Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christians are very vocal in making their claims. But when push comes to shove they become strangely quiet and touchy about defending those claims. And very hostile over the necessity of providing such a defence. It seems to me that any defence of Christian claims should provide Christians with a splendid platform for establishing the undeniable truth of their beliefs. Instead, any such exchange inevitably results in Christians lashing out at those who contradict them, and then disengaging from the discussion in a great display of indignation. Which, I am afraid, invariably makes them appear to be losers.
The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. This claim appears to be ridiculous to the point of being silly. If Christians really have unimpeachable evidence to support such an apparently ridiculous claim then they should be delighted to present it at every opportunity. And if an open examination of the presented evidence causes the "evidence" to fall completely apart, then perhaps it is Christians that should begin giving serious thought to what it is they think they believe.
Do Christians really have an unimpeachable case for their beliefs? Or is it simply a case of "It's all true because that's what I was raised to believe?" Which is the foundation of EVERY religious belief, whether currently in practice, or having long since fallen extinct.
Christians are very vocal in making their claims. But when push comes to shove they become strangely quiet and touchy about defending those claims. And very hostile over the necessity of providing such a defence. It seems to me that any defence of Christian claims should provide Christians with a splendid platform for establishing the undeniable truth of their beliefs. Instead, any such exchange inevitably results in Christians lashing out at those who contradict them, and then disengaging from the discussion in a great display of indignation. Which, I am afraid, invariably makes them appear to be losers.
The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. This claim appears to be ridiculous to the point of being silly. If Christians really have unimpeachable evidence to support such an apparently ridiculous claim then they should be delighted to present it at every opportunity. And if an open examination of the presented evidence causes the "evidence" to fall completely apart, then perhaps it is Christians that should begin giving serious thought to what it is they think they believe.
Do Christians really have an unimpeachable case for their beliefs? Or is it simply a case of "It's all true because that's what I was raised to believe?" Which is the foundation of EVERY religious belief, whether currently in practice, or having long since fallen extinct.
That would depend on what the "claims" are. There are many "claims" that are supposed to be fundamental to Christianity that can't be supported either biblically or rationally, this is true.
The question to ask is what is of real value in any of the claims and see if there is not a solid basis in human i9nteraction. For most, there is not. For the basis that Jesus actually taught, there is.
That would depend on what the "claims" are. There are many "claims" that are supposed to be fundamental to Christianity that can't be supported either biblically or rationally, this is true.
The question to ask is what is of real value in any of the claims and see if there is not a solid basis in human i9nteraction. For most, there is not. For the basis that Jesus actually taught, there is.
We have 4 different historical accounts of the life of Jesus (and prophecies regarding him) along with an historical account of the growth of the young church, in addition to letters written to the local churches.
But I'm guessing that the OP really won't take those as evidence. Honestly though, I think if we had 4 times the level of documentation, it wouldn't be enough.
Christians are very vocal in making their claims. But when push comes to shove they become strangely quiet and touchy about defending those claims. And very hostile over the necessity of providing such a defence. It seems to me that any defence of Christian claims should provide Christians with a splendid platform for establishing the undeniable truth of their beliefs. Instead, any such exchange inevitably results in Christians lashing out at those who contradict them, and then disengaging from the discussion in a great display of indignation. Which, I am afraid, invariably makes them appear to be losers.
The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. This claim appears to be ridiculous to the point of being silly. If Christians really have unimpeachable evidence to support such an apparently ridiculous claim then they should be delighted to present it at every opportunity. And if an open examination of the presented evidence causes the "evidence" to fall completely apart, then perhaps it is Christians that should begin giving serious thought to what it is they think they believe.
Do Christians really have an unimpeachable case for their beliefs? Or is it simply a case of "It's all true because that's what I was raised to believe?" Which is the foundation of EVERY religious belief, whether currently in practice, or having long since fallen extinct.
sounds just like any other fundy/milli mental defending a belief statement over reality. In Fact, it sounds exactly like the more vocal atheists here at CD. Their core belief "religion is so dangerous its ok to deny, minimize, and shun any science that weaks that claim."
so what's the difference in belief statements? 'deny anything for my personal need"? pretty much the same thing to me
They might not have the same wings, but its flying B.S. "belief statements" in the face of facts just the same.
what do you want to do about it, tired? address how the universe works openly and honestly or just rail on religion?
I see christian core beliefs as treat your neighbor as you want to be treated. And, Hold healthy idea's (memes) over personal needs.
I haven't met any christian, other than a milli/fundy mental, that doesn't concede that is their main goal.
Christians commonly suppose that the risen Jesus was seen by hundreds of people. Far too many to have been delusional or simply mistaken. The story of a corpse coming back to life is simply not realistic however. Yet hundreds of actual reports written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred by individuals who claimed they saw the risen Jesus would at least make for a strange mystery. THAT would at least be a strong case for believing.
The truth of the matter is that NO ONE REPORTED ANY OF THE CLAIM AT THE TIME IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED. What we actually have are five sources for the story of the risen Jesus; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the letters of Paul. All written years after Jesus was dead. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written anonymously, and the identities of the authors is largely a matter of Christian tradition (it's true because Christians declare it to be so). And Paul, who by his own admission was not a witness to the life and death of Jesus.
None of this "evidence" is sufficient to overcome the ridiculous nature of the claim that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. What we actually have is the nature of the stories that were in circulation by the end of the first century. Acts of the Apostles makes it clear the the immediate followers of Jesus were responsible for spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus. No one but the followers claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. No one but the followers of Jesus claimed to have seen him fly off up into the sky and disappear into the clouds. Claims which are flatly ridiculous and unbelievable.
Much as we have accounts of the wonderful things that Heracles accomplished during his lifetime which we spread by his followers after his death. And while we might find the story of how Heracles managed to slay the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra entertaining, we in modern times are not compelled to suppose that it actually occurred.
Christians commonly suppose that the risen Jesus was seen by hundreds of people. Far too many to have been delusional or simply mistaken. The story of a corpse coming back to life is simply not realistic however. Yet hundreds of actual reports written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred by individuals who claimed they saw the risen Jesus would at least make for a strange mystery. THAT would at least be a strong case for believing.
The truth of the matter is that NO ONE REPORTED ANY OF THE CLAIM AT THE TIME IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED. What we actually have are five sources for the story of the risen Jesus; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the letters of Paul. All written years after Jesus was dead. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written anonymously, and the identities of the authors is largely a matter of Christian tradition (it's true because Christians declare it to be so). And Paul, who by his own admission was not a witness to the life and death of Jesus.
None of this "evidence" is sufficient to overcome the ridiculous nature of the claim that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. What we actually have is the nature of the stories that were in circulation by the end of the first century. Acts of the Apostles makes it clear the the immediate followers of Jesus were responsible for spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus. No one but the followers claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. No one but the followers of Jesus claimed to have seen him fly off up into the sky and disappear into the clouds. Claims which are flatly ridiculous and unbelievable.
Much as we have accounts of the wonderful things that Heracles accomplished during his lifetime which we spread by his followers after his death. And while we might find the story of how Heracles managed to slay the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra entertaining, we in modern times are not compelled to suppose that it actually occurred.
Something as comprehensive and complex as the germ theory of disease. Or a demonstration as convincing as Newtonian Physics.
The problem is (actually the Christian's problem is) that there is no evidence that has survived 2,017 years. Period.
So until he comes back, or until I discover something on the day that I die, I cannot personally conceive of anything that will convince me.
However, take any miracle of the Bible, show to me happening again...now...and you'll open the door for me to believe again. So, on my next walk, I'll be looking for a burning bush to start talking to me.
Christians are very vocal in making their claims. But when push comes to shove they become strangely quiet and touchy about defending those claims. And very hostile over the necessity of providing such a defence. It seems to me that any defence of Christian claims should provide Christians with a splendid platform for establishing the undeniable truth of their beliefs. Instead, any such exchange inevitably results in Christians lashing out at those who contradict them, and then disengaging from the discussion in a great display of indignation. Which, I am afraid, invariably makes them appear to be losers.
The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. This claim appears to be ridiculous to the point of being silly. If Christians really have unimpeachable evidence to support such an apparently ridiculous claim then they should be delighted to present it at every opportunity. And if an open examination of the presented evidence causes the "evidence" to fall completely apart, then perhaps it is Christians that should begin giving serious thought to what it is they think they believe.
Do Christians really have an unimpeachable case for their beliefs? Or is it simply a case of "It's all true because that's what I was raised to believe?" Which is the foundation of EVERY religious belief, whether currently in practice, or having long since fallen extinct.
How about you define what "impeachable evidence" is exactly? Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that my ancestor was a primate? No you can't but that seems to be the level of evidence that atheists demand to even consider if Christianity is true. Futhermore, can you can prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt? Evidence for anything can easily be torn apart. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time.
I have over 100 evidences that give me strong faith that I serve the one true God. It's the sum of evidences that is convincing, not one single smoking gun evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
