Arguments for God Fail Specific Religions

[athoughtfulman]

After spending 18 years in a conservative baptist church, I am perhaps better informed then you are when it comes to mainstream Christianity.

Perhaps is a big loophole conveniently. Don't talk such bollocks thoughtful. So you were a Christian at birth were you?! What utter nonsense - you know very well your experience counts for nothing. I state your understanding is naive and reason that. Do me the justice of responding in like.

You missed the point. I grew up in a typical conservative Christian church so have a good understanding of what they believe (since I once believed it too). You can write me off all you want because I'm an atheist, I don't care. I speak to enough Christians to know that my view of them is spot on. If I have misrepresented you personally, my apologies. But I'm not speaking about you personally, I'm speaking about evangelical, conservative Christians.

If you care to argue with me properly, please explain how I misinterpreted the above verses. In your quick reply you seem to have forgotten to reply intelligently.

Now, regardless of what you believe Frodo, this is what almost all evangelical, conservative Christians believe. I'll say it again just in case you missed it.

Nice impression of a sanctimonious little shit there. That's what I believe. Don't sermonize me.

Nothing personal. Like I said, I'm talking about evangelical, conservative Christians. If you don't count yourself one, then you have nothing to worry about.

Frodo, if you don't believe in Jesus or believe that he existed and died and rose, you are not a christian. At the very least you are not righteous, since the bible you 100% believe in, says that righteousness only comes through faith in Jesus. How can you have faith in someone if you don't believe in them?

'Believe' being the operative word here, as we have no proof. Strange how that fits with the signature of God isn't it?!

I have faith that Jesus died & rose & that righteousness only comes through faith in him. How does that fit with your fukkin unique interpretation?

My 'fukkin' unique interpretation? I simply said if you don't believe in Jesus than you are not a Christian. You however believe in Jesus (or have faith that Jesus died and rose), so you fit the description of a Christian. I don't see where my interpretation is wrong?

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

My description applies to all who believe in the above.

Whoops! Back to the drawing board it is for you then!

It would be impossible to find a description to describe all Christians. At some point we have to draw a line, if only for convenience's sake. My description applies to all who believe the above. Go read the verses. Tell me where I've misinterpreted.

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".

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

See the New Testament verses above. The doctrine of sin is throughout the bible, in both the NT and the OT. To ignore it is to ignore a very large part of the book you 100% believe in.

Jesus doing anything doesn't prevent Judaism or Islam from being 'esteemed religion' rather than 'nice philosophy' as you put it.

All I'm saying is that if Jesus didn't die, then Christianity falls apart. You believe Jesus lived, died and rose, so I'm sure you can appreciate what I'm saying.

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.

See the verses above. Jesus had to die.

And I have faith that he did.

So... we agree. At least that it's about faith. All my original post said was that if Jesus didn't exist or didn't die is that Christianity falls apart. I never claimed to be able to prove that he didn't, empirically or otherwise.

It isn't

If it isn't, then Jesus did actually die and rise, unless you somehow think the NT is based on metaphor. And if metaphor, why is your interpretation the correct one?

It isn't inconsistent

The bible's not consistent? Then why believe it? Why would someone believe in a book as the word of God if it isn't consistent? And if your answer is faith, then we might as well stop discussing this now.

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

You missed what I said. The assumptions aren't damaging to it's integrity, they are simply very large claims. So if it were shown in any way to be false, then it would be heavily damaged and discredited. Forget the 6000 year old claim - you know what I mean.

So it isn't provably inconsistent. Your point is hypothetical.

I'm not making any claim whatsoever in regards to it's consistency. All I am saying is that if there were contradictions, then they would be very damaging to it's integrity.

It seems you missed my original point. All I said what that if the bible wasn't consistent, then Christianity falls apart, and that if Jesus didn't exist, then Christianity falls apart. Note the IF's. I was simply making an observation about the proofs, not claiming that I had proof. What someone makes of these ideas seems to be a personal matter, demonstrated by my lack of faith in them, and your faith in them.