What evidence is there that christians are all mass deluded?

[Humanistheart]

I love how easily amused you are by your own responses. So who exactly do you think has the right to tell me my religion isn't Christian?

If all it takes to be a christian is to call oneself a christian than a satanist could call himself this and defend his position with the same arguments you are making. How would you feel about that?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'd suggest you make a post in the islam section if you wish to have this explained. Jesus is 'just' a prophet yes, but a great prophet who played a larger part in islam than many realize.

You think only original sin needs forgivenss? So, for you, the sins that people actually commit don't then? Interesting.

As a Jew, I don't believe in original sin... and I've never read anywhere that Muslims believe Jesus serves in a sin atonement capacity... original or extra crispy.

There are enough differences in what Christians and Muslims believe about Jesus to make for a real separation... i.e. not calling Muslims "Christians".... among them being a lack of belief in Jesus as "son of God".

As for "making a post in the Islam section"... I'm not asking for a discourse in Islam... I'm simply asking you to support a claim that you made.

I guess that's too much to ask for.

 

[Katzpur]

If all it takes to be a christian is to call oneself a christian than a satanist could call himself this and defend his position with the same arguments you are making. How would you feel about that?

But the point is, why would a satanist want to be called a Christian? Why would I insist that I was a Hindu unless I believed myself to be a Hindu? And why should I believe that you're an atheist? You say you are, but by somebody's definition you probably aren't. Maybe you're really a Christian after all.

 

[Tiapan]

Perhaps Christian atheists believe in historical Jesus the man but not god and the spirituality mumbo jumbo.

Cheers

 

[blackout]

But the point is, why would a satanist want to be called a Christian? Why would I insist that I was a Hindu unless I believed myself to be a Hindu? And why should I believe that you're an atheist? You say you are, but by somebody's definition you probably aren't. Maybe you're really a Christian after all.

I occasionally call mySelf an Occultic Christian.



Mainstream Christians don't buy this.
Good thing I'm not selling.

 

[dogsgod]

Perhaps Christian atheists believe in historical Jesus the man but not god and the spirituality mumbo jumbo.

Cheers

But what if he was nothing but spiritual mumbo jumbo and not historical?

 

[Bismillah]

Are you implying the historical basis for Jesus is false

 

[Poisonshady313]

But what if he was nothing but spiritual mumbo jumbo and not historical?

Then I suppose they'd simply go by the words recorded in the book about a fictional character called Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

Are you implying the historical basis for Jesus is false

What historical basis?

 

[Bismillah]

I usually don't "mother" people and point to them evidence of highly available and discussed articles, but here's a link just this once

Apologetics Press - The Historicity of Jesus Christ

 

[dogsgod]

I usually don't "mother" people and point to them evidence of highly available and discussed articles, but here's a link just this once

Apologetics Press - The Historicity of Jesus Christ

From your link:
Christ’s existence is established clearly by the primary documents of the New Testament. Skeptical writers would dismiss these, but to do so is irresponsible since more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, in whole or part, establish the body of New Testament literature[bandwagon theory] (Metzger, 1968, p. 36). All of the New Testament had been completed within sixty years or so of Jesus’ death. Of those twenty-seven books, no less than ten were penned by personal companions of the Lord. And Paul, an eyewitness of the resurrected Savior, wrote thirteen or fourteen of the remainder.

And Paul, an eyewitness of the resurrected Savior, wrote thirteen or fourteen of the remainder. :biglaugh:

 

[dogsgod]

Also from that link.

Christianity itself is a monument to the vibrant presence of the God’s Son in history.

 

[averageJOE]

From your link:
Christ’s existence is established clearly by the primary documents of the New Testament. Skeptical writers would dismiss these, but to do so is irresponsible since more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, in whole or part, establish the body of New Testament literature[bandwagon theory] (Metzger, 1968, p. 36). All of the New Testament had been completed within sixty years or so of Jesus’ death. Of those twenty-seven books, no less than ten were penned by personal companions of the Lord. And Paul, an eyewitness of the resurrected Savior, wrote thirteen or fourteen of the remainder.

And Paul, an eyewitness of the resurrected Savior, wrote thirteen or fourteen of the remainder. :biglaugh:

Using the bible to prove Jesus?? That would be circluar reasoning. And Paul being an "eyewitness" to the resurection totally killed any reliablity of that link. I guess you can consider that link to be evidence of delusional christianity.

 

[dogsgod]

Using the bible to prove Jesus?? That would be circluar reasoning. And Paul being an "eyewitness" to the resurection totally killed any reliablity of that link. I guess you can consider that link to be evidence of delusional christianity.

Yes, the link is attached to the appropriate thread.

 

[Mister Emu]

Using the bible to prove Jesus?? That would be circluar reasoning.

No, it isn't.

 

[dogsgod]

No, it isn't.

 

[DeepShadow]

Is "mass delusion" a diagnosis in the DSM-IV? If so, we could present criteria and compare. If not, the term cannot be evidentially "proven." The only criteria would be what people choose as their definitions, which--as we've seen here--will send us going in circles.

Speaking of definitions, I'd like to hear HumanistHeart back up some of these claims somehow. For someone who mocks others for citing loose sources, I have to point out that you've cited none at all.

 

[DeepShadow]

Using the bible to prove Jesus?? That would be circluar reasoning. And Paul being an "eyewitness" to the resurection totally killed any reliablity of that link. I guess you can consider that link to be evidence of delusional christianity.

Curious. If eyewitness accounts of an event do not qualify as evidence, what does?

See, this part about Paul only kills the reliability if you start from the assumption that the statement is somehow false. That is...wait for it...a circular argument.

Don't get me wrong, the claim has not been verified. There are plenty of arguments you could have brought up about the Pauline Epistles were forged or biased or ghostwritten or whatever. But you didn't bring any of them up, and therefore the argument has not been shown to be circular.

So Emu's right: arguing Christ from the Bible isn't exactly circular, unless you can complete the circularity. Anyone wanna pony up and do that, or are you just going to snicker up your sleeves?

 

[Azakel]

Curious. If eyewitness accounts of an event do not qualify as evidence, what does?

Okay then, I personally have eyewitness accounts of Odin, Zeus, and Ra. That means they are all real.

 

[DallasApple]

Ya'l are MEAN!

Love

Dallas