Quote:
I don't have blind faith, I hardly call myself a christian. This is going towards conspiracy theory way too fast for me to argue. I never really questioned he existed either.
It's not a conspiricy theory really, HB. it's more a pointer towards the gulibility of
some christians.
The arguement goes something like this
1. Using the doctrine of a faith (The Bible) as proof that what the faith says happened in unreliable, they have a vested interest in doctoring the documents to back up thier arguements.
In a similar way scientist would not take a theory as correct untill it had been robustly investigated by other (probably sceptical) scientists.
So in order to prove the exsistance of Jesus it is necessary to look outside the faith to examine independent sources if you like. The problem is there are very few (2 that i know of) and both are very tenuous to say the least and even they are written a generation after he lived.
2. alot of the supposed Knowlage of Jesus's life as spouted by those persons are not backed up even by biblical scholar's. Christmas for example is not on christs "birthday" as you would be lead to believe and is linked to conversion of the Pagan religions celebrating the winter solstice.
realistically no-one would argue that he didn't exsist, but it is very doubtful that he was particularly important to anyone but a small sect during his lifetime and even more doubtful that the biblical stories have any basis on fact.
Christianity is a smorgasboard of stolen religious stories from older religions. Halo's, Rebirth, Christmas, even the cross are from other religions.
This should not take away from the underlying direction that christianity takes, indeed it's mindset is imbued into all our psyches
"Thou shalt not kill" But feeding the 5000?, walking on water? pull the other one.
*edit: cuz i kant spel Edited, Jan 17th 2007 5:35pm by tarv