If you freely choose to believe that God wants you to freely choose to believe that He sent His only Son on Earth to die on the Cross to redeem your sins and testify to the world His desperate need and desire that you freely choose to believe that whoever does not accept to believe this is destined for eternal hell, then whose choice or doctrine do you think is this: yours or God's ? If you claim that God really wants this, then what do you think this very claim is based on, except on your own arbitrary choice to believe so, motivated by your desire to please/obey God, and/or not go to Hell (as if anyone desired to displease to God and/or to go to Hell) ? Or might that be the mere coward expression of your own desire to flee the responsibility of your own errors despite the lack of any objective justification for this kind of escape ?Isn't it a double standard of judgement or rules when morally comparing God's actions with ours: the discrepancy between the absolute passivity of God and his assumed power, supposedly "to be nice" and "to let us free" but in ways that produce so much suffering and alienation in reality; while humans have the duty to intervene for stopping horrors and injustice, or do they (indeed, Christians are often so passive and just blaming actors for acting) ?
According to this article of a Christian news site, a pastor of a church in Lebanon reported: “...I heard people testify: ‘Thank God for the war in Syria; it brought us to Jesus.’”. Do you regard this as a wise view ?
Quesstions on prayer moved to a separate page.Did you read about NDEs and the observation that most of it shows no difference that faith would make to what happens after life ? Do you reject such observations as misleading ?
Do you consider yourself pretty much infallible in the reasonings from which you drew the conclusion that the Bible is from God (in the sense of, at least, a much more valuable reading than any other book), at least sufficiently infallible that it gives you a legitimate right to dismiss (refuse to care studying) any report of anyone coming to witness himself clear infallible evidence to the opposite conclusion (as I saw so many Christians reacting when I told them this report) ? For example, can the basis of your faith be expressed in the following terms : "I had a personally meeting with Jesus/God/whatever, this experience overwhelmed me with the clear evidence that this really was a clear contact with the Ultimate God with no possibility of mistake (such as a contact with a non-divine spirit which could lie or be mistaken), and from which I got a clear, explicit message of support to the truth of the Bible while I would have been equally ready to accept from God the opposite information" ? because while many Christian testimonies pointed to such a kind of "evidence" rather than anything of a more scientific style, I still do not remember one which was as clear as this in how serious and definite it claims the revelation to be. Or do you know any other Christian with a clear testimony of that kind ? But then what do you do with testimonies of that precise kind pointing to quite different conclusions such as this one ?Which of the 3 members of the Trinity did you receive in your life and do you have a personal relationship with ?
Why is it that White Evangelical Christians largely voted Trump, while Evangelicals of color largely voted Clinton ? Would White Evangelicals and Evangelicals of color not have the same morality standards ? Are their concepts of right and wrong not grounded on the same God ? If the problem was that both candidates were equally bad, then how to explain that millions of Evangelical Christians, inspired by the same Holy Spirit, still all together didn't manage to find, select and promote a good candidate with chances to win US presidency ?
Should there be a minimum age to donate the tithe of one's income to the church ? If yes, how should this minimum be enforced ? If someone was Christian and donated to a church, but then deconverts, he surely now thinks of his donations, which he intended "for God", that he was actually swindled and that it isn't actually God's service which that church was doing and which his donations were used for. Shouldn't then the church give him back what he gave ? Why didn't churches ever care organizing things to ensure that ? And why not also pay him back for all the time he spent reading the Bible, praying and attending church services, bible studies and preachings, which turn out to have been a waste of time (a fact which Christians themselves strongly believe, by their way of then accusing him of being ignorant of their teaching every time he tries to raise an argument against them)?Among these 3 horrors/evils
Why do a number of Christians with whom I try to debate now accuse me (wrongly) of hating Christianity as pure irrational feelings, not checking them rationally enough, while when I was among them, the people who evangelized me and tried to guide me in Christ, when they saw me having some troubles, insisted I was too intelligent and took things too much with the head and not enough with the heart ?Why is it that, a number of times, Christians I met insisted on their deep faith that our meeting occurred not just at random but by God's will for a greater purpose, but then shortly after this they were always the ones running away and refusing any further discussion as they discover that my convictions have stronger grounds than theirs, so that concretely they are those both disbelieving and preventing the possibilitity for our meeting to bring any fruit, not I ? Do they think this is my fault if I keep strong convictions and do not just patiently listen to their teaching as if I did not already know so well what is wrong with it ? Do they really think I shoud have a choice here when from my viewpoint there is absolutely none ?
Is God an utilitarist (measuring actions by their global
long-term consequences rather than their direct form) ? God is
often supposed to have greater plans than ours, so that, for
example, displeasing us in the short term by refusing to fulfill a
prayer is supposed to be justified by a greater plan for a greater
good in the long term. However I have yet to see God see any
further than His nose in a number of cases such as : daring to
momentarily disturb a policeman to reveal him information about a
criminal, leading to the small breach of freedom by the policeman
against the criminal in order to preserve the well-being of the
next possible victims of this criminal. As I guess there should
exist many Christian policemen, why did God never reveal them any
professional information during prayer ? Would it be a too selfish
advantage for the policeman to get ? But if God never cares to
correct/inform Christian policemen in such cases, why believe that
He ever enlightens anyone better in theological matters (as if God
had to care what we exactly believe), so why believe in any form
of divine confirmation of the truth of the Gospel in the life of
Why is God's field of competence/actions throughout His many interventions almost restricted to these 2 fields only : pure theology (evangelization, I'd say : pure bullshitology without any real object, indoctrination without any interest outside strict faith) and medicine, or is it ? Are these the 2 most important fields of concern in the world, determinants of all matters of good and evil, justice or misery ?
Why should we be amazed with God's healings, especially if we
have not an illness likely to be healed that way ? Why should a
healing be considered more amazing than God's silent help for not
having got ill or accidents in the first place ? If God gives
healing then who gave sickness at first ? Why didn't God design
life so as to make the human body less vulnerable to disease or
other troubles ?
If God sometimes guides someone to one's love, why did He never
guide anyone to inform someone else about where that latter person
will find love ? Is the God guiding someone ignorant of anyone
else's needs, tastes and existing matches but only knowing those
of the person He is guiding or what ?
Why is it a form of wisdom and spirituality from the part of a
Christian to love an homosexual (not doing anything wrong to
others) but hate his homosexuality, but an act of crudeness and
lack of spirituality from the part of an atheist upset about wrong
behaviors of Christians visibly motivated by their religion for
their bad actions, to love/excuse christians as people but blame
their religion (Biblical doctrine), even while it is a proven
scientific fact that homosexuality is genetic (not separable from
the person) while religious beliefs are obviously artificially
given from culture ?
Why did Christian preachers so often claimed (accused me) of
having "freely chosen" to reject Christianity as if I had another
option, while from my viewpoint, since my deconversion there is
absolutely no way to find such a thing as a possibility to believe
any longer this stuff which is so obviously wrong and harmful in
my experience ? Eventually I might consider having made the choice
to keep faith in the path, but I see it now as a big mistake and
not really free but a result of ignorance (lack of information on
what is wrong with it) that I was in and which I consider as a
breech of my freedom to be accurately informed of the evidence on
what is true so as to not be led to any mistaken path.
What is the meaning of "freedom" if one of the offered options
leads to hell ? Does it make any sense to say that someone freely
chooses an option that leads to hell : isn't it a trap against
him, and then can he really have freely chosen this ? Isn't such a
freedom a poisoned gift ? Why see any virtue in a God that offers
is the same as the first of the following two questions from there:
Why are Christians talking to me so regularly divinely confident
of having lots of things to teach me which they must put forward
(like spammers) and they assume I need to shut up and listen
patiently and carefully like it would be totally new things for me
I never heard, while the reality is that I already heard all these
things hundreds of times and already debunked in details in my
many web pages, by answers which these Christians are visibly
totally clueless about, but they visibly show no interest in ever
making an effort to study and learn my now overwhelming excellent
reasons (necessities) to see them as so hopelessly stupid,
ridiculous in their claims of divine wisdom, and totally ignorant
of the topics they claim to teach me about ? Why do they regularly
remains undisturbable in their confidence in knowing everyting
better than I no matter we are going through the clear
demonstrable experience that I never committed any
significant mistake I would have to modify in my positions
and criticism of Christianity, while all their arguments,
positions and accusations (speculations or calomnies) that they
imagine my positions as based on this or that stupid mistakes, are
demonstrably wrong and they visibly have to modify them all the
time (replacing a false accusation once refuted by another false
continuously not yet refuted since their imagination of what
stupid mistake I might have committed is endless) ? Or why is it
that when they are losing their confidence in their own
infallibility to know everything better than I it is usually just
the chance for them, still without ever feeling disturbed, to jump
into another sort of pride : the pride of being superiorly humble
and recognizing one's fallibility (implying : it is my crime if I
do not recognize myself as making as many mistakes as they do) and
of not being the right person to talk with - so as to make me
guilty of not being talking to the experts instead, supposed to
have got all the answers I must have said amen to ? And why do
they then dare to confidently assume I failed to do it as I should
just based on the fact it did not lead me to the conclusions they
assume I must have reached then, no matter that I did actually
check the "arguments" of all the most famous experts I could and
found them equally hopelessly stupid, as their popularity as
"experts" is visibly based on the supidity of people who mistake
them as such since the public is totally unable to distinguish
whether the "arguments" from supposed "experts" make any sense
(have any rational strength) or not?
How honest is it to proclaim and spread testimonies that Jesus
changes lives for the better, trying to let people assume that
faith must be always good without risk to the contrary,
but without having even priorly started searching for information
on possible testimonies of people whose life has been harmed by
Christian faith in case they would be also very important (harm
either caused by having followed it oneself or by suffering the
consequences from the behavior of others who did: see links
"atheist and anger" and "psychological damages") ? How would you
know if they are not important or frequent if you didn't start
honestly searching for this information ? Why have I regularly
been kicked out from churches the few times I still dared entering
afer my deconversion and trying to share my testimony (of how
faith contributed to destroy my life and what I found wrong with
it after very careful examination), and carefully oriented to
exclusively speak to the pastor who turned out to be an expert in
the art of despising and refusing to listen and understand
anything of what I would have to say, to not let anyone else in
the church know anything of my testimony ? Why is it that
Christians so always "require" me to get angry against them and
speak loudly and interrupting them all the time for about half an
hour just for the sake of getting them start grasping and
admitting that they should not just quickly and blindly dismiss my
research and testimony in the first few minutes just based on the
title in ignorance of almost everything inside (and feeling the
right to dismiss all as void just just because few minutes cannot
suffice for me to debunk all the twisted brainwashing they went
through life long : my evidence of what is wrong with
Christianity) but that it may require a minimum of effort and
study to understand it before judging whether it might be serious
or not, as if the necessity of serious study of opposite views of
a new kind (that one is not yet familiar with) from a serious
intelligent person, should not be considered an obvious elementary
condition of moral and logical decency before claiming to be in a
position of teaching the absolute truth from God of a subject to
others ? And why is it that the main time I remember speaking with
an Evangelical Christian who did not despise me right from the
start but seemed sympathetic and ready for long peaceful
discussions, he promised to me that his church would be
sympathetic and welcoming as well (and did not feel concerned with
my reports of christian closed-mindedness), but then (as he was a
barman and invited me to his bar), once I went to his bar, for a
moment he got out and left me discussing with the pastor of his
church (in presence of some young people from there), who then
kicked me out of that bar 5 minutes later regarding me as an evil
bastard (while the reality is that I am victim of Christianity
which I tried to trust and follow too seriously) and making the
young people of that church see me as such too, just because I
disagreed with the relevance of the assumed logical character of
his little favorite "reasoning" which was the exclusive thing he
can ever accept to "discuss" (and only by strictly following it),
and he regarded me as an idiot and impostor when I reported being
an expert in logic, since he
decided what logic must dictate (no matter that he is himself only
pastor with no special competence in logic and math himself) ?
Why does the majority of Christians in the US finds it good in the name of "Christian morality", to support a Republican party which is climate change denialist, therefore one of the strongest forces of destruction of the ecosystem of our planet, further impoverishing many of the already poorest countries, and with serious consequences on biodiversity for the next millions of years ? Question for Christians who now deny the emergency regarding climate change: in case after 100 years from now it turns out that climate change is a disaster, so that the overwhelming consensus of Christians (as a defense of Christianity against any evil made in its name) will hold that today's Christians who denied this emergency were not true Christians, but only greedy people motivated in their denialism by the selfish interest of wasting the planet's resources, and not excusable since the overwhelming scientific evidence was actually already here and one had to be a really terrible moron to not see it, then will you see it right to go to hell as a false Christian for this reason ? And, in case the correct understanding of climate issues was not supposed to be a required qualification for "how to be a true Christian" in spite of the high stakes for the future of life on this planet, then, how to justify that churches are more likely to put the title of "mission for God" to the study of theology, how to be a "true Christians" and make as many other "true Christians" as possible, over the study of climate sciences which could help someone cast the right vote during presidential elections about it ?
Why did Christians never do, afaik, any sort of campaign to slow down the overpopulation of the planet, which is another of its main factors of destruction ? Is this not of any concerns in God's higher plans above the most common little concerns of stupid short-sighted whimsical humans ? And why did I instead once hear a Christian put forward, as something wonderful and that absolutely deserves worship, a report that God fulfilled prayers to give pregnancy to a couple that seemed sterile ?
Why did Christian churches neglect the campain against psychiatry, leaving Scientology take the forefront of that fight ?
What does it mean to say that salvation is a "free gift from God" (since "the price was paid by Jesus") when the effective fact is that anyone receiving it more or less necessarily happens to feel obliged to dedicate many hundreds of hours to things such as studying the Bible, praying, donating money to churches, conditioning one's mind to think in conformity to the teachings, and trying to evangelize others ? Are these things not a sort of real cost attached to this "free gift" ?
Why is it that, still now in 2016, for example as appears in
http://christiananswers.net/ coming as 2nd google result on "hard
questions to christians", Christians so often find as a good means
to defend their ideology, to keep putting forward arguments trying
to convince people into such an intersideral
nonsense, such a fuckingly absurd, insane and absolutely,
ridiculously indefensible view as the one that the Earth is
flat young, that the Universe was
created long after the light we get from the Omega Centauri
cluster was actually emitted, and that all the overwhelming
scientific evidence of its old age can be safely dismissed ? Are
they promising that anyone coming to God with a sincere heart will
receive from Him the grace of getting his mind so absolutely
fucked up and brainwashed to mental death, to the point of denying
all the most overwhelming evidence of reality so that he would
even reject the now so clear fact of the age of the Earth ? Is it
just because humans are fallible even in their tries to evangelize
people ? When could Christians ever stop demonstrating the real
equivalence, in their ideology, between justifying obvious insane
nonsense as being God's wisdom above all intelligence so that
humans cannot judge it, and justifying the same obvious insane
nonsense as being caused by the natural mistakes of fallible
humans that we should not judge because it is normal and right for
humans to make mistakes and Jesus came to die for the forgiveness
of all this, so that the only wrong thing would be to not
understand and forgive ? If Jesus has any power on this planet,
why doesn't he have the decency of coming to exterminate in
lightnings or the like, all the fucking soldiers of intersideral
nonsense who, no matter how sincere, actually found nothing better
as the "sense of their life" than spending it to fuck up the world
in His name, by their defense of the indefensible, with
the effect of either turning the minds of people into such an
infinite nonsense, or totally decredibilizing the Gospel in the
eyes of the minority of sanely thinking people by associating it
with such ?
To be continued later.
"you'll see just how much He does care for the earth and its
people." is followed a bit later by "God usually seems to
only permit true miracles when doing so is needed to bring
people to faith" which proves that God actually does not
care to really make anything objectively good in real life, he is
only interested to make the little low pseudo-good which can be
best used as a trick which is absolutely not aimed at making this
life more decent but only focused on a completely different
purpose: brainwashing, mental hijacking, zombifying people's minds
into that fucking ideology which is fancifully supposed to "save
their souls" but actually the only objectively real result is that
it is fucking up all decency and meaningfulness of life on this
planet. In the same line, see also another question, and also the
only answer I got in my questions on the Fatima miracle;
see also Greta Christina's "top
one reason religion is harmful"
"Recall the Israelites as they wandered for 40 years." you
never informed yourself on the
scientific evidence that this is a mere tale did you ?
"After the flood the earth was one land mass, basically
Pangaea" The fact is that the myth of the flood originates
from around 2,000 BC. If ever such a story could be
inspired from real events, the oldest imaginable source could be
around 15,000 years ago, something like when, due to the end of
the last glacial period, the melting of ice resulted in a rise of
sea level which submerged some former areas of land and
transformed them into seas. Pangea, on the other hand, started
breaking apart some 175 million years ago,
that is in the youth of the age of dinosaurs long before our last
common ancestors with marsupials
"It also doesn't help that satan is more or less in charge of
the world": I doubt Satan is in charge of the world since
most things pretty well seem to conform to what is expectable as
consequence of the raw laws of chance in the context of a world
peopled by stupid humans developing their thought by themselves as
we observe them. However, insofar as Satan might be in charge of
something, it looks pretty much like he was more precisely in
charge of designing the Bible, considering how fucked up are the
consequences of humans dedicating themselves to trusting and
following that stuff... why not ? why would christians be less
vulnerable targets of diabolic nonsense than the rest of the
world, since they are not even claiming to be more clever or
serious than others ? Indeed Christianity (and Islam) was one of
the main force which slowed down the progress of science which
turned out to alleviate part of this suffering. If that does not
indicate its diabolic origin, I cannot see what else might.
"God is interested in how we act and what we believe in while
we are in this physical world. He is pleased by faith"...and
so on, this is nothing more than what you have been brainwashed to
assume to be God's whimsical preferences; and what is arbitrarily
assumed to be God's whims then serves as a definition for
morality. This is totally arbitrary axioms with no kind of
actually meaningful considerations on how life actually goes, what
"true fairness" should mean, what it should actually mean for a
God to be "good" and "fair". This way in which many such axioms
are passively and automatically swallowed by this horde of
mindless zombies with their carefully flat electroencephalogram is
anyway the needed condition for Christianity to reach a minumum of
coherence and consensus between its members, giving the illusion
of a common God source of all their ideas...
answers to "...he would be described as a tyrant" are just bullshit fallacies which Christians have been brainwashed into repeating while it makes no sense and is a ridiculously, diabolically false description of how things actually go in the life non-Christians and ex-Christians (as if they rebelled against God, which they don't or if they do they can have legitimate reasons to rebel against that evil tyrant which Christians worship as their God, as this picture of God actually turns out evil when combining Christian claims with some people's real experience). However there is indeed no way to explain this to a Christian since they never went themselves through this experience; if they did, they would not swallow that nonsense any longer. See my above description of how things are really going. " If you are a parent": as Christians remain such because they are lucky and they think their luck is a necessary gift from God, they are clueless about how evil a "parent" their God actually is in the life of some less lucky people.
"Our worship of God also includes a relationship" : wrong.
The evidence that nobody on Earth got any information from any
decent God is overwhelming, since otherwise consequences would be
very different. Christians are only in "relationship" with their
"God is being "paid" only once for our sins... Or we
can choose to accept Jesus' payment for our sins." that does
not make any sense : whether Jesus paid for a particular person
cannot be modified retroactively since it is supposed to have been
done 2000 years ago
"the problem comes when we reject God's payment of sin and insist to pay it ourselves" : mentioning this as if any decent God should have the perversity of focusing on this issue as if it could be decently paid attention to in guise of main issue in matters of morality, and more precisely, as if this totally arbitrary criterion coming from nowhere, that assumed little perverse obsession of that little God, of precisely expecting from all people that very strange and peculiar attitude of "accepting the price to be paid by someone else" ignoring any other consideration, as the condition for salvation, is an evil nonsense. See my comment there. Ifever a God is perverse enough to stick to such absurd criteria in judging people and sending them either to heaven or hell then anyway for moral reasons I refuse to be corrupted into following the stated condition to go to heaven, I will have the courage to go to hell instead and I will still dare to have faith that this can only be a small evil God, not the real God, and that a really worthy God must exist beyond him to send that little god himself to hell and finally restore a decent and completely decent justice afterwards.
"God allows us the choice to pay our own way, which is an
eternity in torment in Hell" Bullshit. An honest gift of
freedom requires to state the full conditions (consequences) of
the choice and to make these conditions credible. But the
biblical doctrine is not credible at all, especially the claim
that the price of our faults would be an eternity of torment in
hell, is obviously ridiculous bullshit invented by insane people
to threaten the people and oblige them to keep faith disregarding
the evidence, therefore explaining how such an insanity could be
spread and have won the world while ignoring all evidence against
it (such as the evidence from NDE that many people can find bliss
in the afterlife independenly of their creeds), thus making is
success no sign of credibility at all. No sane God can trap people
and punish them of an eternity of hell just for not believing that
obvious bullshit. No fault can meaningfully deserve an eternity of
torment without good reasons,
such as that it first concretely created an infinity of damage,
which is usually not the case. But if there are good reasons to
deserve an eternity of torment then there logically cannot be also
any good reason for anyone to care offering a way out.
"In the past, when people have seen been close to God in a
fallen state, they couldn't handle it. The Israelites had just
this opportunity..." this is bullshit tales. If a true God
ever contacted us like a really decent God, it would look
extremely different, resulting in very different human
reactions, than what is dreamed of in the bullshit tales usually
inspired by the christian ideology.
"because many Christians are probably luke-warm in their faith
walk, and not committed to God. Churchianity, anyone? " The
gift of the holy spirit and divine guidance is supposed to be free
and for all people, who (no matter that it is supposed to be
free), are actually committing a lot of energy into that stuff.
Still they are regularly accused of not being committed enough, so
that all the commitment that is actually made is often, like here,
regarded from a Christian viewpoint as being globally about 0% of
what is actually needed. I think, a God who makes such violent
accusations of fakeness to people who give a lot of energy for Him
after they tried to trust His wonderful promises, is quite a evil
swindler, isn't He ? If an ideology does not work when applied to
real people, is it the fault of the people who are not fit for the
ideology, or the fault of the ideology which is not well designed
to actually work on real people ? God supposedly had all the power
to inspire a book as He thought would work best when people
sincerely care to read and apply it. If it does not work, that's
His fault, not the fault of the people reading and following it.
But if it is not supposed to work, maybe because nothing would
work on real people anyway, then God should have warned about it
right from the start to not make us waste our energy for nothing.
By the way, every Christian usually assumes to be himself an exception to the overall fakeness in the large mass of the rest of Christians. Maybe because he is more humble than them...
I stop here. I am fed up with such stupidity.
"I'm right with the atheists in that most Christians are pretty stupid. " Well that seems to be one of the most famous consensus among Christians... as soon as they mention the rest of Christians. Beware the risk being yourself in that majority.
"Why won't God heal amputees?" - "Who's to say healing them is the right thing?" well if only the question was why does not God heal all amputees, we might indeed wonder if it might be the right thing to not be healed for the case of those not healed, though in that case the lack of falsifiability in such a claim, as long as no observable correlate could be found with an explainable relation between this observable correlate and the idea of "staying amputed being a good thing" would render it useless and worthy of the greatest doubts like any unfalsifiable claim. However we are not in this case since we are speaking about all amputees, which is a condition with rather well-identified material causes. Therefore such an idea may easily be challenged, for example, by the following thought experiment. Imagine I suddenly decide to amputate you, for example if I was an agent operating in some extreme islamic ruled part of the world and you were arrested for some "crime" for this law for which a decision of amputation would apply. Once I amputate you, the chances are that God won't heal you of this, since He never does it in such cases. Then does my action of amputating you, suddenly automatically results in making it a good thing for you to stay amputated all your life, for the reasons you have just proudly put forward ? In such conditions, the very idea of difference between right and wrong becomes empty doesn't it ? Or, if you seriously believe that amputating someone really makes it a good thing for him to stay amputed all his life, why didn't you put this good news into practice by amputating yourself already ?
"Because most religious people do what they're told." but how can they do otherwise in lack of a verifiable source of information on what God really says/wants ? And if, despite all their very devote and committed prayers for God to guide them and reveal His correct truth to them, God refuses to cure them from the illness of not having grasped the correct meaning of His message by providing a clear revelation of the correct info instead, may it be because the domination of these wrong ideologies are actually part of a great divine plan ? Who's to say that correcting them would be the right thing ? By the way, see there.
full of bullshit
"how can you explain the faithfulness of the disciples to the testimony of the resurrection even in the face of their own deaths?"
There is no evidence for the real existence of the "disciples", and if ever some were real the precise content of their reports and feelings. The gospels seem to have been fancifully written long after the "disciples" died, and were only fancifully attributed to imaginary disciples.
"They died as martyrs" Today, many people "die as martyrs" as well, still this is no evidence they are right.
"why did 500 people say they saw Him alive" one person wrote a text claiming the existence of such 500 people, but this is no evidence for the existence of these 500 people. Nothing is there to ensure that the circumstances of this writing and reproducing of this text happened in conditions that would ensure its destruction in case it was a mere fancy or a lie. It was made in ancient times, copying was a difficult task, and the means to investigate on such issues were even harder. It could have started to be famous and begging for verification only long after the time such people were supposed to be living, which made any checking impossible.
"how can you explain the inability of the first century skeptics to deal with the resurrection with an alternative explanation? All the power of Rome and of the religious establishment in Jerusalem was geared to stop the Christian faith. All they had to do was to dig up the grave and to present the corpse. They didn't." that is lots of assumptions on the possible circumstances of the stuff. There is no reason to assume that at that time, the question of how to stop the Christian faith was formulated in such terms. If the Jesus story was all made up, there was no grave to dig in the first place to try proving anything. And proofs don't matter for Christians anyway. No matter the proof, the main Christian answer at these times was to exterminate all people with a different opinion.
"his closest friends were an extraordinary compulsive group of liars." No, they did not think they were lying, they were only writing tales which they found inspiring in order to convey a spiritual message, while the material details of what could really happen did not matter in their sense.
"these are some of
the principal ones that could become intellectual roadblocks
to those who are truly seeking to know the truth about God"
"All other religions are diametrically opposed to Christianity on the most crucial question: "Who is Jesus Christ?""
Every religion can have its own "most crucial question" on which it can be opposed to all others. There is no objective reason to see this particular question as the most crucial, especially as it rather seems to be a question on a mere fictional character, and even if there was a particular real person the stories were inspired from, he couldn't even have been called "Jesus Christ" in his lifetime anyway, especially as the word "Christ" comes from the Greek, which does not seem to have been the language spoken at that time and place. What if the most crucial question was "Who is Superman" ?
Criticism of Evangelical Christianity