A simple challenge for atheists

[dyresand]

Ah, but you have to have faith, the sign of a true believer. You must believe without any reason to, and good things will happen to you, if you cherry pick them.

Seems legit

Wow! Thanks! I have seen the light and changed my wicked infidel ways! Golly-gee-whiz, Jesus saves! (Amen, sister.)
Puh-raise sweet baby Jesus!

But.. jesus never existed... historical evidence proves otherwise.

[SteveII]

No, I would say that the OT books are significantly less important that the in-person teachings of Jesus. The OT provided the basis but I would not say formed the basis. The NT teachings were a significant deviation.

But without the old testament prophets Jesus could never have come down and said "I'm the son of that god," because there wouldn't have been a god for him to reference. If you're going to dismiss the words of prophets, there goes the entire groundwork for Jesus' resurrection, and you'd have no reason at all to accept that Jesus was the son of god, because you've already denied the very people who introduced the concept of that god to the world, meaning Jesus said he was the son of a god you'd just established did not exist.

Unless you're just trying to be inconsistent, where you only apply that level of scrutiny to religious positions you don't already agree with.

No, your assessment of the OT is fine. I was trying to distinguish between revelation from God through man versus Jesus' revelation to man.

---

Wow! Thanks! I have seen the light and changed my wicked infidel ways! Golly-gee-whiz, Jesus saves! (Amen, sister.)
Puh-raise sweet baby Jesus!

But.. jesus never existed... historical evidence proves otherwise.

We went over that. You have to click back a few more pages.

[Esquilax]

No, your assessment of the OT is fine. I was trying to distinguish between revelation from God through man versus Jesus' revelation to man.

So why is it that you'll dismiss the islamic and mormon religions because their god claims come to the people via normal men, whereas you'll accept completely the exact same concept when it purports to come from the god you believe exists?

And again, if prophets aren't an adequate basis for the truth of a religion, then the god that you believe Jesus to be did not have an adequate basis for his religion, and when he claimed to be the son of that god, you should have no reason to accept that.

[SteveII]

No, your assessment of the OT is fine. I was trying to distinguish between revelation from God through man versus Jesus' revelation to man.

So why is it that you'll dismiss the islamic and mormon religions because their god claims come to the people via normal men, whereas you'll accept completely the exact same concept when it purports to come from the god you believe exists?

And again, if prophets aren't an adequate basis for the truth of a religion, then the god that you believe Jesus to be did not have an adequate basis for his religion, and when he claimed to be the son of that god, you should have no reason to accept that.

Good question. Thank you for actual dialog.

That is not the only reason to think mormonism and Islam is wrong. One has to weight the teachings as well.

It is the cumulative case for Christianity that makes it different. We have the OT and information that provides and then the NT which is radically different but fits the facts and completes the picture. We give weight to the OT, but it is not the same weight given to the NT. The OT was an incomplete revelation of God.

[Esquilax]

Good question. Thank you for actual dialog.

That is not the only reason to think mormonism and Islam is wrong. One has to weight the teachings as well.

It is the cumulative case for Christianity that makes it different. We have the OT and information that provides and then the NT which is radically different but fits the facts and completes the picture. We give weight to the OT, but it is not the same weight given to the NT. The OT was an incomplete revelation of God.

Then why dismiss my point about the first muslims and mormons, in response to yours about the first christians? If your actual objection is that you don't think the muslim and mormon religions are true based on a comprehensive overview of the facts that's fine, but it does rather work against your original point: if your answer to me bringing up those other religions is "yes, but those religions aren't true," then you're accepting the fact that religions with early members reporting things can be either true or false, not true by necessity, and therefore your point about christianity being more reasonable because of the views of the first christians is moot.

[StealthySkeptic]

Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.

Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?

How did it come into being?

Jeez, I go off the forum for two seconds and nothing's changed when it comes to these "challenges."

[dyresand]

Good question. Thank you for actual dialog.

That is not the only reason to think mormonism and Islam is wrong. One has to weight the teachings as well.

It is the cumulative case for Christianity that makes it different. We have the OT and information that provides and then the NT which is radically different but fits the facts and completes the picture. We give weight to the OT, but it is not the same weight given to the NT. The OT was an incomplete revelation of God.

Then why dismiss my point about the first muslims and mormons, in response to yours about the first christians? If your actual objection is that you don't think the muslim and mormon religions are true based on a comprehensive overview of the facts that's fine, but it does rather work against your original point: if your answer to me bringing up those other religions is "yes, but those religions aren't true," then you're accepting the fact that religions with early members reporting things can be either true or false, not true by necessity, and therefore your point about christianity being more reasonable because of the views of the first christians is moot.

Isn't Islam and the muslim faith based on christianity last time i checked they nearly have the same identical teachings just different saviors.

[Roxy904]

Do you not believe the Bible to be divinely inspired?
Either way, why would you give more weight to one testament than the other? Is it because the OT includes much much more killing, rape, and condemnation than the NT? Why do you believe that the OT is an incomplete revelation?
Many religions have cumulative cases. Islam has the Quran, Buddhists have the Tipitaka, Hindus have the Vedas, etc. Divinely inspired books are not unique to Christianity. Therefore, why should people give more trust to your holy book than to others?

[Esquilax]

Isn't Islam and the muslim faith based on christianity last time i checked they nearly have the same identical teachings just different saviors.

It's the same god, just a different interpretation. The muslims are on board with the bible right up until that Jesus boondoggle.

[dyresand]

Isn't Islam and the muslim faith based on christianity last time i checked they nearly have the same identical teachings just different saviors.

It's the same god, just a different interpretation. The muslims are on board with the bible right up until that Jesus boondoggle.

Either way considering with the abrahamic faith they shouldn't trut god because he is always swapping sides.
I mean... why trust a god who would then betray you by sending he new favorite people along to kill and wipe you out.