Mordy

Well if you ask most christians they will point to fulfilled prophecy, so obviously their is some measuring going on (reasoning) to some extent, although it is inconsistent. Basically the paradox is: Two people of different religions who come to know about their gods do measure (read/discover) the bible/koran/etc for themselves and then choose to believe it because of some evidence (they have measured) or else no one would be christian/islamic, especially if they had not read or heard that the bible/holy book promises eternal life to those that believe. So they ACCEPT that the promise of eternal life is real and god as real so they have "measured" in a sense what is true, but what I'm getting at is: They can never did "come to know" or arrive at that conclusion, they "just accept it". So the preacher vs preacher argument boils down to a paradox of measurement.

Since how can you convert people from other religions in the modern world when their is no standard (measurement) for what is true? "What's the measuring stick?" That's why that phrase (or similar) was coined.

Since one must read (measure) the bible to become a "real" christian to some extent they accept jesus/apostles and their god's teachign as authority.

Mordy

Definition: Paradox: 3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases.

I think my example qualifies as a paradox.

The paradox is that they basically boil down to blind acceptance of authority but they reach a contradiction of measurement in that they keep changing the way they measure the claims made of their religion to convert others. As per my example in the first original post of the Islam vs. christian, i.e. pointing out contradictions of gods qualities in each others holy books, but then claiming those contradictions are not so because they can be interpreted allegorically, changing the standard of measurement constantly and in a contradictory manner running in endless circles paradoxically and never deciding how you can come to the conclusion (through measuring) that their god or religion is true, in its promises or selective aspects in a historical or real sense. Even many theistic evolutionists believe the promises of eternal life are real and the ressurrection of christ is real, and God as real but they disregard adam and eve as mythology for instance.

Toto

I think that a different choice of words would make your question clearer.

I don't think that Christians think of themselves as engaged in "measurement" even if they think they are behaving rationally. Measurement implies counting or numbers. Christian apologists deal in absolutes.

A paradox involves more than just inconsistencies or contradictions. Most of the definitions of paradox contain the idea of a "seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true." If you just want to say that Christians are illogical or contradict themselves, say it directly (with examples). If you just want to say that Christians base their religion on authority but pretend to engage in logic, just say that (with examples.)