I call BS on Christianity".

"You state openly that you are not a Christian which means you personally do not place enough value on Christian values in order to cause you to believe." I am not black which means I personally do not place enough value on civil rights in order to cause me to believe in civil rights. I am not homosexual which means I personally do not place enough value on homosexual equality in order to cause me to believe in it. I am not a scientist which means I personally do not place enough value on science in order to cause me to believe in it. I am not a (Insert absolutely ANYTHING)... Blah blah blah. See what you did there? "Since you are arguing proxy for Christendom and you deny this part of Christendom yourself, I now cite you as an example why Christianity values are nothing more than BS. IN short, if Christianity and its values aren"t good enough to make you accept them and believe, then the audience and myself need not consider them any further." See above riposte. Will my opponent accept that there are no exclusive copyrights on values? That it is quite possible to hold similar values or be empathetic with the values of another group without being a part of that group? "Resolution solved" Will my opponent accept that they may have jumped the gun with this statement? "Chase answers: If there are no first hand contemporary historical accounts of Jesus (like you just admitted) then YES, Jesus has no history and every rendering that claims to be a historical account should be erased for the falsehood it represents." Just using that logic then, does that mean that Homer, author of the Iliad and Odyssey, did not exist? Should be stricken from history? The burden of proof in this regard lies with the minority of scholarly opinion surely? I am going to make an assumption here. Let me be clear beforehand that it IS an assumption about you on my part. My assumption is that as an atheist you have probably been influenced by, or at the very least, respect the contribution to science and to the atheist argument of Richard Dawkins. I attach a video clip to show you the certitude with which he claimed Jesus existed. Perhaps it will away you to relinquish the argument that Jesus never existed, or to be at least open-minded of the possibility. http://www.youtube.com... "Chase answer: If we momentarily indulge that Jesus was real idea let"s see what kind of god/man Jesus was. Jesus as god".. the all-powerful and all-knowing god rapes a little 12 year old girl named Marry so that she can give birth to god (This doesn"t seem very nice now does it) so god can commit suicide (if he is god and cannot die then how does this work again?) and forgive the sins that he unjustly imposed on someone named Adam I got a question for this criminally inclined god, god why do you have to rape a little girl to be born? Sorry god, that"s two questions isn"t it. Why rape a little girl and why do you have to be born? If you are god then are you not powerful enough just to appear without rape and without needing to be born? Sounds more like god needed an excuse for rape than anything else". I don't think this tact is worthy of my opponent, and certainly not worthy of a serious debate. If you insist that I address it, I will, but I would like to present you with the opportunity to withdraw or rephrase your points in a better, less purposely provocative manner. "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?" (Lamentations 3: 38-39) This passage makes note that god isn"t being evil at this time, meaning god is at times evil. The bible seems clear in saying if god lays out evil for you, you as a believer must now endure this evil because it is from god." The passage is saying, in a nutshell, that you get what you give. If you sin, and suffer for it, what right have you to complain? If you murder someone in cold blood and have to suffer incarceration for the rest of your days, can you really complain? If you cheat on the one you love with another mans wife and he beats you and she leaves you, do you really have a right to complain about it? ""And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him." (I Samuel 16:23)" Do you never play your guitar when you are feeling down, and does that guitar playing not then soothe whatever negative feelings you were experiencing? Or perhaps you go for a run, watch some TV, talk to a friend, write. For Saul, it was playing the harp that chased away his demons. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)" In other words, everything is as one. Everything from the one source. "And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it." (Deuteronomy 28:63) God and Satan the same?" Sounds like it. But these aren't Christian. These are from the Old Testament. Christ wasn't yet born to give his values, and it is Christian values that you are trying to refute - values from Christ. "Now we read about Jesus commanding his followers to buy swords: "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (Luke 22:36)" In context: Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV) ""Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37) Look out, Jesus is spoiling for a fight!" What is the point here? Jesus knew that the truth hurts. That the truth is divisive. Yet he went to preach his message and send out his disciples to do it anyway. Would you have more respect for Jesus if he was a yes man? A people pleaser? Think about other great historical figures. They court controversy. They polarise opinion. They simply understand the weight that their words will carry, but it is the truth that they are only interested in. Martin Luther King Jr, Abe Lincoln, Ron Paul, Ahmedinejad, the modern atheist set and countless other examples. ""So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)" WOW!!!! Jesus is really concerned over sex outside of marriage".unless it"s god/Jesus doing the raping. Wait, false alarm, god is a sex pervert after all. Moses' Commands for pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls do count against the Bible!" This isn't a quote from Jesus, but from John. "....The Tanna"tic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in "157 comments on the above quoted commandment of MOSES to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children...." No relevance to Jesus. I've ran out of characters