Why Christianity?

[Pyrrho]

Hence the problem of all religions ever.

It's only the FSM that makes the assertion that the only dogma is that there is no dogma.

When someone writes something, do you believe they did so with a specific meaning/intent?  And if so, do you believe that the author's original intent is knowable?

Waiting for three....

No, the FSM did not make such a claim (and you saying that must mean you believe in the FSM; otherwise, the FSM could not say anything if it did not exist, could it?).  You are confusing claims made about the FSM with the FSM.  You would be complaining if we made the same mistake about a Christian god, confusing what some particular Christian said about it with what its nature really was.  But that is what you are doing with the FSM; you imagine that some church of the FSM saying something necessitates something about the FSM, which is false and wrong.

[Randy Carson]

A question I always ask Christians is, "What arguments do you have to support your beliefs that a Hindu, Jewish, or Muslim does not? 

The argument which is unique to Christianity is that Jesus prophesied that he would die and rise from the dead and that this resurrection gives us a reason to believe his claims of divinity. Scholars who have studied the dying and rising gods genre have determined that Jesus is not the copy-cat god; it is the other gods of the middle east that began to claim bodily resurrection in the first and second century AFTER Jesus. IOW, they are the copy-cats - not Jesus.

Jews and Muslims do not make similar claims for the major figures of their respective faiths.

In other words, if I accept your notion that the universe must have had a creator, why couldn't it have been Thor or Ba'al?

It could have been one of them; therefore, it would be reasonable for you to examine what can be known about Thor, Ba'al and others to determine which God is the most likely candidate. Since it is also reasonable to assume that others have made a similar examination throughout the course of human history, starting with the largest religions - Christianity, Islam and Hinduism - would be most efficient. Further, you might ask yourself whether monotheism is more plausible than polytheism; if so, you could put Hinduism on the back burner.

Even if I accept that prayer works, why must it be Yahweh answering them and not Allah or The Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

Yahweh and Allah are the same God. The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not seem to qualify as an all-powerful God since it has been argued by its followers that the reason people are taller today on average than they were in the past is that as the population of the planet has grown over the past few centuries, the FSM's noodly appendages have not been able to push people down as much as before. IOW, the FSM does not appear to be omnipotent, and the idea that a god who is not omnipotent created EVERYTHING from nothing fails to persuade.  

Every time I ask any version of these questions I get either radio silence or a quick, sudden change of the topic. Because of my many failed attempts at asking these questions in real life, I decided to ask these questions here.

If you are interested in a lot of interaction with your questions, you will get more and better responses to them at the Catholic Answers Forum.

[Randy Carson]

There is nothing the FSM can't do. It can have dogma and no dogma. It can contradict itself. It made all other gods.

Pretty simple stuff, we learnt it on day 1 of wearing-a-colander-on-your head school.

Of course he made your gods. Everything needs a creator. Except the FSM.

Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the uncreated Creator - even though they call Him by different names and emphasize different aspects or characteristics of His nature, etc. Yahweh, God and Allah are different names we use to refer to this one God.

If you are saying that the FSM is the uncreated Creator, then you worship the same God as all other monotheists...you simply know him by another name and have different doctrines about God than Catholics or Muslims.

Like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.

I'm happy to hear that you have moved from a position of atheism to theism.

If you got any handouts or a sacred text at Colander School, it would be interesting to compare your doctrines side-by-side with those of the other great monotheistic religions to see what similarities and differences we could find. Perhaps in doing so, we could help you to draw even closer to a true picture of what God is like.

[robvalue]

He's either a table, or he's the uncreated creator who is not Allah or Yahweh.

Since he's clearly not a table, he is the uncreated creator who is Allah or Yahweh.

You can prove anything when you don't care about logic.

[Pyrrho]

A question I always ask Christians is, "What arguments do you have to support your beliefs that a Hindu, Jewish, or Muslim does not? 

The argument which is unique to Christianity is that Jesus prophesied that he would die and rise from the dead and that this resurrection gives us a reason to believe his claims of divinity. Scholars who have studied the dying and rising gods genre have determined that Jesus is not the copy-cat god; it is the other gods of the middle east that began to claim bodily resurrection in the first and second century AFTER Jesus. IOW, they are the copy-cats - not Jesus.

Jews and Muslims do not make similar claims for the major figures of their respective faiths.
...

That is hilarious! The claim argument for the existence of god. Because certain claims are made, therefore god!

And you reject religions for not making a particular outrageous claim!

(It is also funny that dying and resurrection stories that predate the Christian story are, according to you, copies of the Christian story! You should be a comedian!)

[Randy Carson]

(It is also funny that dying and resurrection stories that predate the Christian story are, according to you, copies of the Christian story!  You should be a comedian!)

T.N.D. Mettinger — a senior Swedish scholar, professor at Lund University and member of the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities of Stockholm admits in his book, The Riddle of Resurrection, that the consensus among modern scholars — nearly universal — is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century. In the end, after combing through all of these accounts and critically analyzing them, Mettinger adds that none of these serve as parallels to Jesus. None of them.

These accounts are far different from the reports of Jesus rising from the dead. They occurred in the unspecified and distant past and were usually related to the seasonal life-and-death cycle of vegetation. In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection isn’t repeated, isn’t related to changes in the seasons, and was sincerely believed to be an actual event by those who lived in the same generation of the historical Jesus. In addition, Mettinger concludes that “there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious suffering for sins.”

Mettinger caps his study with this statement: “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.”

In short, this leading scholar’s analysis is a sharp rebuke to popular-level authors and Internet bloggers who make grand claims about the pagan origins of Jesus’ return from the dead. Ultimately, Mettinger affirmed, “the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.”

Unique—as in "one of a kind."

Mettinger, however, is not unique. Dr. Ronald H. Nash wrote:

During a period of time running roughly from about 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity had been heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religions, or other movements in the Hellenistic world. Largely as a result of a series of scholarly books and articles written in rebuttal, allegations of early Christianity's dependence on its Hellenistic environment began to appear less frequently in the publications of Bible scholars and classical scholars. Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue." (Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, 81)

Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, was a professor at the University of Miami (Ohio), fluent in 22 languages, attendee at the Second Mythraic Congress held in Tehran in the 1970's, and a world-renowned expert in middle-eastern pagan religions. In chapter four of Lee Strobel's book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Yamauchi explains the differences between Jesus and Mithras, Marduk, Dionysius, Tammuz (Dumuzi), Adonis, Cybele, Attis, Osiris, Zeus, Perseus, Alexander the Great, Buddha, Zoroaster and more.

Regarding the popularity of the copy-cat argument, Yamauchi notes:

"First, be careful of articles of the web. Even though the Internet is a quick and convenient source of information, it also perpetuates outdated and disproved theories. Also, check the credentials of the authors. Do they have the training and depth of knowledge to write authoritatively on these issues. and be sure to check the dates of sources that are quoted. Are they relying on anachronistic claims or discredited scholars? And finally, be aware of the biases of many modern authors who may clearly have an axe to grind." (Edwin Yamauchi as quoted in The Case for the Real Jesus, Lee Strobel, 184-185)

[Pyrrho]

(It is also funny that dying and resurrection stories that predate the Christian story are, according to you, copies of the Christian story!  You should be a comedian!)

T.N.D. Mettinger — a senior Swedish scholar, professor at Lund University and member of the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities of Stockholm admits in his book, The Riddle of Resurrection, that the consensus among modern scholars — nearly universal — is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century. In the end, after combing through all of these accounts and critically analyzing them, Mettinger adds that none of these serve as parallels to Jesus. None of them.

These accounts are far different from the reports of Jesus rising from the dead. They occurred in the unspecified and distant past and were usually related to the seasonal life-and-death cycle of vegetation. In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection isn’t repeated, isn’t related to changes in the seasons, and was sincerely believed to be an actual event by those who lived in the same generation of the historical Jesus. In addition, Mettinger concludes that “there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious suffering for sins.”

Mettinger caps his study with this statement: “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.”

In short, this leading scholar’s analysis is a sharp rebuke to popular-level authors and Internet bloggers who make grand claims about the pagan origins of Jesus’ return from the dead. Ultimately, Mettinger affirmed, “the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.”

Unique—as in "one of a kind."

Mettinger, however, is not unique. Dr. Ronald H. Nash wrote:

During a period of time running roughly from about 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity had been heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religions, or other movements in the Hellenistic world. Largely as a result of a series of scholarly books and articles written in rebuttal, allegations of early Christianity's dependence on its Hellenistic environment began to appear less frequently in the publications of Bible scholars and classical scholars. Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue." (Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, 81)

Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, was a professor at the University of Miami (Ohio), fluent in 22 languages, attendee at the Second Mythraic Congress held in Tehran in the 1970's, and a world-renowned expert in middle-eastern pagan religions. In chapter four of Lee Strobel's book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Yamauchi explains the differences between Jesus and Mithras, Marduk, Dionysius, Tammuz (Dumuzi), Adonis, Cybele, Attis, Osiris, Zeus, Perseus, Alexander the Great, Buddha, Zoroaster and more.

Regarding the popularity of the copy-cat argument, Yamauchi notes:

"First, be careful of articles of the web. Even though the Internet is a quick and convenient source of information, it also perpetuates outdated and disproved theories. Also, check the credentials of the authors. Do they have the training and depth of knowledge to write authoritatively on these issues. and be sure to check the dates of sources that are quoted. Are they relying on anachronistic claims or discredited scholars? And finally, be aware of the biases of many modern authors who may clearly have an axe to grind." (Edwin Yamauchi as quoted in The Case for the Real Jesus, Lee Strobel, 184-185)

Aside from your plagiarism, which is likely to get you banned, your source is of an idiot.  I guess he believes that the 24th century BCE is after the stories of Jesus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_myth

Osiris rose from the dead and then impregnated his wife, according to the story that goes back over 2000 years before the Jesus story was told.

[orangebox21]

It's only the FSM that makes the assertion that the only dogma is that there is no dogma.

When someone writes something, do you believe they did so with a specific meaning/intent?  And if so, do you believe that the author's original intent is knowable?

Waiting for three....

Forget all the other denominations and focus on mine. There, I gave you three.

We need to finish the below conversation before we can continue.

It's only the FSM that makes the assertion that the only dogma is that there is no dogma.

When someone writes something, do you believe they did so with a specific meaning/intent?  And if so, do you believe that the author's original intent is knowable?

Waiting for three....

No, the FSM did not make such a claim (and you saying that must mean you believe in the FSM; otherwise, the FSM could not say anything if it did not exist, could it?).  You are confusing claims made about the FSM with the FSM.  You would be complaining if we made the same mistake about a Christian god, confusing what some particular Christian said about it with what its nature really was.  But that is what you are doing with the FSM; you imagine that some church of the FSM saying something necessitates something about the FSM, which is false and wrong.

I have no problem assuming the existence of something for the sake of argument.  I don't need to believe in the FSM in order to test the logic of the argumentation of his/her/its existence.

That's true.  I'm sorry for confusing claims made about the FSM with the FSM.  I agree that I would object if people were claiming something inconsistent with the revelation of the Biblical God.  What does the FSM claim about him/her/itself?

@Shuffle
We need to determine if you are a false prophet of the FSM before we can continue.

[Whateverist]

I got two answers to this question from the same person -_-

1) (when i was specifically discussing hinduism), "I don't lose anything for not believing in hinduism even if it is right, but the risk is just too much (in christianity)".
2) The bible proves itself through it's prophecies which the other religions do not. (radio silence came after I asked how much she actually knew about prophecies in other religions)

So the essence of the answer is superior marketing?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

T.N.D. Mettinger — a senior Swedish scholar, professor at Lund University and member of the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities of Stockholm admits in his book, The Riddle of Resurrection, that the consensus among modern scholars — nearly universal — is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century. In the end, after combing through all of these accounts and critically analyzing them, Mettinger adds that none of these serve as parallels to Jesus. None of them.

These accounts are far different from the reports of Jesus rising from the dead. They occurred in the unspecified and distant past and were usually related to the seasonal life-and-death cycle of vegetation. In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection isn’t repeated, isn’t related to changes in the seasons, and was sincerely believed to be an actual event by those who lived in the same generation of the historical Jesus. In addition, Mettinger concludes that “there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious suffering for sins.”

Mettinger caps his study with this statement: “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.”

In short, this leading scholar’s analysis is a sharp rebuke to popular-level authors and Internet bloggers who make grand claims about the pagan origins of Jesus’ return from the dead. Ultimately, Mettinger affirmed, “the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.”

Unique—as in "one of a kind."

Mettinger, however, is not unique. Dr. Ronald H. Nash wrote:


Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, was a professor at the University of Miami (Ohio), fluent in 22 languages, attendee at the Second Mythraic Congress held in Tehran in the 1970's, and a world-renowned expert in middle-eastern pagan religions. In chapter four of Lee Strobel's book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Yamauchi explains the differences between Jesus and Mithras, Marduk, Dionysius, Tammuz (Dumuzi), Adonis, Cybele, Attis, Osiris, Zeus, Perseus, Alexander the Great, Buddha, Zoroaster and more.

Regarding the popularity of the copy-cat argument, Yamauchi notes:

Aside from your plagiarism, which is likely to get you banned, your source is of an idiot.  I guess he believes that the 24th century BCE is after the stories of Jesus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_myth

---

Osiris rose from the dead and then impregnated his wife, according to the story that goes back over 2000 years before the Jesus story was told.

The Egyptians must have had some super powerful Viagra.