Horrible things in the bible

[Esquilax]

I decided to take this challenge very seriously and get down to the real reason that I'm a christian.

So, first of all, thanks for doing that, and for honestly approaching the question. I still don't agree with you, but I can appreciate that you took the time and consideration to answer.

I believe that if someone possesses the truth it will show in their life. I know christians, seiks, buddhists, agnostics and atheists, and, in general, the ones who most appear to be living lives of love and self-giving are the true christians. "No true scotsman" does apply here. It seems every church I've been in has some who are true christians and some who say they are, but really are not willing to commit to following Christ.

I dunno if you can make the kind of causative link you're making based only on appearances, though. Without knowing what's really going on under the hood it's hard to judge a person's life like that; we as human beings have grown quite good at outwardly appearing happy and nice, while keeping the imperfections out of public view.

Additionally, I don't really buy your initial premise either; the truth of a person's beliefs is in no way impacted by how happy or positive their lives seem. Perhaps the less happy people are in possession of the truth, and their lives are unhappy, or uncharitable because the truth isn't cheerful.

The history of the christian faith as laid out in the bible impresses me.

Even the known falsehoods? And if you aren't taking them into account in your assessment, isn't that just the sharpshooter fallacy?

The resurrection, which has been attested to by various writers, is a large part of my clinching arguments for christianity over other religions. I've always wondered why the Romans didn't make it a point to prove that he didn't rise. That would have greatly hindered the rise of christianity which they viewed as a threat to the empire.

Why would they do that? I'm serious: at the time that it happened, why would they have done that? Given that the stories of Jesus' life and resurrection didn't get written until decades after his death, it's entirely possible that the resurrection aspect of the story was a later addition, and that at the time they had no inkling that it would be important. They wouldn't have had a gauge of how culturally important Jesus' resurrection would become in the future, so from their perspective it would have just seemed like yet another itinerant priest they executed. Do you expect every government today to go around furnishing proof that their dead aren't rising, just in case it becomes important years later?

Incidentally, do you know when I really would have expected the Romans to try and quash the stories of Jesus rising? If he really did resurrect. For a cover-up to happen you need something to cover up, after all; if Jesus came back from the dead they would actually have had a reason to attempt to silence that, and their complete silence on the topic of Jesus wouldn't make sense at all. But in a world in which Jesus died and stayed dead, it makes perfect sense that the records contemporary to that event wouldn't mention it, because a person dying and staying dead is business as usual.

Also the great majority of historians agree that Jesus did exist. I haven't come across any evidence that would convince me that christianity is not true. It's real, and I see no reason to walk away from God. For what?

Let's not start shifting the burden of proof, here.