Jesus Christ - reasons for skepticism

[Woody]

Why does this matter?

Because these facts are verifiable today by asking the jews, and a Jesus Myth contradicts these facts.

 

[Roman]

Which jesus myth? The one where he was born in a manger or created the universe?

 

[Woody]

This is to be expected when believers and religionists are faced with facts.

"Is not" "is so" arguments are rather futile in my opinion

Rather than educate themselves or continue rational discussion, they generally resort to ad hominem attacks.

I've made two points that nobody is debating. Instead of answering them we get a blustering epistle on your superior intellect.

Intellectual cowardice or just a desire to not be faced with opinions of those with whom he'll be forced to either reconcile facts or compartmentalize a rational process.

Then why doesn't someone address the two points I've made about the jewish people and their history?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2165852&postcount=158

Its fascinating to no end the extremes people go to avoid questioning their preconceived notions or even considering whether their positions might be wrong.

yep I gotta agree. I just keep asking and asking and asking the same thing. The silence is deafening.

Rather than admit that the physical evidence for Jesus as depicted in religious mythology is scant, adherents like Woody would rather go on arguing from ignorance and special pleading where, somehow, his conclusions deserve a different set of rules when it comes to evaluation.

The jewish people live today. Have you ever talked to one of them about their history? They've been around a while. (no shit)

Whether or not a religious cult figure existed who went by the name "Jesus" or not is beside the point. The legend and mythical hero that the name has come to represent almost certainly did not exist. For such a being to exist the laws of physics would need to be shown to also be relative.

but if a teacher named Jesus evolved that would make it better.

In addition, there is good reason to take everything in biblical mythology with many grains of salt if just for the things it gets utterly wrong and its internal contradictions. This, however, is the type of apologetic compartmentalization that gives the appearance of intellectual cowardice (the act or process of being afraid to examine facts and engage in true academic discourse) in matters like the historicity of Jesus.

Well like I said, you could try to answer the two questions asked instead of denying them, like musta did.

Admitting one is wrong is a quality of intellectual courage -the opposite of intellectual cowardice.

but even when I do so you still diss me. When will you apologize for something? nahh you've never said anything offensive or nothing like that.

And I probably wouldn't use such harsh terminology had Woody not invoked the well-refuted Haeckel argument that members of young-earth creationist cults have been invoking and getting their collective faces clobbered with intellectual bitch-slaps for years.

I said Haeckel's argument that embryonic development is a proof to evolutionary development is a logical fallacy to start with because it is Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Analogies tend to work that way.

 

[Woody]

Which jesus myth? The one where he was born in a manger or created the universe?

The Jesus Myth claims that Jesus never existed as a historical person (the subject of this thread in post #1). It is also called the Jesus Myth Hypothesis.

man this is just too hard.....
I can't get anywhere with an atheist. :shrug:

So you still haven't answered the two questions:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2165852&postcount=158

 

[SkinWalker]

I bring up the two points that no atheist cares to address:

I'll address it.

1) In Jewish tradition Jesus is taught as a prophet for gentiles, but not the messiah. The jews have no interest in perpetuating a Jesus myth. So I ask you, why are they?

What "Jewish tradition," precisely, teaches this? Recent trends have led to "Jews for Christ" movements, but this is hardly a "tradition." Traditional Jewish teachings do not include a Jesus nor that the messiah has yet come. Please cite *any* Jewish traditional Jewish text that says otherwise. I recommend starting with the Talmud. Simply put, your claim is not Jewish tradition. Please cite a source that is actually a Jewish traditional text.

2) No Jesus Myther has presented an adequate explanation for the Jesus Killer stigma on the jews from the day of his trial. If Jesus never existed, why didn't the early jews just say so, and rid themselves of this stigma that has followed them for almost 2000 years and culminated in the holocast? I'm sorry but denial of this fact simply will not do.

I see no evidence that such a "stigma" exists beyond the last 50 years. If it exists at all, its likely a recent cultural adaptation and not evidence for the historicity of your alleged messiah.

I bring to your attention once again the Jewish apologetic for the crucifiction of Jesus of Nazereth. It denies Jesus was messiah, but admits he was a Jewish teacher:

His Blood Be Upon Us and the Jewish People

Surely you aren't citing this Christian apologist site as any sort of source? Please cite a Traditional Jewish text. Where in the Talmud is Jesus asserted to be either a messiah or prophet for gentiles. Where in the Talmud is guilt for his alleged execution expressed. There are some traditional Jewish texts which discuss several false messiahs of the day -each executed by the Romans. Perhaps yours was one of these and Early Christian cult leaders piggy-backed his notoriety to create a propaganda to promote their burgeoning cult. Clearly the story, if based on a real person, is embellished to the point at which the resultant hero is a god with magical powers.

The blood of this Jesus, whom atheists say did not exist, is on the jewish people, and nobody can wash it off -- not even the jews -- they know it is true and admit Jesus existed.

This sentiment seems only to exist among Christian bigots who want to put that responsibility on an entire culture. Isn't the atrocity of the Holocaust enough? Must we also blame them for the death and torture of a mythical being believed to be true by a superstitious majority? Must we still continue to fuck with an entire culture by marginalizing them while at the same time calling them "god's chosen people?"

Fundamentalists/Biblical literalists are so warped -their thinking so compartmentalized- that they can't dismiss another ethnic group entirely since their doctrine mentions how the supernatural deity they believe in favors them. But they still find a way to disrespect that culture and express their bigotry by blaming that culture for the death and torture of a person that may not even have existed. And, if he did, was just another insignificant cult leader about whom a grand embellished fiction was constructed.

By the way, your disrespect and bigotry comes through in very subtle ways without you even realizing it. You don't even capitalize Jewish or Jew -but don't hesitate to capitalize Jesus, God, or even place names like Nazareth. Way to go Woody.

You owe us and all the Jewish members an apology.

 

[Pete]

I bring to your attention once again the Jewish apologetic for the crucifiction of Jesus of Nazereth. It denies Jesus was messiah, but admits he was a Jewish teacher:

His Blood Be Upon Us and the Jewish People

The blood of this Jesus, whom atheists say did not exist, is on the jewish people, and nobody can wash it off -- not even the jews -- they know it is true and admit Jesus existed.

That's pretty funny, Woody.
Firstly, that article is by a christian minister, on a Jewish-Christian website (try the what we believe link). It's not any kind of "Jewish apologetic".
Secondly, it specifically denies that the blood of Jesus is on the Jewish people.

I'll also add that many (most?) non-christians don't particularly care whether or not a man called Jesus actually existed, any more than they care about whether Robin Hood, King Arthur, Beowulf, John Frum, Homer, or Baron Munchhausen actually existed.
The more pertinent question is whether or not the stories told about those figures have any basis in reality.

 

[Woody]

I'll address it.



What "Jewish tradition," precisely, teaches this? Recent trends have led to "Jews for Christ" movements, but this is hardly a "tradition." Traditional Jewish teachings do not include a Jesus nor that the messiah has yet come. Please cite *any* Jewish traditional Jewish text that says otherwise. I recommend starting with the Talmud. Simply put, your claim is not Jewish tradition. Please cite a source that is actually a Jewish traditional text.

Much of the synagogue tradition. I recommend you speak to a rabbi. Not all have this tradition but many of them do.

I see no evidence that such a "stigma" exists beyond the last 50 years. If it exists at all, its likely a recent cultural adaptation and not evidence for the historicity of your alleged messiah.

It's a historical fact that's hardly worth debating, that the jews have been scapegoated for this for many many centuries. As you may recall the jews intially persecuted the christians, and then when the romans started the catholic church it went the other way.

Surely you aren't citing this Christian apologist site as any sort of source? Please cite a Traditional Jewish text. Where in the Talmud is Jesus asserted to be either a messiah or prophet for gentiles.

Where in the Talmud does it say Jesus never existed as a person?

Where in the Talmud is guilt for his alleged execution expressed. There are some traditional Jewish texts which discuss several false messiahs of the day -each executed by the Romans.

The bible mentions some of these as well.

Perhaps yours was one of these and Early Christian cult leaders piggy-backed his notoriety to create a propaganda to promote their burgeoning cult.

This is where I bring in the Haeckel analogy -- pure speculation based on antecedents. The way two things "look" does not establish cause and effect.

Clearly the story, if based on a real person, is embellished to the point at which the resultant hero is a god with magical powers.

It is plausable that a person is made bigger than life when poeople talk about him later in history.

This sentiment seems only to exist among Christian bigots who want to put that responsibility on an entire culture.

Well we could bring up what a fraud Haeckel was as an atheist, but would that be fair to you? Why don't you use the golden rule? It works.

Isn't the atrocity of the Holocaust enough? Must we also blame them for the death and torture of a mythical being believed to be true by a superstitious majority? Must we still continue to fuck with an entire culture by marginalizing them while at the same time calling them "god's chosen people?"

ok, that does it. We can not have a logical discussion because you are now super-charged up with primal emotions. Logic has gone out the window and you are totally to blame.

Fundamentalists/Biblical literalists are so warped -their thinking so compartmentalized-

Now comes the sterotypes, l could get emotional and prejudiced like yourself, but I will not. You have to justify yourself, but I don't.

that they can't dismiss another ethnic group entirely since their doctrine mentions how the supernatural deity they believe in favors them. But they still find a way to disrespect that culture and express their bigotry by blaming that culture for the death and torture of a person that may not even have existed. And, if he did, was just another insignificant cult leader about whom a grand embellished fiction was constructed.

non sequitor.

By the way, your disrespect and bigotry comes through in very subtle ways without you even realizing it. You don't even capitalize Jewish or Jew -but don't hesitate to capitalize Jesus, God, or even place names like Nazareth. Way to go Woody.

non sequitor
ad hominen

You owe us and all the Jewish members an apology.

Well Skin Walker I guess this was your very best effort at answering the question proposed to you. I thought maybe you could do better than the others, but there is clearly no hope.

Good day to you. I do not care for any more emotional charged hysteria in this nut house. I could say some bad things about you but I will not. It's all on you.

 

[SkinWalker]

Much of the synagogue tradition. I recommend you speak to a rabbi. Not all have this tradition but many of them do.

This is a non-answer. If it truly is Jewish tradition, it will be available in Jewish texts. This is clearly a myth perpetrated by Christian apologists.

Where in the Talmud does it say Jesus never existed as a person?

This is what you call an argument? Where in the Talmud does it say Popeye never existed as a person? You first need to establish that there should exist a denial of either Popeye or Jesus (ironically, there exists more evidence for the former than the latter).

Good day to you. I do not care for any more emotional charged hysteria in this nut house. I could say some bad things about you but I will not. It's all on you.

Yeah, yeah.... we've heard it from you many times: "I'm leaving! You big, bad atheists are the pits! Blah, blah, blah."

At least be honest. Its not the ridicule and harsh words that drives you away, its the fact that every single premise you provide is shot down. Hard.

 

[Woody]

This is a non-answer. If it truly is Jewish tradition, it will be available in Jewish texts. This is clearly a myth perpetrated by Christian apologists.

You won't ask a real jewish rabbi? :bugeye:

This is what you call an argument? Where in the Talmud does it say Popeye never existed as a person? You first need to establish that there should exist a denial of either Popeye or Jesus (ironically, there exists more evidence for the former than the latter).

Hey, it was your idea to use the Talmud as a reference, not mine. :shrug:

Yeah, yeah.... we've heard it from you many times: "I'm leaving! You big, bad atheists are the pits! Blah, blah, blah."

I was hoping for a civil and rational explanation for a question posed as such. You provided an illogically unrelated response instead. Can't you read a history book without getting emotional?

At least be honest.

good idea. Re-Read your first post in this thread about dodging the question and peppering answers with ad hominens.

Its not the ridicule and harsh words that drives you away, its the fact that every single premise you provide is shot down. Hard.

It sounds more like primal scream therapy for atheists like some kind of Yoko Ono album. :crazy:

You'd probably crucify me if you could to make yourself feel better.

This is not a place for reasoned debate -- it's a scream house.

Emotional answers are worse than no answers at all. If you can't be rational, I suggest you refrain until you can be rational.

 

[SkinWalker]

You won't ask a real jewish rabbi? :bugeye:

Why would I. Your liberal and juvenile use of forum smilies notwithstanding, if I sought out and spoke to a Rabbi (I actually work with one), you'll just come back and say, "you didnt' talk to the right rabbi," or "I don't believe you actually spoke with one."

With you, the goal post always moves. With you, its always bigotry hidden behind the thin veil of denial.

With you, its always "the big, bad atheists are out to get me and they don't play nice." The only time bitch and cry about "ad hominem" remarks is when you get your bullshit called upon. Indeed, you cry and moan about "personal attacks," but never have any qualm about attacking others personally. That's very Christian of you, so I expect it.

Where's your blog? You dropped mentioned this blog of yours that's "syndicated by at least 2 major" media outlets. I'm betting you've got a Wordpress.net or blogspot.net account that probably hasn't had a new post in 4-6 months and no regular commenters. Which major media outlets would bother syndicating this? I'm also betting its nothing but a bitch rant about atheists taking over the intertubes and a hate-site for anti-gay bullshit.

What's the link?

Hey, it was your idea to use the Talmud as a reference, not mine. :shrug:

So you admit that the Talmud and Jewish tradition has nothing to say about Jesus Christ. Thank you. Your argument is officially squashed. You bitched and cried that no one responded. I did ... then you moved the goal post. Guess what? We're not moving the goal post this time. Either show the evidence or shut the fuck up. QED.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

man this is just too hard.....
I can't get anywhere with an atheist. :shrug:

*************
M*W: So is that why you keep coming here--trying to convert the atheists? It'll never work, so you're wasting your time and ours.

 

[John99]

He is not trying to convert anyone and didn't even start the thread. He is right about some things and wrong about others. Did you read the thread or have any questions?

 

[swarm]

He is not trying to convert anyone and didn't even start the thread. He is right about some things and wrong about others. Did you read the thread or have any questions?

Please quote the thing you feel he is actually right about. I can't seem to find it.

 

[CranE]

Just thought to allow people to vent a little as to why they feel intensely skeptical of the truth behind the existence of Jesus Christ as depicted in the New testament of the Christian Bible.

The issues I personally have a problem with are numerous but to start with I shall list some of them below:

1] Illogical use of one man to convey a message. If God is as he is supposed to be why would he limit the conveyance of his message to the immediate contacts that one man Jesus would make. Why not tell the entire world simultaneously?

2] If Jesus as portrayed performed many healing including resurrections of the Dead, why is there no evidence given by those that had been resurrected or by families of those resurrected?
Resurrecting a dead person would in any century be an amazing event and surely humans being human we would see ample written or other wise independent documented evidence that would support the notion of this extraordinary ability that Jesus is said to have had. None is presented and I ask why not?

3] The focus of evidence in support of the Christ is focused only on his disciples and possibly other small accounts that are incapable of being falsified. Eye witness accounts that are too few when there must have been thousands of eye witness accounts worthy of historical recording if Jesus existence had been real and true.

4] That the account of Jesus appears to have been deliberately established in a way that can not be falsified. In other words the church at the time appears to have generated a story that can never be proven or declared false thus leaving it entire up to the work of evangelists to market the notion.

5] From a morality perspective I find it abhorrent and absurd that the church can condone and even worship the crucification of Jesus as being a necessary requirement of his so called father God. This says an awful lot about the nature and morality of that said God. To string his own son up on a cross after having him beaten half to death and claim that it is a necessary thing to do given his all powerful position this reeks of nothing but abuse.

6] Being heavily involved in marketing strategies over the years suugest to me that the Church has exemplified the most persuasive marketing technique known to man kind.

That being "generate a perceived need [ apply the fear factor] and then supply the solution. Perfect marketing.

The movie Mission Impossible shows this form of marketing used as an extreme form of manipulation.

Create a virus and also create an antidote. Release the virus surreptitious and then sell the antidote.
"your sin can only be redeemed by your....."

very powerful marketing indeed.
hence it is little wonder that modern man is cynical.

So at least 6 points of arguement as to why the account of Jesus is difficult to accept as having the possibility of credibility.

any others and care to discuss?

Rather then ask the users of sciforums about it, i'd suggest that you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S Lewis. To me, it is the most accurate depiction of what christianity as a whole is about. C.S does NOT act as a prophet in this novel; Mere Christianity is basically an interpretation on the bible using common analogy's that nearly anyone in the modern world can relate to and understand. As an atheist, if you read this book cover to cover you will understand the moral teachings and understand christianity much clearer.

As for my personal views regarding your original post.

1. Jesus is the human incarnate of God, and is his only begotten son. Jesus is what we call The Trinity; the union of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit all in one being. God did not "tell" the entire world because every individual is unique and will believe what they want to believe. The only thing that can make you believe in such an existence, is your conscious. To some, the human conscious IS God, the Devil, and everything in between in that your conscious is what drives you to do the things you do, whether good or bad.

2. I cannot argue with/against this point as I personally have no knowledge of Jesus resurrecting the dead.

3. I truly believe that Jesus Christ was a real person. While you can choose to say that there is simply not enough evidence to prove his existence, It is also impossible to ignore the scriptures and testaments that account to his life and impact on others.

4. Do YOU truly believe that during the time period where Christ was begotten, that Men or "The Church At The Time" were behind the whole creation, and knew scientifically that if they "said/wrote" that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, that no one would ever be able to prove/disprove it? I highly doubt that scenario took place. Also, Jesus does not "appear" to have been deliberately established. I believe that if his life, and christianity as a whole were just a big hoax, that something like the year we are currently in(2009 AD) would not be labeled as it is(after-death)

5. God cannot affect free will. a LOL reference would be Bruce Almighty. However, The events that lead to the torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ are too long and thorough to type out and explain here, this is where you need to do some research of your own regarding the Life of Jesus Christ.

6. Christianity is NOT a marketing scam to get money/donations or what have you. That being said, Catholicism was. The Catholic church was suppressing/combating heresy which lead to the inquisition(someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong).

Again If I stated something blatantly incorrectly please feel free to correct me, just do so in a nice way :]

 

[SkinWalker]

Rather then ask the users of sciforums about it, i'd suggest that you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S Lewis. [...] As an atheist, if you read this book cover to cover you will understand the moral teachings and understand christianity much clearer.

I think I have a very good understanding of the "moral teachings" of Christianity. Indeed, I would argue I understand Christianity better than most Christians. At least you weren't asserting that Lewis' work was designed to be convincing or revealing beyond the psychological insights of believers.

As for my personal views regarding your original post.

As "personal views," I reckon we can discard them. What we're concerned with in this thread (and, indeed, in this forum -and by "we" I'm referring to many of the atheists on this science forum), is what can be objectively said about a religion, in this case, Christianity. So its that perspective I apply to my critique of your "personal views."

1. Jesus is the human incarnate of God, and is his only begotten son.

That this is the view of many Christians isn't in contention, so no need to make public display of your piety. We could care less, particularly since this isn't a claim that has any sort of evidence to support. There are even those Christians who would argue that Jesus as presented in biblical mythology is a human and the alleged son of their god -not the god itself.

Jesus is what we call The Trinity; the union of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit all in one being.

What passage in biblical mythology makes this claim? I ask because this is demonstrative of one of the problems with Christianity: it constantly moves goal-posts, cherry-picks beliefs; and invents doctrine to fill gaps and cover inconsistencies depending on the particular beliefs of the individual and that individual's brand of god.

So, when you say "we," it's important to note that you really mean you and those other individuals within Christianity who share this belief. Many Christians do not and the doctrine of the trinity is contested by many.

God did not "tell" the entire world because every individual is unique and will believe what they want to believe.

Case in point. A convenient bit of interpretation. A cop-out from a rationalist's point of view.

The only thing that can make you believe in such an existence, is your conscious.

This isn't true. A life-long indoctrination into Christian mythology clearly makes people believe in the irrational.

2. I cannot argue with/against this point as I personally have no knowledge of Jesus resurrecting the dead.

In that case, wouldn't it be difficult to argue with/against any point regarding Jesus the alleged Christ? What personal knowledge can you truly say you have? Sure, most of those who make egotistical and public displays of piety talk about having a "personal savior," having "personal relationship with...," "feeling the presence of...," etc, but this isn't the type of knowledge you're using above. This is belief without evidence. This is hope. This is delusion, perhaps as the result of life-long indoctrination.

3. I truly believe that Jesus Christ was a real person. While you can choose to say that there is simply not enough evidence to prove his existence, It is also impossible to ignore the scriptures and testaments that account to his life and impact on others.

Ignore? I, as an atheist, do not ignore any biblical mythology. I don't ignore the Popul Vuh, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Enum Elish. None of these are evidence of Xbakiyalo, Ptah, or Enlil. Merely writing the words down and convincing others to buy into them provides no logical truth value to the premise that either of these texts were divinely inspired, written, or otherwise factual. You believe Jesus Christ was a real person because the doctrine of your particular religion requires it. Remove the possibility of the Historicity of Jesus and the house of cards your mythology exists upon to give you the illusion of history collapses.

4. Do YOU truly believe that during the time period where Christ was begotten, that Men or "The Church At The Time" were behind the whole creation, and knew scientifically that if they "said/wrote" that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, that no one would ever be able to prove/disprove it?

The "born of a virgin" motif isn't fresh. It definitely wasn't fresh at the time early Christian cult leaders began to pen the propaganda they needed to establish their authority. Mithra, Dionysus, and many other "gods" shared the motif and hero-story of Jesus the alleged Christ. If you're going to build a story on which to start a cult, what better way than to use existing, and thus, believable/acceptable motifs? The story of Jesus in the Gospels contradicts itself from gospel to gospel at in-opportune times and shows transference and literary evolution at others with the (Q) and Mark doctrines serving as the progenitors for Matthew and Luke -leaving John's anonymous author to seem not to even know of the others.

5. God cannot affect free will. a LOL reference would be Bruce Almighty. However, The events that lead to the torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ are too long and thorough to type out and explain here, this is where you need to do some research of your own regarding the Life of Jesus Christ.

Right. Research on a mythical being. The more I research on Jesus the alleged Christ, the less I'm convinced he ever existed. Or, if he did, he was just a cult leader of and Essene or Essene-like cult which went around being a dick and pissing people off -enough that he was remembered and used to build a larger-than-life legend and mythology on. The result is a mythical character with very little resemblance to the original person -if there ever was one.

The events that led to the "torture and crucifixion" of this person were probably all part of the myth and a sum embellishment of the tortures and executions of many others going around causing religious and political trouble at the time.

6. Christianity is NOT a marketing scam to get money/donations or what have you. That being said, Catholicism was. The Catholic church was suppressing/combating heresy which lead to the inquisition(someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong).

In this passage you said Christianity isn't a money-making scheme and then you say it was. I'm not sure I follow. Do not Presbyterians require you to tithe 10%? Do not the wealthy, priestly class of Christian mega-churches in the U.S. drive luxury automobiles, wear Armani suits, stay at Four Star+ hotels, live in mansions, eat caviar and sport lots of bling? I give you T.D. Jakes and con artists like him. Look at the con-artist and "televangelist" Pat Robertson -an all-round asshole and conman. The list goes on and on. The Catholic church, the largest and oldest body of Christianity has the wealth of a nation at Vatican city and within their cult centers, which sport gold relics, silver chalices, etc.

In short, all these cults are enhancing and building their wealth at the expense of the peasant class, for whom they depend on to fleece. After all, the best shepherds will eventually fleece and slaughter their flock.

Again If I stated something blatantly incorrectly please feel free to correct me, just do so in a nice way

I'm certainly gracious for the invitation. Thank you.

 

[SkinWalker]

By the way, for participants of this thread, I must say that I'm disappointed that Woody didn't take an opportunity to find factual and academic references to his assertion that they mythical Jesus Christ is also a tradition in the Jewish cults as well as the Christian.

He suggested that I speak with a Rabbi, which I had no need to do since I've actually had this discussion with an academic who once considered himself a Rabbi. I've also studied the topic independently as an anthropologist interested in the social function of belief and Religion.

I gave Woody some clues, one of which was the Talmud, but he apparently didn't catch this.

There actually are some references throughout the Talmud where a Jesus-like character is mentioned. Unfortunately for Woody and Historical Jesus believers, what these early Rabbis had to say about Jesus (assuming it was the same person) was temporally inconsistent with the Christian mythology and the Jewish mythology has a somewhat differing account.

According to the most oft cited passage in the Talmud, the Jesus analog was hanged, not crucified. The time-period for either this or another mention is about 100 BCE (otherwise known as 100 years before Christ). Moreover, there is a clear sentiment that this person was not a messiah and not an actual deity but a sorcerer or general nutcase.

If Woody found this reference after my clue, its no wonder he didn't continue to post his "dare to the atheists" in this thread.

If nothing else, it is amusing to see his utter failure following his smug and egotistical comments throughout the thread. Not only did he seem sure that he had atheists by the balls with his "two questions," he also bragged about his blog which is "syndicated to at least two major world publications" and how he's going to write to an atheist organization to tell on us all for being assholes.

Clearly Woody has shown himself once again to be ... well, I'll leave that bit to your imaginations. I don't mind discussions with theists and even Christians. I enjoy them. I've actually found Saquist's posts, comments, questions and opinions to be both stimulating and polite. I hope he perceives that I bear him no ill-will.

Jan Ardena, while predictably single-issue, never stoops to bigoted or vile attitudes.

Even John99 keeps a friendly and amicable presence, while I often disagree with him. There are other Christians that post here whom I find very likable.

So when Woody complains that he's the victim of the big, bad atheists who are angry and unfair (I forget his core accusation, it was that memorable), one is left to wonder why we don't feel that way about the rest. It would seem that there is some additional characteristic or quality that Woody has which either brings out this sentiment in others or he's demonstrating a mental deficiency (i.e. delusion, self-aggrandizement, egomania, etc.).

Good luck, Woody. See you next time.

 

[CranE]

I think I have a very good understanding of the "moral teachings" of Christianity. Indeed, I would argue I understand Christianity better than most Christians. At least you weren't asserting that Lewis' work was designed to be convincing or revealing beyond the psychological insights of believers.

so far so good

As "personal views," I reckon we can discard them.

stop right there

What we're concerned with in this thread (and, indeed, in this forum -and by "we" I'm referring to many of the atheists on this science forum), is what can be objectively said about a religion, in this case, Christianity. So its that perspective I apply to my critique of your "personal views."

You just contradicted yourself.

That this is the view of many Christians isn't in contention, so no need to make public display of your piety. We could care less, particularly since this isn't a claim that has any sort of evidence to support. There are even those Christians who would argue that Jesus as presented in biblical mythology is a human and the alleged son of their god -not the god itself.

There are also Christians who believe what I believe. I can meet you half way and say Jesus is God's son, so he has God in him. I know how much this is gonna piss you off too :]

What passage in biblical mythology makes this claim? I ask because this is demonstrative of one of the problems with Christianity: it constantly moves goal-posts, cherry-picks beliefs; and invents doctrine to fill gaps and cover inconsistencies depending on the particular beliefs of the individual and that individual's brand of god.

Its not a specific passage. It is my personal belief, like I stated previously. I BELIEVE Jesus Christ to be what is known as the Trinity.

So, when you say "we," it's important to note that you really mean you and those other individuals within Christianity who share this belief. Many Christians do not and the doctrine of the trinity is contested by many.

we means my beliefs, and the people who agree with me regarding the subject. Like I stated previously...

Case in point. A convenient bit of interpretation. A cop-out from a rationalist's point of view.

I could say your a cop-out or a rebel or some other bullshit because you're an atheist(your beliefs). But I dont do I ;]

This isn't true. A life-long indoctrination into Christian mythology clearly makes people believe in the irrational.

No religious doctrine is ever going to make me do something I find irrational, that is why although I am a christian, I can honestly say I do not live a sin free life. In lamens you could say I do not live by the bible, even though the bible requires me to do so..

In that case, wouldn't it be difficult to argue with/against any point regarding Jesus the alleged Christ? What personal knowledge can you truly say you have? Sure, most of those who make egotistical and public displays of piety talk about having a "personal savior," having "personal relationship with...," "feeling the presence of...," etc, but this isn't the type of knowledge you're using above. This is belief without evidence. This is hope. This is delusion, perhaps as the result of life-long indoctrination.

I said nothing about having a personal savior, or a personal relationship with anyone. If you really want to know what I believe about Christianity as a whole, we can break christianity piece by piece if you want to, and i'll tell you anything you'd like to know about my beliefs regarding Jesus Christ.

But for now I'll make it short. I believe Jesus Christ was a real human, I do not think he had superhuman powers. I do believe Jesus is god's only begotten son. I believe Christianity as a whole, is a set of moral teachings that anybody in the world can use to better themselves as a whole. Do I believe EVERY party of christianity to be true? Logically How could I? I know some of it to be unprovable and logic suggests otherwise than what the bible or interpretations state.

Ignore? I, as an atheist, do not ignore any biblical mythology. I don't ignore the Popul Vuh, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Enum Elish. None of these are evidence of Xbakiyalo, Ptah, or Enlil. Merely writing the words down and convincing others to buy into them provides no logical truth value to the premise that either of these texts were divinely inspired, written, or otherwise factual. You believe Jesus Christ was a real person because the doctrine of your particular religion requires it. Remove the possibility of the Historicity of Jesus and the house of cards your mythology exists upon to give you the illusion of history collapses.

HEY, guess what, I'm CHOOSING to be a Christian. Do you understand what that means, it means I'm choosing to believe that. Think of religion as a club, with rules required in order to join. I don't like the rules required to join Buddhism so I'm not going to become Buddhist. However, I Like the beliefs(rules) for being a christian. If you disagree with that statement, then you are not questioning religion anymore, your just trying to start an argument over the internet that nobody can win as its based merely around opinion

The "born of a virgin" motif isn't fresh. It definitely wasn't fresh at the time early Christian cult leaders began to pen the propaganda they needed to establish their authority. Mithra, Dionysus, and many other "gods" shared the motif and hero-story of Jesus the alleged Christ. If you're going to build a story on which to start a cult, what better way than to use existing, and thus, believable/acceptable motifs? The story of Jesus in the Gospels contradicts itself from gospel to gospel at in-opportune times and shows transference and literary evolution at others with the (Q) and Mark doctrines serving as the progenitors for Matthew and Luke -leaving John's anonymous author to seem not to even know of the others.

Tell me how many times you watched, and believed The Zeigeist before you decided to make your original post. If you'd like, we can cover as many aspects of that movie as you like as well, as that movie is pure garbage. Jesus does share some traits/characteristics i guess with other deities, but nothing that could ever prove any of the deities to be Falsified or deliberately shown as fraud. The Zeitgeist tried to prove Judean-Christianity is fraud and failed miserably.

Right. Research on a mythical being. The more I research on Jesus the alleged Christ, the less I'm convinced he ever existed. Or, if he did, he was just a cult leader of and Essene or Essene-like cult which went around being a dick and pissing people off -enough that he was remembered and used to build a larger-than-life legend and mythology on. The result is a mythical character with very little resemblance to the original person -if there ever was one.

Cool, so you're going to ask for opinions or information regarding the subject, then, when possible theories are presented, you reject them as if you never had the intention to accept them. Nice outlook.

The events that led to the "torture and crucifixion" of this person were probably all part of the myth and a sum embellishment of the tortures and executions of many others going around causing religious and political trouble at the time.

I'm glad you can come to that conclusion without you providing any backing of your own, Meanwhile you can continue to bash my beliefs.

In this passage you said Christianity isn't a money-making scheme and then you say it was. I'm not sure I follow. Do not Presbyterians require you to tithe 10%? Do not the wealthy, priestly class of Christian mega-churches in the U.S. drive luxury automobiles, wear Armani suits, stay at Four Star+ hotels, live in mansions, eat caviar and sport lots of bling? I give you T.D. Jakes and con artists like him. Look at the con-artist and "televangelist" Pat Robertson -an all-round asshole and conman. The list goes on and on. The Catholic church, the largest and oldest body of Christianity has the wealth of a nation at Vatican city and within their cult centers, which sport gold relics, silver chalices, etc.

I never said Christianity was a money-making scheme. Catholicism is a branch of christianity, not Christianity itself.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I have no idea what Presbyterians require as im not a Presbyterian. In my opinion; All these individual branches of Christianity are the ideas and interpretations one came too after reading the bible. Do I agree with the person who founded the Presbyterian Church? No. Could I start my own Christian-based church if I wanted too? Of Course I could--as that's all the Presbyterian leader did, and like I mention earlier, there are "rules" to join each Religion. 1 rule of Presbyterianism being, tithe 10%. Why is it hard to understand?

I don't know? What does it matter if they decided to do ANY of the things you just listed? Are you honestly saying that these are bad people because of the "material" they may or may not possess? You need to stop making assumptions about the Religion of Christianity based around the actions of individual Christian-branched Religion's and the people that run them. Yes at one point in time, the Catholic church messed up, real bad. We all know this. Is the inquisition still happening today? No. Is everyone in the Christian religion only looking out for themselves and trying to get as much money as possible? haha oh yea.. Are Churches in America stealing money from American citizens? Hell No, people choose what to believe. If they believe that donating 10% will save them, what is to stop them from being saved if it is their belief?

In short, all these cults are enhancing and building their wealth at the expense of the peasant class, for whom they depend on to fleece. After all, the best shepherds will eventually fleece and slaughter their flock.

What cults? give me a modern example of a Christian Church that is stealing money from its members. That what your post means. If they are building wealth at the expense of the peasant class, they are taking something from them. Show me what is being un-willfully taken, and I MIGHT take something you say into consideration.


Now you are just talking gibberish and bashing on Christianity.

I can do the same thing. You're going to die alone and in hell because you do not believe in Jesus Christ. See, I can type out random thoughts of bullshit as well.

I'm certainly gracious for the invitation. Thank you.

Np, just don't be so dim-witted next time

 

[SkinWalker]

stop right there

Not likely

You just contradicted yourself.

Not demonstrated

I can meet you half way and say Jesus is God's son, so he has God in him. I know how much this is gonna piss you off too

The delusions and beliefs of religious adherents don't generally piss me off until they attempt to impose those delusions and beliefs on others. I don't see that you're doing this, so you shouldn't worry about pissing me off. So you're saying that Jesus has 23 of your god's (whichever god it actually may turn out to be) chromosomes? Did your god convince Mary to cheat on Joseph or did he rape her? Or is your version of Jesus even a product of Mary and her husband Joseph? If so, I'm just curious if, by your logic, you find her to be an adulteress or a rape victim.

Its not a specific passage. It is my personal belief, like I stated previously. I BELIEVE Jesus Christ to be what is known as the Trinity.

Which is why I said we *can* (as in an option) discard this "personal belief," but I *was* curious if you had any rationale to support it. "No specific passage" clearly shows not.

I could say your a cop-out or a rebel or some other bullshit because you're an atheist(your beliefs). But I dont do I

You could say that, but it would highlight your irrational thought processes rather than subdue them. Your choice not to was, perhaps, wise.

No religious doctrine is ever going to make me do something I find irrational, that is why although I am a christian, I can honestly say I do not live a sin free life.

I have no doubt that you "find" your delusions irrational. That's the reason the term "delusion" exists: "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary."

I said nothing about having a personal savior, or a personal relationship with anyone.

Nor did I imply you did. I was attempting to be mindful that other participants exist in this thread and I qualified my comment with "most" not "you."

But for now I'll make it short. I believe Jesus Christ was a real human, I do not think he had superhuman powers. I do believe Jesus is god's only begotten son. I believe Christianity as a whole, is a set of moral teachings that anybody in the world can use to better themselves as a whole. Do I believe EVERY party of christianity to be true? Logically How could I? I know some of it to be unprovable and logic suggests otherwise than what the bible or interpretations state.

I'll admit that its refreshing to read the writing of a religious adherent that admits his religious doctrine has flaws. For that I both commend and thank you.

HEY, guess what, I'm CHOOSING to be a Christian. Do you understand what that means, it means I'm choosing to believe that. Think of religion as a club, with rules required in order to join. I don't like the rules required to join Buddhism so I'm not going to become Buddhist. However, I Like the beliefs(rules) for being a christian. If you disagree with that statement, then you are not questioning religion anymore, your just trying to start an argument over the internet that nobody can win as its based merely around opinion

Then you may be the exception that proves the rule, as they say. Perhaps your parents weren't Christian and you weren't raised in a Christian home in a Christian culture. Perhaps you were raised in a Buddhist family in a Buddhist culture, in which case your analogy is a logical one and makes you an exception. However, if you were one of the vast majority of Christians raised in a Christian culture and, only slight less often, a Christian believing home, then *my* assertion holds that you're a product of indoctrination.

There are obviously those that chose other or even no religious beliefs, departing from their family traditions, but these are distinct and quantifiable minorities.

Tell me how many times you watched, and believed The Zeigeist before you decided to make your original post.

Zero times. While I remember that I *did* watch Zeitgeist when it first came out, I recall being critical of it for many very serious problems of logic and irrationality. In short, I agree with you, Zeitgeist was largely crap.

However, I stand by my words on the merit of ancient texts. We see these motifs from culture to culture, time period to time period. I can quote you passages from ancient texts if you're truly interested or if you're still convinced I'm merely regurgitating a failed movie.

Cool, so you're going to ask for opinions or information regarding the subject, then, when possible theories are presented, you reject them as if you never had the intention to accept them. Nice outlook.

Theories include tested hypotheses and evidence. So clearly I've rejected no "theories." I'm concerned with evidence and rational discourse, not delusion and wild speculation. Hypotheses are fine as long as they are potentially falsifiable. Everything else is B.S. and deserves nothing short of rejection if not ridicule for poor critical thought.

I'm glad you can come to that conclusion without you providing any backing of your own, Meanwhile you can continue to bash my beliefs.

You're right in that I should have gone to more lengths citing specific passages in the Talmud, which I mention in a later post, and showing the rationale for arriving at this. I've discussed this sort of thing at length in the past and its a laborious process citing references on a consistent basis or formulating complete syllogisms. I'll revisit this in a later post (assuming I don't forget). Its less of a conclusion and more of a plausible and more probable alternative anyway.

I don't know? What does it matter if they decided to do ANY of the things you just listed? Are you honestly saying that these are bad people because of the "material" they may or may not possess?

I'm saying they're hypocritical. I'm demonstrating how many if not most of the cults within Christianity are distinct "money-making scams" or, at the very least, designed to profit at the expense of their adherents while dis proportionally benefiting the wealth of the cult leadership.

You need to stop making assumptions about the Religion of Christianity based around the actions of individual Christian-branched Religion's and the people that run them.

Why? If the core doctrines of Christianity were valid, would there not be mechanisms built in to safe-guard its adherents from the wicked and greedy nature of cult leaders? I think, if anything, I needn't stop but explore it further? Surely you aren't suggesting that religious institutions should be above scrutiny and inquiry.

Yes at one point in time, the Catholic church messed up, real bad. We all know this.

"One" time? The on-going story of Cardinal Law might single-handedly preclude that argument.

What cults? give me a modern example of a Christian Church that is stealing money from its members. That what your post means. If they are building wealth at the expense of the peasant class, they are taking something from them. Show me what is being un-willfully taken, and I MIGHT take something you say into consideration.

First, your assertion that I'm accusing Christian cults of theft ("stealing") notwithstanding, I'm wondering if you really want me to show this. After all, I used words like "con" and "scam" -implying that people are unwittingly giving their money. Which, in turn, implies that they "willfully" give their money, not realizing the nature of the con.

Now you are just talking gibberish and bashing on Christianity.

I can do the same thing. You're going to die alone and in hell because you do not believe in Jesus Christ. See, I can type out random thoughts of bullshit as well.

Np, just don't be so dim-witted next time

"dim-witted"? How so? Or are you making one of those un-christian-like insults that Christians are famous for?

 

[CranE]

For the sake of time, I deleted points I wasn't going to respond too whether irrational, or it being a dead-end point, I hope this does not offend you or make you think I'm avoiding your responses.

So you're saying that Jesus has 23 of your god's (whichever god it actually may turn out to be) chromosomes? Did your god convince Mary to cheat on Joseph or did he rape her? Or is your version of Jesus even a product of Mary and her husband Joseph? If so, I'm just curious if, by your logic, you find her to be an adulteress or a rape victim.

How do you know that God has chromosomes to pass on? If he is of another dimension/world/ect.. what is to say that "its" genetic make-up is made from the same organic code that Humans are? Jesus is the human incarnate of God. That means God is not human, and is not of this world. Can we agree on at least that?

I cannot agree with all parts of Christianity. Like I stated before, I look at Christianity as a set of moral teachings; and logically, I know it does not make sense for Mary Magdalene to [A] Be an adulteress, Become pregnant without insemination. Science and logic prove those to be fallacies that will never be answered, only pondered.

Which is why I said we *can* (as in an option) discard this "personal belief," but I *was* curious if you had any rationale to support it. "No specific passage" clearly shows not.

A belief, no matter how obscure or ill-logical, is still a belief. As to my rationale behind my belief that Jesus is what I call "Trinity", I believe that Jesus WAS a real person, a man who was enlightened more so than any other human being, ever. I do not think even Jesus knew what enlightened him. But whatever drove him to do the things that he did, and teach the things that he taught, has been remembered and celebrated for over 2000 years. I do not think this was achieved by ordinary means. In my honest opinion, I do believe that God chose Jesus Christ as his own incarnate to communicate to other mortals what we know now as right and wrong, or Moral Code.

Please do not assume based on what you just read that my interpretation of Jesus Christ, is that he awoke one day, and suddenly realized that he had God in him. I believe the opposite. I believe God was a part of Jesus, and Jesus did not know what was driving him to do the things he did. You could say, Jesus knew the things he did seemed right, seemed correct.

Nor did I imply you did. I was attempting to be mindful that other participants exist in this thread and I qualified my comment with "most" not "you."

Fair enough.

Then you may be the exception that proves the rule, as they say. Perhaps your parents weren't Christian and you weren't raised in a Christian home in a Christian culture. Perhaps you were raised in a Buddhist family in a Buddhist culture, in which case your analogy is a logical one and makes you an exception. However, if you were one of the vast majority of Christians raised in a Christian culture and, only slight less often, a Christian believing home, then *my* assertion holds that you're a product of indoctrination.

There are obviously those that chose other or even no religious beliefs, departing from their family traditions, but these are distinct and quantifiable minorities.

I was raised in a "Christian Culture" as a Catholic you could say, however both my parents are not Christian. I independently looked into religion's in an attempt to discover which would allow me to live the happiest life by *acceptable*(by acceptable, ill say, Not doing too little, and not doing too much to alter what makes you happy) standards.

My Father is a Mormon, and my Mother is Catholic. I disagree with the "rules" of both. This broke my Mothers heart, but after learning how Catholicism affected the world, I knew that path was not right for me. Catch my drift?

Zero times. While I remember that I *did* watch Zeitgeist when it first came out, I recall being critical of it for many very serious problems of logic and irrationality. In short, I agree with you, Zeitgeist was largely crap.

However, I stand by my words on the merit of ancient texts. We see these motifs from culture to culture, time period to time period. I can quote you passages from ancient texts if you're truly interested or if you're still convinced I'm merely regurgitating a failed movie.

I do agree that there are certain similarities passing from deity to deity in different cultures. If you would like to discuss specific deity's that share traits/motifs, please be my guest.

Theories include tested hypotheses and evidence. So clearly I've rejected no "theories." I'm concerned with evidence and rational discourse, not delusion and wild speculation. Hypotheses are fine as long as they are potentially falsifiable. Everything else is B.S. and deserves nothing short of rejection if not ridicule for poor critical thought.

I stated that possible theories were presented(my outlook on the subject matter). Would it not have been more rational on your part to ask questions that would support/rebut me before disregarding my words in such a manner?

I'm saying they're hypocritical. I'm demonstrating how many if not most of the cults within Christianity are distinct "money-making scams" or, at the very least, designed to profit at the expense of their adherents while dis proportionally benefiting the wealth of the cult leadership.

I agree that televangelist's are HUGE over-statements of what Christianity is about and for the most part, scams. Do i know how much money they make? No. Do I know how much money the Church's receive? No. Therefore one would think that such an argument is irrational. How do you know that the men you referred to previously were not inherited Hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more? Is what you previously claimed an assumption or do you know for a fact that the men you refer to as hypocrites all drive nice cars while wearing Armani's. Or is that just poor speculation on your part? Provide some logical insight.

Also, please note that individual branches of Christianity, do not alter the Moral code that lies within Christianity as a whole. While some branches may or may not do the right thing in the name of the Lord, the original meaning behind Christianity is still there, and that is what I believe in and follow to an extent.

Why? If the core doctrines of Christianity were valid, would there not be mechanisms built in to safe-guard its adherents from the wicked and greedy nature of cult leaders? I think, if anything, I needn't stop but explore it further? Surely you aren't suggesting that religious institutions should be above scrutiny and inquiry.

My previous statement will aid my explanation here. While yes, some individual branches of Christianity have not done the right thing in the past. It is illogical to assume that ALL branches of Christianity act the same way. Do you think that I, as a loving Christian would gain any sort of pleasure or relief from watching a man run around on a "Holy stage" telling people they are rid of sin? Get real, it appalls me on nearly every level that somebody could interpret Christianity as something marketable and portray it the way we have both seen on television. But please, do not attach the connotation of televangelist's to all branches of Christianity.

And no, NO religious institution is above scrutiny.

"One" time? The on-going story of Cardinal Law might single-handedly preclude that argument.

Excuse me, by one-time, I meant the dark times in the worlds history such as the Crusades, The Inquisistion, ect.

First, your assertion that I'm accusing Christian cults of theft ("stealing") notwithstanding, I'm wondering if you really want me to show this. After all, I used words like "con" and "scam" -implying that people are unwittingly giving their money. Which, in turn, implies that they "willfully" give their money, not realizing the nature of the con.

Fair enough. You can look at it from both perspectives and understand my point of view. From the "Clergyman's" point of view, he could very well know that he is taking money from people for reasons that only benefit himself or few others, in materialistic ways. The people who give the money however, are under the impression that if they donate money to this Man who tells them that if they pay X amount of money, they will go to Heaven.

 

[SkinWalker]

How do you know that God has chromosomes to pass on? If he is of another dimension/world/ect..

What good reason is there to believe in a being of "another dimension/world/etc?"

what is to say that "its" genetic make-up is made from the same organic code that Humans are? Jesus is the human incarnate of God.

These two assumptions are contradictory. Either Jesus (assuming his existence) was human or he was not.

If the former, he must, necessarily have 46 chromosomes. The process of egg fertilization in the woman's womb includes obtaining 23 chromosomes of hers and 23 from the father. If all 46 came from Mary (assuming she existed), then Jesus was a clone of Mary which happened to have a "Y" chromosome. This would be interesting for you to explain to us. If the latter, then you can't consider him the "human incarnate of god" (whatever that means) since he does not posses the necessary quality for the description: being human.

That means God is not human, and is not of this world. Can we agree on at least that?

Why should I agree on something that is so far-fetched and has no evidence? If your god (whatever it might be) is alleged to have impregnated a human, then it must, necessarily have human DNA. There's no getting around this with rational discussion. For you to get around it, you have to invoke magic and the supernatural.

I know it does not make sense for Mary Magdalene to [A] Be an adulteress, Become pregnant without insemination. Science and logic prove those to be fallacies that will never be answered, only pondered.

I'm not using science, necessarily, but one of the tools of science: logic. The premises are thus:

Jesus was a product of a god and a human.
Jesus was human.
Humans require DNA.
The mother provides 23 chromosomes; the father 23.
Humans have 46 chromosomes.
Jesus either had 23 chromosomes or 46 chromosomes.
If he had 23, he was not human and could not have been born without invoking magic and the supernatural.
If he had 46, he was born of human parents.
If all 46 matched those of his mother, he was a clone and he obtained the "Y" chromosome from his mother (or Jesus was actually a female); -OR- he obtained 23 from his mother and 23 from his father like every other non-cloned human.
Conclusion, if Jesus was human, so was his mother and father.

Please do not assume based on what you just read that my interpretation of Jesus Christ, is that he awoke one day, and suddenly realized that he had God in him. I believe the opposite. I believe God was a part of Jesus, and Jesus did not know what was driving him to do the things he did. You could say, Jesus knew the things he did seemed right, seemed correct.

This sort of wild speculation is useless and clearly based on hope, wishful-thinking, and cultural indoctrination and has no utility in a rational discussion. Sorry, I have nothing to offer here except to say if your delusions work for you, more power to you. Asserting your beliefs as true, however, isn't enough to make them true without evidence or good reason to believe in them.

I was raised in a "Christian Culture" as a Catholic you could say [...]
My Father is a Mormon, and my Mother is Catholic.

Case closed. My point is made. And this:

I disagree with the "rules" of both. This broke my Mothers heart, but after learning how Catholicism affected the world, I knew that path was not right for me. Catch my drift?

... does little to change the fact of your cultural indoctrination. The core tenants of Christianity that run through all Christian cults and adherents (i.e. that Jesus existed) still ring true to your indoctrinated psyche. Unlike fundamentalists, you appear to be (and I might be wrong) a liberal Christian who cherry picks which portion of biblical mythology is right/wrong, valid/invalid, history/mythology, truth/allegory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that most Christians aren't fundamentalists in their views, but I do find it difficult to understand how one compartmentalizes their beliefs and decides where to draw a line between fact and fantasy, truth and fiction. If a supernatural god didn't suddenly and abruptly stop the rotation of the Earth for a day so a battle could be fought, then why should we believe this deity provided a messiah? If the Earth isn't younger than 10,000 years, why should we accept that this alleged messiah paid for our "sins" (whatever that truly means).

This is the sort of thing I'm interested in as an anthropologist and archaeologist who studies ancient beliefs and cult in the archaeological record.