My Defense of Christianity.

[The Grand Nudger]

I actually read excerpts of that from another book -about how christian theology so successfully saturates our culture that we interpret other religions through it's lens even when we don't actually believe ourselves......

(trying to remember the title)

[CaseyTheAthie]

Let's all take a moment for those that were crucified to save the souls of those that believed they were the children of God (respectively). In Chronological Order:
Horus (Date Undiscovered)
Thulis 1700 B.C.
Crite 1200 B.C.
Krishna 1200 B.C.
Atys 1170 B.C.
Thammuz 1160 B.C.
Hesus 834 B.C.
Indra 725 B.C.
Bali 725 B.C.
Iao 622 B.C.
Mithra 600 B.C.
Alcestos 600 B.C.
Sakia 600 B.C.
Quexalcote 587 B.C.
Wittoba 552 B.C.
(Aeschylus) Promethius 547 B.C.
Quirinus 506 B.C.
Jesus 30-36 A.D (Mostly because the bible can't decide when he was born)
Randy Savage May 21, 2011 (Death was not by crucifixion, but many believe he died for our sins to prevent the apocalypse...)
None of these people (minus Randy) were ever proven to even exist outside of their own faiths and their corresponding religious writings. And really, Randy was added as a joke, but yeah, anyway. All of the men and women that died by crucifixion taught and acted in similar to identical ways with each other.

Just wanted to make a point Jesus is not original at all. Well, except his name and the religion that spawned his myth.

Where are you getting your information from? I cannot speak to other religions but Krishna, Indra and Bali are figures from Hindu Mythology, none of whom ever claimed to be children of god, nor were they killed for anyone else's sins - much less crucified. A cursory search reveals that most of the others don't fit that bill either. Whatever point you are trying to make would be better served if you get your facts straight.

Source good sir: http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...hap16.html

---

Appears I have posted it late. Sorry, the internet here is pretty much just crap.

[Mister Agenda]

Please Read the Whole Thing Before Posting.

Welcome. Wouldn't it have been kinder to write something shorter?

Well, guess what? I’m gonna try to prove to you God’s real and Christianity is really worth following. I don’t want to start a flaming argument or anything like that and would appreciate that you wouldn’t comically dismiss my points. I also want to prove some things which I believe are misunderstood.

I make no promises, but I will at least attempt to take your points seriously.

The Proof
Okay I am not getting into anything about evolution/age of the earth or anything like that. There’s a pretty big chunk of evidence for those things, and idk what to believe in yet. I just don’t want you guys focusing on those topics while I’m trying to explain my more important points. I think it’s kinda nitpicky and really just removes an aspect of God, not disproving his existence.

Agreed.

#1 The world doesn’t make sense without God.
How did we come to exist? Why did everything that ever existed ever exist? Why are we here? Why wasn’t there nothing?

God doesn't answer the question 'why wasn't there nothing?' because God only adds another question: Why was there God? The existence of God would be at least as mysterious as the existence of the universe.

Science points to a beginning of the universe. Science can’t explain why we’re here.

Science has several plausible explanations, if you keep track of cosmology, but the evidence isn't clear yet on which explanation (if any) is actually the case. However, they all are suggested by the evidence rather than being made up because we want there to be a reason for existence.

But Christianity offers a very straight-forward solution, God created it. Pretty easy to understand right?

Easy to understand doesn't make it right. Babies grow in cabbage patches is easy to understand.

Now assuming the universe did somehow exist, how did life appear?

We don't have to assume the universe exists.

By chance? Practically impossible. All the complex code and cells and whatever, all point to an intelligent creator.

No they don't. You don't understand chance, probability, organic chemistry, or how jury-rigged biological systems look once you know the details. And remember, it was YOU who brought up evolution, not us.

Okay I do realize this type of evidence isn’t really hard and just suggests it should of happened like that but no real hard evidence of it. Still, it’s hard to imagine this all happened by chance.

That 'type of evidence' isn't evidence at all. It's just you saying 'I find it harder to believe than miracles, so it must not be true.'

#2 Near Death Experiences
I know I’m gonna get bashed for this.

Yet you're going to go ahead anyway.

Oh, it’s just something funny going on in your brain. Oh they’re lying etc etc. Trouble is there are millions of cases, and it’s really not plausible to suggest every single one of them was a lie.

It's plausibe to suggest that every single one of them are due to 'something funny going on in your brain' when you're dying.

At least some of them honestly thought they saw something, you get me? That leaves two possibilities, they really did see part of the afterlife, or that something went wrong with their brain.

Given that different NDE subjects give different stories of the afterlife, I'm going to go with something went wrong with their brain. You know that people who aren't Christians, like Hindus, report an afterlife that resembles the one they were brought up to believe, right?

Now I’m not a brain scientist but the fact that so many atheists and doctors have been convinced of the afterlife through their own NDE or hearing others pretty much convinces me.

Some people find other people's completely subjective and unverifiable experiences convincing. LSD is known for producing spiritual experiences, would you consider an acid trip proof of God?

And sometimes they people who have the NDE report several details that they couldn’t haven’t possibly know. Explain that, how could they know what happened down there if they were unconscious and had no way of knowing? There are so many cases that’s it very hard to refute.

100% of the time, when it's under controlled conditions-that is, they really couldn't have known it and it's well-documented-there are no cases of someone having an NDE and reporting details they couldn't have possibly known.

#3 Bible Prophecies
I’m not gonna quote any verses(you can look it up yourself).
There are hundreds of prophecies in the Bible, many of them extremely detailed and hundreds of years later, they came true! How? The chances are astronomical, it’s impossible they guessed it right by chance. How did you explain that these prophecies, written down hundreds of years before they happened, came true? Obviously God knew and God told them. Disprove this.

Can't disprove it in general, although there are prophecies that have verifiably failed (people still live in Tyre, for instance). There are simple explanations for the ones that went down as advertised that don't involve the supernatural, though: Either the prophecy was vague enough (like Nostradomus) that a wide variety of events could 'fulfill' it to one degree or another (many modern 'psychics' operate this way) or the prophecy was written after the events foretold and inserted into the text to make it more 'miraculous' or it was simply a story. If you read a book and a character makes a prediction that turns out to be true later in the book, you don't think that's real prophecy, do you? Probably each of these explanations applies, depending on the prophecy, at one point or another. And something about disproving things: I can't disprove the existence of leprechauns, either. That doesn't mean they're real, it just means imaginary things are hard to disprove.

Done with the evidence.

You gave it a good try.

Is it worth it?

I presume you're talking about not being a Christian. It really, really is worth it.

Some people don’t like the idea of following all these rules or praying all day long etc.

The odds of that having anything at all to do with an atheist not being a Christian are pretty small, although I suppose there are a few like that.

Are the rules really that bad? Moral rules like not stealing and killing are pretty common sense.

They're so common sense they were around long before Jews were. We are happy to follow common sense rules. We follow them because they make sense.

You can still have fun, Christianity allows that. Just remember to take your time with God every day. It can be just 30 minutes every day at night and a few hours on Sunday.

We think you're taking your time with an imaginary friend. You should consider getting past that part before you try to sell us on the details of how to treat the imaginary friend if we want to be friends with him too.

And in the end, if you really are Christian, you know you’re going to Heaven, a better place than Earth, so why worry about your life here?

I've never met a Christian who doesn't worry about their life here.

Some people especially dislike just submitting to God and doing his will.

An example of the kindness you could have shown would have been to separate your proofs of God and your 'Christianity ain't so bad' spiel. Our primary issue with God isn't his will, it's his existence.

Well frankly he created you, so he didn’t even have to give you Heaven in the first place. But he chose to let us put our faith in him.

The way I heard it was more like 'put your faith in me or I will torture you forever!'.

So you can have a happy life and a happy afterlife.

We can't have a happy afterlife unless there is one.

Whatever happens in Heaven, it will make you happy. You cannot know what happens in Heaven, to people who think they do, it’s incomprehensible. Jusut know that God has prepared it and you’ll happy forever.

Those people who think they do? You're one of them.

Misconceptions

Another opportunity to break this wall of text into different posts missed.

#1 Religion =/= Faith in Jesus
Well I’m not exactly trying to state Christianity isn’t a religion.

Why not? It's what all the cool Christians are saying.

I’m trying to de-emphasize just doing rituals and praying and going to church for the sake of it, because it doesn’t work like that. Many people who call themselves Christians aren’t really Christians. Just because they go to church or because they celebrate Christmas doesn’t mean they’re Christian. Being Christian means have an open relationship with God and accepting him.

You guys can separate yourselves how you like. We're not even to 'is Christianity right?' We're still at 'is theism right?'.

#2 Christians are idiotic jerks
Wut? Kinda ties into the above paragraph. People who call themselves Christian might not be, I happen to go to a school that is religiously neutral but most of the students are real Christians and actively attend a youth group outside of school. They are nicest people I have ever known.

Nice people ask what we think before they tell us what our misconceptions are.

Our school is surprisingly decent(if you know what I mean). There’s no bullying and people aren’t immature here.

If only Christians had figured out bullying is wrong centuries ago.

The Christians here are nice, they help out other people, always making people laugh, overall good people. We respect atheists too. We don’t look down on them, all though we do encourage them to become a Christian. And I know atheists can be good people, because some of them are, many of them in fact. But in the end that’s not gonna get you to heaven.

Acknowledging that we can be good people is more than we get from a lot of Christians. I am (kind of pathetically) grateful for your acknowledgement that atheists can bee good people too. Having been a Christian, I know what it is like to think well of someone you also think will go to hell if they don't adopt your faith.

#3 Christians discourage sex
They do, before marriage.
Only do it in a committed relationship.

I think most of us are aware that Christians (except Shakers) approve of sex within marriage. We tend to think some Christians are preoccupied with how other people have sex, but that's a different topic.

Pretty much cleared up here. Hope you guys don’t yell at me.

I didn't entirely avoid being snarky, but I didn't yell. I'm interested in your response.

One thing, actually counter argue my points. Don’t just take one sentence, refute it, and leave at that. Cause guess what? That didn’t defeat my argument. You’re just trying to play it off. So please actually give sufficient reason when you’re going to argue.

If it defeated that sentence, the intellectually honest thing to do is acknowledge it and remove that part from your argument. You posted a very long argument, it's not fair to expect equally long responses from people who haven't got all day. Clearly, that doesn't describe me, though.

[genkaus]

Source good sir: http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...hap16.html

---

Appears I have posted it late. Sorry, the internet here is pretty much just crap.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but this site seems to get a lot of stuff wrong - starting with the spelling of names. I only read the section on Krishna and it seems like the author is pulling the whole thing out of his ass. He got the name of the holy texts wrong, the manner of Krishna's birth, life and death wrong and got the purpose of incarnation wrong as well. And he called Orissa a country. As sources go, you could do much better.

[Cyberman]

Hope you guys have left some drink for me at this party. Still, there's plenty of slices of shredded fundy left on the table but that's not really very filling and often indigestible.

Anyway, I have to say I admire how our new toy began by stating how he wasn't going to touch "evolution/age of the earth or anything like that" because of all the evidence, then almost without a pause for breath, launches straight into the Argument from Design. That was a stroke of genius, sir! I shall go straight out to buy a hat and then place it upon my head simply so I can take it off to you!

As for this:

Anyways, coming here is basically suicide for me, I know I'm never gonna get a point across with your current mindset. Just......please consider it? It doesn't take much and the reward is great. Just please just try it, don't toss it out too quickly. It is pretty much impossible to disprove God, but then there wouldn't be point, would there? It just takes some faith, just consider it, it's not a big sacrifice.

A combination Poor Persecuted Martyr/Pascal's Folly! I always thought that was purely mythical, like your god and your Jesus! You, sir, are an artist!

[FallentoReason]

Looks like his mission here has turned into a hit & run. Kind of glad for him actually because he sounded to be fairly young. The way he was going we were going to flip his world upside-down.

Has anyone seen the tv show Chuck? Anyways, he's a civilian trying to be an agent and like him, I'm hesitant with shedding first blood in the sense of deconversion.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

However, I am pretty sure, like 100% that Jesus was a real guy

So what? I assert "that Jesus may or may not have existed." I say that because there is no credible evidence that he existed,starting with contemporary evidence.

Even Nazareth almost certainly did not exist at the time.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

No, I didn't say that. I have ALWAYS said this: There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence or rational justification for God. Zilch evidence for God, zilch for Allah.......

Not quite right: 'evidence ' is NOT a synonym for 'proof'. That is why most agnostic atheists here assert "there is no CREDIBLE evidence"

The bases of most religions are in fact perfectly reasonable and the logic often valid. (read say Deitrich Bonheoffer) However, the premises are not proven. It is perfectly rational to believe IF one believes the premises to be true.

Your own stated position is irrational, or if you prefer, a-rational. Hopefully it will change as your critical thinking skills improve and you mature emotionally.


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German: [ˈdiːtʁɪç ˈboːnhœfɐ]; 4 February 1906 – 9 April 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi resistant, and founding member of the Confessing Church. His writings on Christianity's role in the secular world, in which he called for a "religionless Christianity", have become widely influential, and many have labelled his book The Cost of Discipleship a modern classic.[1] Apart from his theological writings, Bonhoeffer became known for his staunch resistance against the Nazi dictatorship. He strongly opposed Hitler's euthanasia program and genocidal persecution of the Jews.[2] He was also involved in plans by members of the Abwehr (the German Military Intelligence Office) to assassinate Adolf Hitler. He was arrested in April 1943 by the Gestapo and executed by hanging in April 1945 while imprisoned at a Nazi concentration camp, just 23 days before the German surrender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

On the rationality of belief systems,I recommend studying Social Anthropology (I have a degree in that discipline)


To start,I recommend, E E Evans Pritchards;

'Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande'. Oxford University Press. 1976 abridged edition: ISBN 0-19-874029-8


If that's too dry,look up the religious base of Mohandas Gandhi's Satyagraha movement,which helped the struggle for Indian independence. The same concept of passive resistance was used by Martin Luther King.

Satyagraha (/sætɪəɡrɑːhɑː/; Sanskrit: सत्याग्रह satyāgraha), loosely translated as "insistence on truth"- satya (truth); agraha (insistence) "soul force"[1] or "truth force" is a particular philosophy and practice within the broader overall category generally known as nonviolent resistance or civil resistance. The term "satyagraha" was coined and developed by Mahatma Gandhi[2]. He deployed satyagraha in the Indian independence movement and also during his earlier struggles in South Africa for Indian rights. Satyagraha theory influenced Nelson Mandela's struggle in South Africa under apartheid, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s campaigns during the civil rights movement in the United States, and many other social justice and similar movements.[3][4] Someone who practices satyagraha is a satyagrahi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satygraha

[CBA222]

One last thing

From the Wiki article you linked:

Quote:
see less value in the letter, given its uncertain date, and the possible ambiguity in the reference.

see it as having little or no historical value.

there is no overall scholarly agreement about their impact on the historicity of Jesus

but its usefulness in determining the historicity of Jesus is uncertain.

they have little historical value, given that the wording of the original writings can not be examined.

not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebuff pagan sources.

What do you know, it seems these sources are disputable after all.

Go figure....

And also from the wiki article.

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.

most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.

Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence

Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

I don't care how they knew it, all I know is they're professional historians and they know how to do their job and that is what they came up with.
Jesus was a real guy, I am not saying this because of the Bible, I am very sure he was a real historical figure.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't care how they knew it,

You might want to take a long hard look inward after that statement.

all I know is they're professional historians and they know how to do their job and that is what they came up with.

So, all you know is "not much" and this doesn't bother you in the least -as per the above-. Fair enough.
(you wouldn't be interested in a job marketing toothpaste by any chance would you?)

Jesus was a real guy, I am not saying this because of the Bible, I am very sure he was a real historical figure.

Strange, because the bible is the only place this "real guy" seems to have existed. There are also dragons in said work of fiction, and all historians agree that people near the world over told stories about dragons......

[Minimalist]

You, sir, are an artist!

A bullshit artist.