had my faith very aggressively tested tonight.

[SpaceDinosaur]

This is not about the action, I'm fine with what happened. This is about how I feel now.

What's just happened.
I gave a friend a lift home as I was driving and he was quite drunk.
Midway home he asked how we (group of friends) cope with a mutual friend being religious...she's getting married in a church.
I replied that I was religious, he attended my church wedding 6 months ago.
"You can't be religious, you're supposed to be intelligent"
Sorry?
"You're a scientist, you have an analytical mind, why are you acting like a brainwashed idiot?"
God love him he loves a soap box so I was then treated to a tirade of how there was no God, how if there was a God we would be perfect, how God couldn't exist because of the diseases babies in Africa die of. (That was his pet topic)

No responses from me were heard so I allowed him to rant himself out including a full session of calling God all the names under the sun, asking God to smite or kill him now and laughing at me.

I am at peace with the event. Shocked but not upset. He'll apologise for being so aggressive, confrontational and rude tomorrow (if he remembers)

I felt tested. I wanted to come home and open my bible and see where it fell (something I did a lot as a teenager) but I can't find it which makes me sad. I wanted to find the verse and chapter about not testing God.

I would like to ask for a verse or chapter to read. I have a digi bible. I can't explore the book, I can't find it right now.

(just to add to my last - all that happened in a period of just 10 years)

I agree, Bertrand, that the 'search for the historical Jesus' and the doctrine of the Incarnation are very different things. To the extent that I am interested in the former it is because it follows from the Incarnation that Jesus was a historical figure. But I am not, personally, very interested in the whole search for the historical Jesus thing.

Where in my post did I say it was ok? Stop putting words into my mouth.

Well, I would certainly have to think very seriously about my beliefs. But, honestly, BigDorrit, I do not think that is at all likely to happen. The evidence is just too strong and the theories of the Jesus-myth people just too far-fetched.

The history of Christianity is full of people disagreeing with the church, and at no stage in its history has it been able to contain dissent. If it had been we would not have the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the vast spectrum of Protestant churches, the Quakers, Unitarians and so forth.

Wiki's article on Christian heresy notes that the numbers of people executed for heresy is not known, but runs into several thousands (with a link to the article on the Spanish Inquisition I referenced earlier). That is (as I have already said) a terrible blot on the history of Christianity. What it is not, however, evidence that anyone who was a heretic was excommunicated and executed. You haven't cited any evidence for any of these wild historical fantasies.

To add - I've spent some time today looking at the alternative views (about the existence of Jesus), and to be frank, that's enough for me to regard them as flimsy and far-fetched. I really have got better things to do with my life.

It seems to me that there are other ancillary reasons for regarding the existence of Jesus as a plausible possibility.

From ancient times right up to the modern day, there has been a steady trickle of people who have claimed to be the Jewish messiah – or have had it claimed on their behalf. So the existence of one particular claimant in first century Palestine does not seem particularly outlandish to me. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which predate Jesus, there is the idea that a messiah is coming soon. This suggests that the people living in that neighbourhood would be receptive to the notion of having a messiah in their midst if someone appearing to embody the right characteristics showed up.

In modern times, there is the interesting case of Sathya Sai Baba, a real Indian spiritual leader with many characteristics in common with Jesus. He was said by his devotees to be capable of miraculous healings and other such supernatural activities. Others accused him of trickery.

His message was a message of love:

Be eager to confer consolation and courage; be anxious to be of help. Watch for the chance. Snatch each opportunity to expand yourself by sympathy, to enlarge the horizon of Love by understanding and prayer.

He died in 2011 but his movement continues with millions of devotees in many different countries. Followers have reported encounters with him after his death, mainly in visions but there have also been claims of bodily resurrection.

Some say that he was an avatar – an earthly incarnation - of Hindu gods.

If such a case as that of Sathya Sai Baba is possible nowadays, then it does not seem that difficult to imagine a religious movement coming into being two thousand years ago inspired by a real person with similar attributes, albeit a person rooted in Judaism rather than Hinduism.

Regarding sathya Sai baba

My 85 year old grandmother (we are indian) is a case in point. She has a massive image of him above her bed. She prays at the feet of this image for 1.5 hrs each morning and evening after bathing in ice cold water. She believes he is the child of a particular Hindu god. She and her friends eat vegan oil free food on Fridays to honour him. She doesn't believe he died although I did see her throwing herself at the tv howling when he did die (she thinks he has arisen).

Just shows it's possible.

thegreenheartofmanyroundabouts - Not all people of faith are stupid. You can be a neurosurgeon, run for president of the United States and still believe the earth is only 6000 years old, evolution is wrong and homosexuality is a choice.

Equalities legislation in the EU does protect people from religious discrimination. Your example of comparing religion to sexuality or disability makes you sound stupid. The former is a choice the later is how you are born and unchangeable.

Can you name one statement on this thread an 'atheist' has made that uses a phrase or concept in a way that is NOT the accepted definition of it?

Someone who is a Professor of mathematics from Oxford and admits he is a religious apologist does have a credible opinion. The problem is that his voice is a fraction of his peer group who refute his claims.

niminypiminy - Imagine a world renowned scientist conducted research on smoking, funded by Imperial Tobacco, and concluding it was safe. The world would laugh at the bias results and disregard them.

The same is true of bias bible scholars researching religions. It is laughed off as confirmation bias.

There is no one here arguing jesus didn't exist, like me they are positing that there isn't enough proof he did. It is for believers of a claim to PROVE is it true, NOT for sceptics to show it isn't. Until something is proven then a rational person does not accept it as so...

littlejeopardy - Re: your linked article, read the first sentence, "Scholars generally agree that it is likely a preacher... on whom the figure Jesus Christ is based existed". That sentence says it is NOT proven he did exist, hence the word 'likely'. Also he is likely only 'based' on jesus from the bible. This is exactly what I have and did say.

Your arguments are only dismissed when they have no evidence with them.

There is a massive difference between claiming jesus existed to claiming general Hannibal existed, can't you see that? One is a man, one is a demi-god. They are not equal claims. For example it is believable to claim a wild horse existed to claiming a unicorn existed. BURDEN OF PROOF.

dizzytomato - "You don't need evidence to know that something inspired the stories" - Ummm, YES you do. Religions start up every day with claims that attempt to shake up current religion, even on pain of death. It means squat. Do you want me to make a list?

niminypiminy - "there haven't been... any people killed for disagreeing that Jesus was a historical figure" Throughout history millions of people were tortured and killed for not believing in jesus.

Can you please post links to the academic peer reviewed research that jesus existed? impossible to find...

Its is ironic to suggest atheism has only been given oxygen by the ridiculous internet, yet you go on to use the internet to try and prove your theistic points, hmmmm.

Or visiting the sick, caring for the bereaved and listening to the lost which is actually what I plan to do today.

Ignore last line, don't know how that got there, lol.

If I believed that the earth is only 6000 years old, evolution is wrong and homosexuality is a choice I would be a fundamentalist Christian. I am not. What your statement suggests is that the implicit definition of Christian is actually fundamentalist Christian which is why it is important to define your terms accurately. I've met with atheists who have decided I can't be a proper Christians because I'm not a fundamentalist. Which is bizzare.

I find it bizarre that you can follow Paul's teachings on the one hand (presumably you don't follow Jewish law) and then on the other hand ignore his teachings about homosexuality.

If he's wrong on something like homosexuality, why assume he's right about e.g. the resurrection?

People want to take the Bible as proof of fantastical goings-on, but ignore the bits that don't suit.

"What your statement suggests is that the implicit definition of Christian is actually fundamentalist Christian which is why it is important to define your terms accurately."

Really? I read that as saying that even fundamentalist Christians aren't all stupid, even though they believe things that most ordinary Christians think are a bit bonkers.

The whole point of faith, though, is believing something that, by definition, can't be proved - because otherwise no faith would be required. This is why any attempt to try to prove the resurrection, for example, sounds like special pleading. They all start from a belief and work backwards to find proof that fits the belief. A sort of reverse scientific method.

They all start from a belief and work backwards to find proof

The point of being a Christian is they do not do that. They start from belief and work with that. Looking for proof would actually go against being a Christian. This has been pointed out several times already.

I'm not a Christian but it is obvious to me that the difference between Paul's teachings about homosexuality and his teachings about the resurrection of Christ are completely different.

It would be like saying a witness to a crime cannot be accepted because they believe in fairies.

His views of homosexuality come from the general consensus of thought and culture at the time, and it was not just Paul's revolutionary new opinion. On the other hand talking of the resurrection was blasphemy and only something that was preached by very few. It was not part of the culture and thoughts of the society that Paul came from, in fact very much the opposite. It is for this reason that people follow it.

Rejecting the cultural framework that religions developed in but still being religious is only contradictory if you peddle the views of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church or Islamic extremists. Which thankfully not many people do.

His views of homosexuality come from the general consensus of thought and culture at the time, and it was not just Paul's revolutionary new opinion.

Paul's views on homosexuality were not simply cultural, they were religious and firmly rooted in the Old Testament. Paul's claims that Jesus was resurrected can't be extricated from any OT rules because Jesus's divinity comes from the same God that made those rules.

The Gentile Christianity which was the work of Paul meant you didn't have to be Jewish and observe circumcision and the OT food laws, but he was very clear that homosexuality was still wrong.

The main concept of homosexuality at the time of Paul was in the context of temple prostitution and often involving men having sex with boys. So much of Greek and Roman attitudes to sex were about power over subordinates.

In any case there is so much debate about this within Christianity, and analysis of the texts (e.g. it is not all that clear how certain words should be translated). If you really want to get into it I'm sure it would be an interesting (and long-winded) discussion. Suffice to say though I do not accept that Paul was very clear that homosexuality was wrong.

Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee before becoming a Christian, if you don't think Paul is clear, read Leviticus. It takes some mental gymnastics to get from the Paul who would have lived his entire life observing the OT, to one who merely condemns male prostitutes (or whatever the translation of the day is) while actually thinking homosexuality is now fine, but forgetting to clarify this important change in position. He was clear enough about other stuff that changed like circumcision.

Gay sex is barely mentioned at all in the whole bible. If it was such a big issue it could equally be said why wasn't more made of it? Paul doesn't declare that actually shellfish are ok, or mixed clothes. I don't find the mental gymnastics hard at all thanks.

I do find it odd that people don't like the conservative interpretation yet at the same time insist that it is the correct one.

It may not have been mentioned in the bible, but the Christian church seems unable to shut up about it..............

I don't think it is generally day to day. I can't remember the church I grew up in having sermons about it at all, it was just assumed that it was wrong and that was that. It gets a lot of attention in the press and when synods happen because there is a big difference of opinion and it is a controversial subject at the moment.

And it's not just the church. Just look at professional sports or hollywood.

It is interesting when some christians point at other christians and say "look at them, aren't they stupid for believing what it says in that part of the bible". In the next breath they say, "its not fair that we are accused of being stupid for believing in this part of the bible?"

Gay sex is barely mentioned at all in the whole bible. If it was such a big issue it could equally be said why wasn't more made of it?

Like calling it an abomination? Saying that people should be put to death for it? Look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah!

Paul doesn't declare that actually shellfish are ok, or mixed clothes.

He does spend a large part of the first letter to the Corinthians banging on about sexual immorality and how those people won't inherit the Kingdom. He is clear that the only people who should be having sex with each other are husbands and wives, and that if you are unmarried you should try to stay a virgin although if you can't, you should marry. Then would probably be the point to say 'unless you're gay in which case gay sex is fine', but I rather suspect that it wasn't due to oversight that he didn't.

Eh urban?