Is Christianity something other than a religion?

And that would be...why, exactly?

It sounds to me as though you just are intent upon dismissing the accounts of eyewitnesses as "fantastical," and therefore highly suspect...

 

If those prayers are just, "Lord, do this for me, please," they are not likely to be answered.

I always end my prayers with the words, "if it be Your will."

If it is God's will that (say) I should not be restored to health, but that He should take me, then His will certainly trumps my own.

 

Just what sort of "evidence" is lacking, in your opinion, that would convince you?

 

Independent sources, yes. The only source for any of the occurrences of Jesus is the Bible.

 

How many links on the Roman census would you like? None of them will say that they required you to travel to the place of your father's birth.

Similar, how many links on Jewish religious traditions that don't mention a single word about this supposed Passover pardon would you like?

 

So you agree that none of the Gospels are "first hand accounts"?

 

They'll be academic sources from secular writers. Does that count as neutral to you?

 

Copying by hand introduces errors and copying copies compounds the errors. It also opens up the opportunity to introduce what wasn't originally there for nefarious purposes.

Without the originals the copies are suspect especially when they make extraordinary claims with zero evidence or independent corroboration.

Only the gullible accept copies of copies on face value because they just happen to agree with their confirmation bias.

 

So now you are negating "success rates" because it fits your confirmation bias to do so?

 

Extraordinary claims by theists require extraordinary evidence to support them and yet theists cannot even come up with even the most ordinary of evidence such a document written by jesus or one his disciples in their own handwriting.

 

Because one is a car and the other is the story of a miracle.

Ad hominem as I am not the topic.

 

Yes, but not utterly or comprehensively or universally. The church has done great work and inspired great art, and will continie5to do so.

I feel badly for priests and nuns working tirelessly for no gain whatsoever, in poor areas, when I read trash like this.

 

I disagree, of course. The corruption changed the course that christianity would take. For a christianity based upon the actual teachings of God, through Christ, would never have created the history of the christianity that we know historically. So that very early corruption was tremendous. Sir, have you actually read the history of the Church, which was the RCC? Please do it. With the murdering, the tortures, in such great numbers, with the Cathars being just one, is all of the evidence anyone should need that the early corruption yielded this. This was not a religion of JC, quite the opposite.

An aspect of this early corruption involves the idea that christ's death and spilled blood somehow magically saves man. This replaced what JC taught, about man, each of us, doing the inner seeking for the kingdom, and once it is found, a rebirth of consciousness occurs. That is the salvation christ taught of. So, this was replaced, after his death, with something else. A blood sacrifice, in the jewish tradition, producing salvation. All you had to do was to say you repented of your sin, believe in christ. and got your self baptized. You did not have to do the effort of inner seeking, did not have to discover the kingdom as a real thing within consciousness, and no experienced rebirth and change in consciousness. For if this was the path taken, the history of that kind of church would have been 180 from what became the church, the RCC. Completely logical and rational to think this.

Trash? Hardly. For one can respect the good work done for the poor by priests and nuns while still seeing what the early corruption created as the RCC. And these nuns and priests are actually doing what christ taught his followers to do. This was not always the case in the history of the Church, is it? Priests tortured, murdered, burned what the Church called heretics for a couple thousand years. Or close to that. And thereby negating the very teachings that God gave man through Christ.

 

Copying by hand is not nearly as error prone as you think.

Its not one guy just sitting down and copying a book, he has a process, and his work is checked by another person. And he is often not copying alone, there are more than one scribes copying in unison.

Documents travel all over the world and are copied. That means a copy found in Egypt can be compared to copies found in Italy and Turkey, the 3 documents took very different geographic and cultural paths through history and may have been created at different times, and the parts the 3 have in common can be considered accurate.

You have a very naïve knowledge of the subject.

 

Are you not aware, perhaps, that "the Bible" was not originally a single book?

Different authors came to essentially the same conclusion, as regarding Jesus.

 

Gosh, that sounds very impressive.

But I notice that you have not supplied even one...

 

No.

I said merely that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark, in my opinion.

Where did I say that Mark does not offer first-hand knowledge?

 

If they are from sources that are merely skeptical, but not actually anti-Christian.

 

I am certainly well aware of the logical fallacy known as confirmation bias.

But this does not appear to fit the bill...

 

Say what?

Of course Jesus did not actually write the Gospels. Who ever claimed otherwise?

 

No. Claiming that knowing a car will start is the same as knowing that Jesus was resurrected is illogical by my measure of logic. Just because one knows a car will start does not mean that it will just as knowing Jesus was resurrected does not mean that he actual was.

Incorrect, I never accused you of an ad hominem attack. There is a difference between an ad hominem and an ad hominem attack.

 

Your pastor needs to crack open a dictionary once in a while. A religious is:
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
"a particular system of faith and worship."

Obviously Christianity is both of these things and if it is an objective truth it can also be a system of faith and worship too. There is nothing that says that religions are false by definition.

 

Ironic coming from someone who believes a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...

 

It is a good fit for theists.