

I assume you are posting to encourage comments - how much history has
Tony Campello read?  Not much it seems. 


It is good to hear that there are a few reasonable Christians about.
If only those christian "scientists" would take note.

(In Australia there is a very strong movement, a bunch of christian 
scientists who believe that every single event in the bible is exactly
true, and that there is a rational explanation for it all that can be justified
by using the laws of physics.  For example, there are a few chaps who are 
trying to prove that the age of the universe is 6000 years old, and that the
error in conventional calculations is the result of the fact that the speed 
light has been rapidly decaying over the years, and this has not been 
accounted for. :-] )


Or (of course), that he never existed, and the bible was a story, and was never 
intended to become a manifesto for a billion people.  Did Tony follow that one
up?


Millions of people have "died for a lie".  This  point is difficult to 
substantiate since it is not well defined (a great many religious arguments
work in that way), but consider the many Aztec warriors who sacrificed 
themselves to their gods in the belief that this act would bring them victory
of the Spanish invaders.  The list is endless.  The Aztecs lost, BTW.

  
That is perfectly reasonable, but it is not grounds for me (or anyone)
to become a christian.  More to the point, it does not add weight to
the claim that Jesus was the "real thing".



Have you ever seen a documentary about the rise of Nazi Germany?  More to the
point, did Tony mention this?  One could hardly call Werner Heisenberg and his
many colleagues  fools, or  illogical men, their support of Hitler was based 
(I presume) upon an emotional issue rather than a rational agreement with 
his principles.  Obviously my argument is invalid if Tony thought that Hitler
was sane....

 


Hmmm.... I don't think his arguments warrant the use of a "Therefore..."


This is (unfortunately) what alot of religious discussions I have had with
people result in - quoting the bible.  The only reasonable way I think
people can look at the bible is to treat the stories as some sort of
metaphorical representation of the messages that the authors were trying to
present.  If someone tries to interpret parts of the bible literally, he or
she will end up in all sorts of shit.   

Tony's argument would be perfectly reasonable for people who believe
the events described in the bible took place, but to convince someone, 
who thinks the bible is total fiction, that Jesus is real by quoting the
book is totally pointless.  For example, in mathematics you cannot say "a is
equal to b because a is equal to b".

  


That would possibly explain why there have so many people being killed 
in religious wars, and why there are hundreds of different versions all
claiming to be correct.  

It 

I think if you posted this part to alt.religion you would get more flames
than here :-).  I have never really understood why the emotional sentiments
of a stranger should be of interest to other people. 

Someone famous said that there two evils in life, polititians and churchs, one
rules by fear of the living, the other by fear of the dead.  If I am pressed I
could probably find the exact quotation.