My brief (and polemical) thought about Christianity...

[Seeker]

All I see in the OP is an assertion which is on the face of it absurd.

It does no good just to assert that my assertion is absurd without justification. That makes your assertion just as ''absurd'' as mine.

[One Bad Pig]

It does no good just to assert that my assertion is absurd without justification. That makes your assertion just as ''absurd'' as mine.

Perhaps you missed it, but I provided an examble of why your assertion was absurd. I have no idea why you're revisiting this. You may also want to brush up on the meaning of "absurd"; in fairness, you're not a native English speaker.

[Seeker]

Perhaps you missed it, but I provided an examble of why your assertion was absurd. I have no idea why you're revisiting this. You may also want to brush up on the meaning of "absurd"; in fairness, you're not a native English speaker.

Not an error on my end this time. Aren't absurd and nonsensical the same thing? Thanks for trying to be kind, at least.

[shunyadragon]

Dear Twebbers,

Christian doctrine cannot be true. First off, there are dozens, hundreds of Christian doctrines which are mutually exclusive. Two, they are full of contradictions. And third, because truth is the relation between description and that which is described. Well, a large chunk of Christian doctrine is about Christian doctrine. Thus, it is self-referential and leads nowhere.

Comments?

Yes, this a problem, but nonetheless There is a consistency if the traditional churches of Christianity, which make up by far the majority of Christians in the world. The problem is the dominant doctrines and dogma such as the Virgin Birth, sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, and Original Sin, are based, are grounded in versions of ancient tribal beliefs and culture of the Middle East.

[JonathanL]

The problem is the dominant doctrines and dogma such as the Virgin Birth, sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, and Original Sin, are based, are grounded in versions of ancient tribal beliefs and culture of the Middle East.

Old does not equal wrong, or bad.

New does not equal correct, or good.

[MaxVel]

Old does not equal wrong, or bad.

New does not equal correct, or good.

You mean we can't just dismiss everything Shunya says up front, because he's old?

[Seeker]

Old does not equal wrong, or bad.

New does not equal correct, or good.

Yeah, the same way popular does not equal correct, or good. I actually agree with your post there. :)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

JP Holding's short e-book on the Trinity explains it in a way that even I can understand. (Though the obvious question is that if his interpretation is correct, why did the early church fathers have so much trouble understanding it?)

You need to read up on the first 250 years of your religion and the numerous different beliefs/ideas about the nature of the Christ and his relationship with the Father. Christianity was entirely fluid in those first two and a half centuries and different Christian communities had their own scriptures and their own beliefs on those issues. The proto-orthodox group was among the main groups by the early fourth century but it was not the dominant group. At the time of the First Council of Nicaea there was no “correct” Christianity. That is why Constantine called the council to bring about some conformity into the new religion and thus uphold political stability.

[Seeker]

Yes, this a problem, but nonetheless There is a consistency if the traditional churches of Christianity, which make up by far the majority of Christians in the world.

Do you mean ''of'' instead of ''if'' in the sentence above?