[Serious] Christians what would change your mind?

[arewethereyet]

Dangerous hippy mindset...hmmm.

Interesting comment. Skepticism still on full alert.

[Fireball]

 

No.

Boru

OK.

[GrandizerII]

I don't know what the Christians in your family think, but serious thinkers have never described God in the way you're imagining.

I sort of disagree with this. From my reading, some of the people you listed did believe in the kind of God that came down to earth in flesh and interacted with people in human/"superhuman" ways. But perhaps I've been mistaken about them. I'm thinking Augustine and Aquinas specifically. Did they not believe in the Incarnation in a literal sense?

[Anomalocaris]

Assumptions this christian makes:

I'm not a Christian.

1) god can not interact with the real world (!!!!!!) [HARDCORE!]
2) god can not talk to humans (!!!!!!!!!!!!) [Beyond HARDCORE = bible impossible to create] {is disprove by the bible}
and possibly
3) god has no capacity to think or function and is more a force then a mind/entity [EXTRA HARDCORE; bible disproving]

Is this your argument? 

No, this is not my argument.

Earlier you said you were interested in debate, but if you're not going to address the real claims made by intelligent Christians then you're not debating seriously. Lots of exclamation points don't help.

There are two types of christians, heavily overlapping -stupid christians and disingenuous Christians.  Neither are worth debating.  Any other type wouldn’t be Christians in any meaningful sense of the word.

[brewer]

I'm not a Christian.


No, this is not my argument.

Earlier you said you were interested in debate, but if you're not going to address the real claims made by intelligent Christians then you're not debating seriously. Lots of exclamation points don't help.

There are two types of christians, heavily overlapping -stupid christians and disingenuous Christians.  Neither are worth debating.  Any other type wouldn’t be Christians.

You forgot True Christians.

[Paleophyte]

What evidence would convince you that th bible is false?

I'm not a Christian and never believed in the Bible, but history is replete with examples of Christians who decided that the Bible was false because it didn't agree with their beliefs or otherwise got in the way. Many simply "reinterpret" or ignore the inconvenient bits but sometimes they're too problematic so they chuck the whole lot out and go with their whatever their faith cooks up. King James I chucked out a couple of books when he got tired of beheading wives. Joseph Smith left he entire lot behind when he cooked up his own scripture, give or take the bits he stole.

[Belacqua]

I don't know what the Christians in your family think, but serious thinkers have never described God in the way you're imagining.

I sort of disagree with this. From my reading, some of the people you listed did believe in the kind of God that came down to earth in flesh and interacted with people in human/"superhuman" ways. But perhaps I've been mistaken about them. I'm thinking Augustine and Aquinas specifically. Did they not believe in the Incarnation in a literal sense?

You're right, of course, that nearly every Christian does hold to a literal incarnation, personal interaction, etc. 

But I don't think that this is a service that's provided on demand. "I'll believe it when my demands are met," is not considered to be sufficiently open-minded. There has to be proactive work on our end, humility, seeking-out. 

In particular, I'm thinking of serious Christians like Isaac Newton, who would scoff at the idea of a God who is up there taking orders from the counter. Newton felt that there is more than enough reason to believe in God without expecting that any one of us will be given a private showing.

[Xaventis]

[quote pid='1992744' dateline='1596917758']
 There is no reason to be so sure the Gospel is based on an actual person.  You should read up on it and not be so sure of your assumptions.
[/quote]

I'm perfectly aware that jesus does not exist outside of the bible, nowhere in history is jesus recorded.
However granting that the bible NT is 99% accurate gives hilarious results.
For example critical reading extremely quickly exposes jesus to be a charlatan. For example the turning water into wine trick is to stupid for everyone. And far beneath the skills of modern illusionists even using the technology of the time of jesus. Read your bible!

The multiplying of the fish looks like another slight of hand trick.

funny how jesus never did things that can not be replicated like spliting the see or summoning angels to fly him around. Jesus even avoids direct challenges like "if you are god turn these rocks into bread" if people where making up this jesus character why not write things like

"and then jesus grew wings and flew around the city humiliating all doubters" 
???

Even assuming the NT happened in 99% it only humiliates christieanity.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[quote pid='1992744' dateline='1596917758']
 There is no reason to be so sure the Gospel is based on an actual person.  You should read up on it and not be so sure of your assumptions.

I'm perfectly aware that jesus does not exist outside of the bible, nowhere in history is jesus recorded.
However granting that the bible NT is 99% accurate gives hilarious results.
For example critical reading extremely quickly exposes jesus to be a charlatan. For example the turning water into wine trick is to stupid for everyone. And far beneath the skills of modern illusionists even using the technology of the time of jesus. Read your bible!

The multiplying of the fish looks like another slight of hand trick.

funny how jesus never did things that can not be replicated like spliting the see or summoning angels to fly him around. Jesus even avoids direct challenges like "if you are god turn these rocks into bread" if people where making up this jesus character why not write things like

"and then jesus grew wings and flew around the city humiliating all doubters" 
???

Even assuming the NT happened in 99% it only humiliates christieanity.
[/quote]

How do you reconcile that with this:

Reasonable, I never argue that jesus never existed, the NT and jesus are to fake to be made up, what we read in 99% of the NT is the accurate story of a 1 century charlatan named jesus who performed simple tricks to fool stupid people (some miracles are to stupid to accept even for Christians.) behaved like a lunatic and possibly was bipolar and/or did have schizophrenia  (why did jesus attack the fig tree?). Then Jesus assaults some people and the Romans kill him with the rest of the guilty criminals like thieves (read your bible). 

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

They did write things like that.