I call BS on Christianity

AbnerGrimm,Pro posts. ["Not once has my reasoning or evidence came under fire. See, Con has simply thrown baseballs through my window but my arguments foundation still stands strong] Pro went to Disneyland, there he found others that enjoy the same fantasy rides. Pro and his friends at Disneyland are pious over all "others" at Disneyland. They are pious because of they have RE-written the brochure from Disneyland. Other groups at Disneyland disagree with Pro, and they make the same claim of piousness because they re-wrote their brochures. Now Pro claims this proves his case? Pro now faults Con for the majority consensus of Disneyland and states their burden of proof is now mine in proving he isn"t right? The irony being that he now cites and sources them claiming what they believe is evidence? The trouble here is that Pro is using two related fallacies in reasoning (switching back and forth between them as it suits him) The first is. "argumentum ad populum", Pro is asserting what would sounds good in is limited beliefs to appeal to the whole of the Christian audience (an appeal to the audience). Then Pro cuts bait and insists he is right because of the numbers of believers that believe as he does, and then he uses them a sources? This is known as a argumentum ad numerum This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct Historical relevance: Con quotes Pro: "The New Testament is considered 99.5% pure." Pro RETREATS from the inerrant word of god to god only makes.5 percent mistakes but is otherwise inerrant? Wow, an almost all knowing almost all powerful god? I doubt very much that Pro would fly in a "Jet Airliner" that was missing .5 percent of its rivets. Let me take this one step further: If the blueprint and manuals of this Jet Airliner were .5 percent in error, then we would have to rename this Jet airliner, it would have to be called a paperweight because it would never move, let alone fly, just like Pros sources and claims. Pro offers several straw men to define Con"s position. Cons ONLY position is to critique, to point out variables, inconsistencies and errors (BS if you will). Pro admits god and his word is flawed and is now clearly upset at me. Pro concedes that gods" inerrant word is flawed, even if he only concedes the error is .5 percent. Resolution, god and his almost inerrant word are almost "god like" coming in just short of being a real God however therefore BS. Christian teachings are irrelevant to Pros context at this point. I will only offer a short response to Pros post. I count 1127 acts and or justifications for evil in the bible, I count about 224 accounts of love, and even some of these are sketchy at best. To profess the bible is a book of good is to ignore the greater bulk that makes up the bible is in error as well. How many did you count Pro? Some more points about Christians teachings, Jesus clearly thought the world was fat, fixed, Satan didn"t seem to know the difference either and apologetics note this as well, big deal. Validity of Jesus. Pro insists he provided contemporaries of Jesus, he has not. Pro insists his sources listed contemporaries of Jesus, they have not. Pro insists that scholars have done likewise, but I"ve shown that scholars merely agree there are no contemporaries of Jesus. Pro uses no quotes, his sources are invalid, unaccredited and lack every academic standard the world holds to. Pro is unaware of what makes up a valid source having reoffered a travel agency and an organization that is attuned to uphold the Israeli National claim of its lands. There no historical contemporaries of Jesus, I call BS. Why a historical Jesus never existed There is no contemporary historical record of any kind of Jesus!! No written Roman, Greek or Jewish sources from this time (apart from the gospels) know of any historical Jesus or Christ. The name "Christ" is mentioned in some later texts (Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny d.y.) but then merely as the name of the idol of the Christians' worship (Read what these sources really say here). "We don't even know who the writers of the Gospels were, and don't have the original manuscripts themselves either. We just have later copies of copies of copies of copies " of copies of the assumed lost originals. And with each copy the copyist usually felt free to alter details or rewrite whole parts of the manuscript. (We usually don't trust dubious anonymous sources as evidence for anything, do we?)" http://www.bandoli.no... This is when Christians often throw out names of non-Christian writers who they claim wrote about Jesus like: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian of Samosata, among others. First, most of those writers didn"t write very much at all about Jesus. Many talk about someone called "Christ." Christians assume this refers to Jesus, but there have been many people during that time and in other times who claimed to be "the Christ." But what I find more interesting is that none of those writers were contemporaries to Jesus who was alleged to have been crucified in the year 33 CE: " Josephus (37 CE " c. 100 CE) Tacitus (56 CE " 117 CE) Pliny the Younger (61 CE " c. 112 CE) Lucian of Samosata (125 CE " after 180 CE) Here are some writers who would have been contemporaries of Jesus and interestingly enough never mentioned him at all despite the Gospel claim that he was known far and wide: " Philo Judaeus (20 BCE - 50 CE) Seneca (4? BCE - 65 CE) Pliny the Elder (23? CE - 79 CE) http://www.examiner.com... Turns out to be, none of the historians in question were contemporaries of Christ .http://www.godlessgeeks.com... Even Christian apologetics sites disagree with Pro claims. There are other historians who have written about this. However, the problem with most of them is that they were not contemporaries of Jesus. http://carm.org... It is impossible to explain why the contemporaries of Jesus, the authors and historians of his time, do not take notice of him. www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m.../truth_about_jesus.html < Auh, no it not imposable, the probability is that Jesus never existed! Nevertheless, Jesus has no contemporaries. I have indeed sourced and cited the academic world telling us Jesus had no contemporaries. I have sourced and cited the unaccredited theist world admitting there are no contemporaries of Jesus. I have sourced and cited the accredited theistic world admitting there are no contemporaries of Jesus. Pro whimpering about evidence is now laid to rest. But I remind the audience that Pros" sources contain NO evidence and what was offered was invalid making my Pros complaints MOOT to begin with! Pros" Travel Agency does NOT provide evidence of Jesus any more than it does with it trips to see Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monsters, leprechauns, Martians and so on. What does the scholarly world say about Jesus? http://youtu.be... God"s name. Pro plays a game semantics that simply does not apply while ignoring the historical and archeological content claiming it isn"t flattering to his beliefs, and therefore not true. Pro argues that the accredited Professors and Universities I cited got it wrong. Pro has no academic stature, no accreditations, no support and no clue to what he is talking about (example a perfect god with only .5 percent errors). Pro closes with the contention that the bible that came after the original works and therefore MUST be inerrant. I am sure there is no esoteric religious bias at play here at all. : ) Pros" god is the god of apologies, whether his version represents the "core" of Christianity or not is up to you. I turn it back over to Pro for some more + or - .5 percent based apologetics.