Why aren't you a Christian?

[Reasonable_Jeff]

IJesusNeverExisted forum - one of the admins has debated Habermas face to face.

That's really cool!

---

Seems like you just forgot to type the word "not" there,

You're right, thanks you

[Rayaan]

Rayaan, I would love to debate you about Islam.

When ... where ... what ... how ...

---

Okay.

---

[Kayenneh]

I'm not a christian anymore, because I asked myself the question "why not muslim/hindu/asatru", I read the bible and didn't like what I found there, I never understood why Jesus seemed to be more important than god and the day I stopped praying nothing changed.

[Cyberman]

That's really cool!

I meant to mention that the admin in question, Ken Humphreys, is also the owner and author of the parent site, JesusNeverExisted.com and optional but recommended book thereof. Of late he's been bitten by the Spielberg bug; several of his videos can be found around here, with more in the pipeline.

Here's the video of the debate, subject: "The Resurrection: Historical Fact or Religious Invention?"





So, might we expect you to pop in sometime? There's always a fresh brew in the pot. Tell 'em I sent you.

[frankiej]

I see Christianity to be the same as any cult and I don't want to get involved with a cult.

[Mystic]

Rayaan, I would love to debate you about Islam.

When ... where ... what ... how ...

---

Okay.

---

Anywhere, either here or on a forum where you will have back up, it's up to you. Just not Ummah.com, (I got banned from there) and (not) Shiachat because I'm on mod's preview and it takes long for my replies to get accepted.

Or if you want, we can do it on PMs.

It's really up to you.

[Mister Agenda]

Good questions.

I am not a Muslim/Sikh because the Quran doesn't not match the historical information we have regarding Jesus of Nazareth. The Quran teaches that Jesus was nailed to a cross and crucified. History says he was.

The Gospels said he was. The Romans didn't record it and contemporary historians didn't notice it. The Gospels are not unbiased.

I am not a Hindu or Atheist because of the compelling amount of reliable information regarding Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

Plenty of historians opine that Yeshua, the founder of Christianity, was a real person, based entirely on textual considerations internal to the Gospels and I'm inclined to agree that probability leans slightly that way. Your 'historians' shrink down to 'Christian apologists' when it comes to the resurrection. The oldest copy of the earliest Gospel (Mark) doesn't even describe a resurrection.

Jacob Kremer, a New Testament critic who has specialized in the study of the resurrection say, "By far most scholar hold firmly to the reliability fo the biblical statements about the empty tomb."

I don't gather why they should, the biblical account is the one in question, and there are no corroborating outside sources. Even if true, the conclusion one should reasonably reach on hearing a tomb is empty is that the body is missing, not that there was a miraculous resurrection.

Gary Habermas did a survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975 and found that 75 percent of scholars accepted the historicity of the discovery of Jesus empty tomb.

Wouldn't you think that aligns very closely with the number of scholars who already believed in the empty tomb?

Even Jewish scholars such as Pinchas Lapide and Geza Veres have declared themselves convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus' tomb was found empty.

What evidence? The only evidence is that the Gospels said so. The Gospels ARE the claim that the tomb was empty. Evidence the claim was true would be a Roman report complaining vandals broke into the tomb of an executed prisoner, a contemporary historian writing about all the hubub over a stolen body, SOMETHING outside of the Gospels. How do you find something THIS sketchy so convincing?

Jeff, you make it sound like you tried to be as objective as possible, waited until you had done years of study, and then picked the religion you regarded as most historically accurate.

Here's what I think: you were raised to believe and you are biased in favor of continuing to believe. You accept what supports your beliefs and reject what does not. I do not believe that if you had found that only 45% of scholars accepted the empty tomb story, you would have thrown up your hands and called it quits with Christianity.

You'll seem more reasonable if you avoid being disengenuous about your reasons for believing. I think your heart is in the right place, but you need to be straightforward with us if you really want a productive discussion.

As for me, as an act of devotion I read the Bible cover-to-cover. I re-read it in another version to make sure I hadn't gotten a mistaken impression because of the translation. I became an agnostic theist (although I didn't know the terminology at the time) in the sense that I still believed in God, but thought too highly of him to regard the Bible as a reliable source for information about him. Years of gradually increasing skepticism eventually led to a point where I realized one day that I had stopped believing in God altogether.

So the reason for me rejecting Christianity was the Bible, the reason I need a better reason to consider any version of God likely is that I've come to value and appreciate evidence and reason as relevant to what I should and shouldn't believe.

Joseph Smith got signed statements from respected people attesting to his honesty and the truthfulness of his claims and Mormonism is one of the fastest-growing religions. That doesn't mean God lives on planet Kolob. I suspect that despite the historicity, those respected citizens were duped, mistaken, or lying. I don't suspect that for historical reasons, I suspect that because the claims are unbelievable on their face. You don't need a PhD to tell a fairy tale presented as fact from a report of something that actually happened. I saw the Statue of Liberty disappear and reappear, and my conclusion is that I was tricked.

But maybe it wasn't a trick. Maybe it really happened. But it would take more than some historical hearsay to convince me.

[Rayaan]

Anywhere, either here or on a forum where you will have back up, it's up to you.

I suppose we could just do it in this forum, in the Islamic section, where others can post also. Or in the Debate Area, if you prefer.

You'll be safer that way and don't have to worry about getting banned.

Just not Ummah.com, (I got banned from there) and (not) Shiachat because I'm on mod's preview and it takes long for my replies to get accepted.

Then you could try Understanding Islam forum.

There, you are more likely to be able to post without being censored/banned from the forum, and there are some Christians and a few atheists who post there as well. That forum used to be much better and more active before, but, unfortunately, now it's kind of dead as you can see. It was created like 10 years ago.

[Mystic]

I suppose we could just do it in this forum, in the Islamic section, where others can post also. Or in the Debate Area, if you prefer.

I prefer the debate area b/c that way others won't gang up on you with me (since your the only Muslim here) and also so we don't get side tracked with all sorts of issues at the same time.

Then you could try Understanding Islam forum.

There, you are more likely to be able to post without being censored/banned from the forum, and there are some Christians and a few atheists who post there as well. That forum used to be much better and more active before, but, unfortunately, now it's kind of dead as you can see. It was created like 10 years ago.

I plan on joining. Thanks.

[Rayaan]

Fine. Send me a PM about what your topic is for the debate and we will set it up from there. Let's not derail this thread anymore.