The foundations of Christianity

[Elijah John]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

This sounds almost exactly like the discussion we had a couple of months back, and I am not willing to continue to rehash the same things, over, and over again. Therefore I will simply direct you to this conversation, we had back then, and simply allow my response then to stand, here as well, since there does not seem to be very much that is new, rather it seems to be pretty much the same argument you used back then.

We are hardly rehashing the same material over again, because you have yet to provide a counter argument to my argument. Stories of an empty grave and a resurrected corpse that flies away are vastly more likely to be the results of actions taken by the living, then the result of actions taken by the corpse. The logical suspects in this case are the followers of Jesus, who had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus, and then spread the rumor of his resurrection. You have IN NO WAY overcome this objection. And unless you can, you cannot even begin to make a realistic case that your claim that the corpse came back to life and flew away is not every bit as silly as it sounds.

On the other hand, you are absolutely correct! I DID abruptly break off our earlier discussion for reasons that had no connection to you. My apologies. Allow me to rectify that oversight now.

Okay let's talk about Islam and Mormonism. Mohammad's mother was Christian, he became distraught over the immorality he observed in his community, and therefore went into a cave to meditate. After a while he claims, he began to have visions, and dreams, and this is how the Koran came about. In other words you have to take his word that all of this was from God, there is no other way to determine this. Now as we compare this to Christianity, we see there are actual eye witness accounts of, not only the Resurrection, but also the life and teachings of Jesus. This means we are not relying on the word of one person, but rather the word of many. Also you have to take into account the record of the Old Testament, and how it fits into the accounts given in the New Testament. With this being the case, it is not only those who actually claim to have witnessed the Resurrection, it is also the witness of the Old Testament that has to be dealt with.

Now let us look at Mormonism. The case is the same here, it was started by one individual, and in order to believe this, you have to take his word for it. However according to you, there were those who signed a statement indicating they had witnessed the tablets. And how did this work out? Well again, according to you, not so well. This, I think, should indicate how difficult it is for a number of people to hold together, something they know is not true. It is difficult enough for one person to hold a lie together, but when you begin to add numbers, it becomes almost impossible. The reason is the fact that you cannot determine the conscience of others, also if someone is willing to lie, in order to deceive, then how could you know where this person's loyalty actually lies. In other words, if they are willing to risk their credibility on such a lie, then how can you determine if they will not jump ship if something else benefits them more? However history is silent on any of the Apostles, (or anyone else for that matter, who may have been associated with the Apostles), jumping ship. Now you would think, if there was any hint at all, of any of these men recanting, it would be recorded? However, not a peep.

The original point I was raising, is that both Islam and Mormonism grew from nothing more then A LIE (you will agree?), to become major religions. Islam especially, has a sixteen hundred year history and a couple of BILLION modern living adherents. All based on what you and I both agree is certainly A LIE. And certainly these people are as devoted to their beliefs as it's possible to be. But of course you and I both recognize that in truth their beliefs are nothing more than make believe. Do you suppose they understand that? NO OF COURSE NOT! They are living a delusion and have no clue. So how does one go about exposing their delusion to them for what it is? One might try pointing out how aspects of their belief system contradict all experience and observation. One might attempt to illustrate for them how aspects of their belief system completely contradict all reason and logic. One might openly examine their assertions and assumptions and show to them how, in the light of open investigation, their assertions and assumptions turn out to be without actual foundation, leaving them standing on nothing more substantial than smoke. None of that will matter to them of course. Because the bottom line is, truth and the facts don't matter a whit when it comes to religious beliefs. With religious beliefs it's a matter of, "My mind is made up, so don't bother trying to confuse me with the facts." Once fully indoctrinated, the indoctrinated cling to their ideology with fiercely close minded resolve. Because of course the ideology prohibits any real skepticism and doubt, on pain of ostracism and the loss of one's immortal soul. Or in the case of Islam, the loss of one's head.

So then, what have we learned thus far? Well both Islam, and Mormonism, were started by individuals, and in order to believe it, you have to take their word for it, and when Mormonism attempted to add witnesses, it did not turn out so well. This means, these two religions are built on the credibility of one individual, while Christianity, is built on the credibility of many, who as far as history is concerned, never recanted. These men not only testified with their mouth, they also testified with their life. Now you claim that none of them actually were killed for their faith, but even if I were to concede this, it still does not explain how they were able to continue to pull all of this off, in spite of the fact they would have known it to be a lie. And if I were to concede that they were not persecuted, they were certainly ridiculed, and mocked, and there were certainly those who were greatly opposed to this movement, however even in the face of all of this, they continued on, to create a religion that has become the most popular religion in the world, (which is the topic of this thread). Now, you would have to say, that is pretty good for a bunch of fishermen, and a tax collector, who were out to find an easy living for themselves. And this is only if I concede these things, however, if they were in fact persecuted, and gave their lives unto death, then the odds become even greater.

You "assert" that the risen Jesus was seen by many individuals. But you have yet to provide the testimonies of these many individuals. You "assert" that the apostles were persecuted and died martyrs deaths for maintaining their beliefs to the bitter end. But as yet you have provided NO SUCH evidence, either from scripture or from any accepted historical source that would serve to establish your assertions as fact. Why is that exactly? It wouldn't be because you have begun to notice how your assumptions do not seem to fare well in the light of investigation, would it?

Now, as I have said, I doubt very seriously that we will settle our differences here. I can only give reasons for my belief, while you give the reasons for your unbelief. As I said, I am not willing to continue to beat a dead horse, by continuing to say the same things, over, and over again.

These differences are never "settled here." They are expressed and explored here. I don't just give "reasons for my unbelief," I give detailed reasons for my unbelief. You are invited to do the same. If your argument is incapable of prevailing over my argument, then by default you have A LOSING ARGUMENT. I was very impressed though that you were making the best argument possible, given the deep hole you are forced to dig yourself out of. Which is exactly what I meant by:

"You are attempting to defend a position that simply cannot be defended through recourse to reason, logic, and the facts." A "losing" position by default. You cannot defend your position based on "the facts," because you will discover that the facts you always assumed fully supported your position, invariably disappear like smoke when subjected to actual scrutiny. You will discover that in reality there is no hard indisputable ground of firm evidence for you to stand on. Because your system of belief has been stitched together with unfounded traditions, baseless assertions and empty assumptions, but nothing that approaches indisputable fact. You are standing on a foundation of smoke, attempting to provide some rational basis in reason and logic for believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away. And you won't be able to do it!"

If you discontinue the discussion now, you will be establishing for all to see that I was 100% correct, and that everything I said has come to pass. And you will break poor dukekenha's heart, I am afraid. I'm not gloating, simply pointing out the obvious. And of course you will continue to espouse your beliefs to others. But you will always know that when push came to shove, you could not actually defend your beliefs yourself. If you wish to continue then I am at your disposal. But if you refuse to continue on here, don't assume that I am simply going to give you any free passes on any of the other topics on this forum. Because I already know that you cannot defend what it is you think you believe. And let me say again, that it is never my intention to be needlessly offensive. Offense simply comes with the territory in discussions such as these. That you may FEEL offended is because you have discovered that you were unable to overcome my argument even though you feel deep in your heart that you can't possibly be wrong. Stories of empty graves and flying resurrected corpse are VASTLY more likely to be the results of actions taken by the living then they are to be the result of actions taken by the corpse however. And unless you can overcome that objection, Christian claims are and always have been exactly what the claims of Islam and Mormonism are; just so much smoke and mirrors (tall tales and make believe). No offense.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 30 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Just wanted to say that the point RWJ makes comparing the credibility of Christianity to Islam and Mormonism, the latter supposedly or demonstrably being based on the word of one individual in each case, can be applied to Christianity as we know it, as well.

Comes down to one individual also. That individual is Paul. And Christianity as we know it is based on his "vision" at that.

If not the teachings attributed to Jesus, then the THEOLOGY which has come to predominate what we know as Trinitarian/ Blood atonement Christianity. (though Paul was not quite a Trinitarian, his elevation and glorification of Jesus started that ball rolling.) Some say that Christianity is TOTALLY Paul's invention, as his epistles predate even the Gospel of Mark, and likely influenced the Gospel Evangelists as well. Not sure I would go that far.

But as the result of one or many, Christianity, like Judaism, Islam and Mormonism, is based on hearsay. The fact that Jews will claim that many heard the Sinai revelations, still, we are taking the word of the Oral traditon and the J or E or Priestly source scribes of the Hebrew Bible. Doesn't mean it is automatically untrue, but as Thomas Paine has stated, sure God COULD reveal himself directly in any given case, but that revelation would be revelation to that person (or group of people) only, once the recpeient tells the message to another person, it becomes hearsay, and no one is obliged to believe it.

I would add that unless the message is demonstrably true, or rings true instinctually in the heart of the hearer, then FOR THAT PERSON it is true and should be believed. But again, if that person "retweets" it by preaching, it too is hearsay.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Comes down to one individual also. That individual is Paul. And Christianity as we know it is based on his "vision" at that.

Paul fell ill during a trip to Damascus. During a period when Paul was desperately ill and delusional, and at a time when he was being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, Paul underwent a life changing experience that caused him to became a firm Christian. Later, during his evangelical travels, Paul wrote letters to some of the various Christian congregations around the Mediterranean region. Some, at least, of Paul's letters were included into the NT canon by the fledgling Catholic church during the fourth century, although the authenticity of Epistle to the Hebrews was questioned early on. Several other epistles attributed to Paul, Third Epistle to the Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans (found in Codex Fuldensis), and Epistle to the Alexandrians, as well as several other works attributed to Paul, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Peter and Paul, Apocalypse of Paul, Coptic Apocalypse of Paul, Prayer of the Apostle Paul, and Epistle to Seneca the Younger, were all excluded. One way or another though, the letters of Paul that were included into the 27 books of the NT are now considered by Christians to be the literal Word of God, despite the fact that Paul never even met the living Jesus, never heard him speak, and was not present for any of the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus as detailed in the four Gospels. Jesus himself however wrote nothing. So, yes, Paul has a very out-sized influence on Christian belief. And this is all a very clear example of how religions evolve and grow to meet the needs and expectations of the believers.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

This sounds almost exactly like the discussion we had a couple of months back, and I am not willing to continue to rehash the same things, over, and over again. Therefore I will simply direct you to this conversation, we had back then, and simply allow my response then to stand, here as well, since there does not seem to be very much that is new, rather it seems to be pretty much the same argument you used back then.

We are hardly rehashing the same material over again, because you have yet to provide a counter argument to my argument. Stories of an empty grave and a resurrected corpse that flies away are vastly more likely to be the results of actions taken by the living, then the result of actions taken by the corpse. The logical suspects in this case are the followers of Jesus, who had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus, and then spread the rumor of his resurrection. You have IN NO WAY overcome this objection. And unless you can, you cannot even begin to make a realistic case that your claim that the corpse came back to life and flew away is not every bit as silly as it sounds.

On the other hand, you are absolutely correct! I DID abruptly break off our earlier discussion for reasons that had no connection to you. My apologies. Allow me to rectify that oversight now.

Okay let's talk about Islam and Mormonism. Mohammad's mother was Christian, he became distraught over the immorality he observed in his community, and therefore went into a cave to meditate. After a while he claims, he began to have visions, and dreams, and this is how the Koran came about. In other words you have to take his word that all of this was from God, there is no other way to determine this. Now as we compare this to Christianity, we see there are actual eye witness accounts of, not only the Resurrection, but also the life and teachings of Jesus. This means we are not relying on the word of one person, but rather the word of many. Also you have to take into account the record of the Old Testament, and how it fits into the accounts given in the New Testament. With this being the case, it is not only those who actually claim to have witnessed the Resurrection, it is also the witness of the Old Testament that has to be dealt with.

Now let us look at Mormonism. The case is the same here, it was started by one individual, and in order to believe this, you have to take his word for it. However according to you, there were those who signed a statement indicating they had witnessed the tablets. And how did this work out? Well again, according to you, not so well. This, I think, should indicate how difficult it is for a number of people to hold together, something they know is not true. It is difficult enough for one person to hold a lie together, but when you begin to add numbers, it becomes almost impossible. The reason is the fact that you cannot determine the conscience of others, also if someone is willing to lie, in order to deceive, then how could you know where this person's loyalty actually lies. In other words, if they are willing to risk their credibility on such a lie, then how can you determine if they will not jump ship if something else benefits them more? However history is silent on any of the Apostles, (or anyone else for that matter, who may have been associated with the Apostles), jumping ship. Now you would think, if there was any hint at all, of any of these men recanting, it would be recorded? However, not a peep.

The original point I was raising, is that both Islam and Mormonism grew from nothing more then A LIE (you will agree?), to become major religions. Islam especially, has a sixteen hundred year history and a couple of BILLION modern living adherents. All based on what you and I both agree is certainly A LIE. And certainly these people are as devoted to their beliefs as it's possible to be. But of course you and I both recognize that in truth their beliefs are nothing more than make believe. Do you suppose they understand that? NO OF COURSE NOT! They are living a delusion and have no clue. So how does one go about exposing their delusion to them for what it is? One might try pointing out how aspects of their belief system contradict all experience and observation. One might attempt to illustrate for them how aspects of their belief system completely contradict all reason and logic. One might openly examine their assertions and assumptions and show to them how, in the light of open investigation, their assertions and assumptions turn out to be without actual foundation, leaving them standing on nothing more substantial than smoke. None of that will matter to them of course. Because the bottom line is, truth and the facts don't matter a whit when it comes to religious beliefs. With religious beliefs it's a matter of, "My mind is made up, so don't bother trying to confuse me with the facts." Once fully indoctrinated, the indoctrinated cling to their ideology with fiercely close minded resolve. Because of course the ideology prohibits any real skepticism and doubt, on pain of ostracism and the loss of one's immortal soul. Or in the case of Islam, the loss of one's head.

So then, what have we learned thus far? Well both Islam, and Mormonism, were started by individuals, and in order to believe it, you have to take their word for it, and when Mormonism attempted to add witnesses, it did not turn out so well. This means, these two religions are built on the credibility of one individual, while Christianity, is built on the credibility of many, who as far as history is concerned, never recanted. These men not only testified with their mouth, they also testified with their life. Now you claim that none of them actually were killed for their faith, but even if I were to concede this, it still does not explain how they were able to continue to pull all of this off, in spite of the fact they would have known it to be a lie. And if I were to concede that they were not persecuted, they were certainly ridiculed, and mocked, and there were certainly those who were greatly opposed to this movement, however even in the face of all of this, they continued on, to create a religion that has become the most popular religion in the world, (which is the topic of this thread). Now, you would have to say, that is pretty good for a bunch of fishermen, and a tax collector, who were out to find an easy living for themselves. And this is only if I concede these things, however, if they were in fact persecuted, and gave their lives unto death, then the odds become even greater.

You "assert" that the risen Jesus was seen by many individuals. But you have yet to provide the testimonies of these many individuals. You "assert" that the apostles were persecuted and died martyrs deaths for maintaining their beliefs to the bitter end. But as yet you have provided NO SUCH evidence, either from scripture or from any accepted historical source that would serve to establish your assertions as fact. Why is that exactly? It wouldn't be because you have begun to notice how your assumptions do not seem to fare well in the light of investigation, would it?

Now, as I have said, I doubt very seriously that we will settle our differences here. I can only give reasons for my belief, while you give the reasons for your unbelief. As I said, I am not willing to continue to beat a dead horse, by continuing to say the same things, over, and over again.

These differences are never "settled here." They are expressed and explored here. I don't just give "reasons for my unbelief," I give detailed reasons for my unbelief. You are invited to do the same. If your argument is incapable of prevailing over my argument, then by default you have A LOSING ARGUMENT. I was very impressed though that you were making the best argument possible, given the deep hole you are forced to dig yourself out of. Which is exactly what I meant by:

"You are attempting to defend a position that simply cannot be defended through recourse to reason, logic, and the facts." A "losing" position by default. You cannot defend your position based on "the facts," because you will discover that the facts you always assumed fully supported your position, invariably disappear like smoke when subjected to actual scrutiny. You will discover that in reality there is no hard indisputable ground of firm evidence for you to stand on. Because your system of belief has been stitched together with unfounded traditions, baseless assertions and empty assumptions, but nothing that approaches indisputable fact. You are standing on a foundation of smoke, attempting to provide some rational basis in reason and logic for believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away. And you won't be able to do it!"

If you discontinue the discussion now, you will be establishing for all to see that I was 100% correct, and that everything I said has come to pass. And you will break poor dukekenha's heart, I am afraid. I'm not gloating, simply pointing out the obvious. And of course you will continue to espouse your beliefs to others. But you will always know that when push came to shove, you could not actually defend your beliefs yourself. If you wish to continue then I am at your disposal. But if you refuse to continue on here, don't assume that I am simply going to give you any free passes on any of the other topics on this forum. Because I already know that you cannot defend what it is you think you believe. And let me say again, that it is never my intention to be needlessly offensive. Offense simply comes with the territory in discussions such as these. That you may FEEL offended is because you have discovered that you were unable to overcome my argument even though you feel deep in your heart that you can't possibly be wrong. Stories of empty graves and flying resurrected corpse are VASTLY more likely to be the results of actions taken by the living then they are to be the result of actions taken by the corpse however. And unless you can overcome that objection, Christian claims are and always have been exactly what the claims of Islam and Mormonism are; just so much smoke and mirrors (tall tales and make believe). No offense.

You know, you make some very bold, and outlandish overstatements, and we will get to some of them below. But first, there is no doubt, that you are extremely proud of your abilities. You have actually said this in the past. I believe you have said, you have been at this for some 50 years, and have gotten pretty good at it. But, what is it that you have gotten good at? You continue to talk about the many Christians who come to this site, and after they are confronted with the facts, they either, leave the site, or they become frustrated, and then begin to hurl out insults that eventually have them banned. But even you admit, they have not really thought through what they believe, and are going on emotion, and personal experience, and they somehow believe, that this will be all it takes to defeat unbelievers. They also have the unrealistic, expectation that their arguments can persuade the unbeliever. They are convinced that unbelievers, are simply evil, and that their aurguments will somehow prevail, simply because they are convinced, that good, will overcome evil. One thing they have not considered, is the fact, that a good number of unbelievers, were once believers, or at least have been brought up in the faith themselves. These unbelievers, more than likely know far more of the content of the Bible then they do themselves, and the unbeliever has actually thought through, and used their reason to come to their unbelief. The Christian more than likely, has not used their reason, and is simply a Christian, because of some sort of emotional experience, that may have occurred to them sometime in their life. All of this, is a recipe for disaster.

You see, there are many Churches, that simply appeal to the emotions. It is far easier to appeal to the emotion, than it is the hard work, of appealing to the mind. In other words, it is not very difficult to create an emotional experience.This was demonstrated right here on this site, with a video of Darren Brown, and how he was able to give an atheist a conversion experience. Now, let me say, I am not absolutely convinced the Atheist was not in on it, in other words, there is no way for me to know, but I will say, that it would not surprise me in the least. At any rate, after the video was posted here, you actually had Christians attempting to speak out, and continue to defend, emotional experiences, as a legitimate Christian experience. Now how did all of this occur?

Well, the, United States, has had two events that were so called Great Awakenings. The first Awakening was lead by those such as, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitfield. These two gentlemen appealed to the mind of those they spoke to, and allowed the message to to do it's work. However the second, so called great awakening, was lead by a man by the name of, Charles Finney. Now Finney actually stated, "you do not need God to be involved to have a revival, all you need is the right techniques, and methods, to obtain the desired results." Now this is not, a direct quote, but this is basicly what he said, and you can do a search to verify this. At any rate, this demonstrates that Finney was only interested in obtaining a desired result. He was simply interested in appealing to the emotion, by giving his attendants, an emotional experience, and then attributing this experience, to the work of God, who he said was not needed to have a revival in the first place.

Now, what has been the result of Finney's techniques? Well I will have to give, Finney, at least some credit, because, toward the end of his ministry, he worried, "what the effects of the continuous, revivals, and emotional experiences, might have on those that attended his many revivals?" In the end his worries were founded, because the area where his revivals were most prevalent, is referred to now, as The Burned Over District. In other words, these continuous emotional experiences, had an adverse affect on the many that continued to experience them. One of the effects was, the inability to reason and use discernment, and can you guess where, Joseph Smith, came form? That's right, The Burned Over District.

But the affect of Finney, has been far wider than just Mormonism. I am convinced, it has had a long term affect on the Church at large, and one of these affects is that a large number of Churches attempt to continue to create emotional experiences, and seldom, if ever engage the mind. With this being the case, the majority of Christians, cannot tell you what it is they believe, rather all they can do is tell you how they feel. My point is, what is it you think you have accomplished? In other words, what is there to be proud of? All you have done is refute a bunch of people who have not given very much, if any thought at all to what they think it is they believe. If you are proud of this then, all I can say, is congratulations, have at it. But it is not really all that difficult. Allow me to give an example of how simple this is.

I ran into a gentlemen, which I had never met. He saw I had a t-shirt, representing a Christian Youth camp. He asked if I was a Christian, and when he found that I was, his first question was. "Do you all, EXPERIENCE, the fire of God, at your Church." At this point I figured, I was more than likely dealing with a Pentacostal. I also began to attempt to think of the passage of Scripture he might be referring to, and I was sure he was probably referring to, John the Baptist, when he said, "Jesus would baptize, with the Holy Spirit, and with fire. Sure, enough, this was the exact passage he was referring too. I then began to attempt to divert the conversation, because I could clearly see we were going to be in complete disagreement, and I did not want to do this. However, he continued to persist, and I could not avoid it. I finally told him, that, "we did not experience the fire of God he was speaking of, and I certainly hoped we never would." Of course he was dumbfounded, and his question was, "so you do not want to experience, the things of God?" I went on to explain to him, "no, not everything." I continued to tell him, "those, that are baptized in the Holy Spirit are believers, however, fire is most always used in the Bible as judgement, therefore the baptism of fire, is in contrast to those baptized with the Holy Spirit."

You see, more than likely, he was involved in a Church where they simply continued to create emotional experiences, and referred to these experiences as the fire of God, He also, more than likely had very little knowledge of the Bible, itself, other than small catch phrases, such as this one, where experience defines the the passage with very little thought. My point is, it is not that difficult to refute someone who has not used their mind into coming to their conclusions. Therefore, what you are doing is not all that impressive, like the old saying says, "its like taking candy from a baby."

Now, let us look at some of your tremendous overstatements, however this first statement of yours we will look at is not an overstatement, but rather a complete understatement. You say,

We are hardly rehashing the same material over again,

This is a complete understatement, and can be demonstrated in your very next sentence, where you say,

Stories of an empty grave and a resurrected corpse that flies away are vastly more likely to be the results of actions taken by the living, then the result of actions taken by the corpse.

Do you realize, how many times you have said this exact same thing? You have said it, over, and over, and over, again. In fact, you have said it so many times, I only have to read the first part of the sentence, to know what is coming next. Now this phrase does not in any way establish anything at all. It does not in any way prove anything at all. In other words, just because you state a sentence does not mean this sentence is true. Also, just because it may seem, "vastly more likely," does not in any way mean, this is the case. This is why you use the phrase, "vastly more likely." If you could absolutely demonstrate, that it was the action of the living, then you would not use this phrase, therefore, you are simply stating the likelihood of an event. In other words, there may be events that are extremely rare, but this does not mean, these events do not occur. Likelihood, only tells us the odds of an event occurring, it does not tell us, if the event can, or did occur.

At any rate, this phrase you continue to use, over, and over, seems to be some sort of tactic. In other words, if you can continue to repeat it over, and over, even if it does not establish, or prove anything at all, maybe it will become ingrained in the mind of people, and sway the way in which they perceive things. It reminds me of the phrase, in the OJ Simpson case. You know the one I am talking about, right? "If the glove, does not fit, you must acquit." Now this phrase, that the OJ defense team came up with, did not prove, in any way, the innocence, of Simpson. In other words, whether the glove fit or not, is irrelevant to whether Simpson was guilty or not. If the glove would have fit, it would not prove his guilt, and if it did not fit, it did not prove his innocence. This was simply a tactic the defense team came up with, in order to sway opinion. And it worked, did it not? I do not know you, or where you are from, but more than likely, you know where the phrase, "if it don't fit, you must acquit," came from. In the same way, this phrase you continue to use, does not in any way establish anything. The only thing it tells us is, if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, it would have been a rare event. Now let us look at your overstatements. You say,

The logical suspects in this case are the followers of Jesus, who had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus, and then spread the rumor of his resurrection.

Do you realize, there have been those found guilty of crimes, in which they were the logical suspects, and in the end, after years behind bars, their complete innocence was found out? They were found to have the, means, motive, and opportunity, so much so, they were found guilty, but in the end the evidence, demonstrated conclusively they were in fact innocent! I will also point out, that I have given a counter to your, motive, means, and opportunity. In other words, I have given reasons, why your claims, would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for these men which you call ordinary. You go on to say,

You have IN NO WAY overcome this objection.

I have not attempted to overcome this objection, rather I have given reasons why I reject it. Next you say,

And unless you can, you cannot even begin to make a realistic case that your claim that the corpse came back to life and flew away is not every bit as silly as it sounds.

Now, here is one of your overstatements. I have never claimed, "the corpse came back to life and flew away." Rather, this is what I believe occurred, according to the evidence. Can you see the difference? I am convinced, Jesus rose from the grave, but I am not saying in any way, you have to believe as I do. You are free to examine the evidence, and come to your own conclusions, and I will not, and do not condemn those who come to a different conclusion. As I continue to say, I am simply giving reasons for my belief. I have also plainly stated, I attempt to stay away from these types of discussions, because in the end this is all any of us can do, is give the reason for our stance. I highly doubt, any of us, will, or can, prove our case. Now lets look at one of your extreme overstatements. You say,

The original point I was raising, is that both Islam and Mormonism grew from nothing more then A LIE (you will agree?), to become major religions. Islam especially, has a sixteen hundred year history and a couple of BILLION modern living adherents. All based on what you and I both agree is certainly A LIE.

No! I have never said, nor do I necessarily agree, that both Islam, and Mormonism is based on a "LIE." As I said, this is an extreme overstatement. Lets look at what I have said. I have said, that to believe either of these two religions, you have to place your faith, in the credibility, of one individual. I went on to contrast this by saying, that in the Christian Faith, you are placing your faith in the credibility of more than one person. Now, you brought up, that in the case of Mormonism, it attempted to add witnesses, by claiming there were those who claimed to have witnessed the, golden tablets. You then went on to give the names of those who later recanted. Now, I was not aware of this, and simply took your word for it. With this being the case, I contrasted, these witnesses, who later recanted, to the Apostles, who as far as history is concerned, never recanted. I then went on to talk about how it is one thing for one person to hold a lie together, as opposed to when you begin to add numbers. Therefore, if it is as you say, there were those who recanted their testimony, in Mormonism, then this would demonstrate how difficult it is for a number of people to hold together a lie. However, saying that those who claimed to have witnessed the golden tablets, may have lied, is a huge difference than saying that Mormonism, itself is based on a lie!

Now, I will say, that I believe both, Islam, and Mormonism, is false, but this is a far, far cry, from saying they were both based on a lie. Lets examine this.

You are an unbeliever. More than likely this means, you do not believe in the supernatural. I being a believer, happen to believe in the supernatural, and this would include the demonic. Therefore, it is possible, that both of these religions were influenced by demonic forces. NOTICE, I AM NOT IN ANY WAY, MAKING A DOGMATIC STATEMENT HERE, I AM ONLY SUGGESTING THE POSSIBILITY! If this is the case, then both religions, could be based on deception.

There is also another possibility. I have already discussed the, "Burned Over District," and how Joseph Smith, and the Mormons, came from this area. This could mean that Smith, and his followers were influenced by the reckless theology of the many revivals, and could have therefore been deceived into believing God was speaking through the emotions. In the same way, Muhammad's mother was a Christian, and as Muhammad became older, and saw the immorality around him, he went into a cave to meditate. With this being the case, he could have as well, believed God was speaking to him through his own thoughts. So then, both of these religions, could have been based on deception of some sort, or it is possible they may have been based on a lie. But for you to say, " All based on what you and I both agree is certainly A LIE," is simply an overstatement on your part. Now you also say,

So how does one go about exposing their delusion to them for what it is? One might try pointing out how aspects of their belief system contradict all experience and observation. One might attempt to illustrate for them how aspects of their belief system completely contradict all reason and logic. One might openly examine their assertions and assumptions and show to them how, in the light of open investigation, their assertions and assumptions turn out to be without actual foundation, leaving them standing on nothing more substantial than smoke.

Well now, this may be the way you would handle things, but I would take a different tact. First, I would not attempt to say anything at all about their belief, unless of course, they were to bring it up themselves. At this point, I would listen intently to their belief, to determine, if it did in fact make sense, and that it may be possible, I am the one in error. After listening to their beliefs, and I was convinced they were in error, I would spend little time pointing out what I perceived to be error, rather I would begin to tell them what I believe. In other words, I have given them my attention, as they have explained to me what they believe, I now have the opportunity to explain to them what it is, I believe. At this point, I would simply allow them to contemplate the two. You see, I am not under the impression, that everyone must believe as I do. I am also not under the impression that I am absolutely right, and there is no possible way, I could be wrong! Well lets continue on with your statements. You said,

Because the bottom line is, truth and the facts don't matter a whit when it comes to religious beliefs.

I would imagine, you are including the, Christian Faith here as well. Well lets analyze this. Do you realize, the Christian Faith, stands or falls on historical claims? Lets look at it like this. The Apostles, never attempted to create emotional experiences, and point to these experiences as proof of there message. Rather they continued to point to, what they at least claimed to be historical events. You see, it would be much simpler for them to create some sort of emotional experience, and point to this as evidence, but their evidence was history. When Peter, gave his message at Pentecost, he continued to point out a historical claim, and said that all of this was done out in the open, and his hearers, could investigate. Paul when he was in front of the Sanhedrin, said the same thing. Paul went on to say, "if Christ is not raised, then we are above all men most pitiful." You see he is appealing to a historical event, and if this event did not happen, then those who believe are pitiful. But, let us go on to look at some words found in the Bible. Lets see, there is the words, evidence, convince, convict, proof, defense, testify, testimony, witness, eye witness, judge, judgement, etc. Now, where in the world would you find these same words used on a daily basis? Thats right, a courtroom, where evidence is examined to determine truth, right? My question is. Is there a religion that is solely based on historical claims? You see, if you can disprove any of these historical claims of the Christian Faith, you will indeed, disprove Christianity! Therefore, when you say, "facts do not matter when it comes to religious beliefs." Allow me to explain to you, facts are all that matters, as far as the Christian Faith is concerned, and if you can absolutely disprove any of these facts, I assure you, I will no longer be Christian! Well let us continue, you say,

You "assert" that the risen Jesus was seen by many individuals.

This is another one of your overstatements. I have not asserted, that the risen Jesus was seen by many individuals. What I have said is a fact, not an assertion. The fact is, Paul testified that many individuals saw the risen Christ. Can you see the difference here? There is a huge difference in me asserting, there were those who saw the risen Christ, and saying it is a fact that Paul at least claimed this. Now, it is also a fact, that Paul may have been lying, or deceived, but it is a fact that Paul claimed this to be true. This is why, there is a difference between us. I continue to deal with facts, while what you claim is on assumption. Now you may have looked at the facts to come to your assumptions, but in the end this is all you can bring to the table is assumption. What I am saying is fact. The fact is, Paul claimed there were many who saw the risen Christ. It is also a fact, the rest of the Apostles claimed to have seen the risen Christ. It is a fact, that the letter attributed to Mark claimed Jesus rose from the dead. It is a fact that Luke testifies to this as well, and also tells us the actions of the Apostles, after the ascension of Christ. It is a fact that Paul, claims to have encountered the risen Christ on the Damascus Road, and it is also a fact, that he claims this experience, turned him from being opposed to this movement to becoming it's biggest missionary. None of these things are assertions, or assumptions, they are simply facts. Therefore I do not have to deal in assertions, or assumptions, from here, I can now go on to read about the rest of the lives of these men, and the result of their work, and determine, if they seem to be credible witnesses. I have done this, and have come to the conclusion, they are in fact credible. Now, you and others, may come to a different conclusion, and I have no problem with that. I have never held the position that all must believe. But in the end, this is just another one of your extreme overstatements. I have never asserted, "Jesus was seen by many," rather I have said, Paul reported this event, which would be a fact. Now, I happen to believe this report, but this is a far cry from me saying, it is a fact that Jesus was seen by many. Now you go on to say,

You "assert" that the apostles were persecuted and died martyrs deaths for maintaining their beliefs to the bitter end.

If you will go back, and read my comments which you copied, and pasted, you will see that I concede this to you. Now I do not concede this to myself, but I am willing to concede it for sake of the argument. But, as I said, even if I concede this, there is still things that would have to be explained, and I point these things out.

I have maintained, that in the end, neither of us will be able to prove our points. I have stated, that all I can do is to give reasons for my belief. I have also stated, that in the end this is all that you can do, which is to give reasons for your unbelief. With this being said, lets look at another one of your comments. This one seems extremely comical,

I don't just give "reasons for my unbelief," I give detailed reasons for my unbelief.

My position is, neither of us will prove our position, all we can do is give reasons. You say here, "you don't just give reasons for your unbelief." Okay then, what is it that you give? You then go on to repeat the exact same sentence, and simply insert the word,"DETAILED," as if this is makes any difference in the least. Even if your reasons are greatly, "DETAILED," they still prove nothing. You are simply giving us possibilities. I also take your statement here to mean, my responses are not all that detailed. Well I will not take up that argument, I will simply allow my responses to speak for themselves. We have been going back and forth on this since last year, and I believe it is time to move on. At any rate, as I said, I will allow my responses to speak on their own as far, as detail. The point is, detailed or not, you seem to agree, that we are not proving anything at all, we are simply giving reasons for our position. I apologize, that I left out the word detailed as far as you were concerned, so allow me to correct this. We are not proving anything, all I can do is give reasons for my belief, while all you are doing is giving, DETAILED, reasons for your unbelief. Now, is that better? You go on to say,

If you discontinue the discussion now, you will be establishing for all to see that I was 100% correct, and that everything I said has come to pass.

Now, I am not quite sure I understand the last part of this sentence, where you say, "and that everything I said has come to pass." So, lets look at the first part. WOW! You talk about an overstatement. You don't really believe this do you? So, you are saying, if I do not continue our conversation, I am actually, "ESTABLISHING," that you are 100% correct? Be for real! You really do not believe this. This can only be an overstatement, with a purpose. My wife and I will get into an argument. I will begin to see, she is right, which means, I am clearly in the wrong. At this point, I will attempt to divert the conversation to throw her off track, and prevent her from establishing her correctness. It works really well. She will eventually say, "I am no longer, going to have this conversation with you!" Now, does the fact, that she has ended the conversation, prove I am 100% correct? Absolutely not! She was right all along. Lets couple this with another one of your statements,

If your argument is incapable of prevailing over my argument, then by default you have A LOSING ARGUMENT.

This is a tricky sentence here. I can't help but think, this is a tactical move on your part. Someone may in fact have a losing argument, but this could simply mean, they are not very good at, argumentation. In other words, someone may in fact have a losing argument, but this does not necessarily mean, the position they are defending is false. As I have said, I hold a position in which, I have to give argumentation, I also have to listen to argumentation. There have been times, that I knew before I entered one of these sessions, which side the truth was on. However, the person defending the side of truth, lost the argument. I want to be clear here in saying, this position I hold has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, rather, it is a position I hold at work. My point is, just because someone may win an argument does not necessarily mean, that what they are attempting to defend is now true. I have heard debates between Christians, and Atheist. Some seem to have been clearly won by the Atheist, while others were clearly won by the Christian. What does this establish?

You say, I cannot defend my position based on facts, however, you say,

And you will break poor dukekenha's heart, I am afraid

Allow me to ask you, what fact is this comment based on? It has absolutely no relevance, to our conversation whatsoever. Rather, it is clearly a stab. This is a tactical comment, much like the rest of your arguments. What we have seen is you make extreme overstatements. Now, this could mean you are not reading my comments carefully, or it could be you are making these overstatements on purpose. In other words, you are attempting to get me to defend something I have never said. This sort of tactic works well at times. Lets take where you say, I agree with you that Mormonism, and Islam, is based on a lie. I could take the bait here, and begin to defend this position, even though I do not hold this position. Before I know it, I am attempting to defend a position I do not hold, and before you know it, it is to late, and I have backed myself into a corner. But you see, I do not hold the same position as you on this subject. We have been having this same discussion since last year, and you have continued to make these overstatements. I have overlooked them in the past, because there was just too many of them to address, just as you can see here in this rather small post of yours. But to demonstrate how you continue to make these overstatements, allow me to refer to a comment you made here on this thread, to Elijah John, you said,

Paul fell ill during a trip to Damascus. During a period when Paul was desperately ill and delusional, and at a time when he was being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, Paul underwent a life changing experience that caused him to became a firm Christian.

Do you see how you say, "Paul fell ill," as if it was an actual fact? You then go on to say, "Paul was desperately ill and delusional,' as if this was an actual fact. Well let me explain, that what you say here, is not a fact, rather, it is a possibility. You see, I admit, this would be a possibility, but it is far from a fact! Let me give you some facts.

It is a fact, that Luke records, Paul having some sort of experience. It is a fact, that Luke, records, it was a, Divine Visitation. It is a fact, that both Luke, and Paul, say that Paul was opposed to Christianity. It is a fact, that Paul becomes a Christian. It is a fact that Paul goes on to preach the message of the Gospel, he was once opposed too. You see, all of these are facts. However, it is not a fact that Paul was ill, this is only a possibility. Now, I will say, it is a possibility, that both Luke, and Paul, were lying, or deceived, but again, this would not be a fact, only a possibility.

I attempt to stay focused on facts, even among my Christian friends. Allow me to give an example. There have been those who have been deathly ill, to the point the Doctors gave no hope. These people have been prayed for. There have been reports, of some of these people, recovering, and the Doctors have no idea how this occurred. In other words, the Doctors could not explain it. Now, there will be many Christians that will say it was an act of God, however, I would never say this. Rather, I would stick to the facts.

Fact 1. The Doctors believed this person to be ill, with no hope.

Fact 2. They were prayed for.

Fact 3. They recover.

Fact 4. The Doctors say they cannot explain it.

These are the facts. As I said, there would be many Christians, who would say it was in fact Divine intervention, however, I would never make such a claim, there is just to many things we do not know. It is possible, it may be Divine intervention, but it is not a fact, and I believe it is less than honest to make such a claim. For one thing, although the Doctors, may be very good, they do not know all, and it would be possible for them to overlook something. My point again is, I attempt to stay focused on the facts, however, we can see from your comments, you will state something as a dogmatic fact, that is simply a possibility. You go on to say,

But if you refuse to continue on here, don't assume that I am simply going to give you any free passes on any of the other topics on this forum.

All I can say here is, thank goodness. This is what I have been saying we need to do. In other words, we have said all that can be said here, and it is time to move on. I look forward to you not giving me a pass. In fact, I would ask you to look at my response to, "2ndpillar," concerning the contradiction between Paul, and James, I would love to hear your input. Finally you say,

And let me say again, that it is never my intention to be needlessly offensive. Offense simply comes with the territory in discussions such as these. That you may FEEL offended is because you have discovered that you were unable to overcome my argument even though you feel deep in your heart that you can't possibly be wrong.

This causes me to wonder if you are reading my responses carefully. The first thing I will point out is, I have stated numerous times, that I understand the possibility of my error. Therefore, I do not FEEL in my heart. You have me mistaken with the other Christians, you have dealt with. I put no confidence whatsoever, in how I feel. I preach against going on feelings, and anyone who knows me will attest to this. In fact, they will more than likely say, I preach against it to a fault. The Bible never tells us to go on our feelings in fact it warns against it. This means I would be with you, against Christians, that believe God communicates to them through their feelings.

I also wonder if you are reading carefully, because I plainly stated, I do not understand why anyone would take offense. I also said, if what you are saying is true, then it does not matter to me how you say it. Therefore the last person you will have to worry about offending is me. Even if you were to make personal attacks on me, I would not take offense. Why? Because either your attacks are correct, or they are false. So I do not take offense.

[nothead]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

The Seed of Truth does start with the Garden, and end with John.

You are assuming both to be myth or worse, and although you and I share many theological simularities, including Absolute Monotheism and an appreciation for Jewish POV...

...so did John who was like us both concerning God. I.e. his prologue is orthodox and not at all speaking of Two Gods in Heaven.

Garden of Eden: man could not TAKE the casual requirement to not eat of the tree, the condition of man is to love God wholly or the Snake wholly and there is no in between...the condition of man and the woman who tempted him.

Either his father is the Devil or YHWH Elohim, no in between. Shema was instituted during God's second attempt with man...but he could not do it.

Third attempt: Send His beloved Son en espiritu among the saints. See if THIS will work. Yeah it did, among the heroes only, mainly the first two gen saints.

[Elijah John]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

The Seed of Truth does start with the Garden, and end with John.

You are assuming both to be myth or worse, and although you and I share many theological simularities, including Absolute Monotheism and an appreciation for Jewish POV...

...so did John who was like us both concerning God. I.e. his prologue is orthodox and not at all speaking of Two Gods in Heaven.

Garden of Eden: man could not TAKE the casual requirement to not eat of the tree, the condition of man is to love God wholly or the Snake wholly and there is no in between...the condition of man and the woman who tempted him.

Either his father is the Devil or YHWH Elohim, no in between. Shema was instituted during God's second attempt with man...but he could not do it.

Third attempt: Send His beloved Son en espiritu among the saints. See if THIS will work. Yeah it did, among the heroes only, mainly the first two gen saints.

--

Well, in spite of your professed absolute montheism, (do you consider "the Son" Divine?") we have huge differences regarding the nature of Scripture, especially the fable of the Garden.

You seem to take that story as history? You suggest that I am assuming it is myth, but you SEEM to be assuming it is literal history.

I think you may be correct that there is no in-between, God of the Devil, but I tend to see things in shades of gray. But maybe for the sake of argument, that was God's only commandment, and humans failed. That would indeed be an all or nothing choice.

But what if Adam had killed Eve? Or Eve had murdered Adam? There was no "law" against that, would it still be horrible sin? That is why I think the Eden fable is simplistic, and CANNOT be taken literally. God did not make enough laws, supposedly, and did not cover all the bases, all the ways humans could have chosen to do evil.

That is why I reject the doctrine of "original sin" but I do acknowledge the existence of actual sin and evil, as well as good.

Oh, also, the John I was referring to was John the Gospel Evangelist, but I guess he may have been the author or Revelation too. I see similarities in style to the Johannine epistles, so I do not doubt they were written by the Gospel writer as well.

[nothead]

--

Well, in spite of your professed absolute montheism, (do you consider "the Son" Divine?") we have huge differences regarding the nature of Scripture, especially the fable of the Garden.

These are seen as MYTH or FABLE but not by Jews of ancient caliber. .308 the bullet of man, so to speak...no the story was in order to TELL US something about our roots. So then yeah MAYBE fable in part or myth in part, but the Jewish PART is important what they thought God was saying, and whether or not this is true.

Original sin? Well, maybe IN PART. The condition of man from the beginning, Adam specifically? Yeah, you got it now. Or I did.

You seem to take that story as history? You suggest that I am assuming it is myth, but you SEEM to be assuming it is literal history.

It is literal story, how can I know what is LITERALLY true? Literal JEWISH story, so there is definitely a God-thread of TRUTH therein.

P.S. "therein" means "there within." In case you don't know KJV God-lingo. Or was it nothead lingo?

I think you may be correct that there is no in-between, God of the Devil, but I tend to see things in shades of gray. But maybe for the sake of argument, that was God's only commandment, and humans failed. That would indeed be an all or nothing choice.

You mean God OR the Devil, but your "freudian slip" was both not sexual OR coincidental since God allows the Devil certain leaway...

Grey is as grey does. I personally OWN a lot of grey matter. I was born with an extra big head.

But what if Adam had killed Eve? Or Eve had murdered Adam? There was no "law" against that, would it still be horrible sin? That is why I think the Eden fable is simplistic, and CANNOT be taken literally. God did not make enough laws, supposedly, and did not cover all the bases, all the ways humans could have chosen to do evil.

All sin is against Shema the love of YHWH Elohim in some manner of another.

That is why I reject the doctrine of "original sin" but I do acknowledge the existence of actual sin and evil, as well as good.

You were originally sovereignly sinfully made to think so, yes?

Seriously a comprehension of good and bad need not go beyond your paradigm.
Whether or not we are WIRED to sin is not really the issue. IF sin then spank.

Like IF I spank a young girl's butt, my God will spank me for spanking in sin.
Whether or not as we say now...I am SEX ADDICTED or not.

Sex addicted yeah. Like Bill Clinton couldn't HEP himself. Hee hee.

Oh, also, the John I was referring to was John the Gospel Evangelist, but I guess he may have been the author or Revelation too. I see similarities in style to the Johannine epistles, so I do not doubt they were written by the Gospel writer as well

.

Well there may be two Johns, but so what? I can only use one at a time.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 36 by nothead]

Thanks for the clarifications, I agree in that myth does not mean "untrue" but rather not "iterally, factually, historically or scientificly true. Myth is often poetically true, and often contains a core of truth. In this case, perhaps some Spiritual truth.

But I'm still thinking we may differ on inspiration and transmission of that Spiritual truth. I think the human elements, (scribes and Bible authors) often contaminate the Spiritual truth with their own bias and cultural conditioning. Also, the idioms of the day, and the literary forms may be lost on the modern reader, to some degree.

So, if Eden is myth, (to the degree you are admitting that) the Christ story may be myth too, not so much his teachings, but his supposed Divinity and the meaning of his crucifixion as a blood atonement.

And lol, every typo is not necessarily a "freudian slip". I wouldn't read too much into that, especially since the letters "r" and "f" are so close together on the keyboard.

And I do understand "therein" and often use that archaic word myself. Glad I'm not the only one!

[nothead]

[Replying to post 37 by Elijah John]

Blood atonement is still part of my repertoire and I do believe Jesus fulfilled this in me, a limited atonement which will culminate in complete atonement and mediation or not.

See, Paul was spoken to by Jesus in spirit continually, and I believe he had an extentuating revelation of a King/Savior who would lead men out of the wilderness of bondage of sin and death, whether from 'original sin' or not...

...and this atonement is not too far off of the one offered through agency of High Priest, Jesus REPLACING the awry evil priests of his day.

BEING a High Priest along the order of Melchisedek. I don't believe he is God, but the Bible never says this, in my bean.

Bean my bean and tell me why. I could change my mind, never can tell.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

You know, you make some very bold, and outlandish overstatements, and we will get to some of them below. But first, there is no doubt, that you are extremely proud of your abilities. You have actually said this in the past. I believe you have said, you have been at this for some 50 years, and have gotten pretty good at it.

I'm glad to see you back. And clearly you have put a lot of time and effort into what you have posted here.

I wouldn't portray myself as proud of my abilities on this subject so much as sure of my abilities on this subject. Pride usually involves the need to show off. I will never even meet any of you people. How can this be considered showing off? I did mention that I first came to consider myself an atheist when I was about age thirteen, and that I was the only atheist that I knew at the time. So naturally I was forced to defend my conclusions. Over the years the subject of religion has become a great interest of mine, and I have become quite good at it. Well, everyone needs a hobby. But whether I am the most egotistical sob in the world, or the most humble, is entirely immaterial. Because this is a debate forum and I am not the subject of our debate. The subject of our debate is whether it is reasonable to believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away, or whether it is more reasonable to suppose that the entire story is simply the result of actions taken by the dead man's followers. I have been enjoying our discussions and would like to see them continue. You seem to distinctly be having less of a good time, and would like to disengage. That alone would seem to say all that needs to be said about which of our two positions is prevailing in the debate. But perhaps you will yet make a stunning come back. You're the one with God on his side, after all. I am simply the product of cosmic chance. What chance could I possibly have under those circumstances, really?

But, what is it that you have gotten good at? You continue to talk about the many Christians who come to this site, and after they are confronted with the facts, they either, leave the site, or they become frustrated, and then begin to hurl out insults that eventually have them banned. But even you admit, they have not really thought through what they believe, and are going on emotion, and personal experience, and they somehow believe, that this will be all it takes to defeat unbelievers. They also have the unrealistic, expectation that their arguments can persuade the unbeliever. They are convinced that unbelievers, are simply evil, and that their arguments will somehow prevail, simply because they are convinced, that good, will overcome evil. One thing they have not considered, is the fact, that a good number of unbelievers, were once believers, or at least have been brought up in the faith themselves. These unbelievers, more than likely know far more of the content of the Bible then they do themselves, and the unbeliever has actually thought through, and used their reason to come to their unbelief. The Christian more than likely, has not used their reason, and is simply a Christian, because of some sort of emotional experience, that may have occurred to them sometime in their life. All of this, is a recipe for disaster.

It's interesting that you recognize that most believers have unrealistic expectations concerning their own arguments versus the empty arguments they assume can only be provided by nonbelievers. Wouldn't you include yourself into this group, at least upon your first introduction to this forum? Did you ever suppose that the going would be this difficult? Did you not think through your own arguments before you presented them? Because to me it seemed as though they were thought through just about as well as could be expected. Other then the fact that you reached the least apparent conclusion of course. But then, I have yet to ever meet a committed Christian who was thoroughly familiar with the counter argument. In my experience those who are thoroughly familiar with the counter argument are uniformly all non believers. Just a coincidence, perhaps.

You see, there are many Churches, that simply appeal to the emotions. It is far easier to appeal to the emotion, than it is the hard work, of appealing to the mind. In other words, it is not very difficult to create an emotional experience.This was demonstrated right here on this site, with a video of Darren Brown, and how he was able to give an atheist a conversion experience. Now, let me say, I am not absolutely convinced the Atheist was not in on it, in other words, there is no way for me to know, but I will say, that it would not surprise me in the least. At any rate, after the video was posted here, you actually had Christians attempting to speak out, and continue to defend, emotional experiences, as a legitimate Christian experience. Now how did all of this occur?

Well, the, United States, has had two events that were so called Great Awakenings. The first Awakening was lead by those such as, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitfield. These two gentlemen appealed to the mind of those they spoke to, and allowed the message to to do it's work. However the second, so called great awakening, was lead by a man by the name of, Charles Finney. Now Finney actually stated, "you do not need God to be involved to have a revival, all you need is the right techniques, and methods, to obtain the desired results." Now this is not, a direct quote, but this is basicly what he said, and you can do a search to verify this. At any rate, this demonstrates that Finney was only interested in obtaining a desired result. He was simply interested in appealing to the emotion, by giving his attendants, an emotional experience, and then attributing this experience, to the work of God, who he said was not needed to have a revival in the first place.

Now, what has been the result of Finney's techniques? Well I will have to give, Finney, at least some credit, because, toward the end of his ministry, he worried, "what the effects of the continuous, revivals, and emotional experiences, might have on those that attended his many revivals?" In the end his worries were founded, because the area where his revivals were most prevalent, is referred to now, as The Burned Over District. In other words, these continuous emotional experiences, had an adverse affect on the many that continued to experience them. One of the effects was, the inability to reason and use discernment, and can you guess where, Joseph Smith, came form? That's right, The Burned Over District.

But the affect of Finney, has been far wider than just Mormonism. I am convinced, it has had a long term affect on the Church at large, and one of these affects is that a large number of Churches attempt to continue to create emotional experiences, and seldom, if ever engage the mind. With this being the case, the majority of Christians, cannot tell you what it is they believe, rather all they can do is tell you how they feel. My point is, what is it you think you have accomplished? In other words, what is there to be proud of? All you have done is refute a bunch of people who have not given very much, if any thought at all to what they think it is they believe. If you are proud of this then, all I can say, is congratulations, have at it. But it is not really all that difficult. Allow me to give an example of how simple this is.

I ran into a gentlemen, which I had never met. He saw I had a t-shirt, representing a Christian Youth camp. He asked if I was a Christian, and when he found that I was, his first question was. "Do you all, EXPERIENCE, the fire of God, at your Church." At this point I figured, I was more than likely dealing with a Pentacostal. I also began to attempt to think of the passage of Scripture he might be referring to, and I was sure he was probably referring to, John the Baptist, when he said, "Jesus would baptize, with the Holy Spirit, and with fire. Sure, enough, this was the exact passage he was referring too. I then began to attempt to divert the conversation, because I could clearly see we were going to be in complete disagreement, and I did not want to do this. However, he continued to persist, and I could not avoid it. I finally told him, that, "we did not experience the fire of God he was speaking of, and I certainly hoped we never would." Of course he was dumbfounded, and his question was, "so you do not want to experience, the things of God?" I went on to explain to him, "no, not everything." I continued to tell him, "those, that are baptized in the Holy Spirit are believers, however, fire is most always used in the Bible as judgement, therefore the baptism of fire, is in contrast to those baptized with the Holy Spirit."

You see, more than likely, he was involved in a Church where they simply continued to create emotional experiences, and referred to these experiences as the fire of God, He also, more than likely had very little knowledge of the Bible, itself, other than small catch phrases, such as this one, where experience defines the the passage with very little thought. My point is, it is not that difficult to refute someone who has not used their mind into coming to their conclusions. Therefore, what you are doing is not all that impressive, like the old saying says, "its like taking candy from a baby."

What I take from this is that you fully appreciate just how deeply disturbed and disassociated from reality these OTHER Christian denominations are. Is it presumptuous of me to ask just what denomination you are associated with? Or are we not that close yet?

We are hardly rehashing the same material over again,

This is a complete understatement, and can be demonstrated in your very next sentence, where you say,

Stories of an empty grave and a resurrected corpse that flies away are vastly more likely to be the results of actions taken by the living, then the result of actions taken by the corpse.

Do you realize, how many times you have said this exact same thing? You have said it, over, and over, and over, again. In fact, you have said it so many times, I only have to read the first part of the sentence, to know what is coming next. Now this phrase does not in any way establish anything at all. It does not in any way prove anything at all. In other words, just because you state a sentence does not mean this sentence is true. Also, just because it may seem, "vastly more likely," does not in any way mean, this is the case. This is why you use the phrase, "vastly more likely." If you could absolutely demonstrate, that it was the action of the living, then you would not use this phrase, therefore, you are simply stating the likelihood of an event. In other words, there may be events that are extremely rare, but this does not mean, these events do not occur. Likelihood, only tells us the odds of an event occurring, it does not tell us, if the event can, or did occur.

At any rate, this phrase you continue to use, over, and over, seems to be some sort of tactic. In other words, if you can continue to repeat it over, and over, even if it does not establish, or prove anything at all, maybe it will become ingrained in the mind of people, and sway the way in which they perceive things.

It is a tactic of course. it's an attempt to get you, or whomever I am having a discussion with, to confront the heart of the matter. Which is that you are proposing that the least likely possibility is not only plausible, but is in fact essentially undeniably true, while at the same time arguing that the perfectly obvious solution is not only NOT the answer, but is in truth almost laughable. Certainly the disciples could NEVER have manage to relocate the body of Jesus. They were uniformly too discombobulated. My tactic has been to repeatedly smack you in the face with your own ill-logic, since you, Christians, uniformly do not seem to recognize the nature of your own cockeyed conclusions. What is the mantra of your particular religious belief, and how many times do you suppose you have repeated it over the course of your life? How many times have you been told during the course of your life that Jesus is your Lord and savior, and that Jesus died for your sins? How many times have you repeated such phrases yourself to others? I will warrant that it is many many more times then I have used the phrase: "Stories of an empty grave and a resurrected corpse that flies away are vastly more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living, then the result of actions taken by the corpse." I'm way behind in the indoctrination towards my way of thinking race and I simply have a lot of catching up to do.

My real point however is that until you find a way to establish that the most obvious solution could not possibly be the answer, and that the least obvious solution is the only real alternative, then we are NOT rehashing the same material over and over at all. Because you have rather studiously avoided the heart of my argument. The followers of Jesus DID have legal possession of his body, they DID heavily wrap it and prepared it with 100 pounds of sweet smelling aromatic spices, and they DID travel back to Galilee, the dead man's home after his execution. And Joseph's new rock tomb DID prove to be empty. You refuse to even address this, much less rehash it. As long as the obvious solution remains the obvious choice, you haven't really provided anything yet except some few empty claims which can be easily overcome. I am still waiting for an actual argument from you that would begin to establish that this apparent foolishness of yours has some actual chance of proving to be true. So, no we aren't rehashing the same material at all yet. Unless of course, that's all you've got.

It reminds me of the phrase, in the OJ Simpson case. You know the one I am talking about, right? "If the glove, does not fit, you must acquit." Now this phrase, that the OJ defense team came up with, did not prove, in any way, the innocence, of Simpson. In other words, whether the glove fit or not, is irrelevant to whether Simpson was guilty or not. If the glove would have fit, it would not prove his guilt, and if it did not fit, it did not prove his innocence. This was simply a tactic the defense team came up with, in order to sway opinion. And it worked, did it not? I do not know you, or where you are from, but more than likely, you know where the phrase, "if it don't fit, you must acquit," came from. In the same way, this phrase you continue to use, does not in any way establish anything. The only thing it tells us is, if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, it would have been a rare event.

An interesting comparison for a Christian to make. OJ's defense team did not NEED TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. Because it was never incumbent on OJ's defense team to PROVE his innocence. It was incumbent on the prosecution to PROVE his guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. How many times have I been told by Christians to "prove that Jesus did not come back to life and fly away." In fact the very nature of the claim should easily stand as proof that it is untrue. It is in fact incumbent on Christians to at least establish that this most unlikely of claims has even the smallest realistic chance of being true. And as you now understand perfectly well, you can't do it! Of course the prosecution in OJ's case ended up not making their case convincingly enough, and their case was MUCH stronger than your's.

The logical suspects in this case are the followers of Jesus, who had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus, and then spread the rumor of his resurrection.

Do you realize, there have been those found guilty of crimes, in which they were the logical suspects, and in the end, after years behind bars, their complete innocence was found out? They were found to have the, means, motive, and opportunity, so much so, they were found guilty, but in the end the evidence, demonstrated conclusively they were in fact innocent! I will also point out, that I have given a counter to your, motive, means, and opportunity. In other words, I have given reasons, why your claims, would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for these men which you call ordinary.

Should we then open our prison doors then and let everyone go free? Or isn't it also overwhelmingly true that the overwhelming majority of those imprisoned for having the means, motive and opportunity to have "done it," are there because they actually DID IT?

Jesus' followers had legal possession of the body of Jesus, were in fact the last one's to be clearly in possession of the body of Jesus, and the body of Jesus ultimately went missing. How much more clear could it possibly BE? What difficulty do you even realistically SEE here? What impediment was there to them taking the body pretty much anywhere they chose? Which they in fact had EVERY RIGHT to do?

You have IN NO WAY overcome this objection.

I have not attempted to overcome this objection, rather I have given reasons why I reject it.

This much at least I can agree with you on. You have made no real effort to overcome my objection. You have simply rejected it, and that is essentially NO ARGUMENT AT ALL. It essentially amounts to tacit capitulation. It is incumbent on YOU, as a Christian, to establish some reasonable level of expectation that this most unrealistic claim of yours has even the most marginal chance of being true. And you can't do it. What does that say to others about the nature of your claims, and the nature of your beliefs? What does that say to YOU about the nature of your claims, and the nature of your beliefs? Are you simply closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and turning your thoughts away from the implications of what you have been learning? If Christianity is NOT true, would you prefer to be the last to know? Upon first hearing of the theory of evolution, the Bishop of Birmingham's wife is reported to have said to her husband, "My dear, let us hope it is not true; but, if it is true, let us hope it will not become generally known." It's the ostrich strategy.

And unless you can, you cannot even begin to make a realistic case that your claim that the corpse came back to life and flew away is not every bit as silly as it sounds.

Now, here is one of your overstatements. I have never claimed, "the corpse came back to life and flew away." Rather, this is what I believe occurred, according to the evidence. Can you see the difference? I am convinced, Jesus rose from the grave, but I am not saying in any way, you have to believe as I do. You are free to examine the evidence, and come to your own conclusions, and I will not, and do not condemn those who come to a different conclusion. As I continue to say, I am simply giving reasons for my belief. I have also plainly stated, I attempt to stay away from these types of discussions, because in the end this is all any of us can do, is give the reason for our stance.

No, your book of revealed truths tells us that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and ultimately flew off up into the sky. If you are ready to deny the accuracy and validity of the Bible, then I am certainly willing to listen to you. If you are not ready to deny the accuracy and validity of the Bible then you are stuck defending what it says. I have every right to assume that you fully accept every word of the Bible as written until you tell me different.

I highly doubt, any of us, will, or can, prove our case.

The story of the corpse that comes back to life and flies away contradicts all experience and observation. It contradicts all reason and logic. It can't be sustained through any recourse to the facts, since we only have late written hearsay to examine. No one recorded any such occurrence at the time it was supposed to have occurred. No one even mentions the existence of such a story for a quarter of a century or so after it was supposed to have occurred. The very nature of the story and the claim correspond to adjectives such as ludicrous, farcical, absurd, irrational, silly, nonsensical, ridiculous and preposterous. What more proof can one fallible human offer another fallible except to point out how very far from realistic their claim is? This is as much conclusive "proof" for proving a negative as can be provided by one mortal man to another.

Now lets look at one of your extreme overstatements. You say,

Tired of the nonsense wrote:
"The original point I was raising, is that both Islam and Mormonism grew from nothing more then A LIE (you will agree?), to become major religions. Islam especially, has a sixteen hundred year history and a couple of BILLION modern living adherents. All based on what you and I both agree is certainly A LIE."

No! I have never said, nor do I necessarily agree, that both Islam, and Mormonism is based on a "LIE." As I said, this is an extreme overstatement. Lets look at what I have said. I have said, that to believe either of these two religions, you have to place your faith, in the credibility, of one individual.

The Holy Qu'ran is a verbatim transcript made from a verbatim recitation the prophet made of information provided to him by the angel Gabriel. That is simply a historical fact that any believing Muslim will happily verify. As such, the Holy Qu'ran represents the inerrant Word of God, according to Muslim belief. The Holy Qu'ran contains the following passage:

"That they said (in boast) "We have killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah";-- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:--" (Qu'ran, Su 4:157).

If this is true then the entire foundation of Christianity is based on a lie. On the other hand, if this passage is false, then the Qu'ran cannot be the inerrant Word of God, and the entire foundation of Islam is based on a lie. So which belief is based on a lie, yours or theirs? One way or another, since both beliefs fundamentally contradict each other and therefore cannot both be true, one of them, an entire religion, held to the utmost level of esteem and devotion by BILLIONS over the course of many centuries, has been founded on A LIE! AT LEAST one of these beliefs is FALSE. A flip of a coin, since both sides are completely convinced that it's the other guy. Are you feeling lucky?

I went on to contrast this by saying, that in the Christian Faith, you are placing your faith in the credibility of more than one person. Now, you brought up, that in the case of Mormonism, it attempted to add witnesses, by claiming there were those who claimed to have witnessed the, golden tablets. You then went on to give the names of those who later recanted. Now, I was not aware of this, and simply took your word for it. With this being the case, I contrasted, these witnesses, who later recanted, to the Apostles, who as far as history is concerned, never recanted. I then went on to talk about how it is one thing for one person to hold a lie together, as opposed to when you begin to add numbers. Therefore, if it is as you say, there were those who recanted their testimony, in Mormonism, then this would demonstrate how difficult it is for a number of people to hold together a lie. However, saying that those who claimed to have witnessed the golden tablets, may have lied, is a huge difference than saying that Mormonism, itself is based on a lie!

Yes, the "witnesses" to the golden tablets signed affidavits that they had personally seen the golden tablets, then some later recanted, and then later recanted their recantation. Mormons! Not that this should represent an example of the lengths those with an agenda to accomplish will go to, to affect their goals. Or any such thing like that. Certainly not to the point of them LYING about it!

Now, I will say, that I believe both, Islam, and Mormonism, is false, but this is a far, far cry, from saying they were both based on a lie. Lets examine this.

You are an unbeliever. More than likely this means, you do not believe in the supernatural. I being a believer, happen to believe in the supernatural, and this would include the demonic. Therefore, it is possible, that both of these religions were influenced by demonic forces. NOTICE, I AM NOT IN ANY WAY, MAKING A DOGMATIC STATEMENT HERE, I AM ONLY SUGGESTING THE POSSIBILITY! If this is the case, then both religions, could be based on deception.

There is also another possibility. I have already discussed the, "Burned Over District," and how Joseph Smith, and the Mormons, came from this area. This could mean that Smith, and his followers were influenced by the reckless theology of the many revivals, and could have therefore been deceived into believing God was speaking through the emotions. In the same way, Muhammad's mother was a Christian, and as Muhammad became older, and saw the immorality around him, he went into a cave to meditate. With this being the case, he could have as well, believed God was speaking to him through his own thoughts. So then, both of these religions, could have been based on deception of some sort, or it is possible they may have been based on a lie. But for you to say, " All based on what you and I both agree is certainly A LIE," is simply an overstatement on your part.

Not a lie in your estimation, simply an untruth created by an individual and now held to be the utmost standard of truth by billions. Or a good many millions, in the case of Mormonism.

Now you also say,

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"So how does one go about exposing their delusion to them for what it is? One might try pointing out how aspects of their belief system contradict all experience and observation. One might attempt to illustrate for them how aspects of their belief system completely contradict all reason and logic. One might openly examine their assertions and assumptions and show to them how, in the light of open investigation, their assertions and assumptions turn out to be without actual foundation, leaving them standing on nothing more substantial than smoke."

Well now, this may be the way you would handle things, but I would take a different tact. First, I would not attempt to say anything at all about their belief, unless of course, they were to bring it up themselves. At this point, I would listen intently to their belief, to determine, if it did in fact make sense, and that it may be possible, I am the one in error. After listening to their beliefs, and I was convinced they were in error, I would spend little time pointing out what I perceived to be error, rather I would begin to tell them what I believe. In other words, I have given them my attention, as they have explained to me what they believe, I now have the opportunity to explain to them what it is, I believe. At this point, I would simply allow them to contemplate the two. You see, I am not under the impression, that everyone must believe as I do. I am also not under the impression that I am absolutely right, and there is no possible way, I could be wrong!

Do you suppose I wander about randomly questioning and then attacking the beliefs of others? Or is it more likely that might seek to find a nice religious debate forum as a more appropriate place for such activities? Atheists don't really have a crucifix to proudly dangle in front of others. We tend to keep our opinions to ourselves unless challenged. I am perfectly willing to discuss the mater should others bring it up first, my lack of belief is not what I lead with. However I absolutely love it when the JW's and the Mormon's come to my door. They are perfectly fair game. I even invite them in. If they want to talk religion I am most definitely their man. And I pretty much follow the pattern you have outlined for yourself in my response to their patter. They rarely stay long, unfortunately. Especially once they find out that I often know more about their religious beliefs then they do.

Well lets continue on with your statements. You said,

Because the bottom line is, truth and the facts don't matter a whit when it comes to religious beliefs.

Truth is whatever it is, and truth is under no obligation to me to be what I might prefer. It's up to me to discover what truth is, and then to accept it at face value when I find it. As a result I tend to rely on the scientific method, which is to say, the empirical method for discovering truth which has come into favor over the last four centuries or so. As opposed to the ancient method, which was to imagine what is true, and then to declare that to be truth. The empirical method has led us to our modern technological society. And since our technology actually does work, it has achieved a certain level of credibility. I can roughly explain the basic workings of the universe for you in two paragraphs if you are interested. The answer doesn't resolve around a cosmic intelligence or any supernatural intervention at all of course. Let me know.

I would imagine, you are including the, Christian Faith here as well.

I was raised Christian as I have already indicated. I reached the conclusion that Christian claims were far too ridiculous to be true when I was about thirteen. Fifty years on now later, I have seen no reason to change my conclusion. But I am still listening, am I not?

Well lets analyze this. Do you realize, the Christian Faith, stands or falls on historical claims? Lets look at it like this. The Apostles, never attempted to create emotional experiences, and point to these experiences as proof of there message. Rather they continued to point to, what they at least claimed to be historical events.

Yes, claims they made concerning events which by any estimation, even then, were clearly preposterous, and for which only their word was offered, and for which no actual historical verification of any kind can be produced. This is no more historical than declaring that OJ's not guilty claim establishes historically that he was innocent. There MAY be some room for doubt.

You see, it would be much simpler for them to create some sort of emotional experience, and point to this as evidence, but their evidence was history. When Peter, gave his message at Pentecost, he continued to point out a historical claim, and said that all of this was done out in the open, and his hearers, could investigate.

What was there that anyone could investigate? The resurrected Jesus appeared to his followers, according to his followers, and his followers saw him taken up to heaven, according to his followers. Literally "he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." (Acts 1:9) Guess what! I have been up into and above the clouds myself. There's NO heaven up there. The ancients literally believed that heaven and "the heavens" were the same thing. But it was make believe. And so Peter is promising what he knows full well he can never ACTUALLY be proved wrong on.

Paul when he was in front of the Sanhedrin, said the same thing. Paul went on to say, "if Christ is not raised, then we are above all men most pitiful."

What is Paul actually saying here? He is saying that if Jesus DIDN'T come back to life and fly away as Christians claimed, then Christians are to be pitied as gullible fools. I could be given a warning on this forum for making the very same observation. But clearly Paul understood the obvious foolish implications of what he was proclaiming. Modern Christians seem largely to have forgotten this most obvious problem with their beliefs because they are so used to mutually agreeing with each other and facing no opposition to their assumptions. As opposed to what you are going through here.

You see he is appealing to a historical event, and if this event did not happen, then those who believe are pitiful. But, let us go on to look at some words found in the Bible. Lets see, there is the words, evidence, convince, convict, proof, defense, testify, testimony, witness, eye witness, judge, judgement, etc. Now, where in the world would you find these same words used on a daily basis? Thats right, a courtroom, where evidence is examined to determine truth, right? My question is. Is there a religion that is solely based on historical claims? You see, if you can disprove any of these historical claims of the Christian Faith, you will indeed, disprove Christianity! Therefore, when you say, "facts do not matter when it comes to religious beliefs." Allow me to explain to you, facts are all that matters, as far as the Christian Faith is concerned, and if you can absolutely disprove any of these facts, I assure you, I will no longer be Christian!

In a courtroom eyewitness testimony is taken and openly examined. So yet again I ask you, SHOW ME YOUR EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.