@vivify saidTo you it is because you don't understand what Christianity is about.
Christianity is worthless.
I'd love to explain it to you, but you have erected too many barriers because you seek conformation bias based on your preconceived ideological worldview.
In other words you have a narrow and closed mind. Crawl back into your comfort zone and feed your presumptuous troll.
This is where you get angry and lash back.
@josephw saidI don't think it is closed-minded to require evidence to believe something, especially something that falls outside of known science.
To you it is because you don't understand what Christianity is about.
I'd love to explain it to you, but you have erected too many barriers because you seek conformation bias based on your preconceived ideological worldview.
In other words you have a narrow and closed mind. Crawl back into your comfort zone and feed your presumptuous troll.
This is where you get angry and lash back.
What 'unique' evidence do you have that other religions do not?
@fmf saidYou are mistaken.
Yes. True. And "Christianity" is composed of how all these individuals behave because of, or in spite of, the theological beliefs they espouse.
Jesus Christ is the center of Christianity. Can you find fault with Jesus?
Just because you find fault with individual believers doesn't support your argument against Christian theology, or its author.
Even though you think it does. There's some sort of fallacy in that.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidA resurrected savior.
I don't think it is closed-minded to require evidence to believe something, especially something that falls outside of known science.
What 'unique' evidence do you have that other religions do not?
@josephw saidI am rejecting your suggestion that Christianity is somehow merely an ideology that exists in a metaphorical petri dish.
You are mistaken.
Jesus Christ is the center of Christianity. Can you find fault with Jesus?
Just because you find fault with individual believers doesn't support your argument against Christian theology, or its author.
Even though you think it does. There's some sort of fallacy in that.
Instead i contend that Christianity - in practical, realistic terms, and in non-laboratory conditions - is the sum total of all self-identifying Christians' attempts to walk the walk.
1 edit
@josephw saidI am not making an "argument against Christian theology" here; I am offering a practical and non-wishy-washy definition of what Christianity is in real life.
Just because you find fault with individual believers doesn't support your argument against Christian theology, or its author.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidEyewitnesses.
Sorry, should have said 'tangible' evidence.
Please don't replicate PBs limp lettuce leaf evidence.
@fmf said"Instead i contend that Christianity - in practical, realistic terms, and in non-laboratory conditions - is the sum total of all self-identifying Christians' attempts to walk the walk."
I am not making "argument against Christian theology" here; I am offering a practical and non-wishy-washy definition of what Christianity is in real life.
That is only an aspect of Christianity.
The core of Christianity, and the fullness of what Christianity is, is its founder.
So, to have a full "definition" of "what Christianity is in real life" one must know Jesus Christ.
Pointing your finger at a flawed individual that identifies as a Christian, and presuming to define Christianity by his or her behavior, exclusively, is a straw man fallacy.
@josephw saidBoth you and Romans1009/PB1002 have been suggesting that "Christianity" is ONLY defined by its ideology. That's the petri dish. I am suggesting that "Christianity" is defined by what its adherents think and do once the ideology is taken from the petri dish and applied in the real world.
"I am rejecting your suggestion that Christianity is somehow merely an ideology that exists in a metaphorical petri dish."
I made no such suggestion. Where in your mind did you dig that up from?