Hi, I'm a Christian. Help Me Disprove My Religion!

[Aractus]

What I love about the whole thing is how utterly insignificant the life accomplishments of Jesus actually are. Even if he actually performed all the miracles that he's credited with leading up to his death, his only real achievement is being martyred.

Well he inspired people to create a whole religion based on his preachings that has persisted to this day and there are now tens of thousands of Christian denominations world-wide.

[ApeNotKillApe]

What I love about the whole thing is how utterly insignificant the life accomplishments of Jesus actually are. Even if he actually performed all the miracles that he's credited with leading up to his death, his only real achievement is being martyred.

Well he inspired people to create a whole religion based on his preachings that has persisted to this day and there are now tens of thousands of Christian denominations world-wide.

Yes, obviously, but I'm saying the accomplishments he made in his lifetime are insignificant. If you ignore his post-mortem success, the coming of the messiah was rather pointless.

[Redbeard The Pink]

No thanks. Have fun in church on Sunday.

And now we come to it...

Backed into a corner and pressed for scholarship proving the claims of Jesus Mythicism, the mythicist takes his ball and bat and goes home...because he has nothing to offer.

Mythicism wasn't the point I was pushing, and Rake is a contrary little shit who should know better anyway. He doesn't get a full argument because I give so few shits about him, so few in fact that I do not care about the detriment of using bad rhetoric or turning my back on an argument because I'm simply too lazy to cite myself. It's more about being blatantly disrespectful than it is about being backed into a corner.


Besides, even if I did cite a mythiciist of virtually any ilk, regardless of who it was or what they said, Rake here would just turn around and call them a quack for being a mythicist and pretty much ignore whatever else they say. We've done this already in other threads, and it's beside the point of what I was saying in this thread, which is another reason why I'm not fully engaging him on this matter.


Anyway, you've still failed to address my actual point for this thread, which is that magic Jesus didn't exist even if his non-magical, historical twin did (hypothetically). Please, enlighten us about how your 5 Facts is an iron-clad logical trap that leads to belief in Magic Jesus.


Actually, no, don't...fuck, he's gonna do it anyway, isn't he?

[houseofcantor]

Aractus is Rake?

[pocaracas]

Guys, can anyone point me in the right direction or straight out tell me how we know that there were several apocalyptic preachers around the first century, in that particular middle-eastern region?

How can we say that the Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus were not the same historical person?

The "Teacher of Righteousness" is just some unknown person from the 1st century BC. Unknown as in we don't know his identity. Could he have influenced Jesus? Absolutely - we don't really know who influenced Jesus since nothing of value is told to us about Jesus before he begins his ministry. It is generally used to establish there was a culture of Messianic teachers at the time, which itself lends further credibility to the historic existence of Jesus. He couldn't have existed as a Messianic teacher in an age with no Messianic activity (well not unless he really was the Son of God anyway).

The Teacher may be an unknown person, but the fact remains that someone wrote down some stuff about him that matches to an astonishing degree what was later written about Jesus.

You're saying that the two figures, the Teacher and Jesus, are used to claim that there was a culture of messianic teachers at the time?
That's it? No one else?
Not even someone just complaining about all the riffraff?

[robvalue]

Jesus was just God working out his own issues via a bizarre human theatre.

But then, what isn't?

[Redbeard The Pink]

Aractus is Rake?

Indeed, he is.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I just appreciate the fact that, upon finding himself suddenly un-banned, he took the time to make super-giant font with bright colors, to ensure we didn't miss a chance to hear that we're going to hell.

'Cuz, y'know, we never heard that before.

He went the extra mile for Jayzus to save our worthless souls.

[Crossless2.0]

I just appreciate the fact that, upon finding himself suddenly un-banned, he took the time to make super-giant font with bright colors, to ensure we didn't miss a chance to hear that we're going to hell.

'Cuz, y'know, we never heard that before.

He went the extra mile for Jayzus to save our worthless souls.

Yes, he made an effort only outstripped in uselessness by the act of praying.

[Mister Agenda]

As has been pointed out to you by others, if I found a letter saying you had a friend named Trevor who died at age 17 in 2000, I would tentatively accept that as genuine because I had no reason to argue with it, and I would believe in Trevor's existence only to the degree that I had evidence for it. It's a low claim, so not much proof is required, nor is much belief required. It comes down to a "why not?"

If you were not already aware of this, I have posted thoughts by Prof. Richard Swinburne in another thread of this forum saying the same thing. We believe what others tell us in the absence of good reasons to reject their statements.

Do you not understand what is meant by a 'low claim'?

If you tell me you tied your shoes this morning, I'll take your word for it. You gain nothing by lying to me and I lose nothing by believing you.
If there's something important riding on it, I'd like some evidence, please, and I'm going to weigh your claim carefully, and consider how trustworthy I can know you to be. The more important the thing riding on the truth of your claim, the more careful I should be in estimating the odds that you are being truthful, are in a position to know the truth, etc.

For instance, let's do an experiment. I tied my shoes this morning. If this is true and you believe it, I'll send you fifty bucks. If it's false and you believe it, you send me fifty bucks. Go.