Christianity ruins families.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not hard to believe given the amount of evidence that there was a roman empire.

But the actual persons?

I've already explained that if Jesus wasn't some divine being who rose from the dead, then he was pretty much a nobody. I don't see any reason why a nonbeliever would have written about Jesus.

Which is why Josephus wrote about Jesus? He wasn't a Christian. Why did Suetonius write about Jesus? It was a major event of the time worthy of mention in any history covering the period. The histories of the period that we do have tend to mention him, and this is strong evidence that the Christians were correct. You are right that if your hypothesis were correct, we would likely have no documentation of Christ, which is why the documentation we do have is a direct refutation.

[Ming]

What proof would you find sufficient?

Far more than "somebody wrote it" so it must be true

[Ben Kenobi]

Far more than "somebody wrote it" so it must be true

Then why are you wasting my time?

[Ming]

Then why are you wasting my time?

Why are you wasting the time of most posters on this site?

[Kidlicious]

But he didn't really die, right? He's alive... So he didn't die for our sins, he took a 3 day leave of absence and was brought back. When people die, they dont come back in 3 days.

And I'm not really going to die either. Are you?

This is the point. God is trying to have a relationship with you. If you want to nit pick the way you are then it's not going to happen. If you don't like the way God does things and you think you have a better way then it's not going to happen. You know if you can't be gratefull for what Jesus did for you then that's up to you. But here's the thing you really aren't making a good argument. I mean what's the point here?

And you didn't answer my question, who was Jesus talking to when he prayed?

You know the answer to that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are you wasting the time of most posters on this site?

You want divine revelation, pray to him see what you get, I can't help you there.

[Ming]

I can't help you there.

And in nothing else as well... The only person you can help is yourself, and you have a lot of work ahead of yourself.

[Kidlicious]

Who's judging catholics? I'm just judging a morally corrupt institution.
And you should follow Jesus's words as well, and stop judging people.

Aren't you the one that has started a thread judging other people simply on the basis of them following a contract?

I judged an action to be immoral.

Here's the thing. There's a difference between rebuking a christian brother out of love and judging someone out of hatred, pride or selfishness. Then there's a third thing which is speaking freely about evil, not about anyone's evil acts in particular.

[giblets]

But the actual persons?

Umm, yes? I'm not disputing there was a guy named Jesus so I don't see what your point is.

Which is why Josephus wrote about Jesus? He wasn't a Christian. Why did Suetonius write about Jesus? It was a major event of the time worthy of mention in any history covering the period. The histories of the period that we do have tend to mention him, and this is strong evidence that the Christians were correct.

The only non-Christian who allegedly mentions Jesus rising from the dead is Josephus. You're a ****ing liar. And when every extant manuscript of Josephus comes from Christian sources, then once again we have a biased historical record.

You are right that if your hypothesis were correct, we would likely have no documentation of Christ, which is why the documentation we do have is a direct refutation.

Sure we would, non-Christians would still describe Christians as followers of Christ. That doesn't require Jesus actually rising from the dead.

[Kidlicious]

Why are people talking about faith like it is a good thing?

"real" religion is based on personal experience, or lack thereof... the rest is "standard" religion which is belonging to a clan you were born in and that's that.

"real" religious personal expirience exists, in all religions I assume, and the results of that experience is what counts. It hopefully drives people to be "better" human beings, most religons agree on some basic moral principles, like "do not murder", "do not commit adultery" etc... which is good, but organizations created around such ideals/experiences/interpretations of life, inevitably become self-serving and the whole point of the "religion" is lost. Chosing among the "standard" religions is just like chosing among wines, they all have similar effect, and if you take too much - it is not good for you or those around you, a rational dose can improve your life considerably though.

Not to pick on you but I want to respond to this again. I don't know if you're a christian or not, you don't say. But I really want to respond to this for those who are christians and have this POV.

And this is the point that I want to make. If you are a christian you need to read the Bible and understand how to be one, because just believing in Christ is not enough. Cain and Able both made sacrifices to God, but only Able's was acceptable to God. Your church leader may very well tell you that there's nothing wrong with your christian walk, but you can be sure that you will stand before God in judgement one day. And on that day he may very well reject your sacrifice the same way he rejected Cain's.

Look at Luke 13:24-33, 14:28-33, and 18:18-27

The last one I want to go into.

18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

The man calls Jesus "good teacher." That's not how Jesus wants to be thought of. A lot of people think of Jesus as a moral teacher, which is insulting to him.

Also he says, "no one is good - except God." That's how Jesus see's it, and that's how his disciples should see it. It's called humility. Only a fool goes before a king pretending to be his equal.

20You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

21"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

The man lies. As Jesus said, "no one is good." The man is a liar and is prideful. Jesus knows that from the beginning of course but let's the conversation play out for the benefit of his disciples. The key here is that the man doesn't reject Jesus. Jesus has already rejected him because he knows how he is.

22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

We know that Jesus doesn't make his disciples actually sell everything they own. He only tell's this man to do it to make a point here. What is more important to you money (and the respect from men that comes with it) or Jesus ( and the loss of respect from men that comes with that).

24Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

In other words, we don't save ourselves, Jesus saves us. It doesn't really matter if you are rich or poor. The poor can't save themselves either. Jesus saves us all.

[Robert]

Well, let's conclude that we do indeed misunderstand each other a lot, and apparently do not disagree that much at all. I don't think I disagree much with what you said in that last post. I get the idea though that in some posts you are writing more negative about people who have a truth claim then in other posts, with the post above being one without much negative qualifications about it. Anyway, in general I do agree with about everything you said above, and I think your post can be summorized in short that you did the same with mine.

Some responses though:

You should take a lesson in reading as well.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.

It's possible that Chrisitianity isn't the one religion

From a rational secular point of view: yes.
From my personal faith I say 'no', because I see bigger rational problems without then with christianity. That's obviously why I choose to remain a christian

But that' indeed in line with what you say: it's a personal opinion.

Claim all you want... I've been trying to point out that every real relgion can make the same claims, and that none can support those claims with real facts.

Facts are b!tches.
Todays facts are thought to be irrelevent tomorrow.

If 100,000 people today would witness an UFO landing on earth, aliens coming out of it, shaking hands with all of these people, telling them about their world, etc. etc.
Then they leave again and never let anybody hear about them anymore.

I doubt that in 3000 years any of the witness accounts will be accepted anymore as factual proof. And what is proof? The Shiites believe that the 12th imam will return when there's a non-Islamitic surpressor is ruling Babylon (Iraq). What if now a war errupts between Iran and America, some Iranian shi'ite muslim general is able to turn the war into their favour, all americans are killed, ie. by the use of a nuclear weapon.

Has then the Shi'ite prophecy been fulfilled?
Literally then has happened what the the prophecies foresaid for centuries. (including the 'fires' of the nucleair blast)
Does such a fulfillement count as a fact?

Shi'ites will claim so, atheists will say that the odds that a prophecy will one day be fulfilled are big, because there are many prophecies and there are many days on which one can be fulfilled (all of the future).

so what's a fact?
Apart from Allah opening up the skies and stick his head down and say 'hi' to all of us, while shaking the earth (which by the way will not be accepted as a fact by generations that live 2000 years later, because they will not believe the witness accounts of today to be trustworthy), what is acceptable as a fact?

How can the truth be rationally and factually acceptable?
Is acceptable only possible on a scientific level?
Personally I do believe that this world can go around without divine intervention. It's a perpetuum mobile that needs no external explanation.

And why are all claims that can't be proven equal in quality?
If I claim that I have a purple elephant with 15 legs in my backgarden, then that claim is defenitely infirior in quality compared to the claim that I have a wife and 2 kids.

I do buy your 'claim' that nobody can provide scientific facts. I do not buy your opinion that therefore all religions are equal in value or believability. (if you make such a claim, I do get the idea you do but I may misunderstand you again)

The ONLY thing I've been saying, is that all relgions can make the same valid claim, with none of them having any stronger position to back them up since none of them have any real proof.

So you think that the believe in Zeus is as valid as the believe in JHWH?

Then please provide real facts that it isn't just a myth. With all the relgions thinking they are the true one, there has to be a lot of relgious myths out there, since they all can't be right

What's the definition of a 'myth' in your book?
The scientific meaning is a story that brings over a message from the divine world.
A myth can in itself have factually happened or not, according to the modern science standards. (it's not a qualification, it's a categorization) (ie. naming Genesis 1 a 'myth' doesn't mean that it cannot have happened literally) (just an example, I'm not claiming it did happen literaly, in fact I don't believe it did )

Anyway, myths may for some religions be more important then for others.
To me the myths aren't that important, what matters most is the message. Parts of this message are factual, or at least rationally sane. ie. that humans tend to bring evil (among good stuff) to each other. Now of course such a one-liner doesn't make christianity right. Other religions or non-believers can make the same claim. But claims ie. the Bible makes can that way be verified. It's a first step. If a religion makes a claim that blonde babies all prefer carrots above pineapples, then that can be verified.

Interesting that you use the term BS... because faith is only emotion and opinion.

Are you stating as a fact that faith/religion is only emotion and opinion?
To the taoists their religion has hardly anything to do with emotion or opinions.

You sound like you have strong faith... good for you.

I'm sorry, but I do not have a strong faith. I have quite a weak faith because I'm having a lot of doubts and questions.

But faith doesn't make something true. Maybe "true" to you

Of course not. One has faith in something because he believes it is true. It's not the other way around.

But nothing you said changes the fact that many people consider your relgion insane. The fact that you find some other religion sane is irrelevent.

My opinion is indeed irrelevant. I though make the claim that from a neutral point of view some religions can be qualified as more sane then others.
If I try to hold such a 'neutral position' (which is impossible for anybody, but still the thing a theology-scientist should try to), then I'd say that buddhism is more sane then the greek pantheon.

I have been saying that all real religions can make the same claim that they are the one true relgion, and that makes a lot of those claims wrong since there can only be one true relgion based on what they claim.

Can as in 'is allowed to for democratic reasons', then: yes.
Can as in: 'without making themselves look stupid', then some more then others.

With all due respect, but I hold Islam in a heigher order then Scientology.
The claims made by scientology are far more ilogical then the ones made by Islam. I'd say that Islam is ie. a more inherent cohistent religion. Still I hold Islam low in the scale of sanity. And maybe all religions are quite low on the scale of sanity compared to ie. agnosticism.

But I don't buy the "all have the same quality" thing. Not sure if you hold that position. All are equal in rights, but not all are equal in quality.

But wouldn't it be nice if you actually had some real facts to support your opinion

I have some.
But like I said, not all facts are equal in value if it's about convincing someobody. I'm even myself only convinced for about 60%
Religion and the sense of life is not easy to 'proof' for reasons I gave before. Yet that doesn't mean it's impossible by default.

And in the future, if a FACT comes out that Christianity is wrong, that will make it a useless faith as well.

Indeed.

Classic strawman argument... bring up murder. Great JOB, but totally irrelevent.

It is relevant because it shows that our society is all about limiting people in their actions. People are not allowed to murder. That's a limitation. And a good one. In a democracy everybody can try to bring the limitations to laws that in their opionion improve the soceity. If they try to do this outside the democratic system, then they're wrong and should be punished. (abortion terrorists, gay killers, etc.)

I got the idea, but apparently I was wrong, you already wanted religious people to stop expressing their ideas about certain limitations that should be applied to the society by democratic means. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you there. And I'm also glad if I did, because that would be quite an anti-democratic attitude.

OK... let's make a deal, you stop making up crap and implying strange interpretations of what I say, and I will do the same for you. DEAL?

I can't promise that because I believe(!) that I am only a fallable human, but I'll try for sure at least by placing lines like "I got the idea that you..." in every statement I make

And while you are welcome to your opinion, you are again trying to make the argument that since I disagree with you, I must not not know anything.

I did not make that comment based on the fact that you disagree with me. I hold many people in high regards that disagree with me
I got the idea that you had little knowledge about religions because you talked about all of them more or less in the same way. In this post though you have made clear that you are indeed knowledgable. But once again, that's why I more or less agree with most on you in that post

Relgion is all about FAITH, and not facts!

Many religious persons would say it's about faith build on facts.
But what is a fact to some is a doubt to others.
This also often depends on what people want to believe. If I want to believe that the message of Christianity is true (ie. b/c my social position depends on it), then I'm more eager to accept facts. If someone wants to believe that the message of christianity is wrong (ie. b/c he thinks he then has to live up to some moral rules) then that person is less eager to accept these same facts as true.

Facts and Opinions are not seperatable from each other that easily.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only non-Christian who allegedly mentions Jesus rising from the dead is Josephus.

Yes, but he's not the only one who mentions Christ. Suetonius mentions him as well. If Christ were a nobody as you assert, why does Suetonius mention him?

And when every extant manuscript of Josephus comes from Christian sources, then once again we have a biased historical record.

Same for all the Roman historians as well. Gosh, that kind of sucks for your argument. You are perfectly willing to accept crappy manuscripts provided they don't assert that Christ died and rose again. This is the very definition of prejudice.

Gage the manuscripts by their own merits don't pick and choose.

Sure we would, non-Christians would still describe Christians as followers of Christ. That doesn't require Jesus actually rising from the dead.

Why would Christians follow a nobody?

[Ben Kenobi]

And in nothing else as well... The only person you can help is yourself, and you have a lot of work ahead of yourself.

Eye, meet plank.

[giblets]

Yes, but he's not the only one who mentions Christ. Suetonius mentions him as well. If Christ were a nobody as you assert, why does Suetonius mention him?

What does he say about him?

Same for all the Roman historians as well. Gosh, that kind of sucks for your argument. You are perfectly willing to accept crappy manuscripts provided they don't assert that Christ died and rose again. This is the very definition of prejudice.

Gage the manuscripts by their own merits don't pick and choose.

Umm, I'm just pointing out that the historical record is heavily biased in favor of the Christian viewpoint. I don't see why I should simply assume that Josephus originally wrote that Jesus rose from the dead without considering the possibility of it being a later interpolation.

Why would Christians follow a nobody?

Faith in him not being a nobody? Duh.

[Ben Kenobi]

What does he say about him?

Suetonius says that a man name christ was worshipped by Christians and were blamed for Nero's fires.

I'm just pointing out that the historical record is heavily biased in favor of the Christian viewpoint.

The same is true of any Roman Historian. Why are the Christians accurate transmitters in one case, but not the other?

I don't see why I should simply assume that Josephus originally wrote that Jesus rose from the dead without considering the possibility of it being a later interpolation.

Do you have any evidence of such an assertion? Any copy which confirms your assertion?

Faith in him not being a nobody? Duh.

Plenty of nobodies were executed. Why is it that Christians worshipped Christ, and not one of the others executed by the Romans?