There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Sgt. Pepper]

My extended family is split among Baptists, Methodists, JWs, Episcopalians and Lutherans. The only ones who do not actively talk smack about other denominations are the Episcopalians.

My husband's family is primarily evangelical, specifically Nazarene and Church of Christ. My father-in-law is a retired Nazarene pastor, and my brother-in-law is currently a pastor of a local Church of Christ church where he and his family live. My adoptive family is also primarily evangelical conservative, but the majority of them are MAGA Christians. They were always talking smack about other Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and liberal Christians.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

With all due respect, you claim to be a former evangelist and street preacher, yet you basically hated Christianity and left it,

That does happen sometimes. I've known people who have had religious trauma. Others don't actually hate Christianity, but simply came to no longer believe it.

I have a relative who was a Christian. The first 45 or so years of his life, he was VERY active in his church and in outreach. I'm talking, Jesus was the axel around which his wheel turned! But he had a heart of tremendous compassion for those who suffered, and struggled with why God allowed such suffering. He told me he just simply woke up one morning with the "realization" that God didn't exist. It happens.

We have a lot of intermarrieds in my congregation, plenty of Christians who attend with their spouses. We love them to death. While they are not official members, they are very much accepted as part of our little community. No one ever pushes Judaism on them. Probably about half the time, they simply grow to love Judaism and the Jewish people and want to join us, and they officially convert. In fact, this has happened so often among our choir members that we joke about "Which choir member will be next?" It happens.

We also get quite a few Christians who had been a part of Messianic Judaism. They got just a taste of superficial Jewishness there, and decide that they want the real thing. It happens.

I cannot believe you ever knew God, because no-one who genuinely does walks away from him.

Sometimes things we can't believe turn out to be true. It does no good to say, "Don't confuse me with the fact, my mind is made up." When presented with evidence that we were wrong, I understand how tempting it can be to say, "No, that can't be true! Someone is lying!" And yet, there is the evidence right in front of our faces.

Also, if your life is so much better without God why would you even be on a religion forum?

It's actually not unusual for atheists to be fascinated by religion. Some come onto religion forums because they have a bone to pick. Others just think it is very interesting. You'd be surprised how many people with doctorates in religion are atheist. Did you know that according to Pew Research, the group that is most religiously literate is atheists.

rather than consistently and sneakily slide your knife in with monotonous regularity?

Oh please. This use of threatening imagery is uncalled for. No one is threatening you. This is a place where people of all sorts of different religions and no religion at all regularly debate. I find it fun and informative, but it's certainly not for everyone. If it's not for you, that's okay. There are Christian Forums where you might feel more at home. I'm not trying to pressure you to leave. I enjoy our discussions. It's just something maybe to think about.

 

[CG Didymus]

Anyone can claim anything, without evidence a claim is all it is.

And speaking of claims... This OP is saying that there were no eyewitnesses accounts about Jesus in the NT. I'm sure you disagree with that. If, that is true, then what are you using for evidence for the belief that the NT does contain verifiable eyewitness accounts about Jesus?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Blood libel isn't over. It has just transmuted into Global conspiracies of takeover and subjugation.

Oh, antisemitism is alive and well, and currently enjoying a new rise to social acceptance. As for the blood libel specifically, we hear it quite commonly from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Interestingly, we had a diminished variation of the blood libel quite recently applied to a non-Jewish group. A rumor went viral on social media that Haitian immigrants were eating pets. Trump and Vance both pushed it mainstream.

My extended family is split among Baptists, Methodists, JWs, Episcopalians and Lutherans. The only ones who do not actively talk smack about other denominations are the Episcopalians.

LOL. And so it goes.

 

[ppp]

My husband's family is primarily evangelical, specifically Nazarene and Church of Christ. My father-in-law is a retired Nazarene pastor, and my brother-in-law is currently a pastor of a local Church of Christ church where he and his family live. My adoptive family is also primarily evangelical conservative, but the majority of them are MAGA Christians. They were always talking smack about other Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and liberal Christians.

We have two Church of Christ families. One church is theoconservative with fascist tendencies that do no charity works outside of its members. The other church is rainbow flag flying who are constantly doing outreach for vulnerable communities. Christianity is a chaotic uncentered mess.

 

[ppp]

Oh, antisemitism is alive and well, and currently enjoying a new rise to social acceptance. As for the blood libel specifically, we hear it quite commonly from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yeah. It makes it hard to thread the needle in criticizing Israel's military actions. Somehow, I can freely criticize the Sri Lankan or Congolese governments for indiscriminate military actions/ Or even my own (US). But if I criticize Israel for the exactly same activities, for some that means that I have an antipathy towards Jews.

 

[Brian2]

What I need is evidence, not proof, but yes, if one needs supporting evidence to believe, the belief by faith won't be an option.

You seem to not know what evidence is or what faith is.

I don't know what that means. You probably ought to eventually lose the word prove. Whenever you use it, you make a meaningless statement. No induction that I hold as correct has been proven including that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, and there is no reason to believe a god was involved when it has in the past.

You seem to conflate the agnostic atheist's position with that of the hard atheist, who DOES claim than no gods are involved. The agnostic atheist's position is that he is reserving judgment until gods are either demonstrated to exist or can be ruled out, which will likely be never if they don't exist.

But believer keep going on calling agnosticism denial just like they go on referring to proof when they mean compelling evidence.

What you call "compelling evidence" is close enough to "proof" that it makes little difference to call it proof.
The agnostic atheist and hard atheist also seem to be so close as to be interchangeable terms for the same thing. They both do not believe in a God but would believe if there was enough evidence for them to believe.

The same way that detectives determine what happened in the past when they come upon a crime scene.

Let me make a claim about the past - my past in this case - and see if you have any means available to you to assess the accuracy of my claim. I was conceived by the union of a man and a woman, gestated in which time I grew from a zygote to a fetus, was born several months later, took my first breath then my first drink, and eventually learned to speak and write as I grew from a child to an adult.

How can you know if that happened or not? You can't go back and witness any of that if it in fact occurred. There are photos of me at various ages, but are they really me you might ask, and even if none existed, that wouldn't change your assessment of the truth of that claim.

Two mistakes that creationists frequently make. We do not need to have witnessed the past to know much of what happened then, and we don't have to repeat the past. Think of those with regard to the example I just gave you of the history of a typical human being.

Our assessment of the past relies on the accuracy of our assumptions. When it comes to what happened as ascertained by science, God cannot be found to be a physical being or phenomenon so God is left out, and this is equivalent to assuming that God did not do it and it happened naturally.
This is not really an assumption by science however, but saying that the answers that science comes up with show that God was not needed and did not do it, turn the naturalistic methodology into an atheistic science, when science is not atheistic.

On my side of this discussion, we don't trade in certainty or proof.

On your side of the discussion you don't trade in faith also. You don't know or believe anything it seems,,,,,,,,, but of course lean enough towards certain things to call it a belief or knowledge or some subtlety of those.

But they can all be incorrect.

And that doesn't address my comment: "between religion and science, only science is tentative." I wasn't referring to correctness. I was referring to the degree of certitude the two camps express. Faith is typically associated with certainty, whereas empirically derived knowledge is always tentative. Belief should be commensurate with the quantity and quality of the available relevant evidence - it varies from unlikely to reasonably likely to very likely to beyond reasonable doubt (but never beyond philosophical doubt, which understood rather than felt) - and is amenable to revision if new relevant evidence surfaces not accounted for by the existing narrative.

Yes people can have strong beliefs or not so strong beliefs.

Not at theology. Theology is one of several areas that have no relevance in my life, and most of what I know about it comes from my personal experience as Christian and the little of it I've read on message boards like this one. I generally skip over scriptural citations and discussions about whose faith-based beliefs are more correct unless they're relevant to a non-theological discussion.

But an atheist who does not believe has outperformed a theologian who does believe. Theologians who believe are dealing in figments of their own imagination, fantasy and not the real world.

You need to use standard (academic rules of inference) reasoning on evidence if you want to arrive at a sound conclusion. If you use rogue logic, you can connect any evidence or premise to any conclusion rogue logic, but those conclusions will be unsound (inaccurate).

Have you got an example of this rogue logic?

No. I have no faith. You have a faith.

My confidence in science is evidence-based. Science works. What more evidence do I need to know that is methods are valid?

That is rogue logic imo. It is assuming that science, which deals in the physical, can discover and evaluate a God which is not physical in nature.

True. Closed-minded people aren't moved by sound or compelling arguments.

You mistake rejecting faith-based claims for closed-mindedness. My eyes aren't closed. You simply have nothing convincing to show them.

I have nothing convincing for a self proclaimed believer in scientism. That is not an accusation, that is just something you admit by saying that you put your confidence in science and suggesting that this would also be for discovering God.

Yes, and I was just pointing out that "There is no need to show that gods aren't needed to remain agnostic about them" and that "To change that in the mind of a critically thinking empiricist, you need to provide a compelling argument that they are."

The only compelling argument that you would accept is the discovery of a physical based something that could be tested by a physically based science and then that of course would not be a God because it would be something that is controlled by the laws of nature.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They were always talking smack about other Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and liberal Christians.

I've been on religion boards going back before there was even a world wide web. It has always struck me as rather odd that Evangelicals are more hostile to Catholics than they are to Jews.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yeah. It makes it hard to thread the needle in criticizing Israel's military actions. Somehow, I can freely criticize the Sri Lankan or Congolese governments for indiscriminate military actions/ Or even my own (US). But if I criticize Israel for the exactly same activities, for some that means that I have an antipathy towards Jews.

The Congolese and Sri Lankans do not have thousands of years of history where people are seeking their eradication. It's not that I approve of all of Israel's actions, there are some things I find very disturbing. But in passing judgement, the issue that rises to the top is this: Jews cannot trust the nations of the world to protect us. A Jewish state in our ancestral homeland is necessary as a refuge we can flee to, and determine our own destiny. So while I'm perfectly willing to listen to people's complaints about specific Israeli tactics, I view any statement calling for the destruction of Israel as a direct, antisemitic threat to Jews. I take it very, very personally.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That does happen sometimes. I've known people who have had religious trauma. Others don't actually hate Christianity, but simply came to no longer believe it.

Yes, that certainly does happen. I belong to a support group for survivors of childhood abuse, which is made up of people who are either former Christians or are on the verge of abandoning their faith and leaving Christianity. They have all experienced immense trauma as a result of their Christian upbringing and indoctrination. Now I use what I've learned from my own spiritual journey to help others leave Christianity if they so desire. I consider it an honor to help others free themselves from their Christian indoctrination. I've never pushed anyone to renounce their Christian faith, but I will let them know that it is possible to break free. I talk to them about how much my life has greatly improved since I renounced my Christian beliefs, but I make sure to emphasize that the decision to renounce their personal faith is entirely up to them. I've also let them read much of what I've written here on RF about my personal experiences as a Christian and why I left Christianity. I'm proud to say that my efforts to share my experiences have not been vain. I've been told many times by other survivors of abuse (such as childhood abuse, spiritual abuse, and domestic abuse) that my posts have inspired them to break free from their Christian indoctrination. My sincere hope is that they experience the same emotional freedom from their Christian indoctrination (brainwashing, emotional manipulation, psychological bondage, and spiritual gaslighting) that I did while I was a Christian. I'm also an advocate for abused children, and I provide both moral and financial support for women (mainly Christian and Muslim) who are victims of domestic abuse. I'm proud of my advocacy endeavors.

I've also known many other people throughout my life who are former Christians who renounced their Christian faith for one reason or another, including realizing that they could no longer believe Christianity is true. As far as hating Christianity, I wouldn't describe my distaste for Christianity as hatred, and the only reason I don't truly despise Christians is because of the few that I know who actually live up to the Christian ideals they profess. My husband being one of these Christians, although his faith has begun to wane in recent months, despite being a devout Christian for more than fifty years. If it weren't for him and these few others, then yes, I would despise Christians, and rightfully so. I have more stories of the abuse I've suffered at the hands of Christians that I could ever share on this forum. And that's without including all of the other negative interactions I've had with other Christians over the years.

I have a relative who was a Christian. The first 45 or so years of his life, he was VERY active in his church and in outreach. I'm talking, Jesus was the axel around which his wheel turned! But he had a heart of tremendous compassion for those who suffered, and struggled with why God allowed such suffering. He told me he just simply woke up one morning with the "realization" that God didn't exist. It happens.

We have a lot of intermarrieds in my congregation, plenty of Christians who attend with their spouses. We love them to death. While they are not official members, they are very much accepted as part of our little community. No one ever pushes Judaism on them. Probably about half the time, they simply grow to love Judaism and the Jewish people and want to join us, and they officially convert. In fact, this has happened so often among our choir members that we joke about "Which choir member will be next?" It happens.

We also get quite a few Christians who had been a part of Messianic Judaism. They got just a taste of superficial Jewishness there, and decide that they want the real thing. It happens.

That's a nice story. Thank you for sharing it.

Sometimes things we can't believe turn out to be true. It does no good to say, "Don't confuse me with the fact, my mind is made up." When presented with evidence that we were wrong, I understand how tempting it can be to say, "No, that can't be true! Someone is lying!" And yet, there is the evidence right in front of our faces.

Yes, I agree. Well said.

It's actually not unusual for atheists to be fascinated by religion. Some come onto religion forums because they have a bone to pick.

I'm not an atheist myself. I did have a bone to pick when I first joined RF almost three years ago, but now I feel that I can share my experiences as a former Christian and why I left Christianity because I know that I'm helping others. I also enjoy debating the Bible, and I don't think anything is wrong with that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I belong to a support group for survivors of childhood abuse, which is made up of people who are either former Christians or are on the verge of abandoning their faith and leaving Christianity. They have all experienced immense trauma as a result of their Christian upbringing and indoctrination.

Let me say how my heart breaks for you, and for your friends. I fully affirm your feelings about this.

Religious trauma is not limited to Christians. It happens in all religions and non-religious ideologies. Thankfully, most groups are not toxic. But the few that are do an enormous amount of damage.

the only reason I don't truly despise Christians is because of the few that I know who actually live up to the Christian ideals they profess. My husband being one of these Christians,

I'm so glad you are able to see the other side, despite your experiences.

I've heard many awful stories. I knew one woman raised in an abusive Pentecostal church (I'm not saying all Pentecostals are abusive). Her entire childhood was one of repeated beatings and molestation. If she said anything against it, she was threatened with hell, beaten, and told to shut up. Her parents married her off at age 15 to an older Christian man who simply continued beating and raping her. She is a complete and total mess today.

But the overwhelming majority of Christians I've known who grew up in the church speak of it as a place of love. A place where they feel secure and safe. A place where they are accepted. A community that is there for them when they go through life's many difficulties. It is very easy for them to believe that God loves them, because they experience that love through those they know.

I try to keep all this in balance.

I'm not an atheist myself. I did have a bone to pick when I first joined RF almost three years ago, but now I feel that I can share my experiences as a former Christian and why I left Christianity because I know that I'm helping others. I also enjoy debating the Bible, and I don't think anything is wrong with that.

Well I for one am very glad you are here, and I enjoy your posts very much. If someone doesn't enjoy religious debate, they need to find a hobby more suited to their tastes.

Toda raba for all your work and compassion for others.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Let me say how my heart breaks for you, and for your friends. I fully affirm your feelings about this.

Religious trauma is not limited to Christians. It happens in all religions and non-religious ideologies. Thankfully, most groups are not toxic. But the few that are do an enormous amount of damage.

Thank you for saying this. It means a lot to me, and I appreciate it.

I'm so glad you are able to see the other side, despite your experiences.

There are moments when I have to keep this in mind. I will say that these moments include when I'm either reading posts by some Christians on this forum, especially if the post was a direct response to me. However, all of these posts often remind me that I made the right decision to leave Christianity.

I've heard many awful stories. I knew one woman raised in an abusive Pentecostal church (I'm not saying all Pentecostals are abusive). Her entire childhood was one of repeated beatings and molestation. If she said anything against it, she was threatened with hell, beaten, and told to shut up. Her parents married her off at age 15 to an older Christian man who simply continued beating and raping her. She is a complete and total mess today.

How heartbreaking. I've heard many awful stories, too.

But the overwhelming majority of Christians I've known who grew up in the church speak of it as a place of love. A place where they feel secure and safe. A place where they are accepted. A community that is there for them when they go through life's many difficulties. It is very easy for them to believe that God loves them, because they experience that love through those they know.

My experience with Christians has been the opposite of that. I wouldn't necessarily say that it's rare for me to hear the ones I know talk about growing up in the church as a place of love, but I don't hear stories like this very often. Even my husband or his two sisters, who grew up in the church, don't have many positive memories like that. More negative than positive. Honestly, I don't know many Christians who have fond memories of growing up in the church.

I try to keep all this in balance.

Me too, but it's hard for me some times.

Well I for one am very glad you are here, and I enjoy your posts very much.

Thank you, my friend. I enjoy reading your posts, too. I admire your strong faith and kind spirit.

If someone doesn't enjoy religious debate, they need to find a hobby more suited to their tastes.

I agree.

Toda raba for all your work and compassion for others.

You're welcome.

 

[Tony B]

Nothing I said involved semantics.

I literally wrote a long, long list of the disagreements, none of which you bothered responding to, except the infant baptism one (which I address later on). My comments began with THIS, which you also failed to address:

Christians cannot even agree on what makes a person a christian. I have heard ALL of the following:

• Those who are baptised
• Those who confess the Nicene Creed
• Those who have received Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior
• Those who have repented of their sins.
• Those who speak in Tongues.
• Those who simply profess "Jesus."

Nah. You can relax here. While the boundaries may seem a little fuzzy sometimes, clearly "Christianity" exists. When I look at Christianity as a Jew, I see a Christian as anyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah who died for their sins.


What appeal to authority did I make?

Switch the goal posts much?

Nothing in my post to you made the argument that Christianity was not true. I mean, we CAN debate that if you wish, but first let's finish this topic.

My point was that Christians lack credibility. Not the same thing at all.

Yes. To us outsiders, when we look at how it has fractured into tens of thousands of denominations, you guys just lose your credibility. That doesn't mean it doesn't contain some truth. Only that is is, as you put it, a mess.

Oh my gosh. Perhaps you have never studied Hinduism. No religion is as diverse. They can't even agree on whether there is one god, many gods (and if so, who are they), or no god. Now THAT is a mess! And yet it has survived and thrived longer than any other religion. There are 1.2 billion Hindus, or roughly 15% of the world's population. And the only reason they aren't larger than that is simply because they do not proselytize.

I should also mention that we Jews are incredibly diverse. In fact, we have the saying, "Two Jews, three opinions." It's a little different for us, as we have never been a "we are the one true religion" sort, nor do we have any history of killing each other over our disagreements.

The blood libel is NOT a strawman. It illustrates perfectly how something can be widely believed, and still be absolutely false. Thus your idea that the sheer number of Christians is evidence of its truth is just very, very bad logic.

While it is true that Christians today have grown more tolerant of each other, you cannot deny that back in history, Christians literally killed each other over baptism disagreements. It can't be classified as a small thing.

I'm just not going to go around the houses again on this, clearly we're not going to agree on this. I'll just address one point you raised because it's quite important. Religions like Hinduism and Islam only have large numbers because you are born into them, you generally don't get a choice, and leaving isn't really an option for most either. Whilst some people are born into Christianity it's entirely different in terms of leaving, there's generally no compulsion, yet it's still the majority faith, because it attracts new adherents daily. The Muslim community in particular loses people to Christianity when they migrate to Christian countries, as they come to understand how they have been deceived from birth. Your own faith is another one reliant on being born into it, it's as much an identity as anything else, and Lord do we have to hear about that all day every day.
Anyway, I'll leave it there, you believe what you want, I stand by what I've said.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your own faith is another one reliant on being born into it,

You probably do understand, but I just need to double check.

1. Yes, the easiest way to be a Jew is to be born a Jew. However, from time to time we do welcome people into the Tribe. IOW some are Jews by choice. A convert is a Jew in every way.

2. While most Jews are religious, not all are. I looked up the statistic for someone yesterday, so they are fresh in my mind. Here in the US, 78% identify with Judaism. 20% are completely secular. 2% are Christians.

3. We don't proselytize. We are fine with others worshiping God in their own way. No one needs to become a Jew. If there is anything we wish to share, it is ethical monotheism in general, which as you know can take many forms.

 

[Tony B]

And speaking of claims... This OP is saying that there were no eyewitnesses accounts about Jesus in the NT. I'm sure you disagree with that. If, that is true, then what are you using for evidence for the belief that the NT does contain verifiable eyewitness accounts about Jesus?

It's the usual sleight of hand of course, lets assume there were no DIRECT eye witnesses for Jesus who wrote in the New Testament, does that mean the stories are false? Can you tell me roughly how many people have been soundly convicted of crimes where no-one actually saw the crime being committed? and is the gathering of evidence in the absence of direct contact a reasonable process in order to draw a sound logical conclusion?
The fact of the matter is, that no-one can conclusively prove one way or another whether no-one writing in the New Testament actually met Jesus, based on what is written in the New Testament. Maybe you can give me other examples of where 11 disciple's willingly went to often gruesome deaths based on hearsay and anecdotes? I'll wait on that one...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's the usual sleight of hand of course, lets assume there were no DIRECT eye witnesses for Jesus who wrote in the New Testament, does that mean the stories are false? Can you tell me roughly how many people have been soundly convicted of crimes where no-one actually saw the crime being committed? and is the gathering of evidence in the absence of direct contact a reasonable process in order to draw a sound logical conclusion?
The fact of the matter is, that no-one can conclusively prove one way or another whether no-one writing in the New Testament actually met Jesus, based on what is written in the New Testament. Maybe you can give me other examples of where 11 disciple's willingly went to often gruesome deaths based on hearsay and anecdotes? I'll wait on that one...

It has to do with two things.

The first is that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. You know, there are plenty of people who were on death row due to eyewitness testimony that have been exonerated by new DNA evidence.

The second is the nature of story telling. Every time someone tells a story, they change it just a little. When I tell a ghost story around the campfire, I'll change it just a bit to make it more interesting or scarier. Now imagine how these natural embellishments accumulate over time. By the time the gospel writers set out to record all these stories of Jesus, decades had gone by. Whatever elements of actual history were left, they were all mixed up with legends and myths.

All religions and even many secular ideologies have their martyrs. Christianity does not have a monopoly on dying for the cause. People are willing to go to their deaths because they BELIEVE. Belief is not evidence of accuracy.

Consider how many Japanese kamikazes there were. They were true believers! As very devout Shintoists who believed the emperor was a god, they willingly went to their death to advance the righteous cause of rightful Japanese domination.

Would you like a list of Jews in history who went to their deaths rather than convert to Christianity?

 

[Tony B]

It has to do with two things.

The first is that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. You know, there are plenty of people who were on death row due to eyewitness testimony that have been exonerated by new DNA evidence.

So basically we can discount all written history older than a few generations then? because we can't verify any eye witness testimony right?

The second is the nature of story telling. Every time someone tells a story, they change it just a little. When I tell a ghost story around the campfire, I'll change it just a bit to make it more interesting or scarier. Now imagine how these natural embellishments accumulate over time. By the time the gospel writers set out to record all these stories of Jesus, decades had gone by. Whatever elements of actual history were left, they were all mixed up with legends and myths.

In a culture where people who could read and write were very much a minority then accuracy in story telling has extremely high importance, Lee Strobel covers this in his 'A Case for Christ'. Voddie Baucham also comprehensively covers this here;

Why You Can Believe the Bible.

Your statement; 'Whatever elements of actual history were left, they were all mixed up with legends and myths.'
Is about as tainted with bias and unsubstantiated as it gets. Baucham explains why in the video above, the Bible itself is a miracle, and unquestionably divinely inspired when you understand the level of cross referencing and verification between the Old and New Testaments, no human minds on their own could have created it.

All religions and even many secular ideologies have their martyrs. Christianity does not have a monopoly on dying for the cause. People are willing to go to their deaths because they BELIEVE. Belief is not evidence of accuracy.

I didn't claim otherwise, I asked for an equivalent example, I didn't get one.

Consider how many Japanese kamikazes there were. They were true believers! As very devout Shintoists who believed the emperor was a god, they willingly went to their death to advance the righteous cause of rightful Japanese domination.

Where are they now? How many Japanese would become Kamikazi's now? Christians are dying for their faith daily in Africa right now, and have been persecuted and killed across many countries, (mainly Islamic) and continue to be so, yet do not abandon their faith.

Would you like a list of Jews in history who went to their deaths rather than convert to Christianity?

How large is the Jewish faith these days, compared to say Christianity? and before you play the inevitable 'numbers don't prove anything' card let me remind you that you are generally born into the Jewish faith, Christianity, not so much. Numbers are a part of the evidence, Christians were persecuted by Jews right from the start as minority and for obvious reasons, 2000 years later we see a much different picture, so where was the Jewish expansion of faith? Is it not the case that Christs life and deeds are so compelling that Christianity has expanded on the back of it? that and the fact you can join and leave no problem, no persecution in modern times, and hasn't been for some considerable time. Not bad for a faith in complete chaos according to you, maybe there's a higher power watching over us? I should add I personally have no problem with jews (or any peaceful faith), Jesus was a jew, yes, I understand that too, though I have even seen some people contest that....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't know or believe anything it seems

I've posted thousands of words expressing my beliefs. What I don't believe are insufficiently evidenced claims.

Theologians who believe are dealing in figments of their own imagination, fantasy and not the real world.

Theology as I define it is the set of ideas of interest to believers but not unbelievers. If the god that a group of theologists believe in doesn't exist, then yes, they are discussing figments of their imaginations.

When it comes to what happened as ascertained by science, God cannot be found to be a physical being or phenomenon so God is left out, and this is equivalent to assuming that God did not do it and it happened naturally.

Not really. It just means that if there is a god, it hasn't done anything demonstrable and therefore it is not needed to explain what is observed.

I'm a bridge player. If somebody told me that we had a member I had never met who was very active in maintaining the club, but he wasn't detectable in terms of ever being seen or anything happening in the club that wasn't explainable in terms of the known actions of known members, and nobody could point to anything in the club that wasn't being done by known members, what should I say to that?

And what if they added that I'm going about it all wrong. This member isn't physical and his or her presence is undetectable by "science." Aren't I describing somebody indistinguishable from a fictional character like a ghost?

It is assuming that science, which deals in the physical, can discover and evaluate a God which is not physical in nature.

It's not just that the deity itself isn't physical. If both it and what it is doing are undetectable by the senses, that's saying that it doesn't modify reality, which makes it indistinguishable from nonexistent and therefore irrelevant even if it can be said to exist in some sense.

I have nothing convincing for a self proclaimed believer in scientism. That is not an accusation, that is just something you admit by saying that you put your confidence in science and suggesting that this would also be for discovering God.

Yes, I know, which is why I am not a believer, although I describe myself as an empiricist, not a believer in scientism.

If one has no evidence better explained by positing a supernatural intelligent designer and universe creator, then the claim that one exists is insufficiently supported and not fit to be believed if one's purpose is to accumulate only demonstrably correct idea and filtering out the false and unfalsifiable ones. I have a test that ideas must pass before being believed. The faith-based thinker does not, and thus accumulates any number of the kind of beliefs that I am trying to avoid that don't seem to be of any use to the faith-based believer except possibly comforting him, and I don't need that.

The only compelling argument that you would accept is the discovery of a physical based something that could be tested by a physically based science and then that of course would not be a God because it would be something that is controlled by the laws of nature.

You're making the case for atheism if one is an empiricist.

As long as you keep referring to an entity that you say can't be detected empirically, you're discussing something that is irrelevant whether it exists or not. That is the agnostic atheist's position. He doesn't believe in gods because they don't manifest in nature, doesn't say that they don't exist but lives as if they don't, that is, without a god belief or religion, and is apathetic regarding their ontological status.

Have you got an example of this rogue logic?

Any fallacious argument.

If one's conclusions aren't justified by valid reasoning applied to the relevant available evidence, then the logic being used can be called rogue logic. For example, arguing that gods must exist because cells seem too complicated to have arisen naturalistically, he's committed an incredulity fallacy and a special pleading fallacy, which is what I mean by rogue logic. It' not the logic of academia, of law or science.

 

[Tony B]

I've posted thousands of words expressing my beliefs. What I don't believe are insufficiently evidenced claims.

Genuine question, what is your definition of 'sufficient evidence' for a claim?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In a nutshell, he believes that Christians agree on all the basics. I sent him a long, long list of important issues that Christians disagree on and have even killed each other over in the past, and he didn't like that very much.

Perhaps his understanding of Christian "basics" differs from your understanding of "important issues."

Therefore? Talk to a couple of synagogue-attending Jews about the patrilineal descent or the historicity of the Exodus.