//Had you not walked in in the middle of the conversation, you might have seen things like “Its very true that the history of Christianity isn’t perfect. “. See, it pays to go back and pick up the threads of the discussion before pontificating lest you misconstrue things, unless of course you WANT to misconstrue the issues in which case waking in in the middle of a conversation is definitely the way to go.//

Ooohh! My, aren't we a grumpy little snowflake this afternoon?

Did you miss your nap?

It don't read a lot of what you post, because life is too short. You don't seem to understand the nature of a public forum: the thing is that it's public. If you put something out there, it's free for everyone to read, ignore, or comment upon as they see fit. If that bothers, you might want to find a new medium for your message. Maybe start a blog or something?

//But compared to the others Christianity has a good record and when considered along with the creditable things done by it and in its name, a fine record.//

TLDR: Well, at least they're not Thuggees.

//Those who choose to exhibit a-historic hatred of Christianity won’t agree but then they also don’t understand the history.//

Yes, everybody who disagrees with you is a bumbling simpleton who barely knows how to tie their own shoelaces, let alone comprehend really complicated things like history. That's the way it always works.

//Meanwhile//

Selective readings of history and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies remain unconvincing lines of argument.

//That is how gods are determined, so if you have a character of a person you seek to emulate then you consider something of his / her character and actions as valuable.//

So if we admire somebody, they get elevated to the status of godhood? Are you sure about that, Josephus? I admire the work of Richard Dawkins, are you sure you're happy for him to be granted divine status? Would you like a little while to stop and think about this a bit more?

Toni Lavis writes: “Selective readings of history and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies remain unconvincing lines of argument.”

Indeed.

It could also be a case of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

One would need to control for environmental and sociological factors to gauge the extent to which Christianity can be thanked. Controlling for other factors after the fact, however, becomes a highly speculative exercise.

My apologies, mhaze. I allowed you to bog me down in a useless debate about definitions.

So, to that extent that I had allowed myself to be talked into a corner, I guess you were right. But it was not me who did the talking.

You originally stated:

“The error many believers make on pages such as this or in life generally is to try to explain their belief in the deity by logical reasoning. But that is an impossibility. The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251950)

And again later on when doubling down on your porkie:

“I said the deity can’t be disproven (or proven).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252107)

Clearly I showed that this was not the case. Deities can be disproven, depending on how they’re defined.

So, even if you come back to me with a form of ‘good’ in which an unlimited amount could still result in the suffering and evil we’ve witnessed throughout history, it would make no difference to my initial point: that there are some deities that can be disproven.

At best, all you’ll have done is shown that some forms of the classical omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god (and ones whose quality of omnibenevolence is so specific that most christians - in my extensive experience with them, at least, including as a former Christian myself - have probably never even considered and certainly have never bothered to specify) cannot be disproven.

Now, wasn’t that a colossal waste of both our time?

But thank you, nevertheless, for a demonstration of when semantics CAN be a needless diversion.

To Toni Lavis.

[There's absolutely no call for that, mate. We're all just having a nice friendly chat, no need for the abuse.]

Are you saying that talking about sin is abusive? Look in the mirror man. See if you can find you'r faults. It's a healthy practice to continually strive to be better. But how w will you become better unless you acknowledge where you are now. How will you progress unless you acknowledge your faults and so something about them.

If the topic of sin is abuse (which I barely brought up in this conversation), the you've no right to call anyone a "snowflake."

To mhaze.

What you've said on the connection of Christianity on the historical advancement of society has my intrest. Is there any books to read to get started in this aspect of history!? Or if not books, anything else to learn the positive elements of Christian influence in history and society?

To David f.

[Having hearing you I think you have confused religious belief with knowledge and will continue to confuse religious belief with knowledge. I think lots of people with different religions do the same thing. That would be perfectly OK if they were content to rely on their belief, and live and let live. The problem arises when they want others to share that confusion. In my experience and my long life I have met many missionaries. All those I have met assume that other people have not encountered their belief system - that they are dealing with any empty mind - as though they are bringing a fresh insight. You are only one of many.]

Honestly, I would have liked to go into the topic more, but right away the reactions to my post was that I needed to defend my beliefs before I could confront any practical application if my beliefs and how they've worked out. The topic was pulled in any direction that (to me at least) appeared that everyone's resolve to ignore what I had written and instead broaden the subject to defend the belief in God, or defend Christianity. So yes I was trying a fresh approach.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for being a missionary, I never thought of myself that way. Thankyou for that thought. It's not that I think Christianity is unknown, or that anyone's mind is empty and ready to be taught. Instead often I've assumed it was known more then it actually is and then am surprised that it isn't. But more frequently regardless if Christianity if known at all, is that it is largely misunderstood. That is something I'd like to correct if ever given the opportunity. In this crowd though that's a hard topic to approach without it going down the route of proving God exists instead of correcting misunderstandings.

For this topic my hope was to approach one belief and it's practical applications. Basically that one teaching and law, to love the Lord with all your heart, actively helps us to fulfill a second teaching and law. To love your neighbor as yourself. According to Jesus these are the two greatest laws that all the other rules in the law given through the prophets hinge on.

My observation, that to focus on God first makes everything else to be a better person easier and requires less effort to accomplish. Less effort to forgive or to restrain anger. Less effort to be hospitable and generous. It's a general observation. One that I had hoped could be tried and compared by other people as well.