Debate about Christianity (Looking for someone to argue against it)

[ecpotts4]

Hey everyone, I am a current seminary student, and I am in a class on apologetics. Our "paper" is to have a 3500 word written exchange with someone outside of the Christian faith. I would like to complete our discussion about this by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. We can discuss via email or just message back and forth on here through the conversation feature. I would be arguing for Christianity, and you would be arguing that Christianity is false.
Please only inquire about this if you have the time to do this extensive written discussion throughout the next five days. Thank you!

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's a bit disappointing to see that one of the things they teach in seminary school is to argue with others about religion and beliefs. Why is it so important to have your beliefs validated by non-Christians?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a bit disappointing to see that one of the things they teach in seminary school is to argue with others about religion and beliefs. Why is it so important to have your beliefs validated by non-Christians?

Validated or challenged? I think the post is fine.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Validated or challenged? I think the post is fine.

I wasn't being critical of the post; I was being critical of the religious attitude.

Validation or challenge, I'm still interested in why a prospective priest would need to participate in such an exercise.

 

[Balthazzar]

Hey everyone, I am a current seminary student, and I am in a class on apologetics. Our "paper" is to have a 3500 word written exchange with someone outside of the Christian faith. I would like to complete our discussion about this by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. We can discuss via email or just message back and forth on here through the conversation feature. I would be arguing for Christianity, and you would be arguing that Christianity is false.
Please only inquire about this if you have the time to do this extensive written discussion throughout the next five days. Thank you!

I might would argue against it with you. I'm a Christian and I may be able to offer a devil's advocate type of exchange with you. In this may be a risk and one neither would be exempt from, but it may also, so long as we're able to contribute from our own pool of experiences, be beneficial to the goal, if the goal is in fact to honor truthfully. Seminary student ... What are your ambitions?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Validation or challenge, I'm still interested in why a prospective priest would need to participate in such an exercise.

OK. I, on the other hand, would think that a person preparing to honestly represent a faith (or any other position) would appreciate (and benefit from) learning as much as possible about opposing positions and how one might most effectively and honestly engage those positions.

I'm rather surprised that you would question rather than applaud such efforts.

 

[ecpotts4]

It's a bit disappointing to see that one of the things they teach in seminary school is to argue with others about religion and beliefs. Why is it so important to have your beliefs validated by non-Christians?

This is a far question, but it is a little misleading. We aren't being taught to have our beliefs validated by non-Christians. Instead, we are being taught to give a defense of the faith because we are commanded to do so (1 Pet 3:15).

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hey everyone, I am a current seminary student, and I am in a class on apologetics. Our "paper" is to have a 3500 word written exchange with someone outside of the Christian faith. I would like to complete our discussion about this by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. We can discuss via email or just message back and forth on here through the conversation feature. I would be arguing for Christianity, and you would be arguing that Christianity is false.
Please only inquire about this if you have the time to do this extensive written discussion throughout the next five days. Thank you!

One thing I'll say is the fact that people have to try to convince somebody on something, shows there's a noticeable deficit in proving something is actually there

 

[Balthazzar]

This is a far question, but it is a little misleading. We aren't being taught to have our beliefs validated by non-Christians. Instead, we are being taught to give a defense of the faith because we are commanded to do so (1 Pet 3:15).

The faith as you understand it, or the faith as it might be as a presently unaccepted true? Defense or an apologetic for the faith is what's on the table. It's not like you'll be arguing for God, but rather for yourself. The understanding you have already may be challenged beyond your ability to sustain it. Are you prepared enough for a loss of what you believe to be true to be true to that true if that happens?

Edit: As a Christian, I'm uncertain if I'm ready for what might be truer than what I understand to be. I would be playing the devils advocate in such a discourse, and I'm only concerned because of the possible impact our differences may have. I'm fairly sure most Christians could argue against your understanding from their own pool of understanding concerning the bible and the apologetic to be presented. For example: For me, the devil is no less "good" than we are, which places me in a position of an adversary to you, or rather an adversary to what you currently accept as true. I'm diliberately questioning you for my own sake, due to the nature of the discourse needed and how it might affect you and me. You could set me free of this and choose the type you asked for (a non Christian) but is this what you truly need, is this the assignment, and would I truly qualify for the exchange itself for the aimed intent at all?

 

[ecpotts4]

One thing I'll say is the fact that people have to try to convince somebody on something, shows there's a noticeable deficit in proving something is actually there

Hey, thank you for the response, but this is rather an absurd claim. Let's think about the Copernican revolution. Until the middle of the 16th century, humanity operated on a geocentric view of the universe. Copernicus posited that the universe actually follows a heliocentric model, but he had to argue this. His theory was actually heavily denied by his immediate contemporaries. It wasn't until about 100 years later that the view became widely accepted. So, just because Copernicus needed to argue for heliocentrism, doesn't mean heliocentrism was false. I could give you other examples. I'll concede, though, this doesn't mean just because you have to argue for something that is is there. I just want you to see that your claim cannot hold up. It is way too broad on a categorical level.

 

[SalixIncendium]

OK. I, on the other hand, would think that a person preparing to honestly represent a faith (or any other position) would appreciate (and benefit from) learning as much as possible about opposing positions and how one might most effectively and honestly engage those positions.

Engage those positions with whom? Parishioners? Those interested in converting to Catholicism? Or those who hold no interest in Catholicism or Christianity in general? I think the intended audience is quite relevant, which is why I asked what I did.

I'm rather surprised that you would question rather than applaud such efforts.

I find it a good practice to question everything for which I lack a complete understanding.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This is a far question, but it is a little misleading. We aren't being taught to have our beliefs validated by non-Christians. Instead, we are being taught to give a defense of the faith because we are commanded to do so (1 Pet 3:15).

Thanks for the response.

As I understand the verse, you are taught to answer questions...gently and respectfully, not give a defense. An unsolicited challenge to others for debate doesn't exactly align with that Scripture.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hey, thank you for the response, but this is rather an absurd claim. Let's think about the Copernican revolution. Until the middle of the 16th century, humanity operated on a geocentric view of the universe. Copernicus posited that the universe actually follows a heliocentric model, but he had to argue this. His theory was actually heavily denied by his immediate contemporaries. It wasn't until about 100 years later that the view became widely accepted. So, just because Copernicus needed to argue for heliocentrism, doesn't mean heliocentrism was false. I could give you other examples. I'll concede, though, this doesn't mean just because you have to argue for something that is is there. I just want you to see that your claim cannot hold up. It is way too broad on a categorical level.

Well keep in mind that it was corrected and or confirmed later on with new information for which prior, it couldn't be argued because of the deficit of information that may or may not be there.

Just because one view that later could be confirmed doesn't mean another can be confirmed as well.

 

[ecpotts4]

Thanks for the response.

As I understand the verse, you are taught to answer questions...gently and respectfully, not give a defense. An unsolicited challenge to others for debate doesn't exactly align with that Scripture.

I agree mostly with what you just said, but I would want to distinguish between apologetics and preaching. The Bible does tell us to preach to all people (even in an unsolicited environment), but yes, the context of that verse is as in response to someone asking questions about the faith (apologetics). That is what I am looking to do in this assignment. I am not looking to preach to you a sermon about why Christianity is true, haha. I just want to respond to someone's objections and questions that they raise. I believe anyone who engages with me on this will be sharpened in their argumentative skills and ability to defend their own views.

 

[Balthazzar]

Hey, thank you for the response, but this is rather an absurd claim. Let's think about the Copernican revolution. Until the middle of the 16th century, humanity operated on a geocentric view of the universe. Copernicus posited that the universe actually follows a heliocentric model, but he had to argue this. His theory was actually heavily denied by his immediate contemporaries. It wasn't until about 100 years later that the view became widely accepted. So, just because Copernicus needed to argue for heliocentrism, doesn't mean heliocentrism was false. I could give you other examples. I'll concede, though, this doesn't mean just because you have to argue for something that is is there. I just want you to see that your claim cannot hold up. It is way too broad on a categorical level.

What happened to Copernicus and the dispute within the church? I think he was counted as one of the luckier among his ranks, certainly. I don't know that Origen fared so well.

 

[Jimmy]

It's a bit disappointing to see that one of the things they teach in seminary school is to argue with others about religion and beliefs. Why is it so important to have your beliefs validated by non-Christians?

To share wisdom.

 

[ecpotts4]

The faith as you understand it, or the faith as it might be as a presently unaccepted true? Defense or an apologetic for the faith is what's on the table. It's not like you'll be arguing for God, but rather for yourself. The understanding you have already may be challenged beyond your ability to sustain it. Are you prepared enough for a loss of what you believe to be true to be true to that true if that happens?

Edit: As a Christian, I'm uncertain if I'm ready for what might be truer than what I understand to be. I would be playing the devils advocate in such a discourse, and I'm only concerned because of the possible impact our differences may have. I'm fairly sure most Christians could argue against your understanding from their own pool of understanding concerning the bible and the apologetic to be presented. For example: For me, the devil is no less "good" than we are, which places me in a position of an adversary to you, or rather an adversary to what you currently accept as true. I'm diliberately questioning you for my own sake, due to the nature of the discourse needed and how it might affect you and me. You could set me free of this and choose the type you asked for (a non Christian) but is this what you truly need, is this the assignment, and would I truly qualify for the exchange itself for the aimed intent at all?

Hey, thank you for the response!
So, the person who dialogues with me can be a Christian if he or she holds a different approach to Christianity and doubts the system of doctrine that I believe in. I would be arguing for Christianity according to the system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, a Reformed and theologically conservative view of Christianity.
Also, yes, I would be arguing for this approach to Christianity (not for God himself), but I believe this system of doctrine most accurately summarizes what God has revealed in Scripture. If you'd like to engage in a discussion about this which would total around 3000 words, let me know! You can lead the conversation, raise any objections to Reformed theology, and ask any questions you want!

 

[SalixIncendium]

I agree mostly with what you just said, but I would want to distinguish between apologetics and preaching. The Bible does tell us to preach to all people (even in an unsolicited environment), but yes, the context of that verse is as in response to someone asking questions about the faith (apologetics). That is what I am looking to do in this assignment. I am not looking to preach to you a sermon about why Christianity is true, haha. I just want to respond to someone's objections and questions that they raise.

Fair enough. Thanks for the response.

I believe anyone who engages with me on this will be sharpened in their argumentative skills and ability to defend their own views.

While I've had many questions in my Catholic upbringing, no members of the Church have been able to answer them to my satisfaction. If I had more time, I would enjoy the opportunity to engage you with them, but I have no interest in defending my own views. I understand that they are for me an not necessarily for everyone.

 

[ecpotts4]

What happened to Copernicus and the dispute within the church? I think he was counted as one of the luckier among his ranks, certainly. I don't know that Origen fared so well.

I agree there! Origen certainly did not fare so well! Regarding the church and Copernicus, yeah the church has never been perfect (Protestant nor Catholic). The church is far from infallible.

 

[ecpotts4]

Fair enough. Thanks for the response.


While I've had many questions in my Catholic upbringing, no members of the Church have been able to answer them to my satisfaction. If I had more time, I would enjoy the opportunity to engage you with them, but I have no interest in defending my own views. I understand that they are for me an not necessarily for everyone.

I completely understand that. If you ever find yourself able and wanting to discuss, let me know! Even if it's not for this assignment, I'd love to discuss more with you!