Yes I fully agree with you on this one Deut. Belief in the Bible is a matter of faith and I do not believe there is any valid argument which one can use to back up a belief in it beyond the one you outline. I wouldn't call such an argument worthless by any means.... it holds a huge amount of worth... it is just very ineffective as a means of convincing people to convert to Christianity because it is not logically sound.
Christianity, like all other religions, is a religion of faith, myth, superstition and tradition. Why non-Christians should concern themselves with the arguments of Christians is beyond me. It would seem to me that our religions are our own. What is the point in debating the dogma of religions that are not our own? What business is it of ours what traditions and dogmas others cling to?
Well debating is fun for some of us. I'm not a Christian but I feel that some of the scripture holds a lot of importance to me. Furthermore Christianity can be studied in other ways, such as via anthropology. It is undeniable that Christianity has had a massive impact on modern and and historical times so to say that religion, especially Christianity, is merely personal is just totally factually incorrect.
Besides, how can one further one's own beliefs if he shuts off the beliefs of others?
First of all, it is a legitimate statement I made for the purpose of this debate and it's only stupid, because you don't agree with it.
Whilst I wouldn't call it stupid, my disagreement with it comes from the fact that I do not believe that death is a prerequisite, nor an indication, of the validity of a person's dying cause. I see no reason why they could simply just not be mistaken and just think they know the truth.
It was that it would be extremely far-fetched to hold the opinion that the apostles would have made up legends about Jesus, and then be killed for what they know to be lies...
Agreed. Yet this
still does not show that the apostles were not simply decieved or crazy or randomly fanatical. Besides they could have just liked aspects of Jesus' teachings and not gone for the religious side of things. I would die for many a cause but that doesn't mean that I think the people who came up with that cause are the sons and daughters or God.
Furthermore, it fails to reconcile the many different religious beliefs that people have died for over the years.
No, Christians will say Jesus is the only Holy One with no sin.
From a Christian perspective, what other "Holy Ones" are there?
He didn't have to. He had plenty of documentation in front of him to sort out (Luke 1:1-2), and God superintended the whole thing.
Okay but Luke is the only source for this documentation, whatever its nature. Therefore, we have no way of confirming the validity of it. Believing that God confirmed the nature of the material is a circular argument which, I might add, seems to be what this thread is showing up to be invalid methods of debate for very good reasons.