The real religion?

[Expired]

And we're back to the "they really really believed it" excuse.

I simply responded to an attempt to suggest that the people who wrote the NT were mistaken or biased and pointed out there is no evidence for this so therefore...find another reason not to believe what the writers wrote.

Because they were thick, superstitious goat fondlers.

[The Grand Nudger]

And we're back to the "they really really believed it" excuse.

Why oh why would they die for a lie?  

Because you have failed to make them so.  This isn't the first time that these things have been asserted on these boards, or by you.  I'm not going to humor the weekly reset Steve.  As ever, the drums sound retreat immediately, and the plebs burn the fields on their way out.  "Well, we don't/can't know".  OFC we can, don't be ridiculous....you're the one who decided to bring godman down to earth, after all.

That's ridiculous. I cannot make something 'untrue' because you do not believe the evidence that exists. I never said anything about 'we don't/can't know'. I believe the evidence and you don't. Is there a reason that the NT events could not be true despite the accounts?

Stop, I told you I wasn't going to humor this.   If you want me to consider your assertions to be true, make them so. If you're not willing to put in the time and effort, then it isn't worth anyone else's time or effort.

[KevinM1]

Because religion is power, especially in the ancient world?  And Jesus' resurrection is exactly the kind of event that fits the bill.  It's the ultimate "My messiah is better, more powerful than yours" trump card.

You cannot be this naive.

Can you back this theory up with an ounce of historical data that supports it? Please be sure to include the point at which people started to benefit from perpetuating a new, yet false religion. 

This is another example of dopey theories being repeated enough that people begin to believe they have merit--just because--"it must be so because I've seen this argument so used so many times.

You have heard of Scientology, correct?  Mormonism?  Those are just the low-hanging fruit, of course.  You believe Christianity is special because you want to believe it.  There's nothing objective pointing to its veracity.  If there was, it wouldn't be debated.

So, apparently, you are that naive.  Good to know.

[LadyForCamus]

And we're back to the "they really really believed it" excuse.

Why oh why would they die for a lie?  

That's ridiculous. I cannot make something 'untrue' because you do not believe the evidence that exists. I never said anything about 'we don't/can't know'. I believe the evidence and you don't. Is there a reason that the NT events could not be true despite the accounts?

Stop, I told you I wasn't going to humor this.   If you want me to consider your assertions to be true, make them so.

Aaaand, now we're back to Steve lowering his standards for, and playing the semantics game with words like "evidence", "proof", and "cause and effect" as a means of lubing up his precious NT before shoving it directly into our asses.

[SteveII]

Can you back this theory up with an ounce of historical data that supports it? Please be sure to include the point at which people started to benefit from perpetuating a new, yet false religion. 

This is another example of dopey theories being repeated enough that people begin to believe they have merit--just because--"it must be so because I've seen this argument so used so many times.

You have heard of Scientology, correct?  Mormonism?  Those are just the low-hanging fruit, of course.  You believe Christianity is special because you want to believe it.  There's nothing objective pointing to its veracity.  If there was, it wouldn't be debated.

So, apparently, you are that naive.  Good to know.

No, we were talking specifically about Christianity and why someone would write an account in the NT that was not true. Do you have anything? 

While I do believe that the events happened, my belief has absolutely nothing to do with whether the events of the NT happened or not. You seem to claim to know (more than just believe) that they are not true. Why do you know that?

[Jesster]

You have heard of Scientology, correct?  Mormonism?  Those are just the low-hanging fruit, of course.  You believe Christianity is special because you want to believe it.  There's nothing objective pointing to its veracity.  If there was, it wouldn't be debated.

So, apparently, you are that naive.  Good to know.

No, we were talking specifically about Christianity and why someone would write an account in the NT that was not true. Do you have anything? 

While I do believe that the events happened, my belief has absolutely nothing to do with whether the events of the NT happened or not. You seem to claim to know (more than just believe) that they are not true. Why do you know that?

So you actually believe that absolutely everything in the NT is true? This should be fun.

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be interesting..the notion that if you thought the NT events didn't happen...you would still believe in christ, the god of the nt.  So, it's not important to you at all, is that why you prefer to assert rather than establish? What was all that nonsense about systematic theologies based upon reason and experience and revelation, just -another- thing you like to say?

[FatAndFaithless]

Man...he's just sprinting down the checklist of fallacies at this point...shifting the burden of proof...moving the goalposts...special pleading...bordering on straw man..

[KevinM1]

The point is that simply because something is written down doesn't mean it's true, especially when it comes to increasing one's political power (which is what religion is... it's a political apparatus).  

Attempting to turn the tables by saying "Well, do you know it's false?" is ridiculous.  Just because I cannot demonstrate something is, in actuality, false does not lend truth to the thing in question.  Without corroborating evidence (of which there is none... no, a religion's popularity isn't evidence of its truthfulness, and neither are assumed documents that were the foundation of the NT documents, which, for the nth time, IS THE CLAIM), assuming that they're true is simply ridiculous.

Whenever Steve starts down this asinine line of defense, this is what pops into my head:

[LadyForCamus]

Because religion is power, especially in the ancient world?  And Jesus' resurrection is exactly the kind of event that fits the bill.  It's the ultimate "My messiah is better, more powerful than yours" trump card.

You cannot be this naive.

Can you back this theory up with an ounce of historical data that supports it? Please be sure to include the point at which people started to benefit from perpetuating a new, yet false religion. 

This is another example of dopey theories being repeated enough that people begin to believe they have merit--just because--"it must be so because I've seen this argument so used so many times.

Oh, NOW you expect data? LOL.

How about, I know everything Kevin said is true via special revelation! Defeat that!