Answering Christianity’s Critics

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Nothing, I was just responding to your claim that no Theist has adequately been able to demonstrate his existence. Probably that is not enough, but something to consider.
Regardless, Atheism defined here...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower se ...[text shortened]... y exists.[9][10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

But you think there is a possibility?

The true definition of atheism is the belief that no deities exist, especially the God of the Holy Bible. If it were an absence of belief in any deities, there would be no need for them to post on a Spirituality Forum.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The true definition of atheism is the belief that no deities exist, especially the God of the Holy Bible. If it were an absence of belief in any deities, there would be no need for them to post on a Spirituality Forum.

The Instructor

They post here because they great a great laugh out of you
and all your fairy tales.

If you are going to the track tomorrow put $10 dollars
on the pale green horse for me, thanks.



The Vibrator.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
They post here because they great a great laugh out of you
and all your fairy tales.

They post here because they great a great laugh out of you
and all your fairy tales.

When you get a break from rolling across the floor giggling at the fairy tale, maybe you could answer me a few questions.

1.) James was the brother of Jesus and at first did not believe the claims Jesus made.

" The gospels tell us that Jesus' family, including James, were embarrassed by what he was claiming to be. They didn't believe in him. In ancient Judaism it was highly embarrassing for a rabbi's family not to accept him. Therefore the gospel writers would have no motive for fabricating this skepticism if it weren't true."

Latter he became one of the leading elders of the church in Jerusalem. And historian Josephus tells us that he was stoned to death for his faith in his brother being the Son of God.

Why the sudden change in James the brother of Jesus ?
What happened to him that he changed his mind, became a leader in the church in Jerusalem and was willing to die for his belief in his brother's claims.

What made James adopt a different attitude in so drastic a manner?

2.) Saul of Tarsus was another world class skeptic. As a Pharisee educated by a renown rabbi of the time Gamaliel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel

As for his student, Saul of Tarsus:

"As a Pharisee, he hated anything that disrupted the traditions of the Jewish people. To him, this new countermovement ..." [the Christian church] " would have been the height of disloyalty. In fact, he worked out his frustration by executing Christians when he had the chance."

Suddenly Saul stops breathing out threats and murder against the new sect. He JOINS their movement. How did this happen ?

Most NT scholars have no problem believing that Paul (formerly Saul) authored the letter called Galatians. There in Galatians Paul tells us himself why he took a 180-degree to be come the chief proponent of the Christian Gospel, authoring arguably 13 of the 27 New Testament books.

Why do you think he changed so drastically? What is your "fairy tale" explanation for the change.

3.) Most NT scholars of all types accept that Paul wrote the letter of Second Corinthians. It is not much disputed even by Jesus Seminar types that Paul probably wrote Second Corinthians. Some consider this to be the most autobiographical writing from Paul.

In this letter we see him reminding the Corinthian church about the miracles God performed through him in their midst.

If this were a lie how bold it would be to write to them reminding them of these miracles Paul reviews with them. What is your "fairy tale" explanation for how a man could make such bold claims in a public letter read and circulated among the early Christian congregations ?

4.) The Jews in the First Century had been taught ever since the time of Abraham and Moses that they needed to offer an animal sacrifice on a yearly basis to atone for their sins. God, they were taught, would transfer their sins to that animal, and their sins would be forgiven so that they would have the right standing before God.

All of a sudden, after the death of this Nazarene carpenter, these Jewish people no longer offer sacrifices. Many of them started to live a new way in which they proclaimed that this carpenter died once and for all for all the sins of the world.

What is your fairly tale explanation for this drastic historical change among the Jews, especially those first Christians of the growing church in Jerusalem, where the movement started, from where is spread throughout the Mediterranean world, Asia Minor and the Roman Empire ?

How did this carpenter cause such a change in people's beliefs ?

Originally posted by sonship

They post here because they great a great laugh out of you
and all your fairy tales.

When you get a break from rolling across the floor giggling at the fairy tale, maybe you could answer me a few questions.

1.) James was the brother of Jesus and at first did not believe the claims Jesus made.

[quote] " The gospels tell us th ...[text shortened]... n Empire ?

How did this carpenter cause such a change in people's beliefs ?

It seems that you are trying to get the attention of people in a comatose state of mind and I doubt if they will ever wake up. All we can do is make an effort to release their minds from the indoctrination they have accepted blindly. While thinking they are wise, they have become as fools, refusing to accept the gift of eternal life.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems that you are trying to get the attention of people in a comatose state of mind and I doubt if they will ever wake up. All we can do is make an effort to release their minds from the indoctrination they have accepted blindly. While thinking they are wise, they have become as fools, refusing to accept the gift of eternal life.

The Instructor

Talk about the kettle calling the pan black. You are as blind as a bat to reality.

Originally posted by sonship

They post here because they great a great laugh out of you
and all your fairy tales.

When you get a break from rolling across the floor giggling at the fairy tale, maybe you could answer me a few questions.

1.) James was the brother of Jesus and at first did not believe the claims Jesus made.

[quote] " The gospels tell us th n Empire ?

How did this carpenter cause such a change in people's beliefs ?

1 - you can not prove a fairy tale is not a fairy tale by saying one of the characters in the fairy tale believed it was real.

2 - a jewish man turns to christianity, nothing profound there. people change faiths all the time, doesnt make it anymore real.

3 - people who believe in christianity make bold claims about it every day, does it make it true no? look at this from the angle of another religion, they all have advocates in history that wrote about their faiths, does that make their faiths real.......nope.

4 - some people believed in what they were preached and changed their rituals in accordance. history is littered with societies adopting new religions. it doesnt make them true.


How did this carpenter cause such a change in people's beliefs

how did krishna, mohammed, buddha, zeus, odin, osiris, the kami, and all the other gods change peoples beliefs?

christianity is lucky because its been taken up by extremely violent people who went around the world forcing people to take it up or wiping out the indigenous people. chrisitanity wouldnt have the large numbers if does if it wasnt for the butchering of north and south americans.

the spread of christianity isnt as happy and profound as you are trying to make it sound, it was built on the death and subjugation of millions. fact. the indigenous people of n and s america were not to keen on the carpenter were they?

1 - you can not prove a fairy tale is not a fairy tale by saying one of the characters in the fairy tale believed it was real.

Well, Joseph was not part of the story, unless you want to say the "fairy tale" arranged for secular historian to write about James the way he did.

Hyper conspiracy.

Then Paul. Okay. Paul's strong belief in the resurrection of Jesus does not make it necessarily true. But you could come up with reasons WHY he believed it so soon after persecuting it.

No, Paul writing the Corinthians and saying that 500 people most of which are alive witnessed Christ after He rose from the dead. Doesn't make it true.

But your case would be stronger if you explained how a man could have the gumption to write that knowing that some of these 500 people still lived and could report to the Corinthian church Paul's delusion or lie.

Having a record of a denial on the part of one of these still living persons would make your case a lot stronger.

Or do you resort to hyper conspiracy theory ? Ie. That bit about 500 witnesses being inserted at a latter time.

2 - a jewish man turns to christianity, nothing profound there. people change faiths all the time, doesn't make it anymore real.

Not sure about a Jewish man dragging people from their homes and assisting in their being stoned to death who suddenly becomes the strongest proponent of what he previously sought to eradicate.

Do you have a good alternative theory why he changed so drastically ?

3 - people who believe in christianity make bold claims about it every day, does it make it true no? look at this from the angle of another religion, they all have advocates in history that wrote about their faiths, does that make their faiths real.......nope.

Add to this the evidence that the gospel writers obviously sifted through in detail accounts in order to separate what they were sure of from what may not have been true.

Number one - Luke was a methodic and careful journalistic researcher conducting research and would not have jumped at every tale of it could not be solidly verified. This weakens your legend theary.

Number two - John discriminates between sayings that went out which we not legitimate teaching of Jesus and statements that were. Again, not pushing forward every report simply because it promoted Jesus as God's Son.

This may not prove the truthfulness of their writings. It weakens the "Oh that's just how myths and legends are made" theory you trying to spin.

Professional historians look for evidence of false propaganda, self serving reports. And they are inclined to view embarrassing material as probably more reliable.

Ie. We might expect the enemies of Bill Clinton to report his affair with Monica Lewinsky. We'd expect 1000 years from now for his then enemies to do that.

For people sympathetic to Clinton to admit the affair suggest the self incriminating evidence probably means its true.

The Gospel writers write much potentially embassessing information which could be used against their cause.

Ie. Jesus own family didn't believe His claims.
Jesus was called a wine bibber.
Jesus was thought of as mentally unstable.
Jesus a rabbi, had a woman wipe His feet with her hair.
His own disciples didn't believe Him.
His own disciples forsook Him.
He was accused of having a demon.
He was accused of being in league with the Prince of Demons.
His leading disciple He called "Satan" once.
His disciples often did not understand Him.
He had teachings which are virtually impossible to obey.
He was a Messiah that was cursed (hanging on a tree).
His leading disciple DENIED Him three times with cursing.
He was betrayed by one of His own disciples.
Even after His resurrection some disciple still did not believe.
He cried that God had forsaken Him on the cross.
He said at one time He was God and at another time God was greater.
He spoke some difficult and perplexing sayings.
He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
He said the Father was greater than He yet to see the Father was to see Him.
His disciples refused to move from Jerusalem as He directed and had to be forced to do so by persecution.
His men disciples were not the first to see Him rise from the dead but rather His women disciples were the first.

There are too potentially self destructive and embarrassing details which could have undermined their cause. The inclusion of such difficult and embarrassing admissions suggests candor.

If Jesus was Divine WHY would He complain that God had FORSAKEN Him on the cross ?

If His own brothers didn't believe in Him why should we ? No one was closer to the real man than His brothers.

Why wouldn't the conceal very difficult sayings which might discourage people from following Jesus? What typical man in the world can not look at a woman to lust after her ? Who can turn the other cheek when struck by some belligerent person ? Who can love his enemies ?

Why didn't the disciples CONCEAL difficult and virtually IMPOSSIBLE commands to keep rather than publish them ?

And if His own leading disciple Peter denied Him why should anyone else believe in Him ?

4 - some people believed in what they were preached and changed their rituals in accordance. history is littered with societies adopting new religions. it doesnt make them true.

A weak explanation for how so drastic and sudden a change took place with those indoctrinated for centries.

Beliefs do change in cultures. Often they change because of positive benefit rendered to those who changed.

The change got many of these people thrown to wild animals, eaten by lions, tortured when simple renouncement would have eased the agony, crucified, burnt as torches in Nero's garden, forced to live in caves below the city, killed.

Something more going on here than fairy tale spinning. You sure you're not in some sort of denial ?

How did this carpenter cause such a change in people's beliefs

how did krishna, mohammed, buddha, zeus, odin, osiris, the kami, and all the other gods change peoples beliefs?

Mohammed did so with sword. Islam is indeed a fast growing religion now as then. But getting OUT of Islam is also as dangerous as renouncing the Mafia. It is an enforced religion.

How many countries are there where you have to appear before a panel of three judges in order to change your belief from Christian ? In Indonesia if you no longer desire to follow Islam you better be able to explain it to the judges.

You cannot compare the spread of Islam with that of the Christian church I the early days. Now latter if you want to talk about the enforcement of the Inquisitions with the military raids of Islam, that is fair.

But Islam is fast growing because it is coercive and forced and one can be executed for deciding he no longer wants to be a follower.

I don't know a whole lot about Krishna. Could you list twelve people who were eyewitnesses to Krishna and took Krishna's teaching out to the world ?

Names please ?
On the spot contemporaries of Krishna.
Let me start my comparison there.

Twelve names of contemporaries as eyewitnesses of Osiris would be good too.
Twelve names of contemporaries as eyewitnesses of Odin too please ?

Originally posted by sonship

1 - you can not prove a fairy tale is not a fairy tale by saying one of the characters in the fairy tale believed it was real.

Well, Joseph was not part of the story, unless you want to say the "fairy tale" arranged for secular historian to write about James the way he did.

Hyper conspiracy.

Then Paul. Okay. Paul's strong belie ...[text shortened]... oo.
Twelve names of contemporaries as eyewitnesses of Odin too please ?

None of these other "deities" offered to love me enough to die for my sins and offer me eternal life other than Jesus Christ. They are all dead and none were raised from the dead, other that Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by sonship

1 - you can not prove a fairy tale is not a fairy tale by saying one of the characters in the fairy tale believed it was real.

Well, Joseph was not part of the story, unless you want to say the "fairy tale" arranged for secular historian to write about James the way he did.

Hyper conspiracy.

Then Paul. Okay. Paul's strong belie ...[text shortened]... oo.
Twelve names of contemporaries as eyewitnesses of Odin too please ?

Well, Joseph was not part of the story, unless you want to say the "fairy tale" arranged for secular historian to write about James the way he did.

what proof do you have that joseph existed? and what proof do you have that the events you describe happened?


Paul's strong belief in the resurrection of Jesus does not make it necessarily true. But you could come up with reasons WHY he believed it so soon after persecuting it.

you want me to believe because some guy really liked christianity?? lots of people believe lots of different things. the speed in which he adopted christianity means nothing, he may have just loved the peaceful message it was spreading, especially in such a dark violent time, who knows?

No, Paul writing the Corinthians and saying that 500 people most of which are alive witnessed Christ after He rose from the dead. Doesn't make it true.

did paul take statements from these people? do we know anything about them? do we have any proof they were real?

if they were real. how old were they when pauls work was available to read in there country? how old were they and if they did disagree, were they in a position to travel to complain? if they did travel to complain how would they prove they were who they said they were? if a person off the street complained to the church about a leading christian historian how seriously would it be taken? if you knocked on the door of the vatican and said jesus was in your backyard would the vatican send anybody to check?


Do you have a good alternative theory why he changed so drastically

i dont need one, a dramatic change in a person is not proof they are correct.




Add to this the evidence that the gospel writers obviously sifted through in detail accounts in order to separate what they were sure of from what may not have been true.

you are for too trusting. historical documents are famous for being biased or full of lies, historian have to cross reference various stories to find the truth. there is no cross referencing because there are no multiple witness accounts. you are placing too much faith in a church that has constantly been corrupted over the year.


Luke was a methodic and careful journalistic researcher conducting research and would not have jumped at every tale of it could not be solidly verified.

you hope he was, you do not know for a fact. has is writings been cross referenced? did he cross reference his sources? did he keep a record?


nearly everything you have written is based on taking a leap of faith that these writers were correct. but there just isnt enough evidence to prove that. your fall back is, but they were nice guys and wouldnt lie......not good enough, its trust rather than proof.


Professional historians look for evidence of false propaganda, self serving reports. And they are inclined to view embarrassing material as probably more reliable.

history is full of biased historians, they usually report in favor of who was paying their wages. we find the truth by looking at multiple reports of events from writers at the time and seeing what matches. just blindly trusting historians is folly.

he change got many of these people thrown to wild animals, eaten by lions, tortured when simple renouncement would have eased the agony, crucified, burnt as torches in Nero's garden, forced to live in caves below the city, killed.

i think your desire to think christianity is special blinds you to the truth. christianity isnt the only religion to have martyrs, most religions do. this is not proof of truth is it?


Mohammed did so with sword. Islam is indeed a fast growing religion now as then. But getting OUT of Islam is also as dangerous as renouncing the Mafia. It is an enforced religion.

this is a massive generalization? do you know anything about muslims other than what fox new tells you. some parts of islam are brutal, some are not. the same could be said about some christians.


How many countries are there where you have to appear before a panel of three judges in order to change your belief from Christian ? In Indonesia if you no longer desire to follow Islam you better be able to explain it to the judges.

have things always been so good with christianity? look at your own religions history, it has a violent past or persecuting non christians and even christians of the wrong denomination.

But Islam is fast growing because it is coercive and forced

you really do see things through rose tinted glasses when it comes to your religion. how do you think christianity spread into north america and south america? how did christianity attempt to get into the middle east? how did christianity get into africa?

n.america - we killed the indigenous people wiping out their religion and moved a bunch of people who were alread christians there. they multiplied in numbers and now we have hundreds of millions of extra christians.

s.america - see above.

africa - we killed millions of africans, brought them to their knees then made them become christians.

middle east -we tried to send numerous armies to wipe them out and force them to christianity......but they kicked our arse.

where exactly do you think christianity has spread to peacefully?


Names please ?
On the spot contemporaries of Krishna.
Let me start my comparison there.

my point is not to prove the validity of these religions. im a pointing out that they all have followers that would claim the same as you. their religion makes them happy, they feel their god, they know 100% their god is real, they have seen miracles by their god and so on.

some muslims blow themselves up they believe so strongly. budhists lay down to be crushed by tanks because they know they will be rewarded in the next life, a viking would happily die in battle knowing he was going to valhalla. so where does that leave your religion? hanging onto paul? is paul enough?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]Well, Joseph was not part of the story, unless you want to say the "fairy tale" arranged for secular historian to write about James the way he did.

what proof do you have that joseph existed? and what proof do you have that the events you describe happened?


Paul's strong belief in the resurrection of Jesus does not make it necessarily ...[text shortened]... ing to valhalla. so where does that leave your religion? hanging onto paul? is paul enough?

Certainly, if you will not believe the the record and testimony of the holy men of God, then you would not believe the testimony, even, from one that arose from the dead. Therefore, I say to you prepare for hellfire!

HalleluYah ! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

Well, Joseph was not part of the story, unless you want to say the "fairy tale" arranged for secular historian to write about James the way he did.

That was a typo. I meant to write JOSEPHUS, not Joseph, a wildly recognized ancient Jewish historian - not a character in the four Gospels.

Originally posted by sonship

Well, Joseph was not part of the story, unless you want to say the "fairy tale" arranged for secular historian to write about James the way he did.

That was a typo. I meant to write [b]JOSEPHUS, not Joseph, a wildly recognized ancient Jewish historian - not a character in the four Gospels.[/b]

And it is well known that Josephus' writings were modified by Christians at a later date.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And it is well known that Josephus' writings were modified by Christians at a later date.

Since when?

The instructor

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The author's response...
"Your blogger friend is being illogical. To truly believe that there is no
God you would have to know for sure everything about the universe and
creation to say that God does not exist. You would have to understand
every dimension, time, space, etc. If you didn't then God might exist in
some possible way that you were not su ...[text shortened]... that you still believe in a theos - a god of somekind. If so then
you are not an atheist."

And to say that you have a view of theos that is not of a personal god, means that you still believe in a theos - a god of somekind. If so then you are not an atheist.

Others have already pointed out that it is not I that is being illogical here. With regard to the above, the response is necessarily a bit more complex—

The “G-word” has not always meant something like the (a) supernatural, and/or (b) personalistic, and/or (c) individual entity of western theism. What might be the thoroughly conventional understanding of theos in that paradigm is not, and has not been, the exclusive understanding. For the ancient Stoics, theos was synonymous with the rational principle—rationality/coherence—(logos) of nature (phusis) expressed by way of the underlying generative energy, referred to as pneuma—generally translated as “spirit” (or wind or breath), but used by the Stoics to refer to the natural element of fire or the combined elements of air-fire. Theos is essentially just synonymous with phusis (nature)and the differing terms were just used for the purpose of analyzing the natural universe.

Did some Stoics think there was a god-being (or beings) in the dualistic/individualistic sense? Perhaps—but in general, the philosophy was nondualistic, and theos/phusis/pneuma were just different ways of looking at the whole of nature; and when Epictetus, for example, refers to Zeus, I would tend to take him to be speaking archetypally.

One could make the same kind of point for most of Buddhism (e.g., Zen) as well—to the extent that the “G-word” is even used.

It is these kinds of (strictly non-dualistic, non-supernaturalist, non-individual) “theisms” that I made exception for. Except as a matter of idle word-play, you could hardly call me a theist in any conventional sense—with respect to the kind of god you think is really a god (by whatever name, one or many), I am a weak atheist (ala rwingett); I am a strong atheist with regard to god-concepts that are, upon analysis, illogical or nonsensical. However, if your friend wants to call me a theist because I think that nature is sufficiently coherent to study (science), and I allow for ancient (pre-Christian) usages of the “G-word” to refer to that, that’s fine with me. I think the distinctions are more than a semantic quibble, but perhaps I’m wrong.

Keep well.

Paul's strong belief in the resurrection of Jesus does not make it necessarily true. But you could come up with reasons WHY he believed it so soon after persecuting it.

you want me to believe because some guy really liked christianity?? lots of people believe lots of different things. the speed in which he adopted christianity means nothing, he may have just loved the peaceful message it was spreading, especially in such a dark violent time, who knows?

I simply asked to examine any alternative explanation you had. This mortal enemy of this new sect made a 180 degree turn and went the furthest of all the apostles to establish Christian churches.

I simply asked to propose an alternative explanation for such a drastic change in attitude.

I see this:

he may have just loved the peaceful message it was spreading, especially in such a dark violent time, who knows?

As a critic he did not consider the belief that Jesus was the Messiah as peaceful. He felt it a most serious threat to the national life and religion of the Jews.

Now, you propose that somewhere along the line he decided "Well, actually there is an awful lot of peace within this message."

Okay, I consider that your plausible theory. He suddenly decided to drop all the implications of the Jews being under Roman Imperialism and a nation Savior arising who did NOT trounce their armies but rather talked about loving one's enemies.

And he weighed that message against all that he knew about God establishing Israel as the top nation in the world and Jerusalem as a theocratic capital among all nations, and he thought on it. And he decided that the Jews can shelve all that previous promise and just remain under the Romans and adopt this new peaceful teaching of this carpenter / rabbi.

Its a long stretch I think. And I am not sure how you are considering what his thoughts were about the claim that Jesus was resurrected.

Now out of his own mouth, he SAID that Jesus appeared to him, blinding him, commissioning him on the spot - a supernatural encounter. That's what he said.

You're suggesting I guess that after he mused on the peaceful aspects of this new message, maybe he concocted a appearance story to reinforce it ?

Somehow the idea of the PEACE in the gospel message caused him to drop all his nationalistic fervor.

This PEACEFUL impression does have its limits. He says Jesus comes to save the believers from the wrath of God that is coming.

" ... await His Son from the heavens, whom He raised from the dead, Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath which is coming." (1 Thess. 1:10)

In his letter to the Thessalonians he writes of Jesus coming in flame of fire for vengeance against those persecutors opposing the Gospel.

"Since it is just with God to repay with affliction those afflicting you, And to you who are being afflicted, rest with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power, in flaming fire,

Rendering vengeance to those who do not know God and to those who do not know the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His strength when He comes to be glorified in His saints ...." (2 Thess. 1:6-9)

Now I don't disagree that Paul did say some impressive things about the peace of Christ. He did write a lot about the peace of God.

But as you can see this peaceful aspect is not without some limits. He is not so overwhelmed with God's peace that there is no room in his teaching for God's vengeance upon those afflicting the Christians.

he may have just loved the peaceful message it was spreading, especially in such a dark violent time, who knows?

Second Thessalonians chapter one isn't totally a peaceful message.

Have another "who knows?" theory a little more realistic than this one?