Is Christianity logical?

[Pudding]

I like it all but maybe the amount of content is too much for one thread and you would like a spinoff thread. (This thread is a spinoff of "Is religion logical."

Christianity is a broad term.

I do see you said in your op that:
You believe it is logical to seek a higher power to do what one can't do for oneself.

You have already propose a standpoint that explain why you think one of the aspect of Christianity you had mentioned is logical.

Do you have any other aspests of Christianity you think is logical and wish to debate about it with other people in this thread?

I believe logic is the same for everyone (like math). One must follow the rules of logic no matter what the view.

Do you also think Christianity is logical for everyone (without any exception) and everyone must follow the rules of your logic that Christianity is logical for them no matter they agree with you or not?

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe I will do my best. God told me that time is circular. It has a beginning and an ending (alph and omega). We measure time by the turning of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun and its traverse around the sun. However there is a time cycle that everything goes through that does not fit into those measurements. So if Krakatoa erupted once in a cycle it will most likely erupt again at the same earth measured time but in a different universal time cycle. So we can view a rock as billions of years old and that would be true measuring from the first time cycle to the current one but it may only be 24,000 years old (a figure that is usually used but I wouldn't be able to validate) in earth rotation years.

I do not believe it is deception on His part but perception on our part.

I believe I am sure that it appears that way. However think of a white board. You can draw a picture of a man on it and then erase it. You can tell a person coming along that there was a picture of a man on the board but there will be no evidence to support you and the person can simply say there never was a man on it because he found no evidence of it.

Based on this I seriously question God talked to you, and consider the above a personal interpretation.

 

[Muffled]

Based on this I seriously question God talked to you, and consider the above a personal interpretation.

I believe there is no reason why you shouldn't question. I will be happy to answer. However if you are basing your questions on your opinion of what I said, I believe your opinion is not worth as much as what God says.

I believe everything gets colored by personal interpretation. I wasn't doing an exact quote after all. However I believe I understood the concept well enough.

 

[Muffled]

Christianity is a broad term.

I do see you said in your op that:
You believe it is logical to seek a higher power to do what one can't do for oneself.

You have already propose a standpoint that explain why you think one of the aspect of Christianity you had mentioned is logical.

Do you have any other aspests of Christianity you think is logical and wish to debate about it with other people in this thread?


Do you also think Christianity is logical for everyone (without any exception) and everyone must follow the rules of your logic that Christianity is logical for them no matter they agree with you or not?

I believe eternal life is logical. It may not have seemed that way in the past but now science is finding that aging is a physical manifestation that could be altered if one knew how to do it. No doubt the creator of the Universe does know how.

I believe Christianity is illogical for a person who loves sin and/or hates life. I believe that is why such people avoid Christianity like the plague although some have attempted to convince some Christian churches that their sin is ok and such churches have become apostate to the faith by being convinced.

 

[Muffled]

What you believe is not relevant at all. Saying I believe X,Y,Z does not make the beliefs either true or logical.

Whenever something new comes to the scene (like planes, cars or more recently internet), its the initial pool of users who, by collective experience, reach a consensus on the acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for this new activity which is then enforced by government also made by people. Further evolution of these acceptable and unacceptable behaviors continue through feedback of experience of the users. For example a large plane accident may trigger such a re-evaluation based on feedback etc. In all cases the, system of commonly agreed behavior comes out entirely from the inside, and it is enforced by the agreements made by the users. The feedback of experience ensures that overall people gravitate to the agreements that provides the best utility (say for driving or flying) making the system of agreements non-arbitrary and functional.

This can be shown for ethical systems as well. For example the political and ethical structure of some nations (like Syria, Afganistan etc.) are not optimal for the happiness of the people living there, so they tend to flee/migrate from such dysfunctional systems to better societies like the West. In this way, societies who ethical and political structure are not conducive to life in comparison to their neighbors collapse and the others flourish. Nothing external to human interactions and human experience is necessary.

I believe logic makes my beliefs relevant. My beliefs are true because they are logical.

I believe this is again evidence that people don't act right even though they know they should.

The Christian ethic that made the west the best is fast disappearing. There will remain a cultural ethic for a little while but without Christianity to support it even that will go away.

 

[sayak83]

I believe logic makes my beliefs relevant. My beliefs are true because they are logical.

I believe this is again evidence that people don't act right even though they know they should.

The Christian ethic that made the west the best is fast disappearing. There will remain a cultural ethic for a little while but without Christianity to support it even that will go away.

Show that they are logical. Your believing that they are logical does not make it so.

 

[Pudding]

I believe eternal life is logical. It may not have seemed that way in the past but now science is finding that aging is a physical manifestation that could be altered if one knew how to do it.

Please explain what do you mean by 'eternal life is logical'.

No doubt the creator of the Universe does know how.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that 'the creator of the Universe does know how'.

I believe Christianity is illogical for a person who loves sin and/or hates life.

Please explain what do you mean by 'Christianity is illogical'.
Please elaborate what do you mean by 'hates life'.

I'm a non-christian. My reason for not following Christianity is because i don't have the belief that God exists, not because i loves sin and hates life.

Please provide evidence to support your claim if you think i (a non-christian) loves sin and hates life.

I believe that is why such people avoid Christianity like the plague

You haven't provide any evidence to support your premise.

although some have attempted to convince some Christian churches that their sin is ok and such churches have become apostate to the faith by being convinced.

It is your one sided beliefs that those non-christians' undefined activity is sin and those undefined churches have become apostate to the faith.

Please provide evidence to support your one sided beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe logic makes my beliefs relevant. My beliefs are true because they are logical.

The most intensive circular logic I have seen in a long time. Begging the Question par excellence.

I believe this is again evidence that people don't act right even though they know they should.

Please describe this evidence.

The Christian ethic that made the west the best is fast disappearing. There will remain a cultural ethic for a little while but without Christianity to support it even that will go away.

Nostalgia over the top , and it is not meaningful to those like my self that consider past paradigms not particularly meaningful except in history class.

 

[miodrag]

...having all the relevant information to make the right choice is REQUIRED to have free will.

No logic here. You may have two doors in front of you, not a clue what is behind, not a clue about the consequences of your actions, yet you still have a free will to choose which one to open.

Kemosloby said:
Man wasn't created flawed. Man was made perfect then sin found its way into man, which has been an inherited trait ever since.

If sin eventually found it's way, then Man was not perfect. Perfection means bulletproof.

Pudding said:
You mean Adam and Eve are perfect but they're not immune to sin?

Miodrag said:
"Immune to sin" - that can be only those who were "immune to free will".

You mean his definition of "perfect" doesn't including the "immunity to sin"?

Yes. Since what other thing would perfection mean, if not being corruption-free? The claim he placed was not logical, unless he also intended to put it within quotes: Man was made "perfect".

What does "immune to free will" mean?

Being perfect also includes the ability to sin. "Immune to free will" means lacking that ability. So we have a paradox in Christianity here, which is:
-one is not perfect if deprived the ability to freely sin >this means> free will is a part of perfection
-if one is so perfect that it is not possible ever to abuse free will, then one is not able to sin >this means> not possible for Adam to fall. Story says that Adam had free will and he was able to abuse it. So he was not perfect, instead he was just like us. Except in one thing, he was lacking the knowledge of sin, the concept of it, which now we have. Having knowledge is required to abuse free will. Otherwise, you are not abusing anything, you are innocent. There are only actions and choices; only knowledge can put labels "good", "neutral" and "bad" on these actions and choices. Adam had no knowledge before he tasted the fruit from the Tree of knowledge. So, he never abused his free will, nor God had any reason to punish him. Unless the punishment itself was the education: "Now you know it is a no-no."

What is perfection, being or not being able to sin? Being able to sin means free will present in full. Not being able to sin means to be situated at the absolute.

Seems like if sin is a relative category. It may not be the act itself that is sinful, but the attitude. Killing is a sin, but killing a terrorist to save a baby is a lesser evil. Sin is like beauty - it is in the eye of a beholder, depending on the paradigm. Only God is the Absolute, so being situated at this absolute platform is perfection of not being able to abuse free will. Situated at the absolute platform means to serve God. And naturally, it is dangerous if one thinks serving God is doing just anything in God's name. "Thy will be done" while being *genuinely* connected with God is perfection. So if we have no knowledge how to act properly, then we can escape into "Thy will be done". But this is what *we* can tell, after the Adam's tragic experience. Before he tasted the fruit, he could not know that it was not good to disobey God.

 

[Muffled]

Show that they are logical. Your believing that they are logical does not make it so.

I believe it would be illogical for meto say that they are logical if it were not so. See post #5.

 

[Muffled]

Please explain what do you mean by 'eternal life is logical'.

Aging may be the result of shortened DNA ends according to biological studies.
Aging is a major cause of death.
When we figure out how to repair DNA ends there will be no more aging.
Therefore People will not die from old age.


Please provide evidence to support your claim that 'the creator of the Universe does know how'.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens; and all their host have I commanded.

Please explain what do you mean by 'Christianity is illogical'.
Please elaborate what do you mean by 'hates life'.

I'm a non-christian. My reason for not following Christianity is because i don't have the belief that God exists, not because i loves sin and hates life.

Are you saying that you hate sin and love life? Sometimes people do things because they work. For instance not every person who goes to the food bank believes in the Christianity that the church running the food bank believes in but that lack of belief does not stop the person from receiving the food.

Please provide evidence to support your claim if you think i (a non-christian) loves sin and hates life.

You haven't provide any evidence to support your premise.

I believe it is evident in my daughter who loves her sin and won;t go near her church because she knows her sin will be condemned.

It is your one sided beliefs that those non-christians' undefined activity is sin and those undefined churches have become apostate to the faith.

I believe the Bible tells us what is sin and what is not and the Holy Spirit confirms the Bible.

Please provide evidence to support your one sided beliefs.

I believe the sin is homosexuality. Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

 

[Muffled]

The most intensive circular logic I have seen in a long time. Begging the Question par excellence.



Please describe this evidence.



Nostalgia over the top , and it is not meaningful to those like my self that consider past paradigms not particularly meaningful except in history class.

I don't believe so. Things are logically true if they are logically proven to be true. I believe that is how logic works.

Hamas should make peace with Israel but it won't because it doesn't want to.

Are you that young? I believe I have lived long enough to see the difference.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe so. Things are logically true if they are logically proven to be true. I believe that is how logic works.

The problem is you have not presented a logical argument, and all you did was say your beliefs are true, because the they are logical, which Begs the Question severely. It would be an argument that would be sound, and not the beliefs themselves. Actually sound arguments would not proof something true. I would have to accept your presuppositions before I would consider it true, and IF it was a valid argument,

Are you that young? I believe I have lived long enough to see the difference.

I am probably as old or older than you. I am 70. Nostalgia rarely reflects reality, it is just a naive longing for the past that is no longer here now, I try to understand the past (history) and appreciate the past, but it is gone, and most long gone.

 

[sayak83]

I believe it would be illogical for meto say that they are logical if it were not so. See post #5.

And I am saying that the idea of sin itself is false. Thus Christians believe in something that is false and irrational.

 

[Searching1981]

Well, I'm starting to learn to read responses before I respond. It seems everyone is stuck in their loops, repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results. How about trying something different? How about is religion Transformative? Transformative is a term based on Experience. No one asks whether a Transformative experience is logical, all they know is they have experienced it like life.

So, then I say I've experienced things that I know to be true...but the problem is you have not experienced them so they are not true for you. No evidence is required for my experience other than I am authentic and no evidence needed for your lack of experience other than you are authentic. How do we resolve this then?

The answer is we can't. Nothing I write will ever convince you of something you have not experienced unless you are the gullible type. Then you say, you see religious people are gullible but I say science types are gullible because science can't explain my experience and science is also passed onto to people. Think how many people have double checked research and studies? Have you ever done that? Can you even do that? Then how do you know it to be true? Because they said so? No, you have to depend on your clergy to do it for you. How do you know they have your interest in mind, what if they have an agenda, what if they want to cover up are rewrite history? You will never know because you trust them not with your experience but your gullibility. In the end Dogma is Dogma unless experienced.

So, the only thing I can tell you is for a legitimate, honest scientist it is transformation to do methodologically correct research, for you receiving it because you did not do it yourself it is not.

 

[Muffled]

The problem is you have not presented a logical argument, and all you did was say your beliefs are true, because the they are logical, which Begs the Question severely. It would be an argument that would be sound, and not the beliefs themselves. Actually sound arguments would not proof something true. I would have to accept your presuppositions before I would consider it true, and IF it was a valid argument,



I am probably as old or older than you. I am 70. Nostalgia rarely reflects reality, it is just a naive longing for the past that is no longer here now, I try to understand the past (history) and appreciate the past, but it is gone, and most long gone.

I presented my logic in Post #5. I believe it is possible that you might question the veracity of the premises but the logic is a syllogism.

74 until June.

I don't see it as nostalgia. I just recognize the difference between what was and is now. There is a decided lack of morality now that was not present then. I appreciate many of the current things like the internet and flat screen TV's. I appreciate that most diseases have been wiped out and I can get shots for the flu and pneumonia.

 

[Muffled]

And I am saying that the idea of sin itself is false. Thus Christians believe in something that is false and irrational.

So you believe you can do anything; rape women and children; have sex with your mother and animals; murder people and steal all their belongings. You must have been an ancient Mongolian in one of your past lives, lol.

 

[Muffled]

Well, I'm starting to learn to read responses before I respond. It seems everyone is stuck in their loops, repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results. How about trying something different? How about is religion Transformative? Transformative is a term based on Experience. No one asks whether a Transformative experience is logical, all they know is they have experienced it like life.

So, then I say I've experienced things that I know to be true...but the problem is you have not experienced them so they are not true for you. No evidence is required for my experience other than I am authentic and no evidence needed for your lack of experience other than you are authentic. How do we resolve this then?

The answer is we can't. Nothing I write will ever convince you of something you have not experienced unless you are the gullible type. Then you say, you see religious people are gullible but I say science types are gullible because science can't explain my experience and science is also passed onto to people. Think how many people have double checked research and studies? Have you ever done that? Can you even do that? Then how do you know it to be true? Because they said so? No, you have to depend on your clergy to do it for you. How do you know they have your interest in mind, what if they have an agenda, what if they want to cover up are rewrite history? You will never know because you trust them not with your experience but your gullibility. In the end Dogma is Dogma unless experienced.

So, the only thing I can tell you is for a legitimate, honest scientist it is transformation to do methodologically correct research, for you receiving it because you did not do it yourself it is not.

I believe there are those who question whether my experience is logical. For instance the experience of water on the road on a hot day is not logical but is a mirage. The mirage can be logically explained so one can understand that his experience is not that of seeing water.

I believe Christianity has a number of before and after stories. The problem is proving cause and affect. This can be a problem in science as well so usually a blind test has to be done to ensure there are not other causes involved.

 

[sayak83]

So you believe you can do anything; rape women and children; have sex with your mother and animals; murder people and steal all their belongings. You must have been an ancient Mongolian in one of your past lives, lol.

None of this has anything to do with sin. Only ethical conduct. The actions you mention are incorrect ethical conduct as it creates unwanted suffering in people who are the targets of such actions.

 

[shunyadragon]

I presented my logic in Post #5. I believe it is possible that you might question the veracity of the premises but the logic is a syllogism.

I believe the logis is as follows:
God hates sin.
Jesus takes away sin.
Conclusion: God gets what He wants.

What could be more logical?

The above is not a logical argument. It is a statement of belief. You believe God hates sin. You believe Jesus takes away sin. You believe God gets what he wants. This line of statements of belief does not represent a logical argument. If God hates sin, he does not get what he wants.

If God hates sin, and if God is an omnipotent, and all powerful God. why does God allow sin to exist?

He set Adam and Eve up in the garden as fallible humans with not ultimate result to succumb to temptation, Original sin, and the sinful nature of humanity forever, at least as long as humanity exists, or kills humanity off by their sinful nature.