Prove a "Judeo" Religion

Before I get started I just wanted to say that your beliefs are relevant to the debate. I am trying to prove Christianity to you and it is really helpful to know what the opponent believes so that I know where to start. When debating deists, all I have to do is convince them that the God that created the universe is moral and therefore would intervene with the universe he created. But with you, you have stated that you don't know if God exists. Deists are sure that God exists. Therefore you are no deist but are in fact an agnostic. This made things really confusing for me because I have to debate differently when I am speaking to an agnostic. But I will do my best to play with the cards I have been dealt. "First off, it suggests that a person that doesn't follow Biblical values is 'evil', even if the person was raised all their life in a different culture all their life and don't know any different. Secondly, this statement suggests that billions of people lived and died in an 'evil lifestyle' just because they were raised in a particular society that supported particular values." I would never claim that a person who doesn't follow Biblical morals is evil. I would argue that all people are evil. If you have ever done something wrong, that makes you an evil person. Although, that is a different debate for another time. I would also like to mention that people who practiced Cannibalism did it at many times for religious purposes. I think they believed that it (sacrifices) would save the community they lived in or something like that. In other words, they were aware that murder was wrong (just like all people do) but didn't see what they were doing as murder since they were saving lives. The moral principle of saving people doesn't change, the only thing that changes is how the group of people carry out that principle. Although, this doesn't mean that people are mistaken about how to carry out moral principles. People can always be mistaken about the facts. Other reasons for Cannibalism were to satisfy hunger, scaring the enemy and etc. The point is that even Cannibals acknowledge murder as wrong but they saw their actions as justified and didn't see what they did as murder (facts change) since they thought they were doing something for the greater good. " If a child is raised to believe that the color red is bad, and every person around them thinks that red is bad, how can the child be blamed for also being convinced that red is, in fact, an "evil" color?" If the color red never does anything bad to the child or does anything evil, I would expect the child to eventually realize that the color red is not evil. "What exactly makes our moral codes superior to those of other societies or people in the past?" I assume that you know that Cannibalism is wrong. Our society doesn't practice this which makes us more moral in this area of morality. "But the Bible is not unique in its moral teachings, the other two "Judeo" religions are very similar." That is because Judaism is the original form of Christianity. The main difference between the two is that the Jews do not believe that the God man has come yet. As for Islam, I could go into all of the differences (Muslims support wife beating) but that is not my focus in this debate. " I don't think anyone can say that cannibalism or anything else I mentioned is wrong for a FACT." And that right there is my main problem with atheists/agnostics. They are not willing to say that cannibalism is wrong for a fact. You do realize that if you believe that morality is subjective, you could never tell someone that they were doing something wrong. You couldn't tell Hitler was wrong in World War Two. You wouldn't even have reason to do anything moral since there would be no universal standard of morality. All I can say is thank God the majority of people realize that there is a real right/wrong. "Personally, yes, I think cannibalism is wrong. However you can't blame a person for following the moral beliefs that their parents and entire society holds." Their moral beliefs about murder aren't different. The problem is that Cannibals see their actions as justified and perfectly moral (in many cases). The trick is to convince them that they have the facts wrong about the people they eat and that their actions are not justified. We must show them that they are actually murdering people. "I disagree. If we are talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible, then there is no debate, you CANNOT believe in both theories and be a Christian." Well, there are many smart Christians out there that would disagree with you. Nevertheless, this debate is not about these theories. That said, you can see my debate on evolution for more details. I on the other hand would agree with you that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Christianity. "But who were these people? Why is there virtually no confirmation of the Biblical events from other sources? If there was truly a "God on Earth", there would be much more evidence, much more documentation and the Christian faith would spread like wild-fire. However, the faith spread very very slowly. By the year 312 AD (250 years after Jesus' crucifixion), only an estimated 5% of the Roman Empire was Christian. There such a huge lack of evidence for something so huge as a son of God on Earth, which arouses significant doubt." I already answered the first question. Friends and relatives of Jesus wrote the New Testament. All you have to do is read the Bible to figure that one out. As for the second question, there is confirmation of Biblical events from other sources. People confirmed: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org... Events: http://www.christiananswers.net... Archaeology: https://carm.org... Your unreliable source claimed that there were only 20 Christians after Jesus' death which is completely ludicrous considering Jesus spoke to crowds of people for three years before his death and his disciples/friends eventually started churches. It is literally like your source just made up the number to make Christianity look bad. The truth is that we don't know how many Christians there were during the time period but what we do know is that the religion did spread like wild fire. Persecution was a main cause for this spread. Christians had to flee their homes which caused them to spread all over the world. I can go more into that if you'd like. "But there is more evidence for his (Hitler's) existence than Jesus." Maybe...but I was trying to show you why it was ridiculous to deny Josephus as a reliable source since he lived a few years after the death of Jesus. "However, this small piece of writing has been thoroughly refuted and determined to be forged by the church and inserted into Josephus' writing. Dr. Gordon Stein wrote: "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works." The link you gave didn't open properly for me. That said, there is debate about Christian adding words to Josephus' quote but they didn't touch the part about Jesus' existence. See link for more details: https://carm.org... "There were many other historians in Josephus' time, and he was the only one that made mention of a historical figure named Jesus." Wrong, you just didn't read the links I gave you that mentioned other historians mention Jesus' name. Did you even read the links about scholars pretty much universally agreeing that Jesus was a real person. His existence really isn't debatable. "I am disregarding the Bible as a credible historical source by itself because of certain incongruities within it. Noah's flood, for example, is described in the Bible, but there is no real evidence for the flood (outside the Bible) and I'd be willing to argue that the story of Noah's flood would simply be impossible even if the flood itself did somehow occur." So basically you disregard the Bible as a reliable source merely because you assume Christianity to be false and that God cannot do all things. In my opinion, you shouldn't discredit a source just because you already assume something to be false. And there is actual evidence for the flood outside of the Bible. See link for details: https://answersingenesis.org... A link I gave earlier provides a list of other cultures with records of a worldwide flood. Supposed Contradictions: Due to Character limits you will have to read the links 1. Jesus' last words: https://carm.org... 2. Error in Geography: http://www.tektonics.org... "It seems that at this point, the argument is really about the reliability of the Bible as a historical document as well as Jesus' existence (reliability of Josephus' reference to Jesus)." If this is all I have to do then you should be convinced that Christianity is true by the time you read this. You have no reason to deny the Bible as a reliable source other than your assumption about what is possible (surely if God exists all things are possible). And you have no reason to disbelief in the existence of Jesus when people of the time period confirm his existence and because almost all scholars believe that he existed. This has been a good debate so far. Let the fun continue...