Does it really matter…

[Dobermonster]

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

There's a difference between having a lack of evidence for someone's existence, and evidence that they did not exist.

(As it happens, there were a few self-proclaimed Messiahs around that time)

[AnimatedDirt]

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

There's a difference between having a lack of evidence for someone's existence, and evidence that they did not exist.

(As it happens, there were a few self-proclaimed Messiahs around that time)

My answer stands.  It is already seen as a belief in fairytales...

[Stevil]

If "Jesus" could not offer you eternal life, would you praise him?

I think Tank is making the point well. 

OK so it is a persona, a legend that you praise and not the man, fair enough point.

Are you able to answer my question above?

[Crow]

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Well I have never been christian (even though I was baptized) and the Jesus figure has always been totally irrelevant to my life but it is to many so that's where my interest into the subject comes from, not the religious side but rather the modern human relation with the idea. I do not think that there is any empirical evidence for the nonexistence of Jesus there is just a lack of evidence for his existence, therefore it's easy to take whatever way the individual likes. The main reason I started this thread is that if you watch a program such as The Big Questions there is always a christian representative that doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of god and sometimes they don't believe in the christian concept of god, however it's what Christianity represents beyond the supernatural which they feel associated with therefore they consider themselves to be christian, if the recent RDF poll was correct then this is the majority viewpoint of Christians in the UK. So we have living proof that if you remove Jesus from Christianity it caries on regardless therefore does it really matter if Jesus existed because it is still relevant to many people without the idea that Jesus was the son of god or that he even existed.

But I am asking directly would that be the end of Christianity for you if it was proven that Jesus did not exist or even if he did but rejected the notion of being the son of god or a messiah if he did.

[Tank]

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

That was a straight question from Crow. Why didn't you give it a straight answer? You can either answer yes or no. Why are you squirming?

[AnimatedDirt]

That was a straight question from Crow. Why didn't you give it a straight answer? You can either answer yes or no. Why are you squirming?

Squirming?  I answered the question quite plainly.  I'm sorry it elludes you.  My answer is plainly, that the typical Atheist already thinks this is the case and yet here I stand...a Christian.

But I am asking directly would that be the end of Christianity for you if it was proven that Jesus did not exist or even if he did but rejected the notion of being the son of god or a messiah if he did.

I suppose it would be the end of "Christ"ianity, wouldn't it?

[Stevil]

But I am asking directly would that be the end of Christianity for you if it was proven that Jesus did not exist or even if he did but rejected the notion of being the son of god or a messiah if he did.

I suppose it would be the end of "Christ"ianity, wouldn't it?

Which begs the question, what is so important about him being the son of god?

If he was the son of god, but had nothing to offer you, especially towards eternal life, then would you bother to praise him?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

If it were conclusive empirical evidence, it would have to be the end. If it were less than that, there would still be room for the faith that my experience has generated in me. But there would be no reason to stand in the face of conclusive evidence.  Probably wouldn't change my general way of living, but it would be the end of faith and would probably create an emotional/psychological crisis - the idea that I had based my worldview on a proven falsehood.

[Tank]

That was a straight question from Crow. Why didn't you give it a straight answer? You can either answer yes or no. Why are you squirming?

Squirming?  I answered the question quite plainly.  I'm sorry it elludes you.  My answer is plainly, that the typical Atheist already thinks this is the case and yet here I stand...a Christian.

But I am asking directly would that be the end of Christianity for you if it was proven that Jesus did not exist or even if he did but rejected the notion of being the son of god or a messiah if he did.

I suppose it would be the end of "Christ"ianity, wouldn't it?

The question was firmly directed at you and explicit in its content.  

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

[AnimatedDirt]

There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

[Tank]

There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

You are not being forced.
You didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.
Bruce did answer the question, very honestly in my opinion.

[AnimatedDirt]

There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

You are not being forced.
You didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.
Bruce did answer the question, very honestly in my opinion.

So because Bruce gave an answer you "like", it was honest where mine, apparently an answer you "do not like" is dishonest?

I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

[Tank]

There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

You are not being forced.
You didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.
Bruce did answer the question, very honestly in my opinion.

So because Bruce gave an answer you "like", it was honest where mine, apparently an answer you "do not like" is dishonest?

Like or dislike is not at issue. It was a straight answer to a straight question. He could have equally well have answered that his personal experiences would override any 'evidence' and from his perspective Christianity would not have been compromised.

I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

The difference is Crow asked you what you felt about a specific hypothetical situation. He did not make any comment on the current position atheist may or may not hold. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated and are continuing to do so.

[Dobermonster]

There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

You are not being forced.
You didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.
Bruce did answer the question, very honestly in my opinion.

So because Bruce gave an answer you "like", it was honest where mine, apparently an answer you "do not like" is dishonest?

I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

You're skirting around the question, is the difference, by pleading others' beliefs (or lack thereof) as already sufficing the context of the question. The question isn't about what atheists think (which I already pointed out as lack of belief due to lack of evidence), it's a personal question about what you would change, or not change, if faced with solid, empirical evidence that Jesus was a literary creation, and never existed. No such evidence exists, so you cannot compare the current context of disbelief with this hypothetical question. Is that a better explanation?

I think a somewhat better question to put to yourself and Bruce would be, what would change if the resurrection was proved false beyond reasonable doubt? In other words, if archaeologists uncovered a tomb, with a male skeleton that had been crucified; bones, linen, and inscription dated accurately to the right year, with a papyrus saying something like "This is Jesus of Galilee, son of Joseph, executed in 33 AD by order of Pilate, governor of Judea, for claiming to be the Messiah". And DNA analysis corroborated the evidence. I don't think this scenario would ever occur, but this is a hypothetical round of inquiry.

[AnimatedDirt]

I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

The difference is Crow asked you what you felt about a specific hypothetical situation. He did not make any comment on the current position atheist may or may not hold. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated and are continuing to do so.

No.  I have not obfuscated.  I've said it already is seen as such and yet I remain a Christian.  Or are you denying there is evidence that Christ did not actually live or that he wasn't the son of god...??  You are Atheist, right?

I'm not sure how much more it could be stated.  I remain a Christian because of my faith...not in the word "Christ" nor whether he claimed or didn't claim...  If it is MEN that prove empirically, my faith is not in MEN.  So my answer STILL stands.  I remain a Christian today despite the claims of men that prove otherwise.  How much more plain must it be?

You're a smart person, Tank.  I answered the question long ago.



EDIT: Sorted quotes - Tank