120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's good to keep seeking the truth and to believe what is more likely.

So, on the doctrine of Easiest:

it's really easier to assume that all supernatural claims are bullshit.

Because then we're done. Period, end of conflicts.

No, it's better to seek the answers and choose the one which most "easily" explains the facts we have, not the one which ends the "conflicts" or ends the discussion.

We're seeking truth, not an end to the seeking process or the "conflicts" that arise by the questions being raised or by the differing ideas people have.

Sure, there's room to examine the human psyche and wonder why we're attracted to such stories, why we make them, how we can maybe create automatic filters that detect pure bullshit and prevent stories of AIDS-dipped needles or missing birth certificates from floating around the internet. But the question is done.

There's nothing wrong with examining the human psyche and why people believe this or that and . . . and . . . missing birth certificates? . . . and

It's fine to inquire about the motive for the inquiries, but why should any inquiry be suppressed or any question made to be "done" just because someone doesn't agree with someone's belief about it?

If you don't like someone else's belief, then you can direct your attention to some other issue and away from the one that bothers you. But no question should be suppressed or made "done" from still being investigated further and perhaps someone proposing a new conspiracy theory about something. Being "done" with it is not the goal, but finding the answers, and those not interested in that pursuit will find something else they are interested in.

I'm interested in the possibility that there might be Something More beyond death. Other questions are also important, but I think whoever is interested in this beyond-death question might want to consider various possible answers to it that come to attention. There are many possibilities. No one knows for sure that there is or is not the Something More.

ALMOSt as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them.

No, that's not easy to assume. Maybe assume any such claim is false, tentatively, and be willing to consider differently depending on the evidence.

Least easy would be to assume that SOME supernatural tales are true . . . , but there's the difficulty in knowing which supernatural claims are true.

We can investigate them and choose, as with any claims. Some claims are true, others false. Why doesn't that apply to all categories of claims, even the unusual ones that conventional science cannot explain?

It would be dishonest to just pick one, without any evidence at all.

Yes, but I'll repeat, I'm saying there's evidence that the Jesus miracle healing acts really did happen. Other claims also should be checked for possible evidence. It's dishonest to pick one claim only and ignore all the others. On the other hand, perhaps one cannot investigate every claim ever made before deciding to believe one or another of them.

Of course, if you did, then all the claims for that tradition would tend to self-support, but that's circular.

I hope you'll correct me if I engage in any circular reasoning.

All those parallel but equally futile efforts...

Whoever believes anything should try to give evidence or reasons for their belief. It's not futile. Some beliefs are true. Some are probable, some less likely, and so on. It's not wrong to hold a belief just because you don't have absolute certainty. And it's fine if many belief systems are out there each trying to prove it's the truth.

And someone else with yet another tradition, and so on down the line.

It'd be chaos!

No it's not chaos. We do have this now, with many "traditions" or belief systems claiming to be the truth -- just surf the Internet -- wow! it's fun considering all those possible versions of what "the Truth" is. A little healthy "chaos" never hurt anyone.

The goal should be to try to figure out whatever "the Truth" is, not to shut down the whole array of different crusades or "traditions" competing for attention and claiming to have the truth. Some of them probably do have some "truth" that people are seeking.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's more than one source for them.

How does that establish historicity?

It helps. It makes the Jesus miracle stories more credible than other miracle stories for which there is only one source. E.g., the miracle stories in the Book of Acts are less credible because they are depedent on this one source only.

More sources increases the credibility.

I asked 'how?' You just repeat the assertion a couple of times.
If you're just going to repeat yourself and special-case your argument, you might as well just say 'today's sermon is taken from...' at the start of your posts.

But it doesn't ensure historical accuracy.

I don't see how it even helps historical accuracy.
Just read a Snopes page. Stories are described by when they first showed up, and some noted changes (like changing president Carter to President Obama, or adding a pet cat, or changing the name of the dog). Humans make shit up.
Finding popular stories told and retold is not a quality that differentiates historical from mythical.

Just about every culture on Earth has a tradition of vampires. Does that mean vampires are real?

What sources are you talking about?

Oral traditions. Almost every human language has a word for a creature either expressly a vampire, or something very similar, with similar tastes, needs and weaknesses.

Is it true that every culture has such a tradition?

Nearly.

You'd have to give more information about the particular events that were witnessed and written down by someone.

Now, wait a minute.
You're quite content with the gospels being sourced by oral tradition over a long time, and finally written down in anonymous accounts, and calling that history, but to offer any comparitive tradition, i need to nail down eyewitness stories, written down by 'someone?'

Okay, so you're a fan of special case fallacies, i see.

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

How does that impact the estimate of their historicity?

If the time span is shorter, then there's less time for new fictional accounts to emerge which "mythologize" the actual event that happened.

Less time means less time . Got that. Can't even argue against it.
I don't see how it helps prove historicity, though. Humans don't need 20 years to make shit up. Just look at any election year.

The miracle stories about Gautama emerged over many centuries. The pattern is the same for most miracle heros. The longer time span beyond the period when the actual historical figure lived allows for the emergence of new stories, i.e., new stories to be invented.

But you cannot show that short time spans actually prevent enhancement, fictionalizing. You're unable to actually nail down the (if any) historical event, thus unable to show which parts were enhanced, or when.
This would not stand up to peer review.

It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true.

Wow, that's horseshit. Evidence for something being true is based on assuming that they're true?

No. Based on the fact that they are more difficult to explain without assuming they're true.

Someone tells you it's raining, and he's your only source, and you have no way to check. You assume it's raining,

Um, no. I don't 'assume' it's raining. I either trust his account or i do not. 'Assume' doesn't mean that i have testimony and can evalate it based on how many times this individual has offered me informatio.

because if it's not, then why did this person tell you it's raining?

That's evaluating the evidence, not assuming that it's true.
It doesn't make sense to 'assume' that something is true WHILE YOU"RE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF IT'S TRUE. It's kind of a problem with circular logic.

You don't know for sure that it's raining, but you assume it is, because if it's not, it becomes more difficult to explain the report you received.

Not if i suspect that the guy who told me it's raining has his own agenda. Maybe he wants me to work later, or maybe he wants to sell me his umbrella. Maybe he's an asshole.
Or maybe he has a memory problem and it rained yesterday.

There are too many possibilities to consider that 'assuming' he's correct is the best courss of action.

Believing the report is true explains the report more easily than believing it is false.

(This assumes the one reporting to you has good information, has no motive to deceive you, and so on.)

Well, then, that's not 'assuming,' is it? That's knowing this individual and knowing his track record.
That doesn't apply to the gospels. We don't know who wrote them, or when, or for what purpose. That makes it almost criminal to just 'assume' we can trust them.

Which historian told you that one?

How do you think an historian chooses when to believe a report and when not to?

By knowing when the account was written, by whom, and for what reason.
Stories of battles told by the winners are taken with a grain of salt, for example.
Stories told by eyewitnesses who throw in anachronisms are viewed very badly by historians.

Suppose the source says something which, if true, explains the other facts the historian knows, but if false, contradicts those other facts, or adds confusion to them. You think that makes the source LESS credible for the historian?

I think an historian who considers things credible JUSt BECAUSE he likes what he says is a poor historian.

Just look at Piltdown Man. The hoax was created exactly to fit into the theories of the time. That's why he was accepted so readily and lasted so long.
Of course, it's also why it was eventually rejected. He stopped fitting into the best theories.

Didn't the geocentric model for the Solar System have to be rejected in favor of the heliocentric model because the latter more easily explained all the astronomical data? I

No.
Not 'more easily.' But it fit other evidence 'more accurately.'
Your problem is, you don't have 'more evidence' for the things you want to claim as historical truths.

So real science isn't much of an analogy to help you.

sn't that how a conclusion is arrived at when there are differing explanations offered? The one which more easily explains all the facts that are known is the answer that is decided upon, isn't it?

'Easy' isn't the word i'd use. Accurately is far better.

Why shouldn't the historian or scientist or truth-seeker choose the answer which most easily fits in with all the other facts that are known?

Because 'easy' is not how science or history really works.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, it's better to seek the answers and choose the one which most "easily" explains the facts we have, not the one which ends the "conflicts" or ends the discussion.

Wrong.
For Piltdown Man, the signs of fabrication are fairly obvious WHEN YOU LOOK FOR THEM. If you just accept that fossils are real, without skepticism, you ruin careers. That's why Archaeoraptor did NOT make it to any textbooks.

It's fine to inquire about the motive for the inquiries, but why should any inquiry be suppressed or any question made to be "done" just because someone doesn't agree with someone's belief about it?

Who's suppressing inquiry? We're asking for evidence to support your claims. You don't seem to really have any.
Just circular arguments, special case arguments and a very poor understanding of how history is actually done.

If you don't like someone else's belief, then you can direct your attention to some other issue and away from the one that bothers you.

Well, i could.
Except they don't extend the favor.
People outlawed my marriage for years based on their religious beliefs and their feeling that the rest of the country needs to live by their beliefs. So naturally, i'm motivated to criticize these beliefs, or the 'evidence' they offer as the basis of why i should, if not accept the beliefs, at least accept their authority to tell me how to live my life.

ALMOSt as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them.

No, that's not easy to assume. Maybe assume any such claim is false, tentatively, and be willing to consider differently depending on the evidence.

No, no. If you're going to offer 'easiest,' then you have to be consistent with 'easy.'
It's easiest of all to just deny all supernatural claims.
There are no complicated steps, which is what makes that 'easiest.'

It's not terribly scientific. But then, neither is choosing 'easy' history.


You have to pick one or the other Lumpen. It does you no credit to try to eat your cake and still have it.

The goal should be to try to figure out whatever "the Truth" is, not to shut down the whole array of different crusades or "traditions" competing for attention and claiming to have the truth. Some of them probably do have some "truth" that people are seeking.

See, now, that's a much better scientific approach.
But that's not what you want to do with the gospels. You flog 'easy' when you think it helps the story you like. But you won't let that saw cut both ways.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, it's better to seek the answers and choose the one which most "easily" explains the facts we have, not the one which ends the "conflicts" or ends the discussion.

Oh! I see what you did.
No, i didn't offer 'ending the conflict' as a goal.
I used that as a meterstick to figure out which is 'easier.' And if there's nothing more to talk about, then that would be the easiest answer, of course.
You just don't like that because of where it leaves us.
And suddenly 'easy' isn't good enough for you.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why can't a skeptic believe in Christ?

However, the doctrine of salvation by merit is inconsistent with the totality of the New Testament message. It makes meaningless the idea of "the Good News" or "Gospel" or "Euangelion" which is the second-most common theme in the N.T. after "faith" or "belief."

So to make sense out of the idea of "Euangelion" it is necessary that salvation is conditioned only on believing in Christ, so it is gained as a gift, and reject the notion of salvation by merit. There is no merit to belief, which is not an act of morality or righteousness or valor, but almost an accident.

How do we judge between the gift vs. merit doctrines? How do we judge that God would be wrong to offer salvation to us as a gift instead of demanding merit from us as a condition for being saved?

However there is a more parsimonious explanation for the differences between biblical doctrines of merited salvation vs salvation by grace only: Different bible writers had different opinions. This is consistent with the evidence today as thousands of contradictory doctrines taught by various religions all claiming to be under the umbrella of "Christianity" attest. The writer of "James" is evidently much more in lockstep with those who would later be Catholic, whereas the writer of the Pauline epistles was more in line with the preponderance (but certainly not all) of modern-day Protestant groups. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to begin with the assumption that these writers were all inspired by some god.

But they all believed in Christ. And from there they spread out into many different doctrines and interpretations. Is there a problem with that picture? Obviously some of them must be wrong about those minor doctrines they believe. The individual Bible writers could be wrong on some of those doctrinal points. This doesn't prove the whole belief system is false.

The evidence falls squarely on the side of these documents reflecting the individual opinions and beliefs of the writer or groups of writers who produced them.

Of course, and their opinions and beliefs can be partly mistaken. But that doesn't negate the part that is true.

There is no consensus in Christianity regarding what is necessary to be saved.

The widest consensus is that it is necessary to believe in Christ. However, many impose additional requirements. If one uses Bible quotes, some of them suggest it is necessary to obey the commandments, the Mosaic Law. But other texts imply that true obedience is impossible, so it's only some kind of ideal.

But there can be no disagreement that the requirement to be healed by Jesus was pure simple "faith" or belief that he had power to heal them. The healing stories make this clear.

This is because the doctrines presented in the bible are so piecemeal and contradictory as to be useless for drawing any conclusion that cannot immediately be controverted using the same source documents. However, the single most basic point on which nearly every christian denomination stands firm is that taught in Hebrews 11:6 -- "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to god must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Whatever else one chooses to select cafeteria-style from the remaining buffet of available teachings there is almost always this core doctrine. Applying that to the "Hitler" example we arrive at a very simple but horrifying doctrine, one which doesn't prove anything other than how abominable these faith-based religions are: It's not important how you behave, it's only important what you think.

There's a disconnect there. We already know what's important, without reading these Bible verses or knowing anything taught there or by Christian doctrine. We know it's important how people behave, and we know that people can have wrong thoughts.

So you have to re-word your phrase above. The conclusion you're drawing is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) virtually no Christian believers say it's unimportant how you behave, or that it was OK or right what Hitler did; and 2) that verse you're quoting does not strictly say such a thing, even though you might take it that way, because what it's properly speaking of is only what is necessary to please God.

It does not follow logically that behavior is not important just because God wants "faith" from us. It's just a different question: "What should we do?" is one question, and "What does God want from us?" is a different question. It doesn't follow that every judgment about what to do is answered by the rule that God wants faith. One can believe, as that verse says, and also deal with questions of right behavior. It might be easy to misinterpret it to mean that nothing matters in life except to give God some particular thing (faith) he requires, but the verse doesn't really say that.

What if finding salvation is like finding a way to safety when there is a danger, like from an electric shock. You find it by touching the right kind of non-metallic material, e.g. That safety measure says nothing about anything other than making that one escape action, i.e., of touching that one safe material. You could be the worst blood-thirsty monster that ever lived, but if you follow that one safety measure, you are saved, whereas if you're the kindest and most upright pillar of your community but fail to follow the safety measure, you get killed.

Is there something wrong with that safety measure because it doesn't require you to be an upright citizen or does not contain an exclusion clause for bad people?

Why couldn't pleasing God, or finding salvation, be of the same nature as a safety measure to escape harm? Even if it's counter-intuitive, why couldn't the way to eternal life be something that is like a safety measure, as opposed to a rule about upright living or good behavior?

Because if you think in patterns that allow you to accept uncritically stories about . . .

No, we should be critical of the stories, or anything. But there is no Absolute Scientific Decree that a "miracle" event cannot ever happen. It is OK to consider the possibility of such events, based on the evidence.

. . . about a magic Jew who was born of a virgin . . .

I don't accept virgin birth stories, including this one. I know most Christians believe it, but this is not an absolute requirement to believe in Christ. The Bethlehem stories are not credible. But the miracle healing acts by Jesus are believable, because there is good evidence that they happened.

. . . could literally read minds, turn water to wine, heal (then) incurable diseases such as paralysis, blindness, congenital deformity, leprosy, etc.; who could walk on water, raise dead people from their graves, come back from being killed and levitate off into the sky, then you can be saved. That is, provided you don't think in patterns that allow you to accept uncritically stories of Joseph Smith performing miracles, or Mohammad . . .

There are no such stories of them performing miracles. But how would believing in such stories about Joseph Smith or Mohammed preclude one from also believing in Christ?

. . . or any other competing stories that describe the same types of extraordinary events.

It's not clear that one couldn't believe in those other stories while also believing in the Jesus miracles.

So if you're the right kind of gullible you can be saved. Hitler may have been the right kind of gullible, so he's a candidate and may right now be basking in this salvation.

This question really doesn't matter. If salvation is like the safety escape from danger, then what difference does it make whether Hitler finds the escape? If a train is coming and you're on the track, and there's also a Nazi there, would you refuse to jump off the track because that's what the Nazi is doing?

But as for me, I'm a pretty good guy. I pay my taxes, keep my lawn mowed, never take from others what is not mine, try to deal honorably with everyone I encounter and in short try to show respect to others. I've done things I regret, certainly. But I have done nothing -- absolutely nothing ever in my life -- that would merit torment even for a moment. However, I happen to be skeptical. I've looked honestly into the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu Vedic traditions, several native American religious traditions and even delved into some of the ancient and extinct religions of other cultures. Never have I found any evidence that any of these traditions required the presence of a god to come into existence.

So because of my skepticism about all religions I've investigated, and because advocates of each one are equally persuasive in the arguments they present in favor of their preferred belief . . .

There are lots of possible comparisons. I'm proposing that Christ demonstrated power which the other great Prophets or Sages or Savior figures could not demonstrate. So on that point I'm saying they are not equal. Or one stands out as uniquely persuasive or distinguished from all the others. There's a strong case for this, based on evidence.

. . . I cannot ever be a candidate for salvation.

No, everyone's a candidate. Except maybe someone who has no functioning brain.

Skepticism is therefore the most heinous crime of all, as it guarantees that no matter what else one does one will be tormented for all eternity.

No, skepticism makes it difficult to believe only some of the minor doctrines, but not difficult to believe that Christ had life-giving power, because of the evidence of this power which he demonstrated.

What possibly "guarantees" that one is excluded from salvation would be a dogmatic premise that any miracle act is absolutely impossible and must be rejected regardless of any evidence.

 

[Juma]

But they all believed in Christ.

Christ is not necessarily = jesus.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But they all believed in Christ.

Christ is not necessarily = jesus.

Some of the Earliest Christains were sure that John the Baptist was the Christ, Jesus just one of his prophets.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But there is no Absolute Scientific Decree that a "miracle" event cannot ever happen.

Actually, that's been offered many times as THE definition of miracle, something that is scientifically impossible, therefore the very fact of the event would prove God's hand must be involved.

I mean, if science comes to believe that the dead, the long dead, the embalmed and buried have a 1 in a million chance of waking up and walking around, then it's no longer a miracle that someone's been resurrected. Just luck.

If the Dead Sea naturally opens up a chanel for foot traffic every 20 years, then that wasn't a 'miracle.' Moses just had really good timing. OR someone saw it happen and added details to make a ripping yarn.

So, yeah, science does say miracles don't happen.
That's the whole point of the word 'miracle.' It's meant to label an event that could not have taken place without magic ,supernatural, divine, occult intervention.
Which is why there's a greater burden upon the believer to show that this impossible event really, truly happened.

Saying 'someone wrote it down so it probably happened' doesn't work That doesn't work for our current Congress, where a Senator can vote FOR a law, then go tell the Congressional Record to publish that he voted AGAINST it. And that doesn't even ask the CR reader to imagine anything greater than someone lying to his voters.
You want magic to be taken seriously, you need some serious documentation that magic happened.

 

[funinspace]

ALMOSt as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them.

No, that's not easy to assume. Maybe assume any such claim is false, tentatively, and be willing to consider differently depending on the evidence.

No, no. If you're going to offer 'easiest,' then you have to be consistent with 'easy.'
It's easiest of all to just deny all supernatural claims.
There are no complicated steps, which is what makes that 'easiest.'

It's not terribly scientific. But then, neither is choosing 'easy' history.


You have to pick one or the other Lumpen. It does you no credit to try to eat your cake and still have it.

The goal should be to try to figure out whatever "the Truth" is, not to shut down the whole array of different crusades or "traditions" competing for attention and claiming to have the truth. Some of them probably do have some "truth" that people are seeking.

See, now, that's a much better scientific approach.
But that's not what you want to do with the gospels. You flog 'easy' when you think it helps the story you like. But you won't let that saw cut both ways.

Wouldn't it just be "easier" just to ignore the whole Zeus god thingy, as he seemed way too lazy in leaving even a decent bread crumb trail?

Just imagine if this Yahweh character had showed up to the leaders of Alexandria, Athens, or Rome and performed its parlor tricks Though he did purported show up in Memphis, but they didn't seem very impressed.

 

[jab]

For our purposes, let's assume this is correct, i.e., this is Christian doctrine, even though most Christians deny it. So if Hitler was a believer in Christ, he went to Heaven. Catholics believe he must have gone to Purgatory first and no doubt has to be there a long time.

But let's assume the worst here, that he went straight to Heaven, despite all his crimes.

On the other hand, the 6,000,000 Jews that he condemned to death, and who by default failed to accept Christ, were sent to Hell.

Let's say that's also Christian doctrine generally, however it is possible that some of these Jews actually were believers in Christ. In such a large number, there are likely a few who actually had such a belief, so these ones went to Heaven according to Christian doctrine, even though they were Jews.

The image of Anne Frank writhing in pain while Adolf enjoys a latte presents a stark visual that there is something seriously wrong with Christian doctrine.

No, there's nothing wrong with this doctrine if it is properly understood.

If you take Christian doctrine of salvation as one of reward for merit, then there is something wrong with this picture. But the Christ doctrine of salvation is not one of merit. St. Paul wrote: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." --Romans 6:23.

So eternal life is a gift that is not earned, whereas what we have earned is death.

So Christian doctrine agrees that Hitler does not deserve eternal life, and neither does anyone else. All of us, including Hitler, deserve only death. All of us and all those 6 million Jews and Anne Frank and all those Nazis including Hitler deserve the same thing, which is death.

However, there are some Bible verses that seem to say the opposite, i.e., that one gains salvation by doing good deeds or obeying the Law and being righteous and so on. This is the teaching of religion generally, and these ideas were obviously inherited by the N.T. writers who included them along with the new alien teaching that we can be saved as a gift which is not earned. So we have both these conflicting doctrines taught in the Bible.

However, the doctrine of salvation by merit is inconsistent with the totality of the New Testament message. It makes meaningless the idea of "the Good News" or "Gospel" or "Euangelion" which is the second-most common theme in the N.T. after "faith" or "belief."

So to make sense out of the idea of "Euangelion" it is necessary that salvation is conditioned only on believing in Christ, so it is gained as a gift, and reject the notion of salvation by merit. There is no merit to belief, which is not an act of morality or righteousness or valor, but almost an accident.

How do we judge between the gift vs. merit doctrines? How do we judge that God would be wrong to offer salvation to us as a gift instead of demanding merit from us as a condition for being saved?

Similarly, Ted Bundy, a convicted murderer of over 30 young women, confessed his sins before his execution and, according to Christian doctrine, was sent directly to heaven. On the other hand, Bill Gates, an atheist who has lived a virtuous life and has donated more than $27 billion to global health, development, and education, will be sent to Hell. It is hard to imagine anything more unjust or immoral, but this absurdity is precisely in accord with conventional Christianity.

But this judgment is based on the premise that salvation has to be conditioned on merit rather than being a gift. What is this premise based on? You have to explain why it would be wrong for God, if he/she/it exists, to offer salvation as a gift instead of as an earned reward for merit.

It doesn't matter how extreme and horrifying the examples are that you offer of bad people being saved and good people being lost. All such outcries are meaningless unless you explain why it would be wrong for a God to save people as a free gift to them rather than making them earn it by merit.

In business and work we earn our income by producing something that others want. So if we "earn" our salvation from God, it has to mean that we produce something of value that God wants, and he pays us in return by giving us eternal life. So, what is it that God wants from us that he needs and would feel deprived of if he didn't get it from us? What service can we perform for God that would reduce his suffering or make him better off or give him increased pleasure or make him feel good, such that he feels the pressure to pay the price of offering us eternal life in order to get this service from us?

There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason why salvation, if it is possible, has to be offered to us as a reward or payment for merit. It is difficult to imagine what payment or service God would need from us.

All the lamenting over Hitler and Bundy and Anne Frank and Bill Gates is meaningless unless you can answer this more basic question about merit vs. gift. In human trade and work it makes sense to speak of earning our reward and being paid according to how much value we create for the society. But how does any of this apply to the economics of salvation or eternal life that God offers to humans?

Suppose instead that God simply placed into the world a key to salvation that is there for the taking, to everyone who finds it or takes it. It's just there, offered to anyone regardless of any merit. If you find it you're lucky. Why is that wrong? Suppose this way of distributing it ends up producing a greater number of those who find salvation than would be the case if it was distributed according to merit, to only those who perform some righteous work first.

If you can't explain why this free gift doctrine has to be wrong and only a merit system is legitimate, then there is no meaning to all the complaints about Hitler and all the other bad guys who might have found this free gift.

You're kidding right, in this perfectly amoral, yea, immoral, statement.
If I give a great gift to a cruel awful psychopathic person because he apologized in order to receive the gift, and I continue and intensify the torture of (at least some of) his victims because they, oh, disrespected me until it was, according to my rules, too late, what a vain immoral pompous enabler of human cruelty I would be. And that's what your imaginary friend is. Yeah, I reserve the right to judge your imaginary friend and his alleged gift-giving procedure.
BTW, your post of course reveals anti-Semitism.

 

[Atheos]

There is no consensus in Christianity regarding what is necessary to be saved. This is because the doctrines presented in the bible are so piecemeal and contradictory as to be useless for drawing any conclusion that cannot immediately be controverted using the same source documents. However, the single most basic point on which nearly every christian denomination stands firm is that taught in Hebrews 11:6 -- "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to god must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Whatever else one chooses to select cafeteria-style from the remaining buffet of available teachings there is almost always this core doctrine. Applying that to the "Hitler" example we arrive at a very simple but horrifying doctrine, one which doesn't prove anything other than how abominable these faith-based religions are: It's not important how you behave, it's only important what you think.

There's a disconnect there. We already know what's important, without reading these Bible verses or knowing anything taught there or by Christian doctrine. We know it's important how people behave, and we know that people can have wrong thoughts.

So you have to re-word your phrase above. The conclusion you're drawing is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) virtually no Christian believers say it's unimportant how you behave, or that it was OK or right what Hitler did; and 2) that verse you're quoting does not strictly say such a thing, even though you might take it that way, because what it's properly speaking of is only what is necessary to please God.

It does not follow logically that behavior is not important just because God wants "faith" from us. It's just a different question: "What should we do?" is one question, and "What does God want from us?" is a different question. It doesn't follow that every judgment about what to do is answered by the rule that God wants faith. One can believe, as that verse says, and also deal with questions of right behavior. It might be easy to misinterpret it to mean that nothing matters in life except to give God some particular thing (faith) he requires, but the verse doesn't really say that.

What if finding salvation is like finding a way to safety when there is a danger, like from an electric shock. You find it by touching the right kind of non-metallic material, e.g. That safety measure says nothing about anything other than making that one escape action, i.e., of touching that one safe material. You could be the worst blood-thirsty monster that ever lived, but if you follow that one safety measure, you are saved, whereas if you're the kindest and most upright pillar of your community but fail to follow the safety measure, you get killed.

Is there something wrong with that safety measure because it doesn't require you to be an upright citizen or does not contain an exclusion clause for bad people?

Why couldn't pleasing God, or finding salvation, be of the same nature as a safety measure to escape harm? Even if it's counter-intuitive, why couldn't the way to eternal life be something that is like a safety measure, as opposed to a rule about upright living or good behavior?

Although very few christian representatives would outright say "It's not important how you behave, it's only important how you think" that is the net result of this core doctrine. The fact is that people who claim to be some variant of christian do not behave in a more moral or ethical fashion than people who are skeptics. That was exactly my point. There are many christians in prison for murder, rape and other violent crimes. But because they happen to believe an absurd myth they end up in heaven. All the while a skeptic who is a good citizen, never does anything to harm or defraud his fellow man ends up in an eternal state of torture for no other crime than his skepticism. It doesn't matter how these two individuals behaved, it only matters what they believed. Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting a very real and viable set of circumstances.

... we should be critical of the stories, or anything. But there is no Absolute Scientific Decree that a "miracle" event cannot ever happen. It is OK to consider the possibility of such events, based on the evidence.

. . . about a magic Jew who was born of a virgin . . .

I don't accept virgin birth stories, including this one. I know most Christians believe it, but this is not an absolute requirement to believe in Christ. The Bethlehem stories are not credible. But the miracle healing acts by Jesus are believable, because there is good evidence that they happened.

Okay, so you agree with me then that the virgin birth narrative is bogus. Please present the evidence that the miraculous healing acts by Jesus happened. What is the difference in the nature of the evidence between the one and the other?

It's very simple: Extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence. What is so hard to understand about that simple principle? The alien abduction stories of  Betty and Barney Hill are extraordinary claims that are considerably more plausible than the story of an itinerant preacher 2000 years ago literally turning water to wine, instantly healing incurable conditions such as blindness, walking on top of a storm tossed sea or levitating unassisted off into the sky. Yet most intelligent and rational people dismiss the Hill story as a hoax. The irony of the situation is that the evidence in favor of Betty and Barney Hill's story is considerably better than the evidence for any of the miracle claims in the "Jesus" story. Yet millions of otherwise sane people just believe the Jesus myths uncritically. I was once one myself, so I'm not trying to judge, just trying to understand why. I searched desperately for many years for this evidence of which you speak. If it exists I was never able to find it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Some miracle stories are probably true, others not.

The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard

Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?

Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?

There's more than one source for them.

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true. If they're stories about a sage who taught disciples for several decades, it is much easier to explain how they could have been invented and attached to the master. Or if the stories don't appear until centuries later, then it's easier to explain how they could have emerged over that time lapse. And in other ways it can be easy in some cases to explain how the stories originated but more difficult in other cases. If it's more difficult to explain how the stories could have been invented, then it increases the chance that they're true.

There is specific information in the stories about the event, such as when or where it happened and who was present and what the setting was. We can assume that such detail might be partly fictional but also partly factual. The presence of such detail makes the story more credible.

There's more than one source for them.

Wow, 2 primary sources . . .

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

Well, at least you dropped the 10-30 year BS. Though I hardly consider 30 to 60 years a “short time”.

The accounts of the Jesus miracles existed probably in the 40s, less than 20 years afterward.

The earliest document about Jesus is actually not the Gospels themselves or even St. Paul, but the Q document from which much of Matthew and Luke is derived. This document is likely as early as 50 AD, or 20 years after the reported events http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm , and is thought to be from some of the actual direct disciples of Jesus.

Though it's mostly sayings rather than miracle stories, there are two miracle healings of Jesus reported in it (Mt 8:5-13/Lk 7:1-10 and Mt 12:22/Lk 11:14), and also a 3rd reference in which these acts of Jesus are referred to (Mt 11:2-5/Lk 7:18-22).

Though this document was written probably around 50 AD, it is based on oral tradition already in existence for some period earlier. So these miracle stories of Jesus almost certainly were current in the 40s. So they were circulating within 20 years from the time of the actual events and when many eye witnesses were still alive.

Where did such stories, oral or written, at that early date, originate from? You can speculate that they were all invented maybe about 40 AD or so. But a better explanation is that they date back to around 30 AD when the events actually happened. They originated as reports based on the memories of those who witnessed the events.

By comparison, stories about other 1st-century miracle workers, like Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana, didn't exist until at least a century later than the life of the reported miracle-worker. So we have less reason to believe those accounts.

Nevermind the 2 centuries the stories got to percolate before we ended up with any copies. We have strong evidence in a few cases showing that the followers of this new cult were not above amending the stories.

Overall the accounts were preserved accurately with no significant change. During copying some minor changes happen with no change of substance.

A greater time lapse than this is normal for accounts about the events of the period. For historians like Herodotus and Livy and Tacitus etc., the time lapse is far greater from the original writing and the date of the copies we have now, and the risk of changes during copying is just as great.

Humans have been quite entertaining in creating gods, from the Sumerian pantheon, the Greek pantheon, the Egyptian pantheon, Akhenaten, Vishnu, Bahá'ís god, the Jainism pantheon, Allah, Yahweh, Christ-God, LSD, the Mayan pantheon, the Shinto pantheon, Ik Onkar, the Tao pantheon, and last but not last Ahura Mazda. Building gods seems to be one of our larger and oldest hobbies. Care to explain how all these could have emerged?

One of them cannot be explained: the Christ-God. All the others emerged over a period of centuries of mythologizing. But the Christ-God had a public life of less than 3 years and in less than 30 years was being worshiped as a God for whom we have more miracle story accounts than for any of the others. So for this one figure it is difficult to explain how the mythologizing process could have happened and how the stories could have emerged, whereas all the others follow a predictable pattern and are easier to explain.

The world was not created in 7 days, nor is man ~6,000 years old.

There was no floody.

There was no day when the sun stood still for Joshua, nor reset back a few degrees for a later dude.

There was no Exodus.

Solomon only exists in the Bible, but he was world famous…hum

Maybe most of the above didn't really happen. But the major figures like Moses and Joshua and Solomon probably did exist. Archaeological evidence finally was found to prove that David existed. The famous hero figures mostly did exist, including those of Homer and others, but the details are likely fiction. We can dismiss much of the accounts, as to the details, but the miracle stories of Jesus cannot be dismissed this way. It is too difficult to explain how the Jesus miracle stories could have emerged if the events did not really happen, whereas most miracle stories can easily be explained without assuming the events really happened.

There was no virgin birth.

Matthew’s 3 14’s lineage is BS, based upon the Bible itself.

We can explain how this mythologizing got started a few decades later. But we cannot explain how the Jesus healing miracle accounts got started if they did not really happen.

The Trinity construct of this sort of 3 headed god, is hopelessly tortured; with said god, temporarily sacrificing a part of itself, to its other self, for the sins of his creation that he knew would happen when he created it.

The more important point is that this theologizing cannot be explained unless we assume a hero figure existed upon which the theologizing was directed. Where did this earlier hero figure come from? It's easy to see how the later mythologizing and theologizing came in to answer questions about the hero figure's origin and nature, but it's not easy to see where the original hero figure came from. What happened at around 30 AD to give rise to this new hero figure around whom the later religious symbols accumulated?

There are zero contemporary records about Jesus outside of the Bible.

But if those separate records about him had not been assembled into this collection called "the Bible," this statement wouldn't mean anything. You could say "There are no records about him outside all the several accounts about him."

By "contemporary" you must mean within 70 years, or 65 years, because there is the epistle of Clement of Rome which expounds upon him. Also Jesus is mentioned at least once in Josephus' Antiquities written about 94. It depends on what "contemporary" means. We don't necessarily need accounts written during the life of an historical figure in order for the accounts to be reliable. Obviously many historians and poets wrote about events centuries earlier, and we can believe them with good reason.

It would make no sense to say we know nothing of any historical figure unless we have accounts about him written at the time he lived, before his death. We'd always like to have more records than actually exist. But you can't assume that the only history that ever happened was that which was written down at the time that it happened and which written accounts we still have today.

How is bullshit difficult to explain?

Isn't it easy to explain how a charismatic figure like Simon Magus, probably a well-known magician during 30-60 AD who knew clever tricks, came to have some miracle stories attributed to him over a 200-year period after he lived? Isn't that easier to explain than the case of Jesus who had no such reputation in 30 AD (unless he actually did perform the miracle acts) and yet within 30 years was being worshiped as a miracle-worker with more such reports about him than any other figure of those times?

There is specific information in the stories about the event, such as when or where it happened and who was present and what the setting was. We can assume that such detail might be partly fictional but also partly factual. The presence of such detail makes the story more credible.

Wow…vague hand waving??? Most stories have “specific information”, so what?

It adds to the credibility if the account says something more than just a vague mention of "signs and wonders" and that's all. If certain events are described in some detail, giving a little information about who was healed or where it happened or what the setting was, etc., it makes the account more credible. This is so even if there are discrepancies or some doubtfulness about the details.

Vague remarks about "signs and wonders" have some credibility too, but very little unless also supported by other accounts giving more detailed information.

Or do you mean specific information like Matthew’s conflicting fable of the virgin birth as compared to Luke’s version?

Predictably, you raise this example, because it's so easy. We have plenty of reason to DISbelieve the virgin birth accounts. But virtually no reason to discount the miracle healing accounts. The difference between the credibility of these two kinds of accounts is huge.

The point which should be raised about the virgin birth claims is why these birth stories became attached to Jesus. Why did the early Jesus followers and two of the evangelists give us these virgin birth stories? Why did they choose Jesus as an object for this virgin birth idea? How does this mythologizing get started? There has to be an object to begin with who attracts this mythologizing process. Where did this object come from? He can't just pop up out of nowhere.

Or do you care to harmonize the differing tales about Jesus’ resurrection?

The fact that there are different accounts, with minor discrepancies, is evidence pointing to the historicity of the resurrection event generally. The minor discrepancies can be explained one way or another. Like other narrative accounts in the gospels, there can be mistakes as to detail, while the event generally is believable. It is very difficult to explain how the earliest Christian community got started and grew so quickly without this event as a catalyst to get it going. If it wasn't the resurrection event, then there must have been something else.

Or maybe you’d like to suggest a arsenic cocktail due to Mark’s added on ending?

Mark is the only source for that. There's no reason to believe Jesus said such a thing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Overall the accounts were preserved accurately with no significant change. During copying some minor changes happen with no change of substance.

You have absolutely no way to show this to be true.
You don't have actual access to the actual events that supposedly happened, and no way to compare it to later accounts.
You cannot possibly make this claim except as a bald-faced assertion with no historical value.

 

[Juma]

I think Lumpenprometariat is the 121 reason...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is there ONLY ONE 1st-century miracle-worker Messiah figure?

I might add that in nearly every case where there is "specific information in the stories about the event, such as when it happened..." it turns out that the historical record is at odds with the "facts" presented in the gospel narratives.

If that's so "in nearly every case," why is it that the only example given is that of the birth stories, which are so easy to pounce upon?

There are some other examples too where there are discrepancies, but there are also some major examples of AGREEMENT with the non-biblical historical record and with archaeological findings.

A major example of agreement is that of the identification of Pontius Pilate as the Roman official under whom Jesus was tried and executed. This is confirmed by Tacitus.

Another is the reference by Suetonius to an edict from Claudius to expel the Jews from Rome. This confirms Acts 18:2 which mentions this edict of Claudius.

There is agreement on other points also. However, it is common for a New Testament text to both agree and disagree with another source, like Josephus. The more detail that the gospel account gives on a particular matter, the greater chance there is of a discrepancy occurring along with the points of agreement.

E.g., Josephus agrees with the account that Herod Antipas had John the Baptist beheaded. However, the gospel account of the girl who danced for Herod and asked him for the head of John the Baptist to be handed to her "on a platter" is not harmonious with Josephus' account and is probably fictitious.

The credibility of the Jesus miracle healing accounts generally is not undermined by the existence of other N.T. accounts that have discrepancies on detail. On the major events there is substantial agreement.

So there is both factual agreement and disagreement with non-biblical history. The conclusion to draw from this is that the gospel accounts are reliable on major points but often unreliable on minor details. And maybe there are more minor details than major points.

If you could line up all the agreements and disagreements and tally them on a scorecard, it could very well be that the disagreements would win. But they would all be minor points that do not alter the substance or pattern of events described in the gospel accounts.

Some examples include the fact that Herod died 10 years before Cyrene (Quirinius) became governor of Syria, making it impossible for Jesus to have been born when Herod was a threat (Matthew's version) and when Cyrene had issued any edicts (Luke's version). Somebody be lying.

Somebody be getting bogged down in unnecessary detail that has no bearing on anything. The whole obsession on the birth of Jesus is unnecessary for seeking out the important historical facts. Except that we need to explain WHY there was this obsession to establish his virgin birth and his origin in Jewish prophecy and the need to have him born in Bethlehem.

Why did they obsess on doing this with Jesus? Why did they think it so important to establish him with these symbols and make him into a god or Jewish Messiah? What did he do to inspire all this in that very short time of his public activity? Gautama also had an impact on his disciples, but it took him more than 40 years of teaching and recruiting disciples and impressing them with his charisma. How did Jesus do the same in less than 3 years?

When disciples or devotees create the legends and virgin birth stories and so on, they are motivated by a great sage or hero or savior figure whose long lifetime of spiritual deeds and sermons intoxicated them to this high level of devotion and enthusiasm to spread the philosophy of their revered master, and make him into a god figure. That does not happen in the short space of only 3 years (and probably less).

So, nevermind the virgin birth legends and the attempt to put the Jesus birth in the city of David and other symbols. Rather, explain the need for the symbols. What was Jesus in 30 AD that should drive someone to invent all these symbols and make him into a god? The best answer is that he actually did have that power which is indicated by the miracle healing acts which were actual historical events.

Another example, albeit an argument from silence, is the fact that there is zero historical evidence for Herod's slaughter of "all the male children throughout the coasts," . . .

(Where does the phrase "throughout the coasts" come from?)

. . . an event that would have stood out like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl of mundane history we have been able to excise from that time period. Josephus was openly hostile towards Herod and even in his histories this atrocity is never mentioned.

There are other problems with just the birth narrative contradictions, so much so that many modern bible scholars (even apologists) now argue that "Luke" was possibly mistaken and careless. Doesn't say much about the reliability of the rest of the writings . . .

These legends say nothing about the reliability of the miracle healing stories which are totally different. Luke obviously got most of his miracle healing stories from the earlier sources. These are part of the original basic historical factual core around which the later legends evolved in order to fill in details which believers wanted.

Where there's a demand for more answers, there will be a supply to meet that demand, whatever it takes. But what caused the initial demand in the first place? If there was a demand for a miracle-working healer like Jesus, why do we have only one, and not dozens of these messiah figures doing such healing acts and dozens of "gospel" accounts about these other messiah healing heros?

You think there were many? a dime-a-dozen? Name them. They do not exist. No, there are no such figures in Josephus! or anywhere else. The attempt to prove that there were others always falls flat. No comparable examples can be given.

. . . but more importantly it demonstrates that there is good reason to be skeptical of the tales. They do not jive with the historical record. Heck, they don't even jive with each other.

Again, on the major points of history, the gospels DO jive with the historical record. It is mostly on minor details that there is any discrepancy.

On the very few major points of discrepancy, like the killing of all the babies in Bethlehem, or the improbable census, it is only because of the need to go far back many years, to find an origin for Jesus, and to meet the heavy demand for this religious symbolism, that the Luke writer created the fictional account and placed it into the earlier generation.

The question to answer: what drove this demand for the religious symbolism to be attached to the historical Jesus figure? What was it about this historical person that it was found necessary to provide him with the virgin birth and other religious symbols?

The evidence is quite conclusive that huge elements of these stories were fabricated.

No, only that a small number of fabrications exist which have any significance, probably less than half a dozen, and that all other dubious points are only discrepancies in minor detail. The major fabrications, like the virgin birth and other Bethlehem symbols are driven by a demand for the origin of this hero or savior figure, whose presence has yet to be explained, i.e., where he came from, or how he could have been invented.

Wherever a clear discrepancy exists of any significance, it is usually only one of the gospels that is the source for it. Where there is agreement by 2 or 3 of them, the point of discrepancy is only a minor detail, or of minor public note, not something of large impact such as the killing of thousands of babies in Bethlehem. Anything of this magnitude is a story found in only one of the sources.

Hero legends usually begin with a core of truth, around which then the legends accumulate. There has to be a real person who stood out for some reason and who is the starting point for the symbols that got added later.

It is rational to assume that other parts (perhaps all) of the narratives were fictional.

Other minor parts perhaps, but not the substance of the narratives. What is rational to assume is that there is a core narrative around the Jesus figure that is factual and was very unusual or provocative to such a degree as to cause the later barrage of religious symbolism to accumulate around him, and this must be something that makes him stand out very conspicuously from all the other sages or savior figures or wonder-worker hero figures in history which can so much more easily be explained as a result of the normal mythologizing process.

This barrage of religious symbolism is not limited to the canonical gospel accounts, but extends to all the various apocryphal gospels, of which there could be hundreds, which try to explain the origin of Jesus and fill in all the background information on him that the 4 gospels leave out.

In light of the huge demand for such stories, we should not be surprised that some of this demand was also met in part by the 4 major gospel accounts, which are distinguishable from these later less credible documents only in degree.

"Where there's a demand, there will be a supply." But what we must explain is: Why the initial demand?

One explanation is that there was a demand for some miracle-worker, and anything would do, even a totally fictional character, or a real character but who did no such miracles at all but would be accepted as a god that people would worship simply because of the claim that he did miracles.

That explanation makes no sense! Even if gullible people would believe in any such scenario that comes along, there is one big flaw: Why is there ONLY ONE such figure from this period and not many?

Unless that question can be answered, the better explanation is: The miracle stories of Jesus are really true, and this actual event of a person with real life-giving power set off the barrage of new miracles and legends and mythologizing that followed over the next 200 or 300 years.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Can you think of a better analogy? A great legendary historical figure whose reputation developed within 50-100 years and whose public life was short and who was not a great emperor or Pharaoh of some kind? and for whom there is more than one source of information?

Yeah i can. God. Seems to be the subject of many a fairytale. So now i ask you please.produce god.

No, that (God's reputation) took more than 50-100 years to develop.

But anyway, you need to give an example of an historical person, an individual, who lived in history at a particular time and place and meets the above description.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What are Smith's "miracles"?

Direct revelation from God is not a miracle?

No, a "miracle" in the gospel accounts is an act of power. A super-human act. An act of great power that humans cannot do. And of course we want it to be something that benefits humans.

Like the healing acts of Jesus.

How did Joseph Smith's tablets benefit people? Did they heal someone? What was the act of power?

Wow. What would you require, as a bare minimum, for a miracle? "For a miracle from God, God would have to...." Fill in the blank, could you?

It doesn't even matter where it comes from.

A "miracle" would be a great act of power that benefits people and cannot be performed by humans. Or by human power as we know it. Something far beyond human technology.

As Bible/Christ debunker Richard Carrier says in his definition of "Christian Historicity": "Jesus was an amazingly famous superman who could walk on water and shit."

Despite the vulgarity of this, I think the straightforwardness and bluntness of it is attractive and serves a useful purpose today in contrast to most of what comes from current sophisticated and refined theology, especially from existentialism.

Did Jesus have power or didn't he? Can he put us in Heaven after we die or not? I really see nothing wrong with this more simple "meat & potatoes" language for getting at the truth.

This blunt definition of Jesus is never refuted but just ridiculed.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What made Jesus stand out? Why aren't there several other similar messiah figures?

No doubt there is some fabrication in the accounts. But even so the healing stories could be substantially true. If there is no truth to these accounts, then why does Jesus stand out among all the many possible preaching messiah prophet figures during this period of history?

He didn't stand out enough to be noted or mentioned by an independent source during the period of history when he was said to exist, or for sometime after.

The term "independent source" is subjective. He is mentioned, but no others are mentioned.

The question to answer is: Why does Jesus stand out among all the many possible preaching messiah prophet figures during this period of history?

If he does not stand out, then there should be other similar messiah figures or hero figures who were made into gods during this time. Who would they be? Not just the 1st century -- how about from 500 BC to 1500 AD. Who is a comparable reported historical figure who displayed superhuman power and who was worshiped as a god?

How did such a singular figure arise out from everyone else if he had no unusual power? What distinguished him to cause so many to make him into a god?

The myth/legend grew with the telling and repeating of a story.

What myth? What was the myth at the beginning? Why aren't there other similar myths about other god/hero/savior figures? Why couldn't other myths/legends also grow from being repeated? Why only this one?

Whatever kernel of truth lies at the heart of it, the existence of the man, the character of the man, etc, is hard to determine.

Why is it so easy to determine in the case of Gautama and Simon Magus and others, but hard to determine in this case? One reasonable answer is that he actually did perform the miracle acts attributed to him in the legends.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Direct revelation from God is not a miracle?

No, a "miracle" in the gospel accounts is an act of power. A super-human act. An act of great power that humans cannot do. And of course we want it to be something that benefits humans.

What an incredibly self-serving misuse of the term. Where do you find this definition held by any other people?

Miracles are super-human acts, but that's because they show the power of God. The Plagues of Egypt did not benefit humans. Pharaoh was ready to let the slaves go, when God hardened his heart for the express purpose of being about to knock the Egyptians around for a while, to show his Glory. The people that were harmed in the Plagues, that harm was unnecessary for the freedom of the slaves. The miracles were gratuitous suffering.
So that's a meaningless quality, and no good reason to dismiss Joe's miracles.

God also grants miracles when He grants prophecy to His prophets. No mortal can do that, it's something that can only be explained by God's actions. God granting knowledge that humans can't know without Him is a miracle. So it doesn't have to be flashy like the Red Sea, it has to be impossible without divine intervention.

Besides, if God's revelation to Joseph Smith was true, then it would definitely benefit humanity to know that shit.

Once more, you're managed to Special Case your desired God, while completely flubbing the justification.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wow. What would you require, as a bare minimum, for a miracle? "For a miracle from God, God would have to...." Fill in the blank, could you?

It doesn't even matter where it comes from.

Putting you at odds with most apologists who try to use the fact of miracles as evidence that a particular god is real... Wait.
Aren't you using the miracles performed by Jesus as evidence that he's real?
What the fuck, Lumpy?

A "miracle" would be a great act of power that benefits people and cannot be performed by humans. Or by human power as we know it. Something far beyond human technology.

FIFY

As Bible/Christ debunker Richard Carrier says in his definition of "Christian Historicity": "Jesus was an amazingly famous superman who could walk on water and shit."

Despite the vulgarity of this, I think the straightforwardness and bluntness of it is attractive and serves a useful purpose today in contrast to most of what comes from current sophisticated and refined theology, especially from existentialism.

You do realize that by 'amazingly famous' he's being sarcastic, right? What with the stories telling about how many people were aware of him and his miracles, but there being no corroboration of all this miraculous shit in any other sources?

Did Jesus have power or didn't he? Can he put us in Heaven after we die or not? I really see nothing wrong with this more simple "meat & potatoes" language for getting at the truth.

But...this is just meat-and-potatoes questions. You haven't provided anything dependable in the way of answers.
Rather, you keep taking logical shortcuts which undercut the credibility of your conclusions.

This blunt definition of Jesus is never refuted but just ridiculed.

Well, i can see why you'd stick with that definition, then. I mean, aside from the fact that it highlights the lack of corroboration.
It also completely avoids the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the messiah prophecies. Maybe it's a little too blunt.