Jesus and Christianity?

[Guide]

You must be new to Christianity... and probably never read the Bible. So allow me to enlighten a little with related passages:


In short, you will never "know". I now refer you to the studying of the term "faith" of which you have no apparent understanding of. When you learn of this term, you will understand the fundamentals of Christiandom.

You seem to be very Christian yourself, if you believe what the bible has to say. It may be wrong though, because there are several other religions, any could be wrong or right.

 

[v Angel v]

That's a very hypocrytical statement. You are saying atheist's beliefs are completely wrong because they said your beliefs are wrong.

I'd just like to say there's been no proper evidence god or jesus ever existed except for the bible and as we know.. mentally ill people have always existed!
What if.. some guy just wrote a book to give people good guidelines to live upon.. or just wrote some funny stories.. then some crazy people took it all completely seriously and made some big scam out of it called Christianity =D!

No i didn't say they were wrong or right.
I just said it wrong to judge other people based on their beliefs.
We Christians can't prove the existence of God or how we were created with facts,neither can you all.
It does seem hypocritical as a matter of fact,that atheists judge religious folks about something they can't prove either.So unless someone figures out the right path everyone should just shut the fuck up.I believe in Jesus and no one will tell me not to.If one day an atheists would read the bible like suppose to he/she would convert but in my point of view they rather live by there own rules then the (my retrospective) right way.

 

[Schnell]

If one day an atheists would read the bible like suppose to he/she would convert but in my point of view they rather live by there own rules then the (my retrospective) right way.

Actually, I've read a lot of the Bible, and that is one of the reasons I left the church. The more I read the Bible, the more flaws I saw. Until I abandoned it altogether.

 

[Enihcam Leurc]

Actually, I'd say the most ignorant situation would be to making something up in place of accepting the fact that we just don't know. Accepting that death is merely the biological consequence of let's say, stopped brain function, seems to be a legitamate assertion based on known evidence.

I assent. But, even if a factual assertion is made, it can't be deemed logical/reasonable unless it was derived logically.

So the Bible's credentials come from what?

It's the testimonies of hundreds of intelligent men of antiquity. If you are to completely disregard such, you are unreasonable.

Hold on there. Disproving Jesus's resurrection would only cast doubts upon one categorical group of religions...

Cast doubts? No, as I said, it'd destroy it.
And also as I said, it'd only be proof against God's existence in my opinion. This opinion being based on my studies and experiences which have led to my conclusion that the God of Christianity is the only possible God that can exist. In my opinion, the rest are contradictory Gods which on their own established principles can't exist. So then you ask about the contradictions of Christianity... which obviously exist because of the corruptions of man and exploitation of the masses. But fundamentally, I find no error.

Sure. My studies of faith have led to the following conclusion: Either faith is inherently irrational, or it is just a "rational" way to explain otherwise irrational beliefs.

It's the latter.

Anytime.

A positive response to that question requisites a rebuttal of some sort, generally in attempt to prove me wrong. If Jesus didn't resurrect, Christianity and the Bible are false. Correct, or no?

As far as the existence of God goes, read the Bible passages I posted... even they are proof that I can neither prove nor disproof God's existence on this forum. So one can post nothing more then their personal testimony and opinions, which usually are, as a whole, irrational.

 

[PublicityFtF]

1.)It does seem hypocritical as a matter of fact,that atheists judge religious folks about something they can't prove either.

2.)So unless someone figures out the right path everyone should just shut the fuck up.

3.)I believe in Jesus and no one will tell me not to.

4.)If one day an atheists would read the bible like suppose to he/she would convert but in my point of view they rather live by there own rules then the (my retrospective) right way.

(I split it up to organize my thoughts.)

1.) I've never found an Atheist that would demand he could disprove God(s).
2.) I'm feeling like you're implying that if someone doesn't believe in what you believe they should go away.
3.) You're entitled to your beliefs.
4.) I'm an Atheist, I've read the Bible, and I must say that was one of the driving forces pushing me away from Christianity.

 

[FreedomFight]

I assent. But, even if a factual assertion is made, it can't be deemed logical/reasonable unless it was derived logically.

You bashed DKM for merely pointing out that death, quite frankly, results in death. As sarcastic as that may sound, it appears to be the only rational conclusion to make based on current knowledge. My interpretation of that statement is that any further extrapolation, would be derived not from logic, but from speculation.

It's the testimonies of hundreds of intelligent men of antiquity. If you are to completely disregard such, you are unreasonable.

Weak. This is the fall-back argument used in rather amateur debates.
The quantity of people (or even quality of the people) that share a belief has no merit on it's fundamental truth. In fact, in cases where the opportunity arises, it would be the most reasonable to discard this notion, and create a conclusion based solely upon the facts available. I suppose I may as well preemptively mention the logical flaw in the second commonly used fallback, which is that the Bible's credentials come directly from God. In which case, the credentials of this statement come from the Bible itself, resulting in what we call "Circular reasoning".

And also as I said, it'd only be proof against God's existence in my opinion. This opinion being based on my studies and experiences which have led to my conclusion that the God of Christianity is the only possible God that can exist. In my opinion, the rest are contradictory Gods which on their own established principles can't exist.

Opinion this, study that, experience this, contradictory that.

Digest this roundabout statement into its simplest form and all it says is "I believe that it is rational to believe in the Christian God". So yes, I am aware.

So then you ask about the contradictions of Christianity... which obviously exist because of the corruptions of man and exploitation of the masses. But fundamentally, I find no error.

Well. I'm happy to see that you mentioned to corruption of man as a source of contradiction. Then again, it seems the next step to take is to recognize that the Bible was written by men, which are a source of corruption, and thus the Bible may be susceptible to contradiction. Of course, many theists would point out (with no evidence or flawed evidence), that the Bible was somehow written by "supernatural" men of sorts.

My opinion is that the resurrection itself is also a contradiction. I find no emprical evidence that the accounts of resurrection in the Bible are possible. While the lack of empirical evidence CANNOT disprove an assertion, it has merit upon the rationality of a belief and it's probability of occurence.

If Jesus didn't resurrect, Christianity and the Bible are false. Correct, or no?

According to your literal interpretation, yes. Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument, what I got from your post was "Christianity is true. Thus, the Bible is right. If the Bible is right, then Jesus's resurrection must have occured." Since these assertions are mutually dependent, I suppose disputing any of them would effectively rebut your argument.

It's the latter.

If it is the latter, than you have just confessed that the beliefs themselves are inherently irrational, not the "faith" in them.

So one can post nothing more then their personal testimony and opinions, which usually are, as a whole, irrational.

Half true. Theists rely on personal opinion and testimony, whereas an agnostic would rely on the rationality of "Russel's Teapot". In short, the one who makes an assertion must have the burden of proof, or the converse, which is that any assertions unbacked by evidence are irrational.As an agnostic, I choose to make no assertion on God's existence, accepting that if emprical evidence as provided, my beliefs would change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[SatanCapes]

This theory is like so random but I do not believe it sorry. But "what if" it happened? Then he would of got away I guess and would of continued to be a normal person who is more or less of a magician than a savior.

 

[Corz Bra]

I am an Athiest, although I was raised a Catholic and still have my doubts about Athiesm, I want to be a good person and go to Church every weekend just so I am seen as a good person because in my community other people believe that if you don't believe in religion then that means you are a lesser person and don't deserve to be a part of things. I believe that he did come back to life, as there would be a 1/6b chance of that happening. I remember someone around 20 years ago in one of my classes had cancer, and when they were getting treated, they died, but the doctors brought them back to life (OMG JESUS II) but they died later on that day. I think you should keep your beliefs on religion because you don't want to become confused like I am.

 

[Schnell]

I am an Athiest, although I was raised a Catholic and still have my doubts about Athiesm, I want to be a good person and go to Church every weekend just so I am seen as a good person because in my community other people believe that if you don't believe in religion then that means you are a lesser person and don't deserve to be a part of things. I believe that he did come back to life, as there would be a 1/6b chance of that happening. I remember someone around 20 years ago in one of my classes had cancer, and when they were getting treated, they died, but the doctors brought them back to life (OMG JESUS II) but they died later on that day. I think you should keep your beliefs on religion because you don't want to become confused like I am.

There's a difference between cardiac arrest and crucifixion... People die and come back to life all the time, but not if they stay dead for 3 days.

 

[pie_row]

I am an Athiest, although I was raised a Catholic and still have my doubts about Athiesm, I want to be a good person and go to Church every weekend just so I am seen as a good person because in my community other people believe that if you don't believe in religion then that means you are a lesser person and don't deserve to be a part of things.

You dont need religion to be a good person, It actually takes a better person to do good for the sake of doing good then to do good for the fear of going to hell.

They think less of people who dont believe? these people are fruit cakes, this attitude is what starts wars.

I think you should keep your beliefs on religion because you don't want to become confused like I am.

Thats silly. People need to learn to think for themselves. Being confused it good. blindly believing something that...lets face it... is a load of shit... doesnt benifit you in anyway.

 

[Guide]

I agree with you, pie_row. These are the kind of responses I like reading.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

I don't believe he was resurrected or got out the cave. Concerning the get out of the cave, how could he walk out after being crucified without being resurrected?