Proposal: Christianity

Is a site about something about what no rational knowledge exists really a good idea? I mean: a site speaking about christianity without speaking about god would be kind of pointless, so it will definitively degenerate in endless speculation about god, his existence or inexistence, and so on. Is this really the purpose of SE? I thought it was knowledge, and no knowledge exists about god.

  • 10
    Cute. I'll assume you are merely ignorant, not malicious. According to Christianity, God has revealed Himself over and over. Even now, He reveals Himself through creation, His Spirit, and the Bible. My hope (and I haven't committed to this site) is that those who are deaf to God will not participate in the site. (Unless, of course, they have a desire to be healed of the deafness.) – Jon Ericson Jun 17 '11 at 23:02
  • 7
    @Jon Ericson: That's belief, NOT knowledge. One could simply answer: I BELIEVE there is no god. What could you possibly answer which could make any difference? Nothing. That's not knowledge. Thank you, your comment explains so very clearly my point! – Alexis Dufrenoy Jun 17 '11 at 23:33
  • 2
    You are very much mistaken. Suppose I believe you don't exist (or that you are a very intelligent horse who is provided with a hoof operated keyboard). But if you stood before me (and I wasn't so set in my belief that would not change my mind), I'd be compelled to admit that you exist and are, in fact, human. If there were a Q&A site about you, I wouldn't participate until I got to know you a bit (unless I really wanted to know you). – Jon Ericson Jun 17 '11 at 23:51
  • 2
    Are you pretending you have SEEN a god? – Alexis Dufrenoy Jun 17 '11 at 23:54
  • 1
    What loaded questions you ask! I see no particular reason to continue this conversation. – Jon Ericson Jun 18 '11 at 0:03
  • 3
    Your comments, assuming the existence of a god, are of course not "loaded" and completly objective, aren't they? – Alexis Dufrenoy Jun 18 '11 at 13:31
  • @Traroth: There is indeed "knowledge" related to Christianity. Note, "Christianity" not just "God". There are questions that can arise about whether God actually exists or not, and there is knowledge to be gained by those discussions. When it comes to general knowledge about "Christianity", however, there is plenty. There are thousands of texts, events, histories, etc. related to the Christian faith, rooted in Catholicism, the Bible, etc. – jrista Aug 3 '11 at 18:47
  • 1
    @Traroth: Your discussion here appears to have very little to do with whether this site is capable of discussion "knowledge", and more about you exercising a personal vendetta against those who PERSONALLY CHOOSE to HAVE FAITH in God. You are hiding behind the actual question you've posed: Is there any way to discuss Christian "knowledge". Knowledge does not require existence...as knowledge ultimately boils down to information and thought. SO YES, we can discuss Christianity in a logical manner, and spread knowledge about the Christian faith. – jrista Aug 3 '11 at 18:49
  • I'm sure some people are capable of objective discussion about such topics, but I really doubt they are a majority. Just read the various answers and comments on this very question! Even you, making some nonsensical comment about a "personnal vendetta" make me really doubt about this site not going down into collective prayer, having nothing to do with knowledge! I have nothing against your faith, but I really don't understand what it has to do on a StackExchange site. – Alexis Dufrenoy Aug 4 '11 at 8:41
  • @Traroth. This site uses facts and knowledge based on historical information, geographical information, scientific information, and mathematical information. – Pacerier Aug 15 '11 at 23:24
  • @Pacerier: Obviously, the majority of the persons voting here has no intention of using facts and knowledge, but belief and faith. This site will be a constant struggle for those wanting to do so, and will probably degenerate into a mess. – Alexis Dufrenoy Aug 16 '11 at 15:41

Christianity has a large body of knowledge, that vary from religious text to philosophy of religion. Many of the questions for this proposal can be answered objectively, irrelevant to the fact of gods' existence.

  • 1
    Ok, but will it happen that? I think the beta will play an important role, here. – Alexis Dufrenoy Feb 16 '11 at 20:15
  • 3
    @Traroth: I agree. It's the kind of site that can easily go wrong, but let's not declare it dead before the community gives it a try. – Borror0 Feb 16 '11 at 20:17
  • 4
    I mean: even if it was not selected (only 8 votes), the question "Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden" was mainly considered as a great example of on topic question! The only objection was: we don't know what god thought. I would say: we don't know if god even exists and if all this even really happened! – Alexis Dufrenoy Feb 16 '11 at 20:22
  • 3
    @Traroth: That question should get closed as "subjective or argumentative" (because it's both - many atheists consider that a good argument against Christianity). Though, in response to "we don't know if god even exists and if all this even really happened", I don't think that's relevant. See Science Fiction & Fantasy for a site that offers objective answers to works of fiction. – Borror0 Feb 16 '11 at 20:26
  • 2
    @Borro0: but it's not discussed as fiction, but as fact. That's the whole point! – Alexis Dufrenoy Feb 16 '11 at 22:33
  • @Traroth: In most cases, you couldn't tell whether the askers believes in god. In fact, I, as an atheist, could see myself asking that very question. The theist's explanation is worth knowing, because it is odd. The Christian God should have known what would happen. He's omniscient, for heaven's sake! – Borror0 Feb 16 '11 at 22:37
  • @Borror0: It's such a good question that Juian the Apostate asked it in "Against the Galileans" in year 361... :-) – Alexis Dufrenoy Feb 16 '11 at 22:43
  • 2
    A good answer to the question would certainly state that we don't know. It would go on to suggest the answers that Christians have proposed to the question, the context in which they were objected and any objections to those solutions. All of which is objective fact. – Kramii Feb 17 '11 at 10:00
  • 7
    As for the existence of God, it is on objective fact that Christians believe in his existence, and base their world-view on the premise of his existence. A Christianity site is not the place to debate God's existence. However, it is a a perfect place to develop our understanding of what belief in God implies to Christians, and the impact Christian belief has had on society as a whole. There really isn't a problem here. – Kramii Feb 17 '11 at 10:02

There is a myriad of opinions regarding Christianity. I would like to think that mere expressions of opinion would be downvoted, whereas "the Bible says...", or "such-and-such a group believes..." would get upvoted. This is where I think the stack exchange engine differentiates this site from any old forum.

  • This does not answer the question. The question wonders whether "the Bible says" or "Such-and-such group" can even have knowledge on this stack's subject. – dleyva3 Jun 20 '11 at 6:52
  • Fact 1: The Bible mentions God. This fact is irrefutable. Therefore there is knowledge. Besides, there are also very helpful historical contexts in descriptions of the Solomon's temple, military tactics, etc. – Lee Louviere Jul 7 '11 at 22:35
  • @dleyva3 Christianity is based on the Bible. But not all questions related to christianity needs to be related to the Bible. For example, a question like "how many christian denominations are there in the world today" is related to christianity but need not be related to the bible. In these cases, historical, geographical, scientific, and mathematical information would be used. It is up to the reader to determine if the provided historical, geographical, scientific, or mathematical information is good enough for him to identify as fact or fiction. – Pacerier Aug 15 '11 at 23:33

I could ask the same of an historical text. Why should we discuss the historical text because it's not actual fact, it is interpretation of fact.

Say there's historical text that references the Phoenix. However, they meant to discuss an actual bird that existed at that time. How are we to know the difference?

If in fact there was an actual bird, then would you accept their description as fact?

Either way it doesn't matter. There is a fact here in that the historical text describes a being. Whether or not it exists doesn't negate the fact that it was discussed. It's description and relationship with humans are all very relevant.

  • A site like this will be cluttered by believers wanting to discuss their beliefs or even to convince the others. It's obvious just by looking at the comments here! – Alexis Dufrenoy Jul 8 '11 at 13:53
  • Your post actually has a valid point. Basically it boils down to "Is the bible fact or fiction?". Most questions would be backed up by quotes from the bible. But since the question "is the bible fact or fiction?" is questioning the validity of the Bible itself, the answer would not be based on quotes from the bible, but based on other historical evidences which are accepted as fact. (Like you'd probably don't wanna debate whether people like Voltaire or Thomas Edison actually exist since there are sufficient historical evidences that they do exist) – Pacerier Aug 15 '11 at 23:45
  • @Traroth see my comment above. How was I unfair in suggesting that questions which questions the validity of the bible would have answers not based on the bible, but based on historical, geographical, scientific and mathematical evidences? – Pacerier Aug 15 '11 at 23:47
  • Which kind of "evidence" could possibly answer the question "is the bible fact or fiction"? – Alexis Dufrenoy Aug 16 '11 at 15:38

If you joined up, you'd learn that Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas have rational proofs of God's existence. He is the Unmoved Mover - makes a lot more sense to a lot more people than whatever Stephen Hawking comes up with.

This is not faith, but if it brings you to the point that you believe then it is a good thing!

If this site could do nothing but unpack the Summa Theologica for the modern era, then that would be enough.

  • No, they don't. And if you can't see the difference in reality between your myths and the physics the very computer you are using right now relies on, nothing can be done for you! – Alexis Dufrenoy Jul 11 '11 at 20:40
  • @Traroth I can usually tell the different between natural and supernatural truth. It's only natural and wise to prefer the supernatural to the natural. Please, by all means defeat Aristotle through logical reasoning, but don't think for an instant that any believer conflates natural law with supernatural law the way you do. – Peter Turner Jul 11 '11 at 21:26
  • You are aware that Aristotle was not a christian and never said anything about a christian god, aren't you? – Alexis Dufrenoy Jul 12 '11 at 13:39
  • @Traroth, I am, perhaps, less aware of that fact than St. Thomas Aquinas was. – Peter Turner Jul 12 '11 at 14:12
  • I do believe in God, but those proofs of existence of God doesn't make any sense to me logically. The logic they gave is not perfect. – noob Jul 19 '12 at 5:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .