what is your opinion on christians.

The majority of them? Above 50%? I assume you're going to show us the research you did to come up with this number, or did you just pull this out of your pulpit? You also refer to "the church". Which "the church" would that be? Baptists? Methodists? Catholics? They all think very differently and espouse very different ideals.

I'm afraid you are in fact painting with a very broad brush. You can't just toss out blanket statements and expect people to agree with you.

I personally believe that the role of organized religion has changed in many instances, due quite a bit to the profound influence that our media driven society has had on them. Organized religion, due to its very nature, tends to be hide-bound and slow to change. When society is changing at an incredibly fast pace, that leaves the doorway wide open for the organizations to be misused. It also leaves a large avenue of protest for those that dislike having to learn new things and new ways of doing things. In addition, the fast pace of societal change creates easy marks for those that are power-hungry and want a "congregation" that will follow their lead.

 

Ok. I have a whole book on it. Where do you want me to start?

Eyewitness evidence?

Testing the eyewitness evidence?

The documentary evidence? (reliability of the gospels)

Corroborating evidence? Outside sources serving as credible sources for Jesus

The archaelological evidence?

The profile evidence? (did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God?

The Fingerprint evidence? (Did Jesus and Jesus alone Match the identity of the Messiah?

The Medical Evidence?

The Evidence of the Missiong body?

The Evidence of Appearances? Was Jesus seen alive after he died?

The circumstantial evidence? Are there any supporting facts that point to the resurrection?

 

See here is the problem my friend - I have seen books on subjects that have been shown to be utter bunk, but there are people that still believe.....a book is just words on paper and even the evidence in it is useless unless sourced externally - otherwise Jesus was a real man, was married, the Jews are taking over the world, Roswell was real and a cabal of lizard people disguise themselves as humans and infiltrate us

You are suffering from a case of "confirmation bias" , which is perfectly understandable and normal, but does mean that a lot of what you gather and present will only be convincing to you - "personal gnosis"

The dogmatism of certain christian groups and their behaviors was what started this thread, and to be a little harsh on you there is more than a glimpse in your interactions of the very thing you have rallied against

Remember your absolute conviction in the messianic prophecy and how I showed your zeal and belief was wrong to be so polemic? Always keep that in mind

 

"it is useless unless sourced externally "

I plan to not just tell you the evidence in the book, but also what the name of the expert is, and what there credentials are that qualify them to give their commentary on it. I understand where you are coming from.


The dogmatism of certain christian groups and their behaviors was what started this thread, and to be a little harsh on you there is more than a glimpse in your interactions of the very thing you have rallied against

I hope not. I hope I don't come off as arrogant or judgemental I don't try to. It's mainly what psychologists call the "bandwagon effect" that bothers me in the church. I personally feel like people in and outside of the church sacrifice their morals and integrity to be accepted by others. I'm a little harder on the church though because as Christians, they are supposed to be above things like that, and more Christ like. I mean no one is perfect of course, but I'm just personally discouraged and disappointed that people who are supposed to be good people transformed by Christ, can be so wicked and nasty. When you are a Christian you are supposed to change from your old ways, and be more Christ like and what bothers me is that I see more non-Christians that act more Christ then most of the people in the church. If them having Jesus doesn't make them a better person, then what's the point?

 

Actually I am the OPPOSITE of dogmatic - I am VERY pragmatic, but that also means my level of proof is significantly higher....I seek neither divine nor profane explanation - I simply seek explanation

A demi-god with a PhD in awesome will STILL have to source what they are claiming...interpretation is NOT evidence, nor is multiple anecdotes - in fact if you want to get in to primary, secondary and tertiary evidence you are relying heavily on the bible which is written long after the events, based on anecdote and rumor mixed with eyewitness testimony - and eyewitness testimony is amongst some of the LEAST reliable around from a judicial perspective, which is why there is an entire training methodology in place with regards to obtaining such information

I doubt they were doing cognitive recollection all those years ago

If you have good evidence to show me I am actually happy to see it - but I will also caveat that with the fact that what you show me will probably be similar to what i have seen before, because I was a Christian for over 22 years before I left the church and found a different path

It's one reason i have no issue with Jesus as an archetype, any more than I do with Buddah or Heracles or Odin....but none of these are evidence of veracity OR existence, especially when taken in light of the geographic localisations and customs peculiar to all world religions

 

fair enough. But actually this whole book is from a judicial standpoint. The person who wrote this book has a Master in Law degree from Yale Law school and a journalism degree from the University of Missouri. He was also an award winning journailist for the Chicago Tribune. He was an investigative journalist with a legal background. The person who wrote the book, gathers evidence from various people tailoring the questions he asks based on what they are qualified to provide commentary about. As he was an investigative reporter, he knows how to investigate things properly. And actuially, the whole book is written from a judicial standpoint because the author has a background in Law. He weighs the evidence the same way it would happen in a court room, as if someone was on trial for murder or some other crime.

 

Now remember, I'm not on here trying to flaunt all the evidence I know about and throw it in your faces. I TRIED to avoid this debate, I was pretty much bullied into it. I don't go around shoving my religion down peoples throats.

 

This whole debate has nothing to do with topic I originally brought up in this thread. hahaha.

 

If he was that good at law he would not be a journalist

Being an investigative journalist requires neither skill not actual facts - the internet is full of them....and lets not forget Piers Morgan was a journalist of extensive background and levels

Neither qualifications you have offered fill me with any confidence

 

Fair enough.

 

And wouldn't you also need to present the cases for all other religions?

 

The subject asks, what is your opinion on Christians.

Here's mine.

I think they are people.

I think they have families and generally try to do their best for their families. I think they come in all different shapes, sizes, skin colours, ages. I think they come from all over the world. Some are wealthy. Some haven't got two ha'pennies to rub together. Some are very bright, kind caring individuals, some are selfish and vindictive.

To varying degrees, Christians are influenced by their politicians, ie the church. This is in exactly the same way that some people support other political groups, like a particular sport club or marketing firm. Some are only vaguely interested. Some would fight and die for what they believe in.

In short, being a Christian is not something that separates a person from the wider community.

Since this is a martial arts forum, I'll use a martial arts analogy. Some here probably think all martial arts systems have some value. Others will no doubt believe all systems are past pointless and just plain wrong except for the one they personally practice. Therefore you could easily substitute the word Christian in the title for karateka or MMA practioner or salsa dancer and it would still be the exact same question.

 

I guess you are right. There would have to also be a prosecutor. Although in many cases they mention famous opposing arguments to give the book a little balance,, I suppose the book would be too big and less people would buy it, if he interviewed the famous experts that have the opposite view. Or maybe it wouldn't. Maybe he was more concerned about making money off the book, Who knows. Although they do explore arguments against what they believe in the book, I suppose he should have interviewed a different prosecutor for each chapter,

 

This would be a BIIIIIIIIG book. It might be counterproductive to write a book that big, Espexcially if you want to be compensated with alot of money for the book. Lee strobel does claimed to have researched all the other religions though. When I saw him on TV, he claimed all the other religions were easily disproven in one way or another. He said christianity was the complete opposite.
But hey, don't just take his word for it. Look at it yourself. Come to your own conclusion.

 

Ha! Well, he would, wouldn't he?

I think if you're going by quality of historical sources then Islam, Buddhism, or basically any of the more recent religions would be at an advantage.

 

Oh yeeeeeah, oh yeeeeeah. How do yooooooou know? He did his research. Did you?

 

And what do you mean by quality? that is a vague statement.

 

doesn't it stand to reason that primary sources are worth more to an historian than secondary or tertiary ones?

Here's some criticism of Strobel to get you started: http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm