Surely if he was real, he wouldn’t have such awful followers. Doesn’t this disprove Christianity?

No, it most definitely does not.

Even if someone is a child-abuser, it does not mean their beliefs are false. To say that it does is an example of an ad-hominem attack – attacking the person rather than the argument – not only anti-social, but logically unsound. I’m sure plenty of child-abusers believe that the capital of Spain is Madrid. Similarly, the fact that a minority of Muslims become suicide bombers does not disprove Islam.

What the “awful followers” argument does show however, is that being a follower doesn’t make you a better person. Note that Christians don’t need to claim to be perfect(*) for the argument to be valid and not attacking a straw man. If Christians claim to be better because of their faith, then the “awful followers” argument is valid.

Several Christians I’ve met have used the following argument:
“I’ve seen Jesus make such a difference in my life and in the lives of those around me. I’m a much nicer, better person now, so I know He’s real.”

And you say something similar:

Theywil be more loving, they will be more kind and (most of all) they will be more devoted to God. Christians will sin less, not be sinless.

* It’s pretty obvious that Christians aren’t claiming to be perfect and I don’t think any of my commenters said this. I’m sorry to say that many Christians seem to have some serious self-esteem issues.

Interesting opinion on Jesus. If Jesus is a figurement of Paul’s imagination, then how do you explain texts like Josephus on the existance of Jesus?

On Jesus rules, they are great! The world would be a better place if people followed them. But the message of the Bible is rarely ever “do this”. It is rather “Jesus has won this for you”. If Paul made up Jesus a symbol of a moralistic idea then it seems very odd that he emphasises Jesus so much.

I’d love to continue this conversation, but if you’d prefer to do it by email than do it here, feel free to use the contact form.

That’s actually a very interesting question. For reasons not especially germane to our current discussion (although I would be happy to discuss it with you via email or in a separate thread if you desire), my feeling is that the actual man known as Yeshua of Nazareth was made up of whole cloth by Paul on his flight from Israel to Damascus.

That said…I do believe that many (though not all) of the moral precepts put forth by Paul as the teachings of Jesus Christ are practical, compassionate rules that we would all benefit by employing more often. Loving all as yourself is something we should have more of. Treating the least of men as you would treat Christ is a lesson that we could all stand to learn. Reserving judgment and offering understanding … all of these things should be encouraged. So while I have my doubts about the actual existence of the man…I think that his teachings as handed down by his disciple(s) are sound moral teachings.

Probably true. Indeed the Pharisees represented the good Jews of the day. They kept the laws of the Bible and created a few of their own. Jesus hated them.

There are many who call themselves Christian who are actually people who like the Christian moral system (or their warped view of it) and haven’t understood that the Gospel is about Christ saving failures not amazing people.

It’s noteworthy that in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the elder brother (as religiously stuck up as he is) stays outside.

However, Christ would call some to himself. I believe that if he came back there would be some who would follow him, not because they are anything special but because God is gracious and would open their eyes.

What’s your view on Christ?

What are your arguments?