First off, the reliability and liberal slant at the Huffington Post is
recognized by most people as being as far to the left as Red China. Why
not ask Rush Limbaugh the wonderful attributes of abortion?

And this has "what" to do with the clip???? This is not even remotely a political article. Could your comment be a strawman? Might be.

The question I would have to ask, 'has any of the "other" religions
claim to have someone rise from the dead, return and be seen by
numerous witnesses. He was also seen by many as He rose into heaven?"

The article has nothing to do with whether or not any points of religion are correct or not. Did you read the source article. Yo...

First off, the reliability and liberal slant at the Huffington Post is
recognized by most people as being as far to the left as Red China. Why
not ask Rush Limbaugh the wonderful attributes of abortion?

And this has "what" to do with the clip???? This is not even remotely a political article. Could your comment be a strawman? Might be.

The question I would have to ask, 'has any of the "other" religions
claim to have someone rise from the dead, return and be seen by
numerous witnesses. He was also seen by many as He rose into heaven?"

The article has nothing to do with whether or not any points of religion are correct or not. Did you read the source article. Your comment seems to indicate you didn't. Maybe I'm reading too much into what you wrote. Is that the case?

The question I would have to ask, 'has any of the "other" religions
claim to have someone rise from the dead, return and be seen by
numerous witnesses. He was also seen by many as He rose into heaven?"

As a matter of fact, yes. Who is this:

Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Miracles
Birthdate on December 25
Morality
Mankind's savior
That's right, it's Mithra! Predated Christianity by about 600 years.

Because other "religions" copied Christianty, does that nulify Christianity?

Because Christianity copied Mithraism, does that nullify Christianity?

let me say that i have no dog in this fight, as they say, so i'm just answering the questions hypothetically, so to speak.

"The question I would have to ask, 'has any of the "other" religions claim to have someone rise from the dead, return and be seen by numerous witnesses. He was also seen by many as He rose into heaven?"

"Tammuz’s worship is traced back as far as Ur and Umma, in the days of Abraham. I found that Tammuz’s mother was known as and called herself the Queen of Heaven. Catholicism picked up this abominable name and applied it to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
I found that December 25th is the day celebrated for Tammuz’s birthday. I found that Easter is the day celebrated for...

let me say that i have no dog in this fight, as they say, so i'm just answering the questions hypothetically, so to speak.

"The question I would have to ask, 'has any of the "other" religions claim to have someone rise from the dead, return and be seen by numerous witnesses. He was also seen by many as He rose into heaven?"

"Tammuz’s worship is traced back as far as Ur and Umma, in the days of Abraham. I found that Tammuz’s mother was known as and called herself the Queen of Heaven. Catholicism picked up this abominable name and applied it to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
I found that December 25th is the day celebrated for Tammuz’s birthday. I found that Easter is the day celebrated for his resurrection from the dead. I found that the cross that we have learned to honor as a symbol of Christ’s death, is in reality, the symbol used in the worship of Tammuz. The cross was really a "T" for Tammuz, used as a symbol for him hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.
I found that he was killed by a herd of wild swine and lay dead in a village street for three days and then supposedly arose from the dead. I found that he was called the messiah. All of this is in secular history about one word, Tammuz, found only once in the Bible, where God is showing Ezekiel the abominations that are in HIS HOUSE"
http://www.lakehamiltonbiblecamp.com/ponder/tammuz.htm

i repeat, i have no opinions one way or the other on this

Thanks jay for your honesty and candor. It makes productive conversation much easier.As far as Huffington Post being liberal, it's a fact. It is also an
aggregation of articles from many sources albeit most with a liberal
slant. Yet given that it ought to be judged not on it's political
position but on what is reported. I also read what may be considered
conservative leaning sources. Do I view them more critically? I may.
We're all human. Although I try to look at facts and not just talking points.

I do not feel obligated to do any in depth research.

Then you should not be surprised by people who call you out if you make comments that indicate that you haven't done the resea...

Thanks jay for your honesty and candor. It makes productive conversation much easier.As far as Huffington Post being liberal, it's a fact. It is also an
aggregation of articles from many sources albeit most with a liberal
slant. Yet given that it ought to be judged not on it's political
position but on what is reported. I also read what may be considered
conservative leaning sources. Do I view them more critically? I may.
We're all human. Although I try to look at facts and not just talking points.

I do not feel obligated to do any in depth research.

Then you should not be surprised by people who call you out if you make comments that indicate that you haven't done the research.

I am convinced that Christianity is real and true because to become a Christian is a life changing experience.

Real as a religion is a given. Subjectivity, although quite convincing to the person experiencing it, is not very convincing when trying to persuade someone else.

There are many, many scholars who dig deep into the scripture and study it's validity concluding that it is the real deal.

Very true.Yet without evidence this argument from authority is without merit. In fact it is a logical fallacy.

I am convinced it is because of my own life experiences and detailed
study of the Bible. You may never be convinced, but that is between you
and God.

Fair enough! And you have the right to hold those views. In the same vain, if you choose to debate with others, expect to have those views questioned. It's not an attack on you personally.

It is ironic, since I'm an atheist, that you concluded that I have a God. LOL!

I am convinced that Christianity is real and true because to become a Christian is a life changing experience

I think this 'life changing' stuff is a fallacy. I can play with a stick my whole life with no adverse or positive outcome and some kid down the street can do the same and accidentally poke his eye out. That's a life changing event. Does that make playing with sticks significant?

We all have epiphany throughout our lives as we consciously become aware of things. They are strong feelings - but that doesn't make them right. I'm sure some drunkard has an epiphany that his wife is cheating on him. Does it make it true? Or a mother may have an epiphany when hearing her ch...

I am convinced that Christianity is real and true because to become a Christian is a life changing experience

I think this 'life changing' stuff is a fallacy. I can play with a stick my whole life with no adverse or positive outcome and some kid down the street can do the same and accidentally poke his eye out. That's a life changing event. Does that make playing with sticks significant?

We all have epiphany throughout our lives as we consciously become aware of things. They are strong feelings - but that doesn't make them right. I'm sure some drunkard has an epiphany that his wife is cheating on him. Does it make it true? Or a mother may have an epiphany when hearing her child sing that they are destined to be a musical star. Does that make it true?

Using a subjective moment of ones life that is life changing and presenting it as a valid form of proof is simply more logical fallacy.

Both you guys bring up interesting points. From a personal view I've found that in discussions with people their particular sect has much influence on the interpretation of their holy book. I suppose that's one reason I shy away from getting sucked into bible arguments. They are usually fruitless and unproductive. Simply agreeing on which parts of the old and new testaments to use/;exclude shifts continually depending to whom you're talking to. Of course, most of the people I encounter are not that versed in their own holy book to enter into any type of meaningful dialogue.

Then there's the idea of arguing over a book that is so rife with contradictions and BS and the claims of certain ind...

Both you guys bring up interesting points. From a personal view I've found that in discussions with people their particular sect has much influence on the interpretation of their holy book. I suppose that's one reason I shy away from getting sucked into bible arguments. They are usually fruitless and unproductive. Simply agreeing on which parts of the old and new testaments to use/;exclude shifts continually depending to whom you're talking to. Of course, most of the people I encounter are not that versed in their own holy book to enter into any type of meaningful dialogue.

Then there's the idea of arguing over a book that is so rife with contradictions and BS and the claims of certain individuals that you need the magic glasses to understand it anyway. What's the use?

For the sake of discussion, I personally can't imagine how this book could possibly be viewed as anything but a compilation of myths, morality tales, and plagiarisms from other belief systems. A hodgepodge of barely credible stories from a distant culture that has little or no relevance to our world today. But then again, I don't have the magic glasses!

Oortcloud, it depends on how far back you go. In the earliest days of Christianity, the Gnostics, while being pretty much a fringe group, but they had a lot of the deep thinkers of the time who cast an influence way out of proportion with their numbers. This put a strong mystical influence on early Christendom; remember, too, that during the first few centuries, Christianity shifted from being a Jewish sect to a faith of the Gentiles, who inherited a strong mystic tradition from Greek and Roman civilization, with its rich body of myth and fable. Meanwhile, the Jews were very liberal in their interpretations of the Torah from pre-Christian days on, which also got passed on to what eventual...

Oortcloud, it depends on how far back you go. In the earliest days of Christianity, the Gnostics, while being pretty much a fringe group, but they had a lot of the deep thinkers of the time who cast an influence way out of proportion with their numbers. This put a strong mystical influence on early Christendom; remember, too, that during the first few centuries, Christianity shifted from being a Jewish sect to a faith of the Gentiles, who inherited a strong mystic tradition from Greek and Roman civilization, with its rich body of myth and fable. Meanwhile, the Jews were very liberal in their interpretations of the Torah from pre-Christian days on, which also got passed on to what eventually became the RC church.

I'm in the middle of reading two books that explain a lot of this stuff, and I'm not quite finished with them. I may have a lot more to contribute when I finish them.