Christianity is not real.

Round 4 | Rebuttal and Closing | by Eav | 14/11/14I respect that Pro has only limited time available (actually most of us), but in the light of his fourth round arguments I want to remind everyone to stay focused on the resolution.[Rebuttal 3] Contradictions II[Rebuttal 4] Method Critique[Addressing Rebuttal 3] [Closing Statement][R3] Contradictions IIThere is not much add, to what I said previously about contradictions in Round 3: That they are no clear sign for Jesus not existing. Faults or Misunderstandings in the bible don’t offer the conclusion that Jesus is made up and Pro has not provided any reasoning why that would be so, yet fully relies on that (not established) connection. I refer the reader to Round 3 – Fig. 1 and Rebuttal 2. But although they are meaningless for the resolution I will again spent some words on the given contradictions:1. Animal cruelty; is not a contradiction but a point that can be morally questioned. How an unmoral Jesus is automatically a made up Jesus yet is never established and doesn’t make sense anyway: The existence of a person has nothing to do with their moral decisions.2. Unfaithfulness and Rape, see upper explanation – this is not relevant. People who give questionable advice die and are born every day. 3. Slavery. Do I have to repeat myself? No contradiction and it’s also not ungodly. Because with the bible as religious text it’s probably not moral from our modern perspective but still in tune with gods will from the perspective of the bible. What is godly is defined by the religion that defines a god. If one doesn’t believe in god, one can’t say that something is ungodly, unholy or sin. 4. Good is jealous. Wordplay with our modern perspective of good and biblical understanding of this term. What is “good” is not automatically what the individual person considers good. From a religious perspective god is good to the extent that he always acts right and how is necessary. Or to quote the beginning of Footloose (1980): “He is testing us! He is testing us!”[R4] Method Critique4a: Focus ShiftQuote time: “Voters, I ask you - would you want a type of God that allows women, men and children to die? […] That discriminates against homosexuals?” (Pro, Round 4) This rampage against Christianity addressing the voter has nothing to do with the resolution, it’s asking for a biased vote based on Anti-Christian-Perspective. But this is no debate on the moral value of Christianity. To accept that Jesus was a historical person you don’t need to accept that he raised from the death or actually healed people (effectively). You don’t need to like or believe in Jesus (as the son of god) to accept he existed. 4b: Rephrasing MethodMy opponents Source Management shows lack of own thoughts, all his Sources are used in a paraphrasing matter meaning he extracts the whole argument from the website but uses his own words to repeat it. There is barely an independently developed thought in his arguments. 4c: Lack of Arguments Maybe it’s time for another diagram: (Fig 2)Pro has only two arguments: that the bible is immoral and inconsistent and that Jesus shows similarities to core people of other religions. Yet for four rounds he never addressed the problem that I pointed out in detail that neither one of these arguments stand in a proper relationship to Jesus existence. Nor has he shown on his own why there would be such a connection. Ergo Pro has presented two half-backed-not-his-own-theories.[AR 3] Contradictions3a: “Extremely similar information”All four gospels share a significant amount of core events that they all mention and describe {5}. This means all gospel authors found more or less reliable but at least indicators to believe that the events they mentioned occurred. To say it otherwise: It’s too random to be strategically made up and it’s too connected to be just a coincidence. 3b: Metaphors in the bible“There is no way to prove that or to prove that one passage about cutting off limbs was a metaphor either.” (Pro, Round 3)Indeed, there is no way to answer that 100% but we can observe the passage and decide what is more reasonable and what makes most sense. We know that Metaphors are big part of the bible, in the old testament we have even problems using actions like "eating" or "drinking" consequently literal{6}. The word "eye" has been used before as a metaphore in the famous "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [...]" (Exodus 21:24), so this is another indicator. I would not even outrule that the use of the whole idea of eyes and limbs (foot/ hand) is a clear indicator that this is used in the same metaphorically manner as the exodus statement. And as the statement makes rather few practical sense if we not interpret it metaphorically (because sinning limbs rather a niche problem) the literal interpretation is less likely. Sources {5} http://www.bookofjesus.com...{6} http://www.biblesecrets.org...[Closing Statement]Pro repeatedly leaves the resolution in favour of pure Christianity bashing. Which is off topic and unnecessary. His argumentation doesn’t take changes in account that happened between the Years 100 BC to 100 AC and today for language, writing and understanding nature and morals and shows weaknesses at several points (R4). Around and shortly after the time of Jesus most likely existence people choose to be killed in his name, wrote about his doing mostly reporting about the same incidences and even those who had no reason to believe or foster believe in him choose to make a report of his existence that could have cost them their lives and their reliability as historians. All this indicates that a person was born, that was called Jesus or Christ (or probably something similar) that died and inspired a religion. Was he a god? Was he gods’ son? I don’t know and don’t need to know to answer the resolution in question with: Yes, Jesus existed.I thank my opponent as well for the debate and hand it over to the judges' will. Which might or might not be in my favour but hopefully not influenced by personal religious views.P. S. I am honsetly sorry that I mixed up who is Con and Pro in my previous round, but I am just not used to being Con on something ^^. But considering that Pro half-way-through forgot that I am not a guy seems to even the scores.