I call BS on Christianity

No, thank you! The foundation of Christianity having removed the rose colored glasses of Christianity. The base of Christianity will now be listed in the order of their importance as supplied through Pros" thoughtful (?) rebuttal. The number one (1) reason is belief (or faith). Belief/faith is the non-supported irrational reasoning believers use to support their beliefs without evidence concerning the bible, god and Jesus. Faith tells them there is evidence, but the best laid plans of mice and men, doesn"t mean much when facing fact. Faith: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. A system of religious belief: the Christian faith http://oxforddictionaries.com... The number two (2) reason: Apologetics: Apologetics are the excuses for the short comings that appear in faith, a lack of evidence, god and scripture. Number three (3) and the third leg of the Christian structure, its many bibles. When the bible doesn"t support faith or apologetics it is rewritten, this includes both the Old and New Testaments. I am still trying to understand pros must of pros" last post here, with the misspelling and lack of cohesion I am not sure how to proceed with my rebuttal. So I will try and use a point to point comparison once again. {"Pro posts this: {"Renewal is a part of God"s preservation plan that ensures that we have His inerrant Word in texts that He has ordained. http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com...;} Sorry Pro! But if gods" word is inerrant, then it would never need correction in the first place. To suggest gods" word is inerrant and then to admit to someone needing to re-write the bible to keep it that way only demonstrates gods" failure to obtain inerrancy in the first place. Pros" web site here seems to be a rendering of a desperate lone engineer"s struggling with his new faith. His credentials, Auh, well he doesn"t seem to have any. He has no discernible skill set or discipline to interpret the KJV for me or anyone else. So all I am going to do here is point out that in 2000 years pros sect or cult hasn"t won the debate against any of pros other religious constituents. Pro quotes con and then states this: ("Con brings up the wide variety of Bibles and faiths of Christianity". I only need to verify the authenticity of the New Testament and the KJV. ) Con accepts pros offer to academically and historical validate his bible for us while rendering all others invalid. Can we use the spelling and grammar checker this time and then provide some valid non-Jim Jones type sources as well? Summary so far, pro fails in this last round to explain why I as an atheist should just take his word that his bible and beliefs are the only truths found in Christianity. Perhaps when he convinces the rest of Christendom, Judea and Islam, then he can profess his esoteric views with authority. Pros needs to convince the remaining 37999 Christina denominations (not counting his cult), 15000 here in the U.S., the entire practicing Jewish population which is about 60 and 75 percent of the estimated 13.5 to 14.5 million Jews http://jcpa.org... and the 1.57 billion Muslims. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... (To quote pro from the comments section), first you rack up some victories in debate as to your religions denominational (biblical?) superiority before you try and convince me of their validity. At the very least you cannot expect me or anyone else just to dismiss them because it is convenient for your beliefs and bible. Historical Relevance: Pro lists a travel agency as a reference (?), and I have to ask, was this a joke? http://www.nazareth-israel.com... ? A Disney travel agency says the Pirates of the Caribbean are real and if I give them money they will show me. Are they just after my money, or do you suppose they are really real and have always lived in Florida? Why or why not? Pros next source: http://www.sacred-texts.com... , are you still joking with me? NO? Okay, am I to accept that the Coyote made the earth and that the trickster who is the Raven played a trick on him? This was part of the Apache creation story that appeared in one of the books on this site. A site that"s sells books, but since they were on the internet, they have to be true"..right? Why or why not? Pros" next source: http://www.josephus.org..., this is just getting too sad to be funny anymore. This site tells us that Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. Pro, this web site seems to support the academic contention and not yours, was this deliberate? "and I quote, "The earliest description of Jesus outside of the Gospels is found in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities. Yet for centuries scholars have doubted that a Jewish writer could have written an account that contains basic tenets" my summary of the remainder of this paragraph, "but if you twist the words of the bible to read "this way", it must be true". The author offers an apology that uses bible scriptures to verify the apology needed to validate the bible in the first place. Jewish historian, born A.D. 37 http://www.newadvent.org... and Jesus died when in 1st century AD.? Let"s take it further; what day would it be illegal to Crucify Jesus or anybody for that matter (Crossover?)? Who was his company and why were they crucified for crimes that would have never brought the penalty of crucifixion (convicted thieves)? The roman court system was one of the most just and advanced systems in the world, why was Roman law in full retreat that day (it wasn"t?)? Why did the multitudes that saw Jesus not writing about Jesus OR his crucifixion (there were no multitudes of first hand contemporary encounters?)? Why did the scribes not mention Jesus or his Crucifixion (Jesus who?)? Why did the 40 plus historians of that day never mention Jesus or his Crucifixion (there was nothing to see?)? Why did Pilot never hear of Jesus (no ears?)? Why are all accounts written in a he said she said fashion generations after this famous event if it happened (because there are no first hand encounters, no historical contemporaries?)? Pro doesn"t have these answers to support the validity of Jesus because the bible doesn"t provide any. Case in point, U.S. Law, while public funding for schools allow all public schools to study the bible, they do not allow the bible to be study from! Because the bible has no historical validity. Pros" next site would not even be accepted in Junior high school essay. http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com... it is written by an anonymously source, unsupported, conjecture, unaccredited and it isn"t even worthy of my insults. No really! Has anybody here finished high school yet? Just because it is on the internet doesn"t mean it is true. Pro sources a dead end and under construction site? http://life.liegeman.org... Pro finds a creditable source!!!!! Yeah!!!!! Too bad there is nothing quoted or usable to support pros position like he claims. http://richardbauckham.co.uk... and I quote "You can also read some of my poetry, and two story books written for children (adults also enjoy them) about the MacBears of Bearloch." Thanks Richard, but no thanks, we good? Pro then offers this site concerning Contemporary Jesus http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com... which looks like a cult condemning education and rational thought altogether, are you even reading what these sites have to offer? Pro the Christian states: {"The Biblical text are considered the most preserved text in known history. "} Con face palms in disbelief. If your bible was just re-written and changed as you claim, then how is this preserving it? You have conceded this point, was this your intent? Audience, please note that my opposition is posting with statements that read like this "most scholars believe", "most authorities agree", and so on. Whenever one hears this, one you should probably check their reality at the door for safe keeping and hold on to your ticket really tight never letting it out of your sight. I think the resolution is affirmed until Pro can shows us otherwise, until then, I send it back to Pro.