Why Christianity won't go away

@philokalia said
The involvement in the spreading of the religion was immediate.

In order to create this 'hoax' of a religion, as you believe, every single Apostle was martyred [1]. Hundreds (or thousands) of others were also martyred with them in the first century, and the number has steadily increased over time (though that isn't relevant).

While this doesn't prove that th ...[text shortened]... 1] https://credohouse.org/blog/what-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-how-do-their-deaths-prove-easter

This is stuff about a nascent religion. None of it is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

@mchill said
Dear FMF - Faith is a gift. I hope you receive it one day. -

Is Hindu faith and Sikh faith a "gift" as well?

@mchill said
Jesus speaking to Thomas after the crucifiction and resurrection -

What evidence is there that the dead Jesus spoke to anyone after he was executed?

@philokalia said
Ultimately, we all make an act of faith on this.

One says that they absolutely doubt that any of this could be true.

The other accepts it as truth.

The whole notion that, if it's convincing enough for Philokalia, then it's good enough for every human being, is very weak and certainly does not sound "divinely" inspired. And then for the consequence for not being convinced [by whatever has convinced you] to supposedly be indescribable and inexplicable violence seems plain ludicrous. What kind of self-obsessed ideology have you bought into?

@mchill said
Faith is a gift. I hope you receive it one day.

What do you say to someone who lives his or her life in accordance with Jesus' commandments because they seem to be a good code for living but who just does not believe that he rose from the dead?

I imagine this is the case for innumerable self-identifying and "cultural" Christians.

@fmf said
The whole notion that, if it's convincing enough for Philokalia, then it's good enough for every human being, is very weak and certainly does not sound "divinely" inspired. And then for the consequence for not being convinced [by whatever has convinced you] to supposedly be indescribable and inexplicable violence seems plain ludicrous. What kind of self-obsessed ideology have you bought into?

I am not retired and can't commit that much time to this, so I have to ignore posts that drag it from the initial OP or that I feel are overly repetitive.

Try to think of something that you would relaly like addressed and I will try to get back to you on it in two weeks.

@philokalia said
Try to think of something that you would relaly like addressed and I will try to get back to you on it in two weeks.

Yes, just address the post you are ostensibly responding to ~ which is a question that you've scuttled away from every single time it's been asked.

@philokalia said
I am not retired and can't commit that much time to this

I am not aware that anyone has suggested that you are "retired". What are you on about?

@mchill said
I recall someone asking a young rabbi the same question. He responded: "If you have to go searching for evidence to justify your faith, then how strong is your faith?"

He was wrong.
Faith has to be based on something.

@fmf said
What evidence is there that the dead Jesus spoke to anyone after he was executed?

FMF -

From the tone of your questions and remarks, I'm getting the idea part of you would like to be a believer, but can't get over the hurdle of believing in something you can't prove, yeah, that can be a tough one, and there is little physical evidence left after 2000 years. We could continue to toss this subject back and forth, but I have to get back to work. I will leave you with 3 thoughts though:

1. Dead people don't speak, Jesus was alive when he spoke those words to Thomas

2. Try some online bible study courses, they may have the answers to some of your evidence questions

3. (Repeat) If one has to go searching for evidence to justify their faith, then how strong is their faith?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
@mchill

Alternatively, the entire account of the guard and the chief priests can be discounted as likely to be an ahistorical addition written by Matthew to make the stolen body hypothesis appear implausible. Among scholars, it "is widely regarded as an apologetic legend"; L. Michael White and Helmut Koester argue the story was probably added as an attempt to refut ...[text shortened]... s like an invention, because it narrates events that could not be known by the author.'


(Wiki)

That's nice-

They're entitled to their opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

@mchill said
That's nice-

They're entitled to their opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

That's cool, as long as your dramatic earlier assertion 'Jesus was gone' is accepted to be nothing more than your opinion and not a statement of fact beyond contention.

@mchill said
If one has to go searching for evidence to justify their faith, then how strong is their faith?

This is, I suppose, a personal matter for each and every theist to ask themselves but it strikes me as a profoundly wishy-washy thing for you to say to me in defence/justification of your religion.