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

[Balthazzar]

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!

I wish to bring at least a small something to the stage here. I am one who acknowledges all forms of expression to be divine logos, and to address contention as a Christian arguing against your flavor of reformation, I will suggest that God, nor God's divine expression as the Logos can be confined to a single canonized text. How would you defend your reformed stance, while excluding all other writings, including the apocrypha?

If I may utilize your accepted text from your accepted cannon, I would like to bring proverbs 27 to this table, knowing that iron sharpens iron. Why would it not be permissible to acknowledge Gods divine expression as Logos to be present in anything beyond that which you accept as acceptable teachings? Hebrews 12 is also very relevant to the premise.

We all know less, and we all know more, more or less, so ... the wheat being present with the mortar and the pestle present, would not ignorance depart with the inclusion of other expressions of Logos, as opposed to what we sometimes only accept to be acceptable and/or able to teach us? What good is an exchange if all is sought is to crush an opponent? With that stated, knowing that iron sharpens iron, I'll ask again why it would not be permissible to acknowledge Gods divine expression as Logos to be present in anything beyond that which you accept as acceptable teachings? If I may add just one more thing: "Why would we as brothers shun any other religious individual or non-religious individual to crush them or to reject them as Gods children, as if they honored God less than anyone else?"

 

[YoursTrue]

Someone could interpret your statement as though you were giving the fundamental reasons you'd never accept the Christian Jesus, or the central claims of Christianity. In other words, someone could suspect, based on your statement, that the 5 reasons you list are the comprehensive "cause" for why you would never accept the Christian Jesus or the central claims of Christianity.

For my part, after a lifetime of engaging such things, I suspect that there's a real possibility that you would never accept the Christian Jesus, or the central claims of Christianity, under any circumstances, such that the reasons you list are more like rationalizations, reasonable, quasi-factual, justifications, for a position that's actually not based on any of those things (reason, facts, logic, etc.).

I hypothesize that even if I could reasonably, factually, logically, historically, scripturally, refute every one of the 5 reasons you give, you would then be not one iota, not one jot or tittle, closer to accepting the Christian Jesus or the central claims of Christianity. Which is to argue that it's actually our personal theological-epistemology, at the deepest level of our psyche, that determines if we're open to, or contrary to, Christianity, such that the reasons you list function not as the comprehensive "cause," or "reason," for your rejection of the Christian Christ, but as the closest thing to reasonable, factual, justification for your rejection of the Christian Christ. Idea being that the our belief comes first, and the rationalizations after the fact.

If I'm correct about this, then should I show sound and reasonable reason why your 5 reasons for rejecting Christ don't really hold up to objective scrutiny, you'd either have to simply deny the argumentation that shows your reasons don't hold up, or admit that it doesn't matter if they don't hold up to objective analysis since you know, and admit, that the Christian message isn't correct (in your beliefs) regardless of any argumentation. In effect, the latter position is that you consider yourself to have sound reasons, logic, and scriptural exegesis, for rejecting Christ, but absent those things, you're self-informed enough to know you'd still reject Christ.

​

The results of these experiments indicate that even when we think we control the choice to act—a behavior as simple as moving a finger—the brain is deciding for us when to make the move. After making the decision, without our being aware of the internal impetus, the brain then convinces us that we were in control of that decision.​

​

— Gray Matters: A Biography of Brain Surgery by Theodore H. Schwartz.​

John

Very very interesting quotation about the brain. Sounds reasonable. A neurologist said to me that the brain controls EVERYTHING. Amazing, simply amazing, wonderful and astounding. Thanks for the quote also.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe you do not need someone to argue about the falsity of Christianity, the greatest challenge Christianity faces is that of the end of ages Messiah.

It may be the greatest challenge comes from people that support 100% Jesus and the Bible, but have embraced and are teaching the Message of the promissed Messiah.

I give this post as a consideration, as this is ultimately a challenge about what it is to be a "Christian".

Regards Tony

What comes to mind here is the confrontation between Pharaoh and Moses. And -- Moses' relationship with God. His God. (Not Pharaoh's god or whatever...)