Atheists, can Christianity be debunked fully?

[ananda]

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.

I can't prove that some verses are before Christ ... since Josephus/Egyptian scrolls/etc. can't be considered infallible, that brings us back to the fundamental question: how can we really prove/verify any of it?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I can't prove that some verses are before Christ ... since Josephus/Egyptian scrolls/etc. can't be considered infallible, that brings us back to the fundamental question: how can we really prove/verify any of it?

Reread the second paragraph of the previous post. I covered that there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

There may be reasons for why things seem to remain "cloudy" for you, Cloudy. [And just a quick little f.y.i., I received the Christ Files book in the mail, and I'm looking through it ... ]

 

[ananda]

Reread the second paragraph of the previous post. I covered that there.

Yes, I was reiterating that point ... which means (to me), that such a message cannot be from an infallible deity.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

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.

Omniscience might have to be guaranteed if Christianity is to guarantee salvation. So in that regard you might be correct. However, I was merely pointing out what the OP said.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Omniscience might have to be guaranteed if Christianity is to guarantee salvation. So in that regard you might be correct. However, I was merely pointing out what the OP said.

I don't know about how much God needs to know in order to "guarantee" our salvation. I'm tempted to think He just needs to be omnipresent and eternal--the Ground of our Being. Of course, being Almighty might help, too ...

Interestingly, I was just pondering something along the lines of this issue last night when I was trying to coral a cricket into my hands and to escort him back outside, where he belongs. It was a very interesting relationship that cricket and I had for those few moments when I had him in the middle of my enclosed fist ...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

You can't ask us whether Christianity can be debunked if you can't tell us what would constitute a debunking. Christians will easily renounce reality itself before renouncing their deity, so without victory conditions being firmly established I fail to see what your expectations could potentially be.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yes, I was reiterating that point ... which means (to me), that such a message cannot be from an infallible deity.

And I totally disagree.

Your opinion, my opinion. So I guess we move on. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt God doesn't exist

 

[ToBeLoved]

You can't ask us whether Christianity can be debunked if you can't tell us what would constitute a debunking. Christians will easily renounce reality itself before renouncing their deity, so without victory conditions being firmly established I fail to see what your expectations could potentially be.

That's a little disrespectful.

Is that where this conversation and thread is going? To try to say our beliefs cause us to renounce reality? I hope not.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't know about how much God needs to know in order to "guarantee" our salvation. I'm tempted to think He just needs to be omnipresent and eternal--the Ground of our Being. Of course, being Almighty might help, too ...

Interestingly, I was just pondering something along the lines of this issue last night when I was trying to coral a cricket into my hands and to escort him back outside, where he belongs. It was a very interesting relationship that cricket and I had for those few moments when I had him in the middle of my enclosed fist ...

Omniscience would help a bit. Jehovah can't know he is omnipotent unless he is omniscient. For example, what if a superior deity created Jehovah to test him? Maybe the superior deity wants to see if Jehovah is actually going to send billions of souls to hell for the crime of not worshipping him. Maybe Jehovah would be rewarded if he decided to actually be a good deity and maybe he'll be punished otherwise.

How does Jehovah know this is not the case? Also, how could Jehovah actually know he's omniscient? Because... well... he can't.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's a little disrespectful.

Is that where this conversation and thread is going? To try to say our beliefs cause us to renounce reality? I hope not.

Half, or perhaps over half, of American Christians reject the reality of evolution. If that's not renouncing reality, then what is? If my phrasing is disrespectful, what would you recommend I say instead that gets the same point across in fewer words?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I can't prove that some verses are before Christ ... since Josephus/Egyptian scrolls/etc. can't be considered infallible, that brings us back to the fundamental question: how can we really prove/verify any of it?

Maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not trying to say any of the sources is infallible (as a matter of fact, that is one of my points, that nothing 2,000 years ago or more 'could' ever be considered infallible by today's standards).

All I was trying to say was that there are other sources that talk about Christ and the history in the Bible.

However, I will say the Dead Sea Scrolls I think because they have been carbon-dated, it can be proven that they are from that specific time period.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Half, or perhaps over half, of American Christians reject the reality of evolution. If that's not renouncing reality, then what is? If my phrasing is disrespectful, what would you recommend I say instead that gets the same point across on fewer words?

You never mentioned evolution in your post or any specific thing that you were referring to as proven, so maybe you thought your post was more complete or included thoughts it did not.

Also, I don't think that evolution denounces a creator, if anything I think evolution proves that a Creator intended for life to strive to survive even among changing conditions on earth.

What is interesting is the use of the word 'evolution' because it is used to represent a wide and vast area of beliefs, which I think causes confusion because people are not specific as to the scope and context in which they are using the word.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Omniscience would help a bit. Jehovah can't know he is omnipotent unless he is omniscient. For example, what if a superior deity created Jehovah to test him? Maybe the superior deity wants to see if Jehovah is actually going to send billions of souls to hell for the crime of not worshipping him. Maybe Jehovah would be rewarded if he decided to actually be a good deity and maybe he'll be punished otherwise.

How does Jehovah know this is not the case? Also, how could Jehovah actually know he's omniscient? Because... well... he can't.

I won't contest your point, NV; you're essentially right on this ...

... BUT, what I'm trying to say is that God could (theoretically speaking and without us having to completely go over to the camp of "Open Theism") give Himself a pocket space in which He allows some small level of uncertainty, such as might be similar to my corralling that cricket. Although I obviously had the power and wits to corral the little guy, and to have the final say as to "where" he ultimately will be [i.e. in my home or not in my home], at the same time-------wouldn't you know it, he actually unexpectedly crawled out of my enclosed fist, at which time I had to assert yet another attempt (or two) to corral him; and corral him and move him outdoors I finally did.

 

[cloudyday2]

There may be reasons for why things seem to remain "cloudy" for you, Cloudy. [And just a quick little f.y.i., I received the Christ Files book in the mail, and I'm looking through it ... ]

Depending what the book version contains, you still might want to buy the DVD version because you get the full interviews. Unless the book has the full transcripts of the interviews you will be missing out on a lot.

 

[ananda]

And I totally disagree.

Your opinion, my opinion. So I guess we move on. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt God doesn't exist

Of course not, but then again my idea of "God" (if I may borrow the term in terms of the supreme) in a sense is the Buddha.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Depending what the book version contains, you still might want to buy the DVD version because you get the full interviews. Unless the book has the full transcripts of the interviews you will be missing out on a lot.

Well, it appears there may be bits and pieces of the Christ Files (among a few other offerings featuring John Dickson) on Youtube. But, yes, I might not have access to some interviews. However, keep in mind, Cloudy, I already have a LOT of books, several along the lines of Dickson's presentation. And if I understand his meaning as to "reading between the lines" correctly, this is something I already do......along with my additional other Hermeneutic studies.

 

[ananda]

Maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not trying to say any of the sources is infallible (as a matter of fact, that is one of my points, that nothing 2,000 years ago or more 'could' ever be considered infallible by today's standards).

All I was trying to say was that there are other sources that talk about Christ and the history in the Bible.

However, I will say the Dead Sea Scrolls I think because they have been carbon-dated, it can be proven that they are from that specific time period.

I believe our impasse is this: a certain level of evidence may bring you to belief, and may convince others like Lee Strobel that it is likely true ... but that level of evidence is far too low (for my standards).

 

[cloudyday2]

You can't ask us whether Christianity can be debunked if you can't tell us what would constitute a debunking. Christians will easily renounce reality itself before renouncing their deity, so without victory conditions being firmly established I fail to see what your expectations could potentially be.

Each person will have different standards for a debunking.

Sometimes I ask myself if I might be overlooking some way of understanding Jesus and Christianity that would make them more plausible. So I think "what are the minimal facts for some type of Christianity to be real?" and "can I find some problem with believing this facts?"

See I do have some evidence that Christianity is true. I explain that evidence as psychosis, because I don't see any way for Christianity to be true. Therefore my evidence must be illusion. The only way I can believe my evidence is to imagine a generic chameleon God who likes to play sock puppets with our human deities.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I believe our impasse is this: a certain level of evidence may bring you to belief, and may convince others like Lee Strobel that it is likely true ... but that level of evidence is far too low (for my standards).

Well, that evidence never brought me to belief. Since I believed at a young age, I didn't come across any of these resources until later in my life.

I know about them because they exist, but I never said any of these brought me to faith, because it did not.

 

[cloudyday2]

However, keep in mind, Cloudy, I already have a LOT of books, several along the lines of Dickson's presentation. And if I understand his meaning as to "reading between the lines" correctly, this is something I already do......along with my additional other Hermeneutic studies.

When I mentioned "reading between the lines" the inspiration came from another book by a different scholar "From Gods to God" ( From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends by Avigdor Shinan ). Here is somebody's summary of the book. So by reading between the lines I mean digging through the layers of changes to find the earliest forms of the text. The author compared this to an archaeologist digging layers of an ancient city. At least for me, the earliest form of these texts is important. That is what I mean by reading between the lines.

The ancient Israelites believed things that the writers of the Bible wanted them to forget: myths and legends from a pre-biblical world that the new monotheist order needed to bury, hide, or reinterpret. Ancient Israel was rich in such literary traditions before the Bible reached the final form that we have today. These traditions were not lost but continued, passed down through the ages. Many managed to reach us in post-biblical sources: rabbinic literature, Jewish Hellenistic writings, the writings of the Dead Sea sect, the Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and other ancient translations of the Bible, and even outside the ancient Jewish world in Christian and Islamic texts. The Bible itself sometimes alludes to these traditions, often in surprising contexts. Written in clear and accessible language, this volume presents thirty such traditions. It voyages behind the veil of the written Bible to reconstruct what was told and retold among the ancient Israelites, even if it is “not what the Bible tells us.”