I call BS on Christianity

Thank you for your acceptance of this debate, and welcome. Pro, your statement was a bit of a sweeping generalization and loosely defined which is why it is now under attack. One more thing before we move on, Pros" galloping Gish. The Galloping Gish is a tactic well known to most Christians and I will ask Pro to either address every point you post, or not post it at all. Audience please note that this tactics theme is to lists as many points as possible and in such a "broad fashion" that each point (no matter how irrelevant) cannot be addressed properly by his opponent because of the sheer numbers. Please don"t fall for it while voting. Rebuttal: BS: Sorry Pro, but Christianity "IF" is solely based in the New Testament (N/T) there are some problems. It has a rotten storyline that never made since, it is not a history book, and it contradicts itself, and it doesn"t stand by itself without the O/T because some denominations adhere to the O/T as well. One more problem I see and call BS on, Problem is that there have been countless numbers of bibles written and perhaps millions of interpretations which have led to the denominational divisions of Pros" faith, which now number38000 (at least). So we will take a quick look at a story that founds the New Testaments, the story of Jesus. Normally this story would never convince anyone of sound mind to believe Christianity. If an individual who had never encountered any form of Christianity heard this story, this person would be revolted by this story. The story of salvation, "if man believes that god rapes a little girl, so that he can give birth to himself, so he can commit suicide and forgive mankind, so that he can live in paradise with that god." This storyline would send every rational person off and running in the opposite direction. History of the O/T, the foundation of Christianity: The O/T is little more than a re-written version of the Jewish bible aka Hebrew bible akaTorah and or Tanakh. The O/T contains only about 5 (five) of the original 24 books. So the original non abridged version had little to do with storyline enhancement, it historical values is already diminished, the omitted sections did not support the ideas of the N/T because of contradictions. So the price of sin seems to be based in the materials that didn"t hit the editors floor. Another example of conflict with the O/T existence is contradicts. The Zohar for example. The Zohar depiction of original sin is in conflict with Christianity, Judean and Islamic renderings. The conflict simple, this sect claims it never happened. The teachings of the Zohar claim to be the oldest Jewish based religion having kept quiet and to themselves until mankind grew wise enough to understand their message. Ironic that all religions make the claim they are the oldest and wisest. The Zohar story is devoid of gods" works in having created man, but rather tells of god"s ( Again, according to theistic sources there are 38000 Christian denominations(sourced below), all of which all in conflict will each other"s ideologies and at least eight renditions of the bible currently being used by them, probably a lot more. This means there are still 37999 denominations that disagree with Pro"s single denominational view, the base of Christianity he suggests is always going to be a base based in his own ideologies. So now all I have to do is argue that his denominational perspective is in conflict by a Christian majority to counteract anything he may claim and I feel this will be an almost insurmountable obstacle for him from this point on. http://www.torah.org... http://www.kabbalah.info... http://www.catholic-convert.com... Time to shift gears and demonstrate that the Bible is not historically relevant. As there are no contemporaries of Jesus on record or even in the bible, no historian in his right mind is going to claim otherwise. Just so you know where we are going here, without a history, Jesus never taught anybody anything. All encounters with Jesus are based in hearsay and nothing more. Jesus is a void as far as history is concerned. Another reason Jesus is not a historical figure. The N/T Gospels were written a generation (a generation is being lenient here) after mythical Jesus"s supposed death. The Gospels were written by anonymous individuals (ironically some of which claim to be illiterate) and it was done so in Greek. These facts casts a very large shadow of doubt on every aspect of legitimacy concerning Jesus"s life. Historically speaking there is another problem for Jesus. The story of Jesus exists in multiple older religions, including Horus the son of RA, and the son of Jupiter as pointed out by Justine Martyr the first self-proclaim Christian historian. The bible storyline even grossly contradicts itself about Jesus life. Contradictions as to his whereabouts, his birth place along with other major storyline problems, well it doesn"t take rocket science to figure this out. In short, Jesus is just not a stable character in the bible. I had to cut this portion of my post because of space limitations chasing the Gish, so if you wish to read more go to> http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com... as this was one of my sources. Nazareth, the city that never was. The rational mind would have a hard time believing Jesus was born in a town that never existed, now wouldn"t they? "The savior was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived in Nazareth until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question"was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question! http://www.infidels.org... More can be found on Marshall J. Gauvin at the depository at the University of Manitoba. I am almost out of character space here, so I will list some bible contradictions found in the N/T text. There are so many I will close with this list to aid my rebuttal aimed at the wall of text/scripture Pro left me on his opening address. When I return I will attempt to work all of this in and tie it together in my future rebuttals. Does every man sin? 1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; 2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near; PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Out of space and I have to run off to work"see ya.