>> ^Morganth:

No, this just illustrates that you do not understand. If there is a god who created the universe, why then would he have to be wholly provable from inside of it? You're actually having to make a number of assumptions about the nature of god to make your claim.
If there is a creator god, we would not relate to him in the way that Hamlet relates to a character in another act of the play, but rather in the way that Hamlet relates to Shakespeare. He could not find him in the highest tower or prove that Shakespeare exists in the lab. Really, the only way Hamlet could ever know that Shakespeare exists is if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play.

Seriously dude? Hamlet? That's not a person. He's a character in a play, your analogy is utterly useless other than to confuse the gullible.

I make no assumptions about the nature of God, you are the one who makes assumptions about the nature of God. You HAVE to make assumptions about the nature of God to make your argument work. I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature.

There is an infinitum of proposals you cannot prove to be true or false. Unicorns, wizards and dragons ruled the earth 2000 years ago. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created God. All the matching pairs of socks that go missing are stolen by sock-goblins. The proposal that God exists is, therefore only one in an infinity of unprovable junk. Unless you are prepared to believe that UFOs abduct people and mutilate cows and every other stupid theory people throw out there, you have no reason to believe the Universe was created by some kind of sentient being. One is just as likely as the other. If we believed in unprovable junk we'd never get anything done, the scientists would all be bogged down in nonsense and we wouldn't have iPods and personal computers. We'd still be banging rocks together.

The best evidence is just filling in the gaps in science.

I'll have to disagree with you here. To say the evidence for a creator is just filling in the gaps isn't true when it is a better explanation for the evidence. Take DNA, for instance. DNA is a complex coded language which contains grammar, syntax, phoenetics, etc There is no naturalistic explanation that can account for it; DNA is information, and information only comes from minds. The medium doesn't matter. Just as a message transcends the paper and ink it is written in, and just as you can write that message in the sand and has no loss of data, DNA is transcendent of its medium. A designer is a better explanation for the existence of DNA. Check out this article:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3040594/The-Linguistics-of-DNA-Words-Sentences-Grammar-Phonetics-and-Semantics

What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. "God did it" isn't evidence, it isn't rational or logical. "God did it" used to be the explanation for the shape of the Earth and the movement of the stars, when that was questioned, the questioner was threatened with death. However, by continuing to question, we now know a lot about the solar system, enough to put satellites into orbit and photograph distance planets.

That is just a fallacy, though. Just because people used "God did it" as an explanation for things we know understand in more detail is not evidence against the existence of God. It is just evidence for the ignorance of people. Christians aren't against science. I am against things which aren't science, like things which have never been observed and are untestable, like macro evolution.

Scientific theories are indeed interpretation of facts and in many cases, it involves jumps because we can't explain everything. This is what the word "theory" means in this context, rather than the meaning the Fox News's of the world use when they pretend it means that science is guessing. That's why there is always doubt, always questions to be asked and answers to be listened to. The important thing is that it is interpretation and extrapolating data, i.e. it is based on what we can prove.

Science does a lot of guessing. This is why theories have changed so many times in the last few centuries. Not too long ago, science was certain the Universe was static and eternal. It was one of the evidences that atheists would use against Creationists. Now, we know the Universe had a definitive beginning. The scientist who discovered said that there is no other theory which lends itself so well to the creation account in Genesis.

My main point is that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. It is not anything it can prove or disprove. God is a spirit, and a spirit is an immaterial being. There is no empirical evidence for something immaterial.

However, some answers have been listened to and fallen short. For example, Intelligent Design. This has been discussed and no rational, logical or empirical evidence have been put forward. This is why it has been rejected, by me and by the scientific community: not because we don't want to hear but because it's been talked to death, causes distracting controversy and frankly, it's clearly bullshit. I wouldn't want my child taught it in school because if you teach one unsubstantiated load of nonsense, where does it end? I want rational and logical things taught to my children. If I want my children to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will teach them myself and when I struggle to explain the dinosaurs and radiocarbon dating that they learnt about in school, I should take a long hard look at myself.

Again, intelligent design is a better explanation than natural selection by random mutation for a number of things. When darwinian theory was created, the cell was thought to be a simple ball of protoplasm. We now know the cell is more complex than the space shuttle, by an order of magnitude. There is no naturalistic process which can account for the existence of this complex and intricate nano-machinery. Just because you consider it "bullshit" doesn't make it so. The Universe has the appearance of design. There are 30 or so factors in physics which have to be precisely calibrated for the Universe to even form correct, let alone for life to develop. The odds of this happeneing by chance are beyond calculation. Instead of admitting that and changing the theory, scientists then postulate multiple Universes to make the design features in this one seem plausible as happenstance.

Here is a nice video on the complexity of the cell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_gM&feature=related

If you want to talk about radiocarbon dating, this again is something which is an interpretation of evidence based on a number of unprovable assumptions. It presumes that radioactive decay rates have remained constant in the past and that there was no contamination over periods of millions or billions of years. Check out this article:

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/

I do rely on empirical evidence, we all do. You are relying on what you see too, what you see written on the pages of the Bible. Short of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy, everything we think exists is empirical. If we can't believe what we see or what we consider to be self evident, how can you believe what you think you are reading from what you think is a Bible?

I am relying on my own experience, and in my experience I have observed that the material reality is a veil, and behind that veil is a spiritual reality which encompasses it. I have seen the evidence of a higher power working in the world, who relates to us on a personal level. I believe the bible because my experience confirms it, not because I just assume it is true.

Is believing my own eyes and my own mind what you want to call my religion? That seems to be to be very different to religion as I know the word.

When you have faith in metaphysical claims, and that faith informs your entire worldview, that is indeed like a religion. What you are seeing is through the lens of that worldview..

>> ^Quboid:
I haven't seen any good evidence for Christianity. I haven't seen any good evidence for the existence of God. The best evidence is just filling in the gaps in science. What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. "God did it" isn't evidence, it isn't rational or logical. "God did it" used to be the explanation for the shape of the Earth and the movement of the stars, when that was questioned, the questioner was threatened with death. However, by continuing to question, we now know a lot about the solar system, enough to put satellites into orbit and photograph distance planets.
Scientific theories are indeed interpretation of facts and in many cases, it involves jumps because we can't explain everything. This is what the word "theory" means in this context, rather than the meaning the Fox News's of the world use when they pretend it means that science is guessing. That's why there is always doubt, always questions to be asked and answers to be listened to. The important thing is that it is interpretation and extrapolating data, i.e. it is based on what we can prove.
However, some answers have been listened to and fallen short. For example, Intelligent Design. This has been discussed and no rational, logical or empirical evidence have been put forward. This is why it has been rejected, by me and by the scientific community: not because we don't want to hear but because it's been talked to death, causes distracting controversy and frankly, it's clearly bullshit. I wouldn't want my child taught it in school because if you teach one unsubstantiated load of nonsense, where does it end? I want rational and logical things taught to my children. If I want my children to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will teach them myself and when I struggle to explain the dinosaurs and radiocarbon dating that they learnt about in school, I should take a long hard look at myself.
I do rely on empirical evidence, we all do. You are relying on what you see too, what you see written on the pages of the Bible. Short of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy, everything we think exists is empirical. If we can't believe what we see or what we consider to be self evident, how can you believe what you think you are reading from what you think is a Bible?
Is believing my own eyes and my own mind what you want to call my religion? That seems to be to be very different to religion as I know the word.

I haven't seen any good evidence for Christianity. I haven't seen any good evidence for the existence of God. The best evidence is just filling in the gaps in science. What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. "God did it" isn't evidence, it isn't rational or logical. "God did it" used to be the explanation for the shape of the Earth and the movement of the stars, when that was questioned, the questioner was threatened with death. However, by continuing to question, we now know a lot about the solar system, enough to put satellites into orbit and photograph distance planets.

Scientific theories are indeed interpretation of facts and in many cases, it involves jumps because we can't explain everything. This is what the word "theory" means in this context, rather than the meaning the Fox News's of the world use when they pretend it means that science is guessing. That's why there is always doubt, always questions to be asked and answers to be listened to. The important thing is that it is interpretation and extrapolating data, i.e. it is based on what we can prove.

However, some answers have been listened to and fallen short. For example, Intelligent Design. This has been discussed and no rational, logical or empirical evidence have been put forward. This is why it has been rejected, by me and by the scientific community: not because we don't want to hear but because it's been talked to death, causes distracting controversy and frankly, it's clearly bullshit. I wouldn't want my child taught it in school because if you teach one unsubstantiated load of nonsense, where does it end? I want rational and logical things taught to my children. If I want my children to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will teach them myself and when I struggle to explain the dinosaurs and radiocarbon dating that they learnt about in school, I should take a long hard look at myself.

I do rely on empirical evidence, we all do. You are relying on what you see too, what you see written on the pages of the Bible. Short of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy, everything we think exists is empirical. If we can't believe what we see or what we consider to be self evident, how can you believe what you think you are reading from what you think is a Bible?

Is believing my own eyes and my own mind what you want to call my religion? That seems to be to be very different to religion as I know the word.

Haha, if Heaven & Hell are real and the flying spaghetti monster accepts aborted fetuses into heaven without condition - then I really wish my mom would have aborted me. And anyway, whatever happens, complete annihilation of consciousness & being or turning into space rays, dark matter or something, whatever it is - I'm sure it's better than living on this amazing planet that is being totally ruined by a bunch of prehistoric sheep.

I think you definitely failed to understand my comment. The bible is as fallible as any other religious text be it greek mythology or the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster. Since there is no empirical proof of any god, if you are inclined to follow one then at least pick one that doesn't make archaic demands of you.


>> ^shinyblurry:

I think you failed to understand the comment. In any case, God isn't hiding Himself from you. The only thing that separates us from God is sin. If you're the type of person who prefers autonomy to sin over the truth, God may never bring you to repentance. That's your fault and no one elses. Also, you can't pick who you want God to be. God is who He is, perfect and Holy. Your dispute is that He doesn't tolerate sin. Though there are many false teachers and prophets who will tell you exactly what you want to hear. So if you want a God of your personal preference, you'll find one. And they all lead to the same place.

Actually there is a whole wikipedia entry on Matthew 5:17 and the contention around it, so to say that there is no debate and never has been is clearly false. A quick google search shows that there's actually quite a bit of debate about it within the christian community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

Also from wikipedia:

---------------
New Covenant Theology is an Evangelical position,but within evangelicalism there are divergent views on a number of topics. One of those topics is how the salvation history fits together, and the relationship of the covenants within salvation history.
Some logical deductions of New Covenant Theologians and advocates have been that since "the whole Old Covenant is obsolete", "none of the commands of the Mosaic Law are binding on believers today." Covenant Theologians, on the other hand, believe that at least portions of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians, though there is some variation on which parts and how they apply.

--------------

Sure looks like there is some debate going on to me. This is hardly the only issue that is under contention in the christian faith.




>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

I just gave you a contradiction right there in the quote from Matthew. Asking me to go read Galatians just proves my point. Surly you aren't claiming that the rest of the bible contains no contradictions.

Which church by the way? There are hundreds of denominations, and any of them that denounce homosexuality are following mosaic law.

What about the 10 commandments? That tossed out too?

Why should we pay any attention to the bible vs. any other religious text?





>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview.
>> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.

If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.







>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

Not sure whether Shiny is scary or funny. Both maybe?

P. S.: The Celestial Teapot says "Hi"
P. S. S.: Dionysus says "Hi"
P. S. S. S.: Osiris says "Hi"
P. S. S. S. S. : Attis says "Hi"
P. S. S. S. S. S.: Mithras says "Hi"
P. S. S. S. S. S. S.: The Flying Spaghetti Monster extends his noodley appendage in a manner which means, "Hi."

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well firstly, the pope is a type of antichrist. The catholic religion is not Christian, which may suprise you. It suprised me too because before I became a Christian I didn't know the difference. It is a pagan religion which derives from Christianity but is in every way is antithetical to biblical teaching.
Second, I am saying the magic bracelet isn't completely fake. I am saying it will appear to grant the properties and characteristics expected by the wearer. This is due to spiritual deception by Satan. It isn't that it is wrong for people to have strength and balance, it is the source they are trying to get it from..ie, not God.
If you take a piece of wood and worship it, a demon will assigned to it to receive that worship. Whenever you're calling upon something other than God, Satan can and does use it to mislead and corrupt. These things always have spiritual connotations. Even the flying spaghetti monster has become a false idol, and receives worship. http://www.venganza.org/
I did in fact say this isn't a new deception, just an old one in new packaging. Pagans have been using this kind of spiritual systems for thousands of years, impuing objects with special powers and using them to manipulate reality. This is sorcery for the masses.

>> ^albrite30:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.
>> ^KnivesOut:
Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".



I don't see the difference between "new age mysticism" and old age mysticism. What the message seems to be in this video is that some object can bring about strength, endurance, and balance. Why is that so wrong to you shinny? What do you think the holy trinity is other than a mass propagated symbol of strength, endurance, and balance. The value of the message is a universal desire for that kind of thing in a person's life. People are NOT being trained these days to accept new deception, rather they have been trained for thousands of years to accept the same deception from various faiths in existence today. Seems to me that if you are losing members of your flock to gadgets such as these, it may be time to get a more charismatic preacher. Maybe if the pope signed off on the iRenew you would be singing a different tune.



Who should I speak to about getting my piece of wood assigned a demon? I pity your insanity.

Well firstly, the pope is a type of antichrist. The catholic religion is not Christian, which may suprise you. It suprised me too because before I became a Christian I didn't know the difference. It is a pagan religion which derives from Christianity but is in every way is antithetical to biblical teaching.

Second, I am saying the magic bracelet isn't completely fake. I am saying it will appear to grant the properties and characteristics expected by the wearer. This is due to spiritual deception by Satan. It isn't that it is wrong for people to have strength and balance, it is the source they are trying to get it from..ie, not God.

If you take a piece of wood and worship it, a demon will assigned to it to receive that worship. Whenever you're calling upon something other than God, Satan can and does use it to mislead and corrupt. These things always have spiritual connotations. Even the flying spaghetti monster has become a false idol, and receives worship. http://www.venganza.org/

I did in fact say this isn't a new deception, just an old one in new packaging. Pagans have been using this kind of spiritual systems for thousands of years, impuing objects with special powers and using them to manipulate reality. This is sorcery for the masses.



>> ^albrite30:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.
>> ^KnivesOut:
Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".



I don't see the difference between "new age mysticism" and old age mysticism. What the message seems to be in this video is that some object can bring about strength, endurance, and balance. Why is that so wrong to you shinny? What do you think the holy trinity is other than a mass propagated symbol of strength, endurance, and balance. The value of the message is a universal desire for that kind of thing in a person's life. People are NOT being trained these days to accept new deception, rather they have been trained for thousands of years to accept the same deception from various faiths in existence today. Seems to me that if you are losing members of your flock to gadgets such as these, it may be time to get a more charismatic preacher. Maybe if the pope signed off on the iRenew you would be singing a different tune.

@Sketch

There are quite a few reasons that the resurrection should be taken to be valid, or in your case, much more carefully considered..now, the problem with your view is that you give the bible absolutely no credit at all for having any truth in it, because you're caught up on things like the miracles. That is your primary objection, yet you have to realize that the evidence for the gospels is much greater than a great deal of ancient history. We have more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than we do for Julius Caesar.

However, there is plenty that has been confirmed as true, some of which I've already mentioned..such as the fact that 50 people in the NT alone are confirmed to be historical, including two of the most major figures in the resurrection narative, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas the high priest. Or the fact that the bible has been proven to be 100 percent reliable archaelogically. So your utter dismissal of the bible as having any fact to it puts you at odds with pretty much every practicing historian and bible scholar today.

I'll give you a few reasons..First of all, you have the empty tomb, a fact acknowledged as accurate today and undisputed even by the Jewish authorities at the time of his death. You have the fact that women were the first witnesses. In those days, a womens testimony was not considered valid. In fact you had pagans agruing for centuries that the resurrection wasnt true simply on the fact that women had seen it first. If the disciples invented the story, they never would have used women as witnesses, because it severally undermined their case in the eyes of jew and gentile alike. The fact it was left in greatly enhances its credibility.

You have all of the eye witnesses who saw Jesus, over 500 in number. Eye witnesses who were still alive at the time the gospels were written. You have the fact that the disciples were brutally tortured and ultimately martyred for preaching the gospel of the resurrected Jesus. They were direct eye witnesses of the fact and so they would never go to their deaths refusing to recant for something they knew was a lie. You have external sources confirming the resurrection. These are just a few reasons to at least investigate further.

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm




>> ^Sketch:
Good evidence that He rose from the dead!? Oh, this ought to be good. Please, do tell exactly how there is any evidence at all for the truth of the resurrection myth, when the various gospels of the infallible bible don't even agree on the specific details of what even happened during the resurrection. But PLEASE don't once again use biblical passages to tell me that the resurrection happened anyway!>> ^shinyblurry:
It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real. >> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!

Good evidence that He rose from the dead!? Oh, this ought to be good. Please, do tell exactly how there is any evidence at all for the truth of the resurrection myth, when the various gospels of the infallible bible don't even agree on the specific details of what even happened during the resurrection. But PLEASE don't once again use biblical passages to tell me that the resurrection happened anyway!>> ^shinyblurry:

It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real. >> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!