Anything Special About the Christian Myth?

[CJK]

Throughout human history, there have been as many myths as there are people in the world.

For example, Dionysus. Dionysus, like Jesus, was said to have been from a mortal woman and fathered by a god, risen from the dead, and turned water into wine. People believed in Dionysus long before the bible.

So my question for debate is; What makes Christianity so special?

Could it truly be the 'one true prophecy'?

What is the difference between believing in a Greek God or a Christian God?

Note: Beliefs and opinions are no grounds to make a claim. (e.g. "Christianity is real because I say so.")

[Lotan]

The great minds like Pascal, Locke, C.S. Lewis et al, prove a side of Christianity that would show that those that regard it a myth exist outside of legitimate debate.

You left out McDowell and Hovind.

[1John2_26]

Lotan,

I didn't want to incense that Evangelaphobes and infidels.org educational reactionaries. I wanted to focus on the special nature of Christianity.

Fiedism, I know is oh so freshman philosophy 101, but there is no loss of "thinkers" within history that have driven out the "myth" of Christianity. Locke especially. Atheists obviously have every right to cling to their prophets and pundits but have little stance to expunge the Christian support position from men the equal of any thinkers of any time period that have spoken approvingly for Christianity.

Pascal it is argued may not have actually "been a believer" yet, stitched scripture into his clothing. The time seperating history should not be used to ignore and erase whatever doesn't fit your philosophy.

You are deep enough a thinker yourself, to agree that revisionism is not easily grasped by Christian thinkers. Better to define and analyze then become a skeptic like a pouty child wanting cookies 'cuz Billy has some. Too many skeptics couch their logic this way. Dawkins and his blind watchmaker is a shameful attempt to join histories club of great thinkers and yet this guy is used often by skeptics as something worthwhile. Too bad.

Atheism for compassion's sake is a holy calling every bit as much as the clergy. But atheism so you can rail and tantrum is worthless. Who hears it except other brats?

It's time for you to lead through compassion. I have read enough skeptics to know the difference between those valuable and those of no worth. You seem to have very worthwhile perspectives time and time again.

I have listened to McDowell speak. He is among those Christian thinkers of the ages. Hugh Ross as well.

Next up J.P. Holding.

[Lotan]

I have listened to McDowell speak. He is among those Christian thinkers of the ages.

Then why does he need to resort to logical fallacies, dishonest arguments and selective use of evidence? I'm inclined to think that you are more interested in his conclusions than his 'reasoning'.
Despite your mischaracterization of me, I'm more interested in finding the best arguments than I am in defending any position in favor of another. When I see an author, be it McDowell or Dawkins, trying to push a bad argument I am inclined to discount them due to their bias. None of the 'thinkers' that you have mentioned have produced anything like a conclusive argument for Christianity. Locke and Pascal can be excused for lacking the evidence available to modern scholars. McDowell and Turkel (hey, let's not forget Strobel) have no such excuse. Apologists, including the subset Creationists already know what the 'answers' are supposed to be so they just dream up arguments to support those 'answers'. It's no wonder that they resort to deception. If there is anything that I "rail and tantrum" about it is this sort of dishonesty, and I find that it comes almost exclusively from those that try to support their belief in Christianity based on 'reason', or more correctly a perversion of reason.

[Cephus]

The Christian myth came to prominance at a time when it was needed. There was a requirement for a trans-national trans-ethnic religion in the Roman Empire. If Christianity was not adopted for that purpose, another religion would have been adopted.

I think you mean 'adapted'!

Or invented.

[CJK]

I didn't want to incense that Evangelaphobes and infidels.org educational reactionaries. I wanted to focus on the special nature of Christianity.

Fiedism, I know is oh so freshman philosophy 101, but there is no loss of "thinkers" within history that have driven out the "myth" of Christianity. Locke especially. Atheists obviously have every right to cling to their prophets and pundits but have little stance to expunge the Christian support position from men the equal of any thinkers of any time period that have spoken approvingly for Christianity.

Pascal it is argued may not have actually "been a believer" yet, stitched scripture into his clothing. The time seperating history should not be used to ignore and erase whatever doesn't fit your philosophy.

You are deep enough a thinker yourself, to agree that revisionism is not easily grasped by Christian thinkers. Better to define and analyze then become a skeptic like a pouty child wanting cookies 'cuz Billy has some. Too many skeptics couch their logic this way. Dawkins and his blind watchmaker is a shameful attempt to join histories club of great thinkers and yet this guy is used often by skeptics as something worthwhile. Too bad.

Atheism for compassion's sake is a holy calling every bit as much as the clergy. But atheism so you can rail and tantrum is worthless. Who hears it except other brats?

John, I stated "beliefs and opinions are no grounds to make a claim" for a reason; it leads to fruitless debate. I suppose this makes sense, given that Christians are forbidden to 'taste of the fruit'.

No matter how many apologetics you quote, ad hominems you make, or outright irrational allegations you claim, Christianity will remain a myth.

Proof must come from those who make the claims John. You have shown us nothing.

[1John2_26]

Anything Special About the Christian Myth?
There are a myriad of superstitions.

What is the date?

Something special about "Christianity."

John, I stated "beliefs and opinions are no grounds to make a claim" for a reason; it leads to fruitless debate. I suppose this makes sense, given that Christians are forbidden to 'taste of the fruit'.

No matter how many apologetics you quote, ad hominems you make, or outright irrational allegations you claim, Christianity will remain a myth.

Proof must come from those who make the claims John. You have shown us nothing.

And this proves what? Showing a person something that they will only refuse to believe in anyway is not all that surprising. The interesting thing about the average dawkins-isn style atheistic stance is the inability to concede any point.

There are enough "other" educated people that do believe the Christian history that the next mega-church will not go unbuilt.

Ad hominem - by the way - was, at one time, the exclusive domain of the atheist position. Look at the Darwin Fish for instance. Pure ad hom hatred infidel.org style. The title of this thread is ad hominem and meant for derision 100%.

I love the indignation taken on by those of the "freethinker" crowd when the fact of their simple-mindedness is pointed out and scoffed at, while they are denigrating Christians. There is little not to see as funny in a position based squarely on chaos to order of the freethinker set. Notice I didn't say "ilk."

Is there anything special in the anti-Christian skeptic? They were even there at the Cross and yet still "His" story comes to us unscathed overall.

[bernee51]

Anything Special About the Christian Myth?
There are a myriad of superstitions.

What is the date?

If you are confused as to the date have a look here.

It will give you todays date in any one of a dozen different dating systems.

The calendar is a cultural phenomenon - just like your religion.

... "His" story comes to us unscathed overall.

which 'unscathed' version of 'his' story are you referring to.

[CJK]

And this proves what? Showing a person something that they will only refuse to believe in anyway is not all that surprising. The interesting thing about the average dawkins-isn style atheistic stance is the inability to concede any point.

There are enough "other" educated people that do believe the Christian history that the next mega-church will not go unbuilt.

Ad hominem - by the way - was, at one time, the exclusive domain of the atheist position. Look at the Darwin Fish for instance. Pure ad hom hatred infidel.org style. The title of this thread is ad hominem and meant for derision 100%.

I love the indignation taken on by those of the "freethinker" crowd when the fact of their simple-mindedness is pointed out and scoffed at, while they are denigrating Christians. There is little not to see as funny in a position based squarely on chaos to order of the freethinker set. Notice I didn't say "ilk."

What I said above is perfectly reflected by your reply. No facts, no real observations, just ad hominems, obscure allegations, and horrible opinions. All that I can gather is that you do not know how to think any other way.

For example, the fact that I am not an atheist. You one-sidedly and quickly jumped into a competitive with-us-or-against-us type attitude. This type of mindset is what I called you out on, and is exactly what you replied with. That is not why we are here debating. We are discussing facts, not opinions. I hope you can differentiate.

Is there anything special in the anti-Christian skeptic? They were even there at the Cross and yet still "His" story comes to us unscathed overall.

This is an exceptionally fascinating hallucination. Do you really believe that there are actual witnesses for the alleged crucifiction? I hope not, because there is not a single one. This follows with every single other claim made by fundamentalists, whom have an ironic twist to their label, in that their "fundamental" beliefs are based on thin air.

[Master Coelacanth]

I see harvey pointed some "qualities" of Christianity that actually could explain why the Christian myth got so extended. But the real answer lies in history. A crumbling world replaced by a chaotic reality, an Emperor who picks a religion under his wing at the beginning of the disintegration, the craving of an universal church in times of ignorance, and then superstition for all. If Constantine would have picked mithraism or any other popular cult, probably it would have worked the same way.

[Tilia]

If Constantine would have picked mithraism or any other popular cult, probably it would have worked the same way.

Not as well as a Romanised version of a previously illegal belief.