Taking Sides: Atheism vs. Christianity

I need to know this for some of the stuff in the Bible to make sense to me.

Anyone know?

You know, the Hindu scriptures are even older than the Bible - they've been around forever, and there are millions of believers in them worldwide - do you accept them to be true because people still believe in them?

x-post: not to make sweeping generalizations or anything, but the general rule of Christian discourse is "ignore anything you can't answer"

This is the point I made to you:

Faith is not enough. I don't have it and I won't pretend to have it in the hope of getting it on someone's word. (I know you think Jesus's word is different, and fair enough, but I believe that the historical Jesus existed without believing in what Jesus believed or what subsequent Christians believe.)

The existence of God has no basis in sense or science, so why should I go for it, except perhaps to save my soul (another 'thing' that I don't believe in).

Asking people to read the Bible before making a judgement on Jesus or Christianity or God is like asking people to read Mein Kampf before judging Hitler. I judge Hitler by what he did. And I'll judge God by the same method. According to that method, I have no proof that He exists, so I don't see any reason at all to read His book.

And this is your answer:

You have proof its the Gospels written by people who were closest to him.

I edited this out of the paragraph it came in because the rest of the paragraph speculated on my beliefs and were entirely false.

Have you got a better response than this?

did you follow the links upthread? I have read the bible, and lots of Christian apologetics. if your faith is strong, you should really look hard into the argument against an historical Jesus.

Brooks, tell me, please, can you not see what is wrong with your method in the following passage, which I've cut from up thread?

--

Now Jesus existed u cant argue against that history proves it. Therefore hes either of these a lunitic, liar, God,or a prophet. If hes a prophet then he lied making himself not a prophet.
This, by the way, is nonsense. C.S. Lewis, whom I like, was fond of this "proof," and I do love the way Lewis parses it ("we can either dismiss him as a madman or fall at his feet, but let's have no more of this calling him a great teacher" - paraphrased badly, but something along those lines), but it assumes strictly western, modern values: a man who says God sent him - well! either he's telling the truth, or he's crazy, or he's evil! ummm OR he's a Vaisnava who means what he says in a way you don't hear because you don't live the prayerful life he does! OR he's a teacher in a (very strong & great) Buddhist tradition where illogic is used to smash the unhelpful materialistic workings of Mind! Or, or, or, or a bunch of stuff, all equally interesting, pertinent and possible. Bottom line: Jesus could say ALL THE THINGS HE SAID and still not be God, crazy, or evil. OR a prophet. Of course he could.

-- Thomas Tallis (tallis4...) (webmail), January 23rd, 2004 4:00 AM. (Tommy) (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

haha i wasnt paraphrasing CS lewis on that one thats a standard question u must ask urself about Jesus..... he has to be one of those 4
-- B. Robinson (guitar8...) (webmail), January 23rd, 2004 4:01 AM. (later)

x-post I don't think Brooks meant to be aggressive, I think he's just coming off that way because 1) he's a little under fire here and 2) vagaries of posting-on-message-boards - certainly I take no offense at his asking, I mean I'm here arguing religion with him so it's a fair question, if badly timed

Christ's followers, the ones who wrote about him, had read the Old Testament before they wrote the Gospels. There is plenty of literature explaining how they made his story fit those prophesies.

What they had to gain was the sort of religion that mattered to them. The New Testament is littered with criticisms of the dominant religions at the time, so what they had to gain was a religion that was not corrupt, fallen, betrayed, irreligious, etc etc. I'm sure that mattered a great deal to them, and in their view of things, that meant they had a great deal to gain.

I think a more interesting argument is what kate touched on earlier. Whether christianity or atheism is a better, more practical position to hold. Obviously this depends upon where and when you live. For the record, my personal position would tend to be more in favor of atheism than christianity (though i'm not really fond of either), because I think that the mindset and worldview that go along with theism is generally unhealthy.

That's because Christian apologetics is actually a very complicated feild of study. Truth is not something that any man can just think up as nonchalantly or easily as you'd think.

You putting this agenda into the writings of all the people who wrote the new testament seems to be an awfully closedminded approach to looking at it.

I completely misread this statement, but my comment below is still relevant to something.
(and ,many amazingly intellecual people are Christians Jonathan Edwards for example. Stereotyping them as foolish just so you can not feel like your going against something very intellecual by thinking their belief's are foolish is not accurate)