[ziplock]

Alright, sober second look. I wasn't in the best state of mind last night to be posting.

Now I'm going to make one single point and I am interested in how you address it. The rest of what's been said can be ignored.

You submitted that you have found reason that debunks Christianity. This of course calls for a definition of Christianity and who qualifies as a Christian. Both Christianity and what qualifies as a Christian is ambiguous. There are numerous denominations and countless personal interpretations of both of these terms which provides a large amount of diversity in belief under the umbrella label of Christianity.

To some people being a Christian requires the acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God, as the savior, his life, death, and resurrection, so on and so forth. For others it could simply be a follower of Christ (which is what the word Christian means). How one can follow Christ is again varied and open to individual interpretation. Christology as I brought up in my last post shows how varied the beliefs and views surrounding Jesus Christ and God can be.

What this all shows is the vast diversity of Christianity and the difficulty in establishing a set, standard, and specific definition of the "beliefs" that qualify as Christian. The essay you submitted is full of generalization regarding Christians. "They wage war on...." No, they don't. Some do, but not all. So you cannot say "They" in reference to all "Christians".

You cannot say that all Christians believe what is outlined in the essay, due to this diversity I just pointed out. It then necessitates the assumption of a group's beliefs. This assumption cannot be said to be fact. This assumption is then ascribed to a certain people. You cannot say that this is in fact their belief, only what you believe their beliefs to be. You cannot then say you debunk Christianity, but only a small portion of it that does adhere to your specific, assigned beliefs. This is what is known as a straw man argument and is a logical fallacy of the most popular kind.

Due to this, all the reasoning that follows is built on a false, assumed premise. Logically then what follows is false. Basic logic. So then, in order for me to carry on and start assessing the logic and reason that builds up the case, I have to reconcile this dilemma with the premise. Do you have anything to offer?