How Is Christianity Reasonable

[Brother Jeff]

Theres plenty of proof you just reject to see it and cannot endure sound doctrine

 

There is actually NO proof, and not even ANY evidence for the existence of Jesus as a historical person. There certainly is no proof that he was a god or the son of a god. It is YOU who cannot endure truth, facts, reason, rational thought, or common sense, but then that is typical of fundies.

[EdwardAbbey]

This is an open invitation to any Christian who supports the orthodox (Nicean Creed) view of Christianity. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to believe the following basis of orthodox Christianity is factual?

1. A talking snake tempted the mother of all humanity and she tempted the father of all humanity and thus they sinned.
   
2. All humans are thus tainted with the original sin, instigated by a talking snake.
   
3. God fathered a son by a human woman, who is also the same god as his father.
   
4. God the son died to pay the price to himself (god the father who is also somehow the same person as god the son), for the sin instigated by the talking snake. (see 1 & 2)
   
5. God the son came back to life and flew off into the sky.
   
6. If I just believe 3, 4 & 5, I will go to heaven and not have to pay the price for the sin caused by the talking snake (1 & 2).
   

I look forward to a logical explanation on why a reasonable person should give this any consideration.

 

Bruce

 

Anybody who believes in this list you have presented does not have a rational working brain.

[L.B.]

"If you could only find them bones!"

 

Hey Japeth... I don't know where the fucking bones of your Jay-zus are. Then again, neither do I know where the bones of my great-grandma's neighbor's horse back in fucking Poland are, either. Maybe, since I have to rely on other people's information about said horse/said bones, just maybe, the horsey revived and flew up in the fucking air! That's IT! Since I have no eyewitness accounts from anyone who saw what happened to horsey, I guess it's safe and sane to assume that whatever fucking fairy-tale someone tells me about Mr. Horsey is good enough.

 

I now declare myself the Grand Poobah/Wizardus Emeritus/Big Fucking Cheese of the Great Mysterious Temple of the Holy Flying Horse!

 

By the way, sinners, just in case you think flying talking undead horses are fake, I refer you to the ability of one Mr. Ed to speak and otherwise manifest human qualities, which tangentially proves my undead flying horsey-god theory. Repent, horse-haters!!

[South2003]

If you could only find them bones!

 

So if the bones of jesus were located, then was the tomb was empty????

[Guest N.T.Wrong]

This is an open invitation to any Christian who supports the orthodox (Nicean Creed) view of Christianity. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to believe the following basis of orthodox Christianity is factual?

1. A talking snake tempted the mother of all humanity and she tempted the father of all humanity and thus they sinned.
   
2. All humans are thus tainted with the original sin, instigated by a talking snake.
   
3. God fathered a son by a human woman, who is also the same god as his father.
   
4. God the son died to pay the price to himself (god the father who is also somehow the same person as god the son), for the sin instigated by the talking snake. (see 1 & 2)
   
5. God the son came back to life and flew off into the sky.
   
6. If I just believe 3, 4 & 5, I will go to heaven and not have to pay the price for the sin caused by the talking snake (1 & 2).
   

I look forward to a logical explanation on why a reasonable person should give this any consideration.

 

Bruce

 

I find all of these to not be very important. There is one very important and significant event that may have taken place. I believe it all rest on this one event. Jesus resurrection. If jesus did NOT rise from the dead then it is the biggest and cruelest lie in the history of mankind. On the other hand, if jesus did INDEED rise from the dead, then it has a lot of impications that go with it. It means that everything jesus said I'm gonna believe because... I mean he rose from the dead. What else can someone do before you'll believe him?

 

So, if jesus did rise from the dead, then

1) a talking snake did tempt Adam and Eve and they sinned( this also can be symbolic of the origin of sin).

2)The bibile doesn't say that we have orginal sin. Instead, this world was perverted by first Adam and Eve and once it's perverted and they were cast out of paradise... wouldn't you sin? With all the evil influence around you it's too easy to fall short.

3) God fathered a son by a human woman, who is not the same god as his father. God and Jesus are one in a figurative sense. Sort of like a man and a woman are one (No, god isn't a homo).

4) God the son died to pay the price to his father (who is so close that they call themselves ONE [see #3]), for the sin instigated by the talking snake.

5) God the son rose from the dead and sealed the proof for his deity. Then, he ascended into heaven.

6)If I just believe 3, 4 & 5, it doesn't mean I get to go to heaven. I have to believe and obey and follow. The demons believe and tremble.

"I look forward to a logical explanation on why a reasonable person should give this any consideration." Well good. If you're on here any time soon, I'd be glad to discuss in a rational and logical manner. If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then alot of things would make a whole lot more sense.

 

 

The N.T. is full of evidence for his resurrection. There are some 5,400 ancient greek manuscripts of the NT. Much more than any other ancient writing.

 

Luke is recognized by many scholars (liberal and conservative) as an historian.

 

They record that the very first witnesses of the empty tomb were women. Woman were not considered to be reliable at all. So this would have been a very big embarrassment to the apostles as they try to preach and write that Christ rose from the dead. If they were to make this up, they would not write that women were the first witnesses. They just wouldn't

 

The apostles didn't just believe that jesus rose from the dead. They either knew for a fact that he rose, or they knew for a fact that he did not rise. No one dies for what they know is a lie. Most of the apostles suffered very painful deaths for preaching. They would not die for what they knew was a lie. Is this not a rational conclusion?

 

I say that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. If you say that it can't be proven, then nothing in ancient history can be proven. If you say that it didn't happen, then nothing in ancient history happened. If you say nothing in ancient history happened, then... well... ya, you are pretty nuts

 

But, I don't like logic cuz then I would have to live a cheesy christian life. Who really wants to do that? Well, hopefully hell isn't as bad as it sounds I sure hope so.

[Guest N.T.Wrong]

One more thing. Do you guys simply not believe in anything supernatural? Don't you think there's whitches and such who would disagree with you? If it you think all of these things are impossible, it is probably because you don't believe there's a little more to the world around us than what we can see. No, I'm not crazy.

 

There was once a seminar on witches and such. The man gave a lengthy speech and laid a lot of evidence and logic to prove that witches did not exist. Afterward there was a question and answer session. A lady stood up and said, "you made some very good points, but I'm a witch."

 

If such supernatural things like "dark magic" exist, then why is it so impossible for someone to rise from the dead?

 

I encourage all of you to drop all of those presuppositions and presumptions of yours and research the resurrection for yourself with an open mind.

 

You just might find that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

[Japedo]

One more thing. Do you guys simply not believe in anything supernatural? Don't you think there's whitches and such who would disagree with you? If it you think all of these things are impossible, it is probably because you don't believe there's a little more to the world around us than what we can see. No, I'm not crazy.

 

There was once a seminar on witches and such. The man gave a lengthy speech and laid a lot of evidence and logic to prove that witches did not exist. Afterward there was a question and answer session. A lady stood up and said, "you made some very good points, but I'm a witch."

 

If such supernatural things like "dark magic" exist, then why is it so impossible for someone to rise from the dead?

 

I encourage all of you to drop all of those presuppositions and presumptions of yours and research the resurrection for yourself with an open mind.

 

You just might find that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

 

 

NT, not that you'll read this comment, it seems you just keep leaving comments everywhere without bothering to read the responses you're getting. What makes you think none of us has researched the resurrection? You are making a lot of assumptions here.

 

I don't deny witches exist, they are in the flesh and can me questioned and talked to.

 

I don't deny that someone can come back from the dead either, many people have been resuscitated back to life. I have zero proof nor will I believe without proof that someone was dead for 3 days and came back. To many 'gods' who supposedly lived before Christ have near identical story's. Christ is a carbon copy of other pagan gods. There is not one new or different thing about Christ that isn't redone sun worship, not one. I urge you to be the one with the open mind. You come in here making closed mind assumptions then saying we're the ones with the closed minds. Welcome to ex-C.

[Evolution_beyond]

if jesus did INDEED rise from the dead, then it has a lot of impications that go with it. It means that everything jesus said I'm gonna believe because... I mean he rose from the dead. What else can someone do before you'll believe him?

 

So if Satan was born into this world and after dying, he rose from the dead - would you believe everything that Satan said? Power does not equal truth, so the logic you are presenting is deeply flawed.

 

Luke is recognized by many scholars (liberal and conservative) as an historian.

 

Really?

 

They record that the very first witnesses of the empty tomb were women. Woman were not considered to be reliable at all. So this would have been a very big embarrassment to the apostles as they try to preach and write that Christ rose from the dead. If they were to make this up, they would not write that women were the first witnesses. They just wouldn't

 

Greek culture looked down on its women - and yet many Greek myths have women as important and powerful figures and many Greek Goddesses were strong and formidable. So your point proves nothing. Oh, and by the way, the New Testament was written in Greek and not Hebrew and so it was part of the same culture.

 

The apostles didn't just believe that jesus rose from the dead. They either knew for a fact that he rose, or they knew for a fact that he did not rise. No one dies for what they know is a lie. Most of the apostles suffered very painful deaths for preaching. They would not die for what they knew was a lie. Is this not a rational conclusion?

 

People don't die for lies - but they often die for beliefs. This doesn't mean that we are forced to accept those beliefs. What about moslem terrorists who believe they are going to heaven if they blow themselves up? Are they dying for a lie?

 

A God dying and then rising again is a quite common myth in the ancient world. What do you make of this? However mythical a belief, if people believe it and it symbolises something very important and sacred to them then they will die for it. Doesn't mean it's true.

 

I say that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. If you say that it can't be proven, then nothing in ancient history can be proven. If you say that it didn't happen, then nothing in ancient history happened. If you say nothing in ancient history happened, then... well... ya, you are pretty nuts

 

No. You are nuts and you clearly know nothing much about history, ancient or otherwise. There are plenty of things that are far easy to prove about ancient history - BECAUSE THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR THEM! We have archeological evidence for many, many things in the ancient world - we have trusted historical accounts with no alterior motive or spiritual slant to them that deal with events in ancient Greece and Rome.

 

Where is your archeological evidence for the resurrection? Where are your unbiased, non-spiritual historical accounts of the resurrection? They don't exist.

 

Based on this difference between the resurrection and other aspects of ancient history your point that if the resurrection didn't happen then nothing happened is a clear case of religious insanity!

 

But, I don't like logic cuz then I would have to live a cheesy christian life. Who really wants to do that? Well, hopefully hell isn't as bad as it sounds I sure hope so.

 

What logic? And stop trying to be a comedian - you just come across as an ass.

[Evolution_beyond]

One more thing. Do you guys simply not believe in anything supernatural?

 

Not all of us - but many of us. This site is for ex-christians. That includes anybody who used to be a christian but isn't anymore. This includes pagans, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, new age pantheists, etc etc etc

 

Atheists (which seem to be the majority here) generally tend to not believe in anything supernatural. That much is correct.

 

Don't you think there's whitches and such who would disagree with you?

 

Yes there probably are witches that believe their powers are supernatural. But I don't believe in their powers and think they are deluded.

 

Plus there are some witches who wouldn't disagree with me. Some witches believe that what they do is more to do with psychology, with centring themselves and thinking positively etc. They wouldn't see anything supernatural in their 'magic' - and consequently they wouldn't disagree with me and I wouldn't disagree with them either.

 

If it you think all of these things are impossible, it is probably because you don't believe there's a little more to the world around us than what we can see.

 

Oh I think there is plenty to this world beyond what we can see. I can't see quarks. I can't see planets that are further out than Uranus with the naked eye. I can't see light rays that are shorter than blue or longer than red. I can't hear the ultra-sound that bats use.

 

But I do need some evidence of something's existence before I'll believe any old junk. I'd love to believe in dragons and elves - but sadly there is no evidence for their existence

[Neon Genesis]

The N.T. is full of evidence for his resurrection. There are some 5,400 ancient greek manuscripts of the NT. Much more than any other ancient writing.

Uh, you can't use the bible to prove that the bible is real. That would be like me using Lord Of The Rings to prove that Saruman is real. Since you can't prove or disprove the existence of Saruman and I have a book that's written about Saruman, then by your logic Saruman is God. Praise Saruman! He's a lot cooler than Yahweh or whatever anyway.

[Ouroboros]

One more thing. Do you guys simply not believe in anything supernatural? Don't you think there's whitches and such who would disagree with you? If it you think all of these things are impossible, it is probably because you don't believe there's a little more to the world around us than what we can see. No, I'm not crazy.

I believe there are universes outside of our universe. Other dimensions. A multiverse. I believe there are things we don't know yet that will totally shock us one day. Extra dimensions could be what we call "supernatural", but then... then it's natural, since it's part of what exists.

 

If such supernatural things like "dark magic" exist, then why is it so impossible for someone to rise from the dead?

Chris Angel does things like that, and magicians have done it for ages... yet... it's a trick... and some toxins from blowfish...

 

I encourage all of you to drop all of those presuppositions and presumptions of yours and research the resurrection for yourself with an open mind.

Likewise.

 

You just might find that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

And it's very possible that what we see is the remnant of a very large undertaking of some advanced magician, and he managed to trick and con people to believe he was the "real deal". There are many ways how it could be viewed.

 

What about Apollonius from Tyana, with his miracles and deeds similar to Jesus? And he live during the first century? Was he the real deal? People witnessed him do miracles too. Or Emperor Vespasian... did they do miracles or not? After all, it's documented.

[Brother Jeff]

I find all of these to not be very important.

Yeah, right. More likely you just got slapped in the face hard with how absurd your religious beliefs are, and you would rather not deal with it.

 

If jesus did NOT rise from the dead then it is the biggest and cruelest lie in the history of mankind.

ALL religions are nothing but myths and lies. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on those.

 

(No, god isn't a homo)

Ignorant religious bigot.

 

The N.T. is full of evidence for his resurrection. There are some 5,400 ancient greek manuscripts of the NT. Much more than any other ancient writing.

LOL You can't prove the bible with the bible. That's circular reasoning, which is generally the only kind of reasoning religious people are familiar with. The NT contains four hopelessly contradictory magical undeadening accounts (see here and here) written decades after the alleged event by anonymous authors. That's hardly what I would call "evidence". As for the manuscript "evidence", see here.

 

Luke is recognized by many scholars (liberal and conservative) as an historian.

Pfffftt... Luke didn't even write the books attributed to him. Relevant link:

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/matthewluke.html#luke

 

The apostles didn't just believe that jesus rose from the dead. They either knew for a fact that he rose, or they knew for a fact that he did not rise. No one dies for what they know is a lie. Most of the apostles suffered very painful deaths for preaching. They would not die for what they knew was a lie. Is this not a rational conclusion?

Nope, it's not. We don't know how most of the apostles met their end, and we know that religious and political fanatics will willingly choose to die for their beliefs. Relevant link:

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/apologetics.html#q11

 

I say that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. If you say that it can't be proven, then nothing in ancient history can be proven. If you say that it didn't happen, then nothing in ancient history happened. If you say nothing in ancient history happened, then... well... ya, you are pretty nuts

I say that it is extremely improbable that Jesus Christ is magically undead because there is NO evidence that it ever happened. It doesn't follow that if the magical undeadening of Jesus can't be proven or we say that it didn't happen that nothing in ancient history happened. That's a non-sequitur, and that's just bullshit. As for being nuts, well, you're the one with the nutty beliefs, not us! Glory!

[Ouroboros]

The apostles didn't just believe that jesus rose from the dead. They either knew for a fact that he rose, or they knew for a fact that he did not rise. No one dies for what they know is a lie. Most of the apostles suffered very painful deaths for preaching. They would not die for what they knew was a lie. Is this not a rational conclusion?

It depends. Because we can't be absolutely sure what they believed, since what we think they believed is influenced by Paul, who never met Jesus in person (according to himself) and some unknown authors long time after the apostles deaths. Maybe the first apostels who died under Paul's hands believed in a physical, real, military guy they called "The Savior" who was killed as a martyr. The later apostles then added on that he didn't really die, but lived on inside them. And then the next step was that he not only continued to live inside them, but he lived in Heaven with God. But the next believer added on, not only did he go to Heaven, but he rose physically...

 

Do you know that Jesus Christos is the same as The Annoited Savior. Which in Hebrew is Joshua Messiah. There was a group of Messianic Jews at the time of Jesus who believed there would rise up a military leader who would lead them into war against the Romans. Several of these "saviors" came about at that time. Can we completely sure that this is not the "Jesus followers" Paul really was persecuting? Maybe it wasn't Christians in the sense we see it today at all, but a cult of Messianic Jews who caused a big stir and acted out terrorism? It is very plausible.

[Guest N.T.Wrong]

One more thing. Do you guys simply not believe in anything supernatural? Don't you think there's whitches and such who would disagree with you? If it you think all of these things are impossible, it is probably because you don't believe there's a little more to the world around us than what we can see. No, I'm not crazy.

 

There was once a seminar on witches and such. The man gave a lengthy speech and laid a lot of evidence and logic to prove that witches did not exist. Afterward there was a question and answer session. A lady stood up and said, "you made some very good points, but I'm a witch."

 

If such supernatural things like "dark magic" exist, then why is it so impossible for someone to rise from the dead?

 

I encourage all of you to drop all of those presuppositions and presumptions of yours and research the resurrection for yourself with an open mind.

 

You just might find that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

 

 

NT, not that you'll read this comment, it seems you just keep leaving comments everywhere without bothering to read the responses you're getting. What makes you think none of us has researched the resurrection? You are making a lot of assumptions here.

 

I don't deny witches exist, they are in the flesh and can me questioned and talked to.

 

I don't deny that someone can come back from the dead either, many people have been resuscitated back to life. I have zero proof nor will I believe without proof that someone was dead for 3 days and came back. To many 'gods' who supposedly lived before Christ have near identical story's. Christ is a carbon copy of other pagan gods. There is not one new or different thing about Christ that isn't redone sun worship, not one. I urge you to be the one with the open mind. You come in here making closed mind assumptions then saying we're the ones with the closed minds. Welcome to ex-C.

 

 

Please don't consider me closed minded. I admit, I am somewhat bias. Aren't we all? I try very hard to get rid of all presumptions though.

 

You claim that other ancient religions have resurrecting gods. That doesn't prove anything. Also, most of the ones I've looked don't speak of resurrecting gods until after Christ. Mythraism is one of them I think. The earliest accounts of mythra, which are before Christ, don't claim he rose from the dead. Now, I realize there are some resurrecting gods before Christ. But, they (at least, the ones I've studied) are not like Christ at all. Their resurrections are related to the death of plants in the fall, and the "resurrecting" of plants in the spring. The death of these gods in the fall, and their resurrections are how the ancients explained the way plants "die and live" again.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Sometimes I forget that you are all reall people in this vertual world, so I say some stuff that may indeed make me look like an ass, as someone said.

 

You cannot deny though, that you all say some pretty ridiculous stuff too.

 

I believe Christ rose from the dead. Therefore, I am a totally illogical person. I think not. I have (and am still) considering all sides of the resurrection. So far, I have come to the conclusion that Christ rose from the dead. Ya follow?

 

I don't get online much. That's why it may seem I don't read replies. Well, I do read replies. I really respect alot of you for not being a christian just because your parents are, or because of only emotions.

 

Enough said :\

[Brother Jeff]

You cannot deny though, that you all say some pretty ridiculous stuff too.

Such as?

[Brother Jeff]

I believe Christ rose from the dead. Therefore, I am a totally illogical person. I think not. I have (and am still) considering all sides of the resurrection. So far, I have come to the conclusion that Christ rose from the dead. Ya follow?

It doesn't follow that just because you believe that Kryasst is magically undead that you are a totally illogical person. What is it with you and non-sequiturs? You claim to be "considering all sides" of the magical undeadening issue. I find that hard to believe since you still believe that it actually happened when there is NO evidence that it ever did. Any of us here can give you plenty of reasons NOT to believe that Jesus is magically undead. All you have to do is ask. But for starters, see this glorious page at my glorious site:

 

http://christianityisbullshit.com/christia...t-just-aint-so/

[Kuroikaze]

The N.T. is full of evidence for his resurrection. There are some 5,400 ancient greek manuscripts of the NT. Much more than any other ancient writing.

 

Yes, and historians have found copy errors (some of them major) even everyone of those manuscripts, not to mention that Jesus didn't speak greek, which ensures that even if he existed, the ideas he taught would have already been greatly changed through translation...so we cannot test the accuracy of the translations. furthermore, historians require more than a bunch of manuscripts to verify the accuracy of a document.

 

Luke is recognized by many scholars (liberal and conservative) as an historian.

I call bullshit on this, no respectable scholar would even claim to know who wrote the book of Luke, and while most agree that the writer was better educated than the other writers, even if tradition is right (and there is no evidence it is) the writer of Luke still didn't know Jesus personally, his account is, at best, third of fourth hand.

 

They record that the very first witnesses of the empty tomb were women. Woman were not considered to be reliable at all. So this would have been a very big embarrassment to the apostles as they try to preach and write that Christ rose from the dead. If they were to make this up, they would not write that women were the first witnesses. They just wouldn't

 

So your defense of the gospel account is based upon the belief that the gospel writers did not consider women as reliable witnesses...but, then they wrote down the woman's story so they must not have thought she was totally untrustworthy.

 

seriously, just because women were 2nd class citizens doesn't mean every one thought they lied...those two things don't connect...besides the passage in question can't even get its facts together, in one gospel its three women and another its two women, in one they meet an angel and another a gardener.

 

In fact, there is several reason this passage might have been fabricated, in the first, second and third century church there was quite a lot of fighting about the womens role in it, some thought because christians were apart from the world they didn't have to obey social traditions and women should be allowed leadership roles, other wanted to maintain the status quo, there were many documents written under false names during that time, to support each side. The books of 1st and 2nd Timothy are two of them (put in the bible because the anti womens rights side won the conflict) while books that supported women, like "the Acts of Paul" were discarded.

 

This argument is farcical, and you pulled it right out of a Josh McDowell book.

 

 

The apostles didn't just believe that jesus rose from the dead. They either knew for a fact that he rose, or they knew for a fact that he did not rise. No one dies for what they know is a lie. Most of the apostles suffered very painful deaths for preaching. They would not die for what they knew was a lie. Is this not a rational conclusion?

 

There are people alive today who believe that Elvis is not actually dead and alien abductions, so on and so forth...it doesn't take long for gossip to turn into gospel. it would be quite easy for people 30 years removed from Jesus' death to believe it ardently enough to die for it, even though it didn't happen. Try an argument that isn't stupid.

 

 

I say that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. If you say that it can't be proven, then nothing in ancient history can be proven. If you say that it didn't happen, then nothing in ancient history happened. If you say nothing in ancient history happened, then... well... ya, you are pretty nuts

 

Total non-sequiter, which has already been pointed out.

[Kuroikaze]

One more thing. Do you guys simply not believe in anything supernatural? Don't you think there's whitches and such who would disagree with you? If it you think all of these things are impossible, it is probably because you don't believe there's a little more to the world around us than what we can see. No, I'm not crazy.

 

There was once a seminar on witches and such. The man gave a lengthy speech and laid a lot of evidence and logic to prove that witches did not exist. Afterward there was a question and answer session. A lady stood up and said, "you made some very good points, but I'm a witch."

 

If such supernatural things like "dark magic" exist, then why is it so impossible for someone to rise from the dead?

 

I encourage all of you to drop all of those presuppositions and presumptions of yours and research the resurrection for yourself with an open mind.

 

You just might find that it is very possible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

 

 

 

ohh....well she CLAIMED to be a witch so it MUST be true Now, if she had actually turned him into a frog or something that would have been a good story, I wouldn't have believed it, but at least I would have given you an A for creativity.

 

If the supernatural is everywhere then I sure haven't seen it. Sure there are lots of things I haven't seen or don't understand...but that doesn't mean I should just run off and believe every fool idea someone happens to mention in my presence.

 

If people want me to believe in Witches or ghosts, or alien abductions, or anything else they need evidence to convince me, same as you need. I am unbiased (at least as much as I can be) on my rejection of unsubstantiated claims, your just ticked because one of the unsubstantiated claims I reject happens to be your pet belief

[Ouroboros]

You claim that other ancient religions have resurrecting gods. That doesn't prove anything.

What???

 

So, if a Christian writer claims something 2000 years ago, then it's true, because it's supposed to be taken "historically".

 

While at the same time if a Egyptian writer claims something 2500 years ago, then it's not true, because then suddenly it is NOT to be taken historically?

 

Aren't you the one demanding that Christian writings should be taken just as valid as any other literature in history? Then why not take all other literature to the same level as you want to take the Christian writings? What am I missing here? I don't get your argument. You're asking for a separate and special treatment of your (now slowly dissipating) religion?

 

Also, most of the ones I've looked don't speak of resurrecting gods until after Christ.

"I am the Universe, Past, Present and Future; no mortal made the acquitance of me."

- Sanctuary of Neith in Sais (Plutarch and Proclos)

(that's 700 BCE or something)

 

Do you know anything about Horus/Osiris who predates Christianity? He's called a life-death-rebirth deity, or dying-and-rising deity or resurrection deity when it comes to literature, history, mythology and religious studies... Why? Because the myth contains the death and resurrection of the deity. Not the same way as Jesus mind you, but still, dead, then alive.

 

So why is that myth a myth, but the other myth not?

 

Mythraism is one of them I think. The earliest accounts of mythra, which are before Christ, don't claim he rose from the dead. Now, I realize there are some resurrecting gods before Christ. But, they (at least, the ones I've studied) are not like Christ at all. Their resurrections are related to the death of plants in the fall, and the "resurrecting" of plants in the spring. The death of these gods in the fall, and their resurrections are how the ancients explained the way plants "die and live" again.

No, you're getting all backwards. Jesus is the false god since he didn't get resurrected like the other true gods. ... (end sarcasm) Just because one died on a cross and burried in a tomb and the other not, it doesn't change the fundamental concept of the story, a deity that dies and is restored. Jesus could have had green slippers while in the tomb for all I care, but the underlying idea is the same. The hero who dies and the hero who is restored.

 

Does that make sense?

No, because you keep on doing special pleading. You want your favorite to be treated better than the competition. That is not fair play, so it does not make sense.

 

Sometimes I forget that you are all reall people in this vertual world, so I say some stuff that may indeed make me look like an ass, as someone said.

So far you haven't. But I can be an ass sometimes, and yet I'm not the expert on this site.

 

You cannot deny though, that you all say some pretty ridiculous stuff too.

Absolutely. But I don't think that I have the full and complete knowledge or truth. And I don't demand people to follow my ideas or accept my opinions as truths. I'm not trying to evangelize like Christians, but I do educate as far as I can, and as far as my knowledge goes, to anyone who comes in here and think they know it all.

 

I believe Christ rose from the dead. Therefore, I am a totally illogical person. I think not. I have (and am still) considering all sides of the resurrection. So far, I have come to the conclusion that Christ rose from the dead. Ya follow?

Whatever rocks your boat.

 

I don't get online much. That's why it may seem I don't read replies. Well, I do read replies. I really respect alot of you for not being a christian just because your parents are, or because of only emotions.

I was Christian for 30 years. I went on mission trips. I went to Bible school. I was teaching in Sunday school in a 2000 members church. I was evangelizing downtown of a large city in Sweden for a year on a weekly basis. I was knocking doors on Wednesday evenings and trying to preach about Jesus. Do you want me to go on? I was a member of this church for 10 years and I was dedicated and convinced I was right... I don't anymore. And the arguments are not in favor of the existence of God or the historicity of a resurrection. I'm not arguing if Jesus existed as a sage, terrorist or a influential person, but I really doubt (out of many reasons) that Jesus was the son of God or that he did any miracle at all.

[Guest 40zz]

Hello, I've been reading alot on this board, different topic's on different threads, and I see that people "believe" all sorts of things.

And the fact to the matter is that we all "believe" in something or someone, we all put our "faith" into something or someone.

 

How do we trust something or someone? We put our "faith" in that something or someone, we do it everyday! Look at our daily life, how many times a day do we "believe" and put our "faith" in something or someone without any thought at all? Our very life may depend on our "believing" what we put our "faith" in.

 

With that said, the topic for this thread is "How is Christianty reasonable"? Well, compared to what? Other beliefs religions ect.?

 

Let me ask you four philosophical questions, lets start there;

 

1) Where did we come from? (Did we just appear, evolved, created ect..)?

 

2) Why are we here? (What is our purpose)?

 

3) How do we know how to live while we're here? (where's the rule book? Owners manual)?

 

4) Where are we going when we die? (What's after death, reincarnation, nothing, some white light, heaven, hell)?

 

 

So we're not jumping all over the place, let's start with question #1.

[Mythra]

Hoo boy. Here we go again. Bring in the philosophical team.

[Deva]

.... the topic for this thread is "How is Christianty reasonable"? Well, compared to what? Other beliefs religions ect.?

 

In doing all your reading, did you read post#1 of this thread? It says:

 

This is an open invitation to any Christian who supports the orthodox (Nicean Creed) view of Christianity. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to believe the following basis of orthodox Christianity is factual?

1. A talking snake tempted the mother of all humanity and she tempted the father of all humanity and thus they sinned.

2. All humans are thus tainted with the original sin, instigated by a talking snake.

3. God fathered a son by a human woman, who is also the same god as his father.

4. God the son died to pay the price to himself (god the father who is also somehow the same person as god the son), for the sin instigated by the talking snake. (see 1 & 2)

5. God the son came back to life and flew off into the sky.

6. If I just believe 3, 4 & 5, I will go to heaven and not have to pay the price for the sin caused by the talking snake (1 & 2).

I look forward to a logical explanation on why a reasonable person should give this any consideration.

 

Bruce

 

How is this unclear? Why not address why you believe the above points are factual instead of giving us another set of your own questions? Not up to the task?

 

Yeah, we have different ideas, but we are pretty much a united front that orthodox Christianity is not believable.

[Ouroboros]

Hello, I've been reading alot on this board, different topic's on different threads, and I see that people "believe" all sorts of things.

And the fact to the matter is that we all "believe" in something or someone, we all put our "faith" into something or someone.

 

How do we trust something or someone? We put our "faith" in that something or someone, we do it everyday! Look at our daily life, how many times a day do we "believe" and put our "faith" in something or someone without any thought at all? Our very life may depend on our "believing" what we put our "faith" in.

Very much so.

 

With that said, the topic for this thread is "How is Christianty reasonable"? Well, compared to what? Other beliefs religions ect.?

 

Let me ask you four philosophical questions, lets start there;

 

1) Where did we come from? (Did we just appear, evolved, created ect..)?

Personally I came from my mothers womb. How about you? Did you land from another planet? Did some alien drop you off from their mothership? I can only assume that you're a human being (I kind of trusting you there) and it would mean (as a part of the definition) that you were born... am I right?

 

2) Why are we here? (What is our purpose)?

My purpose is to live and make a good life for myself.

 

And to make a good life for myself, I want to have friends and family around me.

 

To have friends and family around me, I'm doing good to them, since if I do they do good to me too. Do to others and all that...

 

I do it gladly, because through evolution I have an emotional feedback that increases endorphins that make me euphoric and happy. And those drugs also prolongs my life and make me healthier.

 

So I win by helping others win. It's a win, win.

 

3) How do we know how to live while we're here? (where's the rule book? Owners manual)?

It's a dynamic "book" that is shared and handed down from generations through actions, words, culture, society, interaction etc, etc. There's no one single book, just like there's no one single, or one true, interpretation of the Bible.

 

There's 30,000 denominations out there, and they don't all agree on what and how each verse is supposed to be interpreted. So the Bible as a "rule book", or "owners manual", is not so good since it's too vague. And besides it doesn't explain many things. For instance, it forgot to mention that slavery is bad. So if it lacks important and proper content, then it's a faulty hand book that didn't pass the QA.

 

4) Where are we going when we die? (What's after death, reincarnation, nothing, some white light, heaven, hell)?

Who knows? Have you been there? When you went there, did you go with your body, or only in your "spirit"? How can we trust that your "spiritual vision" wasn't just a dream or that you had too many shrooms?

 

So we're not jumping all over the place, let's start with question #1.

Don't care for someone telling me how to respond. I went for all the questions.

 

Maybe you should read more from other discussion threads that talked about this for thousands of pages, before you state the same inane questions once more?

[Mythra]

Oh god. I can't help myself. Response from the least philosophical member of ex-c.:

 

1) Where did we come from? (Did we just appear, evolved, created ect..)?

Okay. I go with door number 3. We evolved. Oh wait - fuck - I even got this wrong. It's door no. 2!

 

2) Why are we here? (What is our purpose)?

No clue what your purpose is. My purpose is to avoid jail time.

 

3) How do we know how to live while we're here? (where's the rule book? Owners manual)?

I go by the bible. No shellfish. Don't trim the edges of my beard. Stone my kids to death if they sass me.

 

4) Where are we going when we die? (What's after death, reincarnation, nothing, some white light, heaven, hell)?

Where are we going? Shit -we'll be dead. Enough said on that question.

 

 

And enough contemplation. Back to my life of simplicity.

[Grandpa Harley]

"ect"? FUCKING 'ECT'? God's teeth... I was spared for this?

 

and where the HELL is the owner's manual for cats? If something that lives inside something the size of a walnut doesn't need one, then something that uses 'ect' instead of 'etc.' (et cetera... God preserve me from the non latinate!) sure as buggery doesn't need one...

 

a priori assumptions of some sort of engaged creator and something 'special' about humans (although I'd say 'special' featured in the name of the class that 40zz was put in) really don't help

 

first of all, why should there be an engaged creator, second, why does it think humans are 'special' enough to need a purpose (other than breeding)?