Living According to Christ: Is it Reasonable?

This is the problem, you are approaching the question ass-backwards.The first thing you should consider when a proposal such as the existence of a god is: "Is there good reason to believe this is true?"I don't think there is. Every attempt to support the Christian god simply fails, either through being better explained by other factors or simply crumbling from within.

Begging the Question logical fallacy. Benjamin Franklin. For one thing we can actually be sure he did most of the things that are attributed to him; we know we are talking about a human being and not mythology.But this portion of your argument is an "Appeal to Popularity" logical fallacy.You need thinking lessons.

That sort of blind loyalty isn't even ethical much less the height of what humans should aspire to. Thats not the point; popularity doesn't mean that what he claimed was true or even that he was a human. There is no genetic fallacy involved, you just don't seem to get the point. If someone makes an Argument from Popularity, pointing out the fallacy isn't itself a fallacy.

Appeal to Emotion. Or you could actually look into the subject and see that the historicity of much of Jesus's sayings and acts are of great debate and doubt.

As you wish, also a fallacy. Appeal to Popularity. (Do you have a learning disability?) Its funny that Jesus would come back to Earth to provide that sort of evidence in a completely unverifiable story but is comfortable with damning people with the same requirements today. Of course it makes perfect sense if its all just mythology... I think you are severely misinformed about the criticism of Christianity. Your account doesn't even match up with your own holy book. Instead you seem to have simply ignored all criticism that didn't come from Christians themselves, which doesn't make any sense considering the point you were trying to make. Then you are brain-dead. You are misinformed. One of the persistent criticisms of the Catholic Church is that it officially questioned and refused to recognize the genocide ongoing within the Nazi regime in return for being sponsored as the official Nazi religion.As for a historical Jesus having existed, I think that is more likely than not. For example there is the ridiculous gyrations undertaken to put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem for his birth as the Old Testament prophecies would require, by fabricating a census that never occurred. The census idea doesn't even make sense because making everyone travel to their birthplace defeats the whole idea of a census in the first place. Its that sort of transparent fabrication that makes me think there was a historical Jesus figure, but that a large portion of his recorded acts and message are mythology.

Logical fallacies are not generally indicative of the right track to truth. You are interested in believing the truth, right? That doesn't make any sense. Why would you gauge if a book is fictitious by its own assessment of itself? Thats moronic. First of all, I'm trying to get your attention. I have pointed out flaws in your thinking and you blindly prattled on without modification. Evidently something else is required to make you perk up and take notice.Second, those are not ad hominems. An ad hominem would be my saying that I am correct *because* you are unable to learn from being shown your mistaken thinking. Instead I am saying I am correct backed up by reasoned argument, and as a separate matter expressing derision at your inability to learn from your mistakes.Now I am rubbing your face it them in hopes that you will start to apply yourself. First of all you brought up Thomas, not me. So don't try to spin a line of bullshit about how I am jumping all over the place. Second, I'm not appealing to emotions or outrage to make my point. If the story were true then Jesus's actions would be inconsistent with his purported nature; he would be withholding evidence he happily provided in other circumstances causing people to be damned for eternity, therefore he wouldn't be considered loving or merciful.If my point were "Jesus wasn't divine because I am pissed off!" then you would be correct. But it wasn't, and you're not. I don't suppose you have considered the possibility that the protests raised by, and protests addressed by, the same book being the same isn't at all impressive? Also, considering the volume of vague blather about future opposition it would be more surprising if there was some challenge that wasn't vaguely mentioned. Not so; we are talking about what you can think of, not who existed. Your inability to think of things is directly addressed by criticism of your mental faculties.Now to the point: There were plenty of people who considered the Jesus described in the story to be a fictional personage. It may have been based in a real person, it might not have been, but the Jesus as portrayed in the story wasn't believed to have been born by many. No virgin birth, no miracles, etc. Would you be attempting to shift the goalposts? Now that would be rather dishonest wouldn't it? Heck, Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust today.Besides, we are talking about the modern era with photographs and global communication. Thats quite a bit different from Bronze Age record keeping and communication.

Thats the first (and last) claim you made that wasn't pure opinion, and its completely unverifiable and extremely doubtful. That doesn't work for the Bible and it won't work for you.Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

To phrase it another way, "Why would you gauge if a book is fictitious by what the book has to say about itself?"I'm going to give you a pass on this because the wording on my first post was somewhat open to misinterpretation. However I still think you are intentionally reaching with that. I said mythology, not propaganda. Myths and legends don't always develop through coordinated effort, but through incremental exaggeration and fabrication. Also many myths have some factual elements left over. This seems perfectly consistent with a scam artist who develops a following but doesn't have the family in on it. For all you know this *is* the sanitized version. Yes, the Judeo-Christian religion seems inherently masochistic doesn't it? A: Not propaganda, myth.
B: Except for any independently verifiable accounts of anything significant to back up the story.
C: Says your completely irrelevant opinion. Gee, wouldn't it be convenient if there was some way he could have contacted a supervisory being with all that information squared away so he could clear up that confusion? Too bad nothing like that exists ehh? Sounds like the story casts significant doubt on itself in addition to completely lacking reliable historical support, as well as contradicting our understanding of the universe and natural law. Weren't you arguing in favor of this thing? But what if they were gradually modifying stories about a being which they believe to exist but allowed their imagination to modify through belief in a sort of "extrasensory revelation" where disembodied voices or urges could guide their actions? Sort of like Ouija boards. Then you are wrong. They are quips, perhaps even insults, but they are not ad hominem unless the justification for an argument is based on them.I'll add an inability to properly use logical terminology and willful ignorance to your tab. I knew old potty mouth would come out sooner or latter. LOL.[/qs]I think you have forgotten to actually make an argument or point. It seems pretty clear and concise, but I'm game to run over the basics again.The story says that Jesus provided Thomas with direct physical proof and examination to prove the reality of his death and resurrection. There are many atheists today who happily convert if Jesus would do the same thing as done for Thomas; physically manifest himself and allow examination to prove the reality of the claim.Yet he does not, with the reported consequences being eternal damnation. Now we know that Jesus was willing and able to do it once, so what possible reason could he have to not do it for these people? To allow people to be tortured forever simply because he can't be arsed to magic himself down to Earth for a show-and-tell session is *cruel* and inconsistent with his purported nature. I'm not interested in your feelings. Your feelings are, if not completely irrelevant, at least irrelevant to me. I'm interested in proof. Bilbo Baggins also wrote with sincerity. Gee, I'm glad nobody else in the course of human history has died for the sake of a different faith. I would hate for such a sacrifice to be completely useless as a discerning factor. Scout's Honor?! Well gosh, guess that settles it. First of all Josephus isn't reliable. "And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too."
- Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1048—1131)But you don't need those names; you already said you were aware that Jesus's own family doubted him. So what are you going on about? And you have sunk to blatant advocation of logical fallacies. I'm going to put this is plainly as possible:You don't think well. There are clear flaws in your thought and you are not even making an effort to fix them. This is why I won't, and nobody else should, pay any attention to what you think about things. And you appear to have no interest in intellectual honesty or coming to correct conclusions.

Since when did "I feel like I'm right" become an even halfway valid justification for something like this? Ok, a few issues here. Citing 500 unnamed witnesses of which there is no other record is no evidence at all. How many people witnessed Hercules's feats of strength?For another thing, travel was fairly difficult in that time. If the Corinthians were given the claim "500 people saw this" not only don't they have a single name to go off of, but also may not have even been able to get to the area in question. At any rate, the Corinthians didn't really seem to have recorded any verification of the claim. I gathered, good for you. So what? Nobody cares if you think its believable. Second, you are apparently a colossal idiot because you don't think humans are capable of making up a character such as Jesus Christ.You have to be shitting me. Good for you. The same or similar could be said for the devotees of any other religion as well. We can chalk this up to more of the meaningless statements in your ridiculously long post. Just because its obvious they are writing to convince doesn't make it true, or propaganda. If you weren't assuming that it did then thats apparently a completely unjustified claim. Either way I don't know what you were trying to do there. C.S.Lewis was biased, and the majority of literary critics don't agree. Furthermore appeals to authority don't make sense here, even if the style of writing at all indicated the truth of the claims written about which it does not. Prove it. Yes you are, apparently your world view prevents you from examining this subject with the appropriate rigor. Your surety of your conclusion or your ability to understand alternative explanations are only relevant as factors which hinder your analysis of the topic.As for the rise and spread of the Christian faith, it appears to be very similar to the rise and spread of other religions. I would be curious about your ability to understand them. Which ones were those? The unnamed, unaccounted for 500 that nobody other than the author ever interviewed?There were 1,000 witnesses the other day that saw Jesus appear and explain that he was never crucified or resurrected. This happened somewhere in China, and no I am not telling you any names. Also, there are no independent records and you can't contact me for clarification. Now its *apparently* 2 to 1 in my favor. Prove it.It seems a rather odd request until you realize that everything you just listed is completely in your head. Prove you didn't just imagine those things by being told about a fictional being that never existed, and about the magical stuff that being will never actually do. And here we have it; you are holding on to your beliefs not because you have any particular confidence that they are true, but because you don't have an attractive alternative. As if comfort and appeal was the determining factor of something being true or not.I'm not pitching a philosophy. I'm saying your beliefs about events and beings are untrue, and thus your philosophy is unjustified. I'm sure your imagination has been very active, and you feel very strongly about things. I don't care, that doesn't make things true. About that.. its interesting there is no archaeological evidence to suggest those people went marching around that area at all, or Egyptian records of their coming or going despite their otherwise detailed border traffic records. Let me guess; a huge Egyptian cover up and these hordes of people didn't leave a trace? And so for the sake of plausibility what can we conclude?You almost forgot which side you are supposed to be biased toward ehh? Interesting that you would admit to worshiping what may well turn out to be an evil god just for the sake of mercenary gain. Other more noble people might be willing to take a moral stand despite the sacrifice. I aspire to be greater than I am. Thats something to be respected.On the other hand you suggest I was created sick and commanded to be well. That I am to be damned for a failing I have no ability to rectify, or part in causing. How is that moral? Thats like building a house with no frame and then cursing it when it falls down. Who is really at fault? My point there highlighted how the sincerity of a writing style is no at all indicative of the truth of the statement written. You seem to have completely missed the point. You don't frighten me Deific pig dogs! Go and boil your bottoms son of a silly person! I blow my nose at you so called King of Kings, you and all your silly religious Knnniggits! Thbbbttt!(Paraphrased from The Quest for the Holy Grail, and adapted for godly mocking.)Your god is mocked aplenty, don't say such ridiculous things if you don't want to be called on them. No, it may be a historical fact that they died (everyone did) but their reasons or loyalty are hardly fact. Surely you can conceive of the core group of followers being rounded up and executed regardless of their recanting and then the remaining followers recording them as stalwart to their deaths. Thats not the way things go. You have to have a good reason to think something is true; you don't assume that something is true until proven false.The fact that there are strong beliefs other than in the New Testament proves that strong belief isn't something that you can use as evidence for your position. But it seems as if thats all you have to offer.

As if letting it marinate for 2000 years is any better. I was assuming that you are not a complete moron and have heard of other religions and their religious claims and experiences. Yes, that pesky thing called reality. Oh, its certainly relevant. Having schizophrenia is relevant in 2011 AD. Is that really all we are talking about? I don't doubt your ability to generate hypothetical objections. However to equate an event with numerous living witnesses, documentation, photographic proof, biological verification, etc... with something that happens purely within your head is ridiculous. Heck, I will even call it dishonest. I don't count the repetitive dreamer as a participant in a conversation. Its just a posture.And thus, SNIP! You are done!

The Ancient Egyptian religion persisted for more than 3000 years, yet today there are little to no believers.I have no illusion or goal of ridding the world of Christianity. But don't think your particular superstition is eternal.