Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "'Almost illegal' to be an orthodox Christian: Sheridan" video.
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@MrBadintentionss
"you can't produce "evidence" on something that has never been proven to exist, "
Nonsense. In order to prove it exists, you need to produce evidence. That is, evidence comes before the proof, whereas you're claiming that you need the proof before the evidence.
Besides, God has been proven to exist.
"and no, you can't reference a (heavily edited) book written by men..."
What about one written by God, which the Bible claims to be?
And what's wrong with referencing one written by men anyway? That's done all the time in all sorts of contexts.
And what's your evidence that it was "heavily edited"? Because I reject that claim.
"... which was written at a time when gods were regularly conjured."
Does that mean that all books of the time are suspect just because of the time? That's illogical.
"people make computers,"
Yes, computers don't occur naturally. Neither do living things (to start with). You need God. And that is in fact one bit of very strong evidence for God.
"just like they make gods"
Just because they might make gods doesn't mean that every claim about God is man-made. That, again, is illogical.
1
-
@growlkitty
"If Catholics are Christians then Christians would also have to be, Catholic's!"
Nonsense. That's like saying that if parrots are birds, then birds have to be parrots. One is a subset of the other.
"The various and many protestant denominations that exist today either profess Christ and deny the law,..."
Are you saying that they don't follow the Mosaic Law, given for the pre-Christian nation of Israel? Are you saying that animal sacrifice—that was part of the Mosaic Law—is still required?
"...they say Jesus from their lips, but their hearts are far from Him..."
Arrant nonsense. Sure true for some, but not the group as a whole.
"the Holy Bible is a Christian book."
The Holy Bible is God's book, and as such, Christians follow it. You could argue that the New Testament is a product of Christianity, but not the Old Testament (unless you want to argue that Christianity preceded Christ, which is actually an argument you could sort of make).
"Sunday keeping is a Catholic institution and not biblical at all!"
Worshipping on Sundays was instituted in the early (pre-Catholic) church.
"Neither is ... Easter, Christmas, ..."
Easter and Christmas are celebrated by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is not something taught in the Bible, but neither is there anything against it.
"Nobody knows anything about this topic because nobody uses Scripture as their source guide!"
Nobody? Again, nonsense. Although you're right that plenty of (especially non-Christians) don't.
"True Christianity isn't, "defined." "
All words have definitions. Otherwise they are meaningless.
"It is irrelevant how someone defines Christianity, or what they call themselves; "you will know them from their fruits..." "
You're right to the extent that wrong definitions are irrelevant, and what they call themselves is irrelevant if it's not true (like a man calling himself a woman). And yes, you will know they by their fruits. But you'll know them as what? As Christians! So what IS a Christian? Again, the word is meaningless if it doesn't have a definition.
"Christianity is a lifestyle, not a definition..."
Yes, you can call it a lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a definition. If it doesn't have a definition, what are you talking about when you refer to Christians? Without a definition, you can't explain what you're talking about.
"...a definition which is the same as an opinion."
No, a definition is not an opinion. A definition is what you find in a dictionary. It's a convention on what a particular sequence of letters mean. What I cited was a widely-accepted convention, i.e. a widely-accepted definition. I never claimed that it was the only possible definition, by the way.
Most of the rest of what you said in various comments I do agree with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nioengland
"it don't matter which way round they are.."
It seems to matter to you, as you're arguing that they are the opposite way around to what I said.
"you are incorrect.. "
The scholarship on the history of Western Civilisation says otherwise. Here is one such scholar, Tom Holland, a (non-Christian) historian. He is referring to the New Testament letters of the Apostle Paul.
“...this is not a very lengthy amount of writing, but compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
"normal is always the primary.. "
Normal is what is widely accepted. But where did it come from in the first place?
"religion is an addition so it is secondary"
What makes you think it's an addition?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1