Christianity, like many religions, is fantasy, like Alice in Wonderland

NO. Can you prove he's real? LOL

Translation: the bible is wrong because the fundamentalists are wrong.

Well that's blatantly inaccurate.



When a belief is trying to make an objective statement about reality, one is going to be right and the other is going to be wrong.

You mean "tolerate" then.

Every supernatural claim made about Christianity, that can be judged on evidence, has been shown to be false. There has never been any evidence to support the existence of the supernatural in any form. The origins of Christianity through earlier precursor beliefs is well documented.
So while this does not amount to "100% wrong", it certainly provides enough grounds for any rational thinker to reject it.

The problem with this is that to some, a simple statement of logic or fact can sound "condescending" if it challenges their deeply-held beliefs. I agree that is is usually best to avoid being deliberately rude, but there is no requirement to avoid hurting people's feelings.

what do you mean? the garden of eden story was the reason jesus came to the world. that's the ****ing foundation of the entire religion.

Nonsense. I respect your right to hold any belief but that doesn't extend to the belief itself. So you respect Naziism, fascism etc?

Religion to me is like a drug. It can have positive effects and meanings but overengagement can have serious consequences.

In terms of philosophy and self-awareness, I think it's fair to say that the only thing you can truly know is that you know nothing. As stoicism, the platform for self-improvement goes, your decisions and state of mind should be a result of physical experiences.

Do you feel pleasure going to church? Does it contribute to a positive atmosphere? Do it.

Constantly questioning a rigid concept like God will serve you nothing. Try to realise that throughout the ages individuals were not entirely fixated on their religion as a means to explain everything.

Historically original sin is the fundamental concept. That's it. No fruit, no tree, no garden, no talking snake - heck even the knowledge of good and evil is considered a point about rational man rather than some historical journalistic account of original sin. But that is far from the whole story, after the reformation some have questioned the role of Adam in the account of salvation. The whole argument either way rests on Paul, but as Pauline scholars have pointed out, multiple times Paul also uses Adam as a symbol for Israel, which takes away the necessity of Adam in the account of original sin.

Genesis 1. It is demonstrably false.
Adam and Eve. Demonstrably false.
Noah and the Flood. Demonstrably false.
The virgin birth. Demonstrably false.
The resurrection. Demonstrably false.

First 3 if you read like a fundamentalist literalist, but that is the minority of Christians and certainly doesn't stand for Christianity as such. Second 2 can only be achieved by making question begging assumptions.

However certain events such as Noah's flood, while not literally the same as described, more than less likely happened with many potential candidates of events, the black sea deluge being my favourite which occurred around 5,600BC.

Genesis 1. It is demonstrably false.
Adam and Eve. Demonstrably false.
Noah and the Flood. Demonstrably false.
The virgin birth. Demonstrably false.
The resurrection. Demonstrably false.

It's a metaphor. How can you read about the "tree of knowledge" and not instantly file that away under poetic license? It's the most obvious thing in the world that Genesis and the Eden stuff is allegory. The Jesus bits are nonsense, I think the general rule is the newer your religion the crappier it is, but the super-early mythology is clearly metaphor.

So you agree with me.

Animal farm never literally happened. So it's pointless using that book as a guide to forming one's moral compass?

But that's not what is under discussion here.
Remember that Christians, despite all the claims of metaphor and allegory, actually believe that a supernatural being created the universe from nothing, and that he came to earth in human form as a means of saving us from eternal torment at the hands of himself.
That is clearly fantasy, and no amount of equivocation over the meaning of passages of the Bible will change that.

Ah, the old "If you assume a different meaning to what the words actually say..." argument.

The "question begging" must be done by the person asserting that physically impossible things actually happened. Dead people do not come back to life. Human conception is not possible without both egg and sperm. For them to be possible requires a "miracle", and it is such an event that is being examined, so it is question begging to assert that miracles are possible when examining the possibility of miracles.

I didn't claim that every element of Christianity was present in earlier beliefs, just that it contains elements of earlier beliefs, but as far as Jesus as god, there are countless examples of gods presenting as human.

Didnt you say they were demonstrably false?

Posted from TSR Mobile

They don't all believe that. Many do, and those people are wrong,