Proof of Christianity

[Vicki Q]

In a nutshell, or nutcase if you prefer, a key argument for me is a modern development on the older question of how the Early Church got started; this would be the question of why the Early Church got started with the beliefs that it did.

(Experience has shown that reducing a mass of analytical detail to readable post length means that essential points have to be omitted, and aaagh it's still too long...)

We know a lot about the spectrum of first century Jewish belief. Broadly speaking, they were waiting for the Kingdom of God to arrive, which would consist of God coming to His people, the Romans getting booted out of Israel, the establishment of God's Kingdom and Law on earth, and the establishment of a New Covenant. There was also talk about the dead coming back to bodily life, but that was a bit fringe to the set-up.

Now along comes this group of Jews, who have a major mutation of belief. That God's Kingdom was the world, not geographical Israel. That God had returned to Israel, in (a) person. That the Law, Covenant and markers for God's people had been redefined around that person. Although continuous with earlier belief, it was surprisingly, shockingly, different. Furthermore, although coming from a spectrum of belief on resurrection they claimed as one that a completely unexpected single case had occurred within history.

If you asked them why they believed those things, the clear and only answer was that they had seen this strange resurrection, and it backed up their earlier experiences of this person.

Centuries of attempts have been made to provide realistic alternative explanations for the older question, and none have really proved successful. This developed question is even stronger. The best explanation of the data, IMHO, is that what they say they saw, is what happened.




Although much too brief, I hope this is helpful.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@Vicki, the fact that you believe despite not having seen it with your own eyes is proof that people would believe if they're told something happened. And there goes your argument.

[Esquilax]

@Vicki, the fact that you believe despite not having seen it with your own eyes is proof that people would believe if they're told something happened. And there goes your argument.

The other major flaw is that there are multiple, mutually contradictory religions scattered across the world, and under the bounds of Vicki's argument each of them either a: witnessed miraculous events from their own gods, thus making christianity alone an unjustified religious stance, or b: believed it without seeing anything at all.

All this does is show the weird christian tendency to ignore the fact that other religions exist when constructing their arguments.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Once you see the evidence of all those things, the Bible can then itself be put to the test to see if what it says is true and produces results that can be repeated. It has been proven, over and over for thousands of years by those who are reasonable enough to put it to the test. It has literally never been wrong.

The more evidence I press, the less rational your argument. Admitting that God exists would force you to make a decision you don't want to make - to either radically alter your lifestyle, or face the consequences.
Giving such simple, elementary answers as, "Aliens and time travelers did it," it would seem you are the one living in a fairytale. Go ahead, live it up; the dream's almost over.

You haven't offered any rebuttal to my argument other than to just childishly ridicule it and repeat the same assertions you mentioned before.

When you trust the "eye witness" accounts of the bible such of that Moses saw God, the apostles saw Jesus taken up into the sky, etc., you're automatically assuming that God, angels and demons and all the other Christian teachings about reality are true. By why assume that?

When for instance, you think (at least I suspect you think), Jesus performed miracles and was raised from the dead because eye witnesses said so you're assuming something to reach that conclusion. You're assuming that the ability to work "miracles" is proof of supernatural and divine powers. But what if it were really aliens with incredibly advance technology such as holo projectors? Would an ancient person really be able to tell the difference? See, you haven't thought of all the possible explanations. You're essentially assuming Christianity in proving Christianity which comes off as quite circular.

[Esquilax]

Once you see the evidence of all those things, the Bible can then itself be put to the test to see if what it says is true and produces results that can be repeated. It has been proven, over and over for thousands of years by those who are reasonable enough to put it to the test. It has literally never been wrong.

God, how did I miss this?!

So, when the bible claims day and night were created before the sun that causes them, that's literally true, in your book? When it makes claims of a firmament for a sky, with water above it, that's true despite our knowledge that space contains no noticeable quantities of water above earth? Jonah's time inside a whale- which the bible also calls a fish despite them not being related- is true? When Matthew 13:31 claims that the mustard seed is the "least of all seeds," despite there being smaller ones, it's still true? When Satan took Jesus to the top of a tall mountain so they could see everything on earth, that's true despite being an impossibility on a spherical planet?

I'm just going off the top of my head, here.

[LostLocke]

You forgot one big one...

Breeding animals in front of striped poles will produce striped offspring!

Who knew?

[Chas]

You're wrong on all three accounts - otherwise I wouldn't have reason to follow it

Ohh, I haven't done this in quite a while. Feels exciting.

1. You claim the Bible isn't self-contradictory. To be fair, Chas never exemplified the contradictions (I guess we like to assume people already know that they're there?) so let me assist his point. Hell, all you need is a simple Google search and a very think knowledge of the Bible, such as mine, to bring up these contradictions:

<snip>

I just couldn't be arsed. This road is so well-trodden that I'm just bone fucking weary doing it over and over.

[Minimalist]

Only God convinces.

He's doing a shit job of it, Frods.

You'd think a "god" would have a better track record, huh?

Maybe not in your case.

---

this would be the question of why the Early Church got started with the beliefs that it did.

Then read Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" and find out.

[Locke]

Admitting that God exists would force you to make a decision you don't want to make - to either radically alter your lifestyle,

You do realise that atheists don't live their lives based on their disbelief in a god? What you don't seem to realise is that atheism is a tiny part in our lives. It is not a lifestyle and certainly not a world view.

... Then why do you all spend so many hours a day on these forums, trying to disprove God?

You said you came here looking for answers, Locke, but all you've proven is that you want to preach at us.

You're right, BadWriterSparty, I did come looking for answers, in a sense. I came because an unexamined faith is not worth living. A few level-headed people on this forum have helped me to examine that faith, yourself not included.
With the meager evidence, frequent scapegoating and excessive flaming I've gotten from the general community of atheists here, I've become more convinced that Jesus is Lord, and more convinced that most people really aren't willing to look at all the facts and make a clear, informed decision. Like you, they'd rather cling to what they want to be true, and use scapegoating, mockery, and circumlocution to make themselves feel better, hiding in groups of like-minded people to draw confidence.

[Esquilax]

... Then why do you all spend so many hours a day on these forums, trying to disprove God?

Ever occur to you that we might just kind of like one another, and enjoy discussing a bunch of stuff together? That's why I come around, at least. The disproving god part is mainly a byproduct of having an interest in philosophy, and your god claims being all around too weak to stand up to much discussion.