Prove to me your religion is wrong

“Have you ever explained why you think that Sarge? If so, can you link to it for me. If not, are you up to explaining it here, today.

No, other than saying I personally went through the experience myself. I was not always a Christian (until 30 years old). I was as bad as you in condemning it. I literally stomped on a Bible in front of a Christian. But, I started really researching it and origins with an open mind. Then, after determining there is a God, I looked into which religion is correct. All logical signs pointed to Christianity. The explanation would go on for weeks, but as always, I'm here to answer specific questions.

By the way, I wasn't trying to ignore your question. I was trying to get you to ask it in a clear and concise manner.

My question is as follows (with background first):

Your claim is that Christianity is "silly". Something is "silly" when it is unreasonable to be true. That is, "silliness" follows logic, not the other way around. You provided the "silly" argument" (which is really a conclusion, not an argument), without providing the argument (why is it unreasonable?). My question is: Why is it silly?”

“Good, you dropped your "irrelevant" non-sequitur and are writing intelligibly.

I call the jesus myth silly because it lacks face validity, for one. There's really nothing outside the number-of-believers-factor to prompt an investigation into its veracity. It's not particularly compelling. Like I said before, if you asserted that gravity is cosmic invisible super glue, there would be no reason to take it seriously (unless one was wondering why millions may believe it). I can make up any nice story about God, reify it through self-referential works written by my own cabal, and call it Truth. (I'm actually being charitable when I say that christianity does contain a core bit of truth to it.) But that doesn't mean my religion has face validity, let alone any deeper foundation.

But really, a zombie son of God? A rib-woman? Resurrection, miracles, exclusivity...

All that is only just-so testimony, with no objective proof. It adds nothing of substantive value to the religiospiritual aspect of the religion (although it does serve to fill a number of other functions). Also these stories are often a reflection of human social behavior. That's another reason not to suspect a deeper meaning, as academic study has shown that religions have tended to deify social behavior. Why suspect the supernatural about something all-too-profane. All other religions do this as well; different just-so stories. There's no objective logical reason to believe one of these religious mythologies over another (though I would like to hear your logic on that).

This is my perspective. I could go on, but I'm trying to do 3 things at once here.”

“The 1+1=2 part of your argument is irrelevant. You haven't shown (or even tried) relevance.

There are a couple problems with your first argument. One, there is enough historical evidence that the 'actors' in the Bible were real, in fact, it's almost never doubted, even by non-believers. The only real doubt by reputable historians is regarding the deity of Jesus. The events, people, locations in the New Testament Bible (and therefore the Old, as they referenced them) are almost all historically proven accurate, with few exceptions. The ones that are exceptions have not been disproven. There is probably more evidence for the writings of the bible being true from a historical perspective than any other historical book in non-modern times since then, and before. With your argument, why trust any historical book? The other problem with your argument is the sheer number of witnesses to Jesus. The events back then were never questioned if they happened. (show me that they were, you cannot) - Again, the only question even posed back then was the deity of Christ.

Regarding the logical reasons of accepting Christianity over others, there are many. Where to begin? Again, gotta question, just ask. Like you said, there is too much to discuss 3 things at once.

Here's a very brief summary though:

Jews - agree to Jesus, doubt his deity. Must ignore their own writings to do this which is illogical (denying the Christ). They were humiliated because they didn't "get" the heart issues of the law. Agree that there will be a savior, just not Jesus. Highly doubtful because statistically, Jesus met their own prophesies to a point where there is no way He is not the Messiah.

Buddhism - not originally a religion. Modified in an inconsistent way over time to become one, which is illogical. Truth is truth.

Islam - made-up and based on Christianity by some dude in a mountain. (similar to the cult of Mormonism) No evidence for it's authenticity other than the word of 1 man, who simply revised what Jesus had already written, yet not denying Him. That's impossible by Jesus' own Words, He does not change. Logically, the religion is an impossibility.

Hindu - believes in Christ as deity, but contradicts itself b/c Christ Himself said there is no other God, yet it believes in multiple Gods. Completely illogical.

This is just a brief synopsis of what's inconsistent of the others.”

“Having faith in ones self seems to be excluded. When 'The You' is where the buck stops, so will all the disagreement within your self.”

“There is probably more evidence for the writings of the bible being true from a historical perspective than any other historical book in non-modern times since then, and before. - Sarge

You're overstating the case. There's plenty of historical referencing in the Bible that's been objectively corroborated. But nothing regarding miracles or resurrections or such. There is even real debate over christ himself. But that christinaty does referenc

No evidence for it's authenticity other than the word of 1 man, who simply revised what Jesus had already written, yet not denying Him. - Sarge

Same can be said about christianity. There is no objective, external corroboration of anything of a spiritual nature. The original cabal that made up the cult of christianity does not qualify.”

“But nothing regarding miracles or resurrections or such. There is even real debate over christ himself.

Other than in writing by the people who witnessed it, which there is that, who else could write it? The people who did write it defended their words to their torturous deaths.

Same can be said about christianity. There is no objective, external corroboration of anything of a spiritual nature. The original cabal that made up the cult of christianity does not qualify.

Again, how can you accept the word of people who were not at the events (that of thousands - none of which was argued at the time), over the people who were there? You're missing the point that thousands of people witnessed his miracles, it was written about, defended to the torurous death of many, and nobody said those people were lying except the people in power who were threatened by the prospect of a "new king". Think about what you're saying. The people (a) wouldn't take the torture and imprisonment and beheadings, etc.. to defend something that they didn't witness. Why would they? And, why didn't anybody "call them out" over it in any books, etc?

Your story seems much less probable than mine, and you seem to be looking to only accept the word of people who were not there.”

“If all that is too wordy, just answer this summarized question: Why are you looking for a historical reference from somebody who was not there, rather than accept the word of those that were?

reference: There's plenty of historical referencing in the Bible that's been objectively corroborated. But nothing regarding miracles or resurrections or such.”

“sorry Sarge, I got busy. I'll have to pick it here later.”

“Times up. I win.”

“This could rile up some fundies.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_county/bal-te.md.co.bunky05nov05,0,4114188.story

Could that be a picture of Mutt?”

“that's a "he"?”

“Apparently it is a he, name of Bunky.”

“I actually think it's kind of funny he'd waste the money on that.”

“Considsering how much money is "wasted" on "mainstream" churches, it's a mere drop in the bucket.”

“Taxpayers' money wasted on MSC?”

“I didnt realise lottery winnings were considered "taxpayer money".

I doubt it will be a waste of money, in fact I would guess it to be a very profitable venture....”

“I wonder why the libbies don't make fun of these kooks that believe in witches which literally are from faerrie tales.

I think the whackier the idea, the more they support it.”

“the wicca kooks are just as silly. theyre just not as pushy and obnoxious about it”

“Hey, more power to him/her/it. Freedom of speech and religion should be exercised at every opportunity. It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. A church or place of worship on every street corner of every stripe, creed, order or faith is what I want to see.”

“Could that be a picture of Mutt?

That's a really unflattering photo. IRL I'm much fatter. Big is Beautiful.”

“Poor crash bang, somebody talked to him about God. Did it make you cry?”

“I agree with Nigal, "a church on every street corner"...and a tavern in between.”

“no, it just made me sick of hearing about it.”

““no, it just made me sick of hearing about it.”

Tell God you're sick of hearing about Him. He'll give you what you wish for.”

“Speaking of magic.”

“i wish

that reminds me of a story that i read in jr high lit. about some soldier who was on trial for something or other, and was heard to utter "i wish i had never heard the name america" or something like that. so part of his sentence was that during his confinement, no one would ever say the name of his country. and in the end he loved his country, and humped the statue of liberty. the end”

“i wish i could remember the name of that story”

“I think it was "Man Without A Country" and his name was Phillip Nolan.”

“Nigal, freedom OF religion IS freedom FROM religion.
How could it not be?
No one can force religion on me.
Next time those religion hustlers come a'knockin' I'm settin' the dogs on 'em.
Now, if I only had some dogs.


And why do we have to SHOUT?”

“MarkO,

"freedom FROM religion" is "freedom OF religion", but "freedom OF religion" is not necessarily "freedom FROM religion"

big difference”

“You're nutz.

Stay away from me with your religion, Buster, or I'm gonna get my shillelagh!”

“Religion the recalled hamburger of philosophy?”

“Nigal, freedom OF religion IS freedom FROM religion.

So going with this line of thinking we can easily say that freedom OF speech is freedom FROM speech? The freedom OF abortion is freedom FROM abortion? The freedom OF voting is the freedom FROM voting?

One freedom can not trample or violate another freedom. If you don't care for the freedom of religion, by all means, do not express it. If you do not agree with the freedom of speech, do not speak. So on and so forth.”

“MarkO thinks the founding fathers were loonie.”

“
God's Final Message to His Creation:

           "We apologise for the inconvenience.”


So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Douglas Adams

(ISBN ISBN 0-330-28700-1)

”

“atheism is a religeon too... :P”

“"Freedom of Religion" does include "None of the Above".”

“where in the quoted article is it that he said he was going to use his winnings to force all you ninnies to become wiccans? Given what happens to some lottery winners I think its a pretty cool thing to do. Putting your money where your heart is and helping others with the same beliefs at the same time.

What is it about the following statement that strikes panic in the supposedly open minded left and the love thy neighbor right...

The future Willow Springs Sanctuary and Community Center - likely to be somewhere in Baltimore County, but Bartlett doesn't yet know where - will teach classes about all religions, offer technology courses for those seeking better jobs and counseling for those seeking to make sense of their lives. And, the $33 million winner hopes, it will help demystify a religion that for most of the public remains shrouded in myth - a fast-growing faith that millions of Americans share, even if they're not always open about it.
last edited: 11/06/07 5:04:18 PM”

“where in this thread were any lefties worried about being forced to become a wiccan? where in this thread was an "open minded //ironic font// left"ie panicking?”

“I was talking about marko and sarge ... opposite bookends.”

“btw, teaching classes about all religions is a unitarian-universalist thing, too. maybe he should join forces with them”

“where was marko panicking about being forced to be a wiccan? hell, even sarge didnt get riled up. the most he could muster was general dismissiveness
last edited: 11/06/07 5:14:29 PM”

“When, I can talk to a dead relative in heaven on a cell phone or a DR in hell on a well phone, I will agree with the church tax exemption.”

“He must be thinking of that Evil Wiccanpedia.

If you want a seriously Out-Loud LOL, check the bit about Paul Weyrich and the Wiccan Soldiers (scroll down to 'Controversy').  You would remember Weyrich for helping found the Heritage Foundation with that wimpy beer nazi Joseph Coors....

Anyway, when Weyrich heard about Wiccan U.S. Soldiers being able to freely practice their religion, he had freakin' kittens, LMAO ----

"Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from witchcraft, no Christian should enlist or re-enlist in the Army, and Christian parents should not allow their children to join the Army" ... "An Army that sponsors satanic rituals is unworthy of representing the United States of America" ... "The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for" ... "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It's time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing."

-- Paul Weyrich "'Satanic' Army Unworthy of Representing United States," Free Congress Foundation press release, June 9, 1999.


Geeeeeeee, what does he think about recruiting Muslims?”

“Right-on, SB.... property taxes for EVERYBODY,      < VBG >”

“What is it about the following statement that strikes panic in the supposedly open minded left and the love thy neighbor right...

Uh, I don't know. You tell me.

Strikes panic?

Hitting the bottle there Hyway?

[edit: I just read further where he said he was talking about me. ... uh .... um .... first off, Hyway, I thought you had me on ignore (snicker) ... secondly ... uh ... what are you talking about?]
last edited: 11/06/07 6:08:47 PM”

“dag. i guess its not image-able
last edited: 11/06/07 6:14:29 PM”

“it's imagabable

”