Arguments for God Fail Specific Religions

[fr0d0]

Sure is essential. A Christ-ian is a follower of Christ. If Jesus didn't live, then he's not god.

Like I said, because your description doesn't apply to all Christians, then it's false.

Why did he have to live? Because one of the most basic Christian doctrines is that we are sinful, and that because we are sinful, we need forgiveness.

No. That's OT in the first place, which makes it correct for Islam and Judaism. It's also true for most religions.

However, since the penalty for sin is death, Jesus had to defeat death, by dying and then rising. If he did not rise, then sin still exists, and we are left with nothing more than a nice philosophy, much less than the esteemed religion "Christianity".

Well that would mean that Judaism isn't a religion, so your conclusion is incorrect. We're in faith territory here. The empirical realm doesn't apply.

If your idea of Christianity works with the idea of Jesus not existing, then I would not call you a Christian. If your idea of Christianity works with the idea of Jesus not rising from the dead, then you fail to understand the basic Christian doctrine of sin.

I find your understanding of Christianity naive.

As nice as the message might be, you're left with nothing but a moral system.

See above

Maybe for you, with your unorthodox beliefs, it's a strawman. But the majority of Christians will vouch for their "divinely-inspired" bible. For them at least, it is 100% true. And if it weren't, then their religion is in tatters.

The Bible for me is 100% true also. Truth isn't a democracy.

If the bible is inconsistent, why take any of it as true?

It isn't

Sure, other books are inconsistent yet we still read them and believe them. However, since the bible is written on the assumption that god exists, that Jesus died and rose, that humans are 6000 years old, etc, it's inconsistency is very, VERY damaging to it's integrity.

The assumptions aren't contradictions. The 6000 year old claim is spurious to say the least.