Can Christianity Be Proven?

You still haven't explained how the messager's insanity discounts the morality of the message. I know you believe it does, but you haven't shown how. You're using the hypothesis as proof.

That's not the core message, and this is what I mean by confusing the myth with the message. The myth gives the message validity. But not believing in the myth does not mean dismissing the message.

You remember that Simpsons episode where Lisa discovers that Jebediah Springfield was not a bear-wrestling patriot, but actually a pirate who tried to murder George Washington? Lisa tries to expose Jebediah Springfield as a fraud and that the town's celebration of its founding father was a sham, but ultimately realizes that it's not the founding myth (the barehanded takedown of a bear) but the message ("A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man") is the object of the celebration. Remember that?

 

Actually, it didn't. Jesus never proved his divinity to the world. That would have been inherently anti-Christian, which is faith-based.

 

No, the faith-based idea is a modern day cop-out to explain why miracles and prophets don't appear any more. Jesus was all about giving proof (what with the feeding thousands and raising the dead and walking on water and all that).

 

Several great moral leaders/teachers (dr. Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi) were murdered because of their beliefs. And they had a pretty good idea that their actions made them very likely targets for assassination attempts. Are they all Sons of God?

 

The test of the core message is this:

The Biblical description of Christ's life is that he assumed humanity (gave up his Diety) as a test to see if He could resist temptation, and as a sinless person, die for the sins of all sinners and be raised back to life. John 3:16 is only one of many references to that position. It was God's own expression of his love for the inhabitants of this earth that prompted this act.

So...if he WAS the Son of God, then ALL of his teachings are valid. In this case, the requirement is that he became human, overcame temtation and regained his immortality. ANYTHING less would negate the positon of authority. Without that sacrifice there would be no hope for the sinners. With it, everything else is possible.

If he wasn't the Son of God, (in the case of my earlier question, a raving lunatic, or something less) then all the world could accept whatever they wanted and there would be no sound justification for any of it, only what a single individual chose to believe.

So, if we are free to start picking and choosing teachings, which ones are valid and which are not? All of them sound good, and all would be helpful, and since God gave us all freedom to choose what we believe, the choice is up to the individual. It is therefore up to the individual to prove the existence of Christianity in our own life. Nobody makes us do or believe anything, that is the beauty of it. For those who choose not to believe, that is their freedom. It is as simple as that. Either believe out of love and acceptance, or not.

The real key then is to compare one's own life to the model, the life of Christ, not individual sinners who may be trying to practice Christianity but are falling short of the goal, and decide for themselves whether Christianity can be proven. Since no one saw the Genesis version of the origin of life or the Big Bang theory or the puddle of ooze theory, no one can "prove" either. It is the effect of the belief in our own life that "proves" the existence of "Christianity." Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

He must have been fun at parties, especially with the whole water-to-wine thing.

 

see my response in the post above.

These people were great moral leaders not raving lunatics, IMO. But they do not pass the test of being the Son of God, there has only been one of those.

 

I think George Carlin but it best, it's not really faith, it's more like hope.

 

My one problem with Christianity in general, their main symbol of their faith is a cross, symobolizing the cross that Jesus supposedly was crucified on...

If Jesus did exist, was the son of god, was viciously crucified, died and resurrected, and came back down to earth at the end of the world, do you think he'd ever want to see a freaking cross again?

 

What is the core message and why are Jesus' own statements dealing with salvation through belief in Jesus, recorded in the same gospels, part of a myth? Why aren't these statements equally part of the message? Respectfully, and logically, you can't have it both ways.

 

Nobody fvcks with the Jesus.

 

IAS,

you are wrong or just not reading correctly.

The core belief, as expressed in nearly a dozen different posts, if I counted correctly, is that Christianity is rooted in the fact that Christ died and rose from the dead, thereby providing forgiveness from sin for all sinners.

The reference above from John 3:16 was that God loved the sinners in the world enough to risks the life of his own son to save those sinners. The easy explanation is that had Jesus failed, he would not have risen from the dead. That would mean the entire belief system, ie., salvation from the many sins of the human condition, is based on nothing.

Again, nothing to "prove" here, it is a choice that all are free to make.

 

But thats the thing:

It is based on nothing.

 

No.

 

See, there are things that cannot be explained by our limited knowledge and our human slanted mindset.

It's like a caveman and email. By the days standards, how could he even dream of the concept.

 

My idea of open-minded is thinking that religion is used to rationalize violence and intolerance, rather than causing violence and intolerance, so maybe sincere believers ought to ignore me right here.

What makes Christianity special is its teachings, its ethics, its philosophy. Christianity was a breakthrough in spirituality, and probably the credit here goes to St. Paul - a religion that was not limited to nation, tribe, or class. The philosophical implications of a monotheistic God who did not distinguish between king and slave, man or woman, were limitless.

To join this religion, all you had to do was believe in Jesus. So far, so good. But what about Jesus do you believe?

Now, sincere believers may not see a distinction between the teachings of Jesus, and the...I'm trying to come up with a non-perjorative term for it, and the actual phrase escapes me. The bit where Jesus takes on your sins and died on the cross for you. In any case, to me the distinction is huge. Christianity ended up being built on the offer more than the ethics.

This was probably a more intelligent way to build a religion. But to me, it reduces the New Testament down to a series of magic tricks leading up to a bribe. Jesus is great not because of what he said or taught, but because of his miracles. Ultimately, because of whose son he was. The problem is, reducing Jesus to a magician who returns from the dead makes him indistinguishable from Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Zeus, Hercules...it's a long list, because it's an old story. In a poor light, Jesus could even be Persephone by this standard.

The bribe, of course, is even less defensible ethically. Believe and live forever, or go to hell. If the Christian ethic really was so terrific, it shouldn't need such transparent manipulation. In any case, what Jesus taught during his life could hardly be less relevant in this system. "Passion of the Christ" is a wonderful, wonderful example of this.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the earliest traces of Jesus can be traced to a theorized book of sayings, while most of the magical stories - the virgin birth and other nonsense - were added centuries later. Nor is it a coincidence, to me, that Jesus' mission during his lifetime was the reformation of lapsed Jews, while after his death it became the redemption of mankind's sins through a bargain that was, frankly, a bit poorly thought out on Satan's part.

Paul was almost certainly correct in his instincts here. A Jewish reformer wouldn't have packed in the rubes nearly as well as a mythic son of God did. And if Paul hadn't done it, someone like Muhammad would have come along eventually. Perhaps Paul realized what Hammurabi learned, that humanity won't accept an ethical system if it isn't couched in magical frippery. I tend to be pretty tough on Paul, but Western civilization would have looked very different without him. Whether that's good or bad, I have no idea.

 

Dan,

You make a good point about religion being used to rationalize violence, etc. Bad people have done that with various religions over time. It is their greed and desire for power that led them to abuse what should have been something very powerful and wonderful. That makes those people even more reprehensible than had they just gone out and done the same evil with no justification whatsoever.

Your observations about Paul are also right on point. He was a tireless evangelist who asked for nothing and accepted little in exchange for his message and counsel.

The question of acceptance of Christ's message is not so hard to deal with either. Everyone has a choice. The choice is that all have sinned and sinners will not go to heaven. Lots of more glamous ways to say that but his will suffice.

Now the option comes about when God says, "I will give these sinners another chance. I will send my own son to prove to the world once and for all whether it is possible to live a sinless life. If he can do that and die on the cross, I will raise him back to life and his death will be the atonement for the sins of all." The only requirement is to accept that act and live a life reflective of the values taught by Christ as well as one can and let His sacrifice make up the difference. Easy enough. Call that a bribe if you want but it is simple enough.

The only remaining question is; was this Christ really the Son of God or a wizard as you describe or just a great moral teacher as others have described him.

The answer to that is simple:
Either Jesus Christ WAS the Son of God or he was a madman out for thrills. There is no room for any other conclusion, because you see, you can't accept the fact that he was only a great moral teacher but then believe he lived this huge lie about being the Son of God and would be raised from the dead and then it never happened. No "great moral teacher" could live a lie that big and still be a "great moral teacher." It is just a total contradiction.

Summarily, as I have posted before, the choice is simple. Believe or not. It is not about proving anything. It is a simple matter of belief and what it does for an individual.

 

the streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers

 

He didn't describe Jesus as a "wizard". He described him as a wise man in a book who had some rather fantastic myths woven around him after the fact.

The problem here is that your argument requires accepting the Bible as a 100% accurate history book. And it's not.

King Arthur - was he just the one-time King of the Britons, or did he really pull a sword from a stone, and have a watery tart chuck another sword at him? One is history, one is myth. And even the history is a bit fuzzy.

I know that to you your position seems completely obvious, clear, and consistent. But your POV requires the acceptance of some pretty big assumptions that the rest of us are unwilling to make.