spider, he's simply never wrong. So I hope you're having fun.

I find when one looses the argument of using the Bible to support the Bible (as C.S. Lewis does) they often refer to other written material.

In this case, Spider refers to C.S. Lewis.

Rather circular arguments, but such is course of rather circular thinking.

Have fun!

Pure arrogance. To think that a gratuitous assertion in addition to strawman fallacies can refute Mere Christianity is mind boggling.



Not true. I don't believe in a hell that is humans in fire being tortured by demons. Many Christians don't believe that. I can't support for it in the Bible.

Once again, this is an incredibly weak argument against Christianity. "There is more than one belief about hell, so Christianity couldn't be real". Regardless of if I believe in hell or not, I believe that Jesus is my savior and anyone who wishes to follow Jesus must believe that.

Redy,

Can you offer an argument for one criticizing a belief that one doesn't understand?

If not, then how do you justify criticizing Christianity when you don't present an accurate understanding of Christianity?

Truly.

I had given Spider the courtesy of taking the time to read that article by C. S. Lewis a few days ago.

I pointed out in detail precisely why Mr. Lewis' arguments failed and why they hold no water.

Spider simply refused to acknowledge the work.

Nor could he refute it or offer counter support for it.

He was totally defenseless. He had nothing to offer in support of his empty gratuitious claims.

You see, you post falsehoods and I'm supposed to get angry right? Then you and Krimsa can run crying to the moderators to have me banned. Sorry.

You didn't read Mere Christianity, just like you haven't read the Bible. You read excerpts, probably not from the book itself, but from a website that purports to refute Mere Christianity.

Your arguments were refuted by me, but also by C S Lewis in Mere Christianity.

"Say Good-night Gracie"

"Good-nite" - she says with a smile and a graceful bow and then the colgate commercial comes on.....

That was always a good time to turn off the noise - till next week.

I'll take that as a "no".

Fine, I have no problem with that. I can't support it either.

Join the ranks of the heretics.



This is not an argument against "Christianity".

It's just proof positive that there is no such thing as "Christianity"

Christianity is just a word that religious fantatics use to try to support their own personal views as though they are the "Word of God"

There are many different so-called "Christian" organizations.

Some more bigoted than others.

There are even Gay Christians!

There are Gay Christians Chruches!

Almost anyone can claim to be a Christian.

Like you say, the only requirement is that they believe that Jesus was "The Christ".

The sacrificial lamb of God.

That's truly all that is required to claim to be a "Christian".

All else is a matter of personal opinion.

I denounce that Jesus was "The Christ"

I believe that Jesus was a Buddhist who tried very hard to denounce the godforsaken dogma of the mythical God of Abraham.

I see absolutely no reason to beleive that Jesus was the Son of that mythical God. Jesus didn't even agree with that mythical picture of God evidently.