Atheists, can Christianity be debunked fully?

[Nihilist Virus]

IMO yes. The failure of a supposed omnipotent or omniscient deity to indisputably and immutably preserve its message through time proves it can neither be omnipotent nor omniscient.

The OP says that those are not core assumptions of Christianity.

 

[cloudyday2]

IMO yes. The failure of a supposed omnipotent or omniscient deity to indisputably and immutably preserve its message through time proves it can neither be omnipotent nor omniscient.

I agree with the observation of @Nihilist Virus that omni-whatevers are not core features of Christianity. But the larger issue is the inconsistency of the supposed revelations of God over time in the Abrahamic religions. I would expect to see more of a master plan in the revelations, and all I see is kludge after kludge after kludge.

 

[cloudyday2]

The core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified and then rose from the dead. Optionally, you can accept the divinity of Christ.

There is insufficient evidence to support that claim. Beyond that, I don't know what you would require for a debunking. What are your victory conditions?

I'm a bit fuzzy on the victory conditions. I don't expect to have an air-tight case against Christianity, but I expect to see some very improbable implications arising from the core assumptions.

The "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near" is probably one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Christianity IMO. These were probably the words of the historical Jesus, because they make sense in that culture in addition to being preserved in the gospels. If we assume those words are accurate and that Jesus was divinely inspired, then we have a contradiction IMO. Claiming that the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven doesn't cut it for me.

EDIT: Furthermore, it's clear to me that early Christians understood the Kingdom of Heaven to be more dramatic than simply the founding of Christendom.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near" is probably one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Christianity IMO. These were probably the words of the historical Jesus, because they make sense in that culture in addition to being preserved in the gospels. If we assume those words are accurate and that Jesus was divinely inspired, then we have a contradiction IMO. Claiming that the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven doesn't cut it for me.

There is no problem with this statement in Christianity.

After Jesus death, the New Covenant came into effect. As New Covenant believer's, each of us has God Himself, the Holy Spirit residing in us. Since we have God Himself residing in us, we are now the Tabernacle of God, the place where God resides. If you look back in Exodus, there was one high priest that could enter the 'Holy of Holies' or the place in the Tabernacle where God was. Only one person.

Now that WE are indeed each a Tabernacle and Jesus Christ is the High Priest, we have access to the Kingdom of Heaven spiritually and the veil has been torn that separated us from that.

Also, if you look up Jesus words to Pilate, Jesus said to Pilate that this earth is NOT His Kingdom. So this earth is also not our Lord's Kingdom and we are to seek all the spiritual riches that we have been given by Christ.

This Kingdom is spiritual and our journey on this earth is preparing us and our relationship with God continues after death in what we are building spiritually here on earth.

If you want verses, let me know. I didn't want to add to much to this message initially, but I can look them up.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Actually, he said the ones he knew.

Ok. Well I'll just call that an uneducated opinion then.

 

[ToBeLoved]

IMO yes. The failure of a supposed omnipotent or omniscient deity to indisputably and immutably preserve its message through time proves it can neither be omnipotent nor omniscient.

What do you mean "preserve it's message".

Do you mean like the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain many books of the Bible being found in a cave, preserved and are able to be scientifically carbon-dated to prove that they have been there thousands of years?

I think God has proven His message has been preserved. Unless you were going somewhere else with that response.

 

[ananda]

The OP says that those are not core assumptions of Christianity.

I agree with the observation of @Nihilist Virus that omni-whatevers are not core features of Christianity.

Interesting ... at least in the Christianities I was part of (various moderate to conservative branches of Protestantism), their deity's omniscience and omnipotence was a great part of their message.

But the larger issue is the inconsistency of the supposed revelations of God over time in the Abrahamic religions. I would expect to see more of a master plan in the revelations, and all I see is kludge after kludge after kludge.

I agree, I would say that is part of my original claim: there is no cohesive, consistent, verifiable message in any of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[ananda]

What do you mean "preserve it's message".

Do you mean like the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain many books of the Bible being found in a cave, preserved and are able to be scientifically carbon-dated to prove that they have been there thousands of years?

I think God has proven His message has been preserved. Unless you were going somewhere else with that response.

I mean to say this: that if the Christian deity was indeed omniscient and omnipotent (and therefore infallible), why would it deliver its message through fallible means? For example:

• via fallible humans (prophets, apostles, etc.): people disagree with one another, e.g. like Peter vs. Paul, or James vs. Paul, or Paul vs. Jesus, etc. in the NT;
  
• via human language (Hebrew, Greek, English, etc.): words are understood differently from person to person, and languages and their words evolve to mean different things to a new generation over time, etc.;
  
• via scrolls, etc.: all subject to physical decay, loss (e.g. 2 Kings 22:8, 2 Chronicles 34:14), questions of selection (which scrolls are really from the deity?), etc.

Surely an infallible deity could've thought of much better ways than those.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I agree, I would say that is part of my original claim: there is no cohesive, consistent, verifiable message in any of the Abrahamic religions.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that there were no additions to the Bible after the first century and that is an issue, I assure you it is not.

As a matter of fact, there are verses in the Bible that show us that God decided His message was complete at that point and we as Christians are fine with that.

What you and others seem to be looking for is some kind of 'proof' and God has never been in the business of providing proof to mankind. As a matter of fact, it is opposite, God requires faith and belief and tells us straight out that this is what He wants and that He is not going to provide proof.

Besides, the kingdom of God is spiritual.

It is interesting to me this major aetheist theme of God provides no proof. Guess what, God never said He was going to provide proof. As a matter of fact, faith is not about proof and belief is not about proof. If something is proven, you DO NOT need to have belief, because you know. In that same vein, if something is proven, you DO NOT need to have faith.

So, you can cut it down if you like, but it seems to be one of your only talking points and it's tiring because as I explained in the paragraph above, what God wants is our love and belief and faith VOID of knowing. He set it up that way.

 

[ananda]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that there were no additions to the Bible after the first century and that is an issue, I assure you it is not.

As a matter of fact, there are verses in the Bible that show us that God decided His message was complete at that point and we as Christians are fine with that.

What you and others seem to be looking for is some kind of 'proof' and God has never been in the business of providing proof to mankind. As a matter of fact, it is opposite, God requires faith and belief and tells us straight out that this is what He wants and that He is not going to provide proof.

Besides, the kingdom of God is spiritual.

It is interesting to me this major aetheist theme of God provides no proof. Guess what, God never said He was going to provide proof. As a matter of fact, faith is not about proof and belief is not about proof. If something is proven, you DO NOT need to have belief, because you know. In that same vein, if something is proven, you DO NOT need to have faith.

So, you can cut it down if you like, but it seems to be one of your only talking points and it's tiring because as I explained in the paragraph above, what God wants is our love and belief and faith VOID of knowing. He set it up that way.

Without proof, why should one have faith in your version of "god" vs mine, for instance?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ok. Well I'll just call that an uneducated opinion then.

Non sequitor. You have no information on whether most atheists I’ve known were theists, so you can’t logically make that conclusion.

In your zeal to disagree with me, you’re making yourself look like a fool.

 

[cloudyday2]

Interesting ... at least in the Christianities I was part of (various moderate to conservative branches of Protestantism), their deity's omniscience and omnipotence was a great part of their message.

That's true, but wouldn't you agree that those omni-whatever concepts are kind of dumb and unnecessary? God need not be all good, and "good" is hard to define anyway. The Bhagavad Gita claims that God is way above silly notions like good and evil, and that seems a lot more sensible position for Christians to take IMO.

Another unnecessary assumption is that Jesus is God. I think Christianity is viable with Jesus as merely a Moses or Muhammad type prophet. On the other hand, if Jesus promised things that didn't happen, then I don't think He qualifies as an inspired figure and Christianity fails.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I mean to say this: that if the Christian deity was indeed omniscient and omnipotent (and therefore infallible), why would it deliver its message through fallible means? For example:

• via fallible humans (prophets, apostles, etc.): people disagree with one another, e.g. like Peter vs. Paul, or James vs. Paul, or Paul vs. Jesus, etc. in the NT;
  
• via human language (Hebrew, Greek, English, etc.): words are understood differently from person to person, and languages and their words evolve to mean different things to a new generation over time, etc.;
  
• via scrolls, etc.: all subject to physical decay, loss (e.g. 2 Kings 22:8, 2 Chronicles 34:14), questions of selection (which scrolls are really from the deity?), etc.

Surely an infallible deity could've thought of much better ways than those.

God has always taken the 'unwise' to confound the 'wise' (or those who think they are wise).

When God chose David, a thirteen year old boy, with no experience in battle, untrained in any way and a mere shepherd boy to fight the best fighter, a giant named Goliath, trained in battle and the 'best' that the other side had. He chose what would seem to be the worst choice to show His glory in that He can make even the most simplistic things grand.

In the same sense, Christ chose fishermen, uneducated at the bottom of society in terms of wealth or education or even influence to become His disciples and later apostles and build His church.

1 Corinthians 1:26-28
26 Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are,

This is a reoccuring theme, I have listed verses below:

Psalm 8:2
From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.

Isaiah 44:25
Causing the omens of boasters to fail, Making fools out of diviners, Causing wise men to draw back And turning their knowledge into foolishness,

Jeremiah 8:9
"The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, And what kind of wisdom do they have?

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 2:12
We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.

James 2:5
Listen, my beloved brothers: Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Non sequitor. You have no information on whether most atheists I’ve known were theists, so you can’t logically make that conclusion.

In your zeal to disagree with me, you’re making yourself look like a fool.

lol. Really? You made the statement with only opinion and I look like the fool?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

lol. Really? You made the statement with only opinion and I look like the fool?

Yep, you do.

I don’t have just opinion because I’ve actually talked to the atheists I’ve known. They’ve told me they were theists. So I have actual evidence, not just my opinion.

 

[ananda]

God has always taken the 'unwise' to confound the 'wise' (or those who think they are wise).

When God chose David, a thirteen year old boy, with no experience in battle, untrained in any way and a mere shepherd boy to fight the best fighter, a giant named Goliath, trained in battle and the 'best' that the other side had. He chose what would seem to be the worst choice to show His glory in that He can make even the most simplistic things grand.

In the same sense, Christ chose fishermen, uneducated at the bottom of society in terms of wealth or education or even influence to become His disciples and later apostles and build His church.

1 Corinthians 1:26-28
26 Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are,

This is a reoccuring theme, I have listed verses below:

Psalm 8:2
From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.

Isaiah 44:25
Causing the omens of boasters to fail, Making fools out of diviners, Causing wise men to draw back And turning their knowledge into foolishness,

Jeremiah 8:9
"The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, And what kind of wisdom do they have?

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 2:12
We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.

James 2:5
Listen, my beloved brothers: Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him?

I see where you're coming from, but I also see no infallible reason to believe that those particular stories about David, Goliath, Christ, fishermen, actually happened, or why your selection of stories: 1Cor, Psa, Isa, Jer, James, etc. should be preferred over the stories given elsewhere: Torah, Koran, Vedas, Gnostic Gospels, etc.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I see where you're coming from, but I also see no infallible reason to believe that the stories about David, Goliath, Christ, fisherman actually happened, or why your selection of scripture: 1Cor, Psa, Isa, Jer, James, etc. should be preferred over the Torah, Koran, Vedas, Gnostic Gospels, etc.

You can look at Josephus who was a Roman historian that documented history in the time of Christ. Christ is mentioned.

There is a great book called "The Case for Christ" written by a very credible journalist that goes through his entire journey of trying to prove Christ did not historically exist or to disprove the timeline of events.

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308

I have the book, but never got to read it because my eyes have went really bad.

 

[ananda]

You can look at Josephus who was a Roman historian that documented history in the time of Christ. Christ is mentioned.

Can his writings be considered an infallible testimony for Jesus, 1Cor, Psa, etc.?

There is a great book called "The Case for Christ" written by a very credible journalist that goes through his entire journey of trying to prove Christ did not historically exist or to disprove the timeline of events.

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308

I have the book, but never got to read it because my eyes have went really bad.

I've read the Case for Christ ... I didn't find it particularly convincing. He pointed out various evidences for Christ, but I imagined that an infallible deity could/would establish far more persuasive proofs.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yep, you do.

I don’t have just opinion because I’ve actually talked to the atheists I’ve known. They’ve told me they were theists. So I have actual evidence, not just my opinion.

Wow. You've talked to 'real' aetheists?

You don't think I've talked to former aetheists who came to Christ?

Come on now .... Let's get real.

I'm starting to get a little bored with your posts here. No substance.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Can his writings be considered an infallible testimony for Jesus, 1Cor, Psa, etc.?

Well, if you look at the verses, some of them are before Christ which I put in there to show God has always done this, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

As far as the 'infallible testimony' part, I'm not sure that anyone in that day or any writings from 2,000 or 3,000 years ago can be shown to be infallible. From Egyptian scrolls to other things written on stones.

I know some of the Egyptian scrolls documented some of the Israelite's and Moses leaving Egypt and the slavery aspect. You can do some research there if you like.

So, I'm not sure what your expectation is back then.