The 2nd Great Christian Argument

This should prove interesting.

 

They don't get their morals from the bible.

 

It's a good point certainly. I've never known many Christians who act with the morals of Jesus. Only my grandfather (an INFJ), and a Jehovas Witness guy I met.

 

Moderate christians don't tend to follow what jesus said either. They tend to think acting politely and obeying the government makes them good christians.

 

The bible is morally contradictory, wherever they get there morals from it isn't the bible (or they must be very confused).

 

I wouldn't say the Bible (specifically the New Testament, since you say 2,000 years old) dictates my morality to a great extent. I believe the basics of morality are instinctual, and most have clear evolutionary advantages to explain their innateness. The Bible is therefore redundant on many of these points, and we already have a knack for determining whether the moral advice found in the Bible makes sense.

Your question doesn't segue well to the arguments you list, anyway. The arguments are for the authenticity of the historical accounts of Jesus's life in the Gospels, and do not translate to arguments for the correctness of Jesus's moral teachings, or even for the validity of the rest of the Bible. Considering the convoluted history of the assembly of the Bible, I don't think that the arguments extend properly to cover much beyond the Gospels themselves.

I would add the many cases of claimed "personal experience," including some presumed miracles witnessed by crowds, such as the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. Even the Shroud of Turin provides an intriguing, though not essential bit of evidence.

 

Let's get this straight then: you are looking to debate/debunk the four main arguments that you listed, and the question about morality is more a launching pad than the focus of your arguments. Correct?
I await your comments on the four arguments.

 

there's arguing the fruits, arguing the origins, and of course, you COULD argue the doctrine.

 

I've been able to argue the doctrine with jehovas witnesses without them kicking up a stink about it.

 

My take as an atheist to those arguments:

Yes it'd certainly seem like that. If there was no empty tomb you'd think that these followers of christ would be ridiculed and even hunted. At least untill a time would come when the local rulers (romans in this case) would find it beneficial for them to unite the people under a common belief system. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened. Only long after the supposed resurrection was christianity really taken seriously outside a small, cultish circle of people.

Josephus's authenticity is very questionable. The historical Josephus was not a christian, yet this supposed document of his describes Jesus as the true messiah and a wise man ("if it be lawful to call him a man") who performed many miracles. This is not a non christian source, and it is most likely a forgery.

Other historians mentioned merely mention "christ" (which, as far as I can remember, means "The anointed one", nothing more.)

People do things like this all the time. This argument presumes things about human nature that simply are not true. There have always been cult leaders widely regarded as crazy. Surely you wouldn't accept this as an argument from people who see UFOs and speak to fairies on daily basis?

Also, the Disciples coud have been mistaken, they were just people.

It truly is a mystery. How would it ever be possible to write a book in which the main character fulfills profecies established in another, way older book.


But seriously, I don't believe biblical morals dictate anyone's world view nowdays. Some christians believe they get their morals from the bible, but they are still cherrypicking only the nice parts (haven't seen many stonings in western world lately), and to do that you need another source for morals, since you need an opinion of right and wrong to be able to choose between good and bad parts.

 

Sorry for a bit of necro on the thread here!

A very good question to ask them. Morality can easily be achieved through a secular argument...and a secular argument has the added advantage of being revisable as the ages progress. When an omnipotent being that threatens to send you to hell is in charge, you really can't revise!

An empty tomb proves little...only that the body wasn't where they thought it should be (100 other reasons...more believable ones...that it could have been empty). Just because it coheres with the argument that Jesus raised from the dead doesn't mean that he actually did.

Plus, I doubt the Roman soldiers had any clue that Christianity would dominate Europe just a few hundred years later!

I'm not knowledgeable on these historians, or really the history of the time outside the happens of just a few years earlier (Julius Caesar, his death, and the war between Augustus and Mark Antony), but from what I've heard, no extra-biblical historian actually documented anything about a Jesus of Nazareth's actual life, only the following he gathered afterwards.

You INFJs understand how corrupt people can be from what I understand! There's many psychological reasons why they would have gone into the world.

Plus, the Buddha's disciples went forth and preached what happened with him, and several other religions claim the same thing. Can't Buddhists claim that Buddhism is the right religion and the Buddha ascended into Nirvana, etc, for the same reason?

Once again, coherence =/= causality. Just because he seemed to fulfill some (vaguely stated and easily interpreted in many different ways) prophesies...which he could of gone out of his way to purposely understand those prophecies and then do them anyways...doesn't mean he's the person described in the Old Testament as being the savior.


I in no way mean to be hateful at all of Christianity, and completely respect the views of Christians, but the religion has a lot of gaps and philosophical problems in my point of view. My favorite being that you can't understand God's ways, but somehow we can understand what he wants from us and that he is omnipotent/omniscient, etc. The entire concept of God seems very counter-intuitive (not the psychological intuitive!) when you look at the world.

 

Your arguing with faith. Faith is a lie. It's what others tell you to believe until you build your own faith based on what others think. Faith is a dangerous thing because it makes people believe their own lies. How many people have been persecuted because of that faith? On both sides. We have many records other than the bible that contradict each other. And can be stretched to make truth. Christians are just closer to the Jews than they want to admit. And I would argue that Christians get their morality from the jews. If you look at their moral background it is very simmiliar to christians.
Arguing with church people is like arguing with a meth addict. Nobody believes what they say and they need their next fix. Spent my life arguing with people who hated me for my religion. People are the problem always have been.
It seems that man likes to control other men. The bible and religion in general gives them that control over us and we let them. I always thought I was here to make mistakes and learn. If they only have four reasons you were talking to wanna bees. Get a real bible thumper on your ass. You better pack lunch and a dinner it's gonna be a long night.

 

Satya, when were you going to continue with this?