Can Christianity Be Proven?

Wow, Christianity has an absolulty horrid moral basis, doesn't it? Everyone is totally equal - equally bad. Good thing society isn't run by these rules. Otherwise there would be no basis for imprisoning murderers or theives or so on.

Great quote. You do know this contradicts your idea that salvation is through faith alone, right?

Not me. I deserve perpetutal life in a Mediteranian climate with access to a Black Tiger arcade game. How can any kind of finite crime deserve an infinite punishment? An otherwise perfectly sinless but faithless man who steals a 27" TV set gets six months and a thousand dollar fine from the State of California. He gets perpetual agony in magma from God.

Faith is the acceptance of a conclusion without proof. Your last comment does not make sense.

 

I can answer. If Gandhi did not accept Jesus Christ as his personal saviour, he is not in heaven.

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

All that good that Gandhi did is like filthy rags if Gandhi did not have Christ.

Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the father but by me.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Nothing Gandhi could do could get him to heaven.

 

Yes, indeed. After turning the other cheek and having you call me a coward, a fraud, and other things that need not be repeated here, more than a dozen times, I invited you to challenge your assumptions in person.

In that regard, I stand confortably with the knowledge that death awaits us all. I know what awaits me. Do you?

 

Isaiah didn't "have Christ" either, having done his work from around 740 to 700 B.C.E.

 

It doesn't if you know who is getting judged by their works. There are two separate judgements. A judgement for the saved and a judgement for the lost. These verses are speaking of the judgement of the lost.

The lost get thrown in the lake of fire at the end, but before that they have to stand before the thrown of the Living God with their buckets of filthy rags and explain to Him why they didn't accept His Son who he sent to DIE as a sacrifice for their sins.

 

Does "Blessed are the peacemakers" mean anything to you? How about "Blessed they which are persecuted"?

 

They accepted Christ looking forward to the promise of the Messiah. We accept him looking back. They were given signs, wonders, and prophets to aid them with proof. We're given the Word of God.

 

Damn shame of God not to give Gandhi "signs, wonders, and prophets," and, in addition, to have allowed the whole Indian subcontintent wherein Gandhi was born and raised to be over-run with all those other religions besides "the Word of God."

The worst possible depiction of Christianity anyone can offer is one where God is giving us a test, it's all pass fail, and there are a ton of trick questions.

God exists outside the Bible. God exists outside and beyond the powers of human conceptions. To reduce God's will to a formula like you do above strikes me as worst than the sort of agnosticism that at least assumes it's a pretty complex question and that easy answers are every bit as dangerous as atheism, if not more so.

 

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How do you think you get your name in the book of life?

 

Romans 1 addresses your "what about all the tribes in Africa" questions.

 

You talkin' to me?

 

That does not make sense. It says (Rev 20:13) "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." Every man. And the context does not indicate any special grouping of people. And it isn't the only place in the Bible:

Mt.16:27
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

John.5:29
"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

So Jesus is currently dead, right?

 

Thankfully, God is smarter and more merciful than you or Paul.

Or me for that matter...

 

BTW, Romans 2 says that "there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. There is no partiality with God."

So, is Paul limiting salvation to the Jews or Greeks to whom he's spreading the Good News at this stage of his ministry, or are we to apply a more universal message based on his conclusive statement that "there is no partiality with God"?

 

It is a group of people. Those that are dead in the sea, and death, and hell.
John 5:29 also divides it into two separate resurrections and two separate judgements.

Those who are lost cannot do good in God's eyes. Refer to Isaiah 64:6.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

 

That's the point really. As has been mentioned several times here it takes a leap of faith to be a true christian, that is to believe that God chose to manifest himself in this world as Jesus, which in no way can be understood rationally. How can anything infinete and eternal manifest itself as something finite and mortal? It doesn't make sense. You can go on all you want about historcal facts and religious teachings, but unless you take the leap, christianity is not much of a religion but is reduced to moral teachings and guidelines for how we should lead our lifes. Some are able to take this leap others aren't. Thank you Kierkegaard for pointing this out. Accept or don't but don't try to prove or rationalize it, because you'll only get frustrated.

However there's a long tradition for trying to prove the existence of God, and all arguments have failed miserably if you look at them critically especially as a lot of them are circular. I sometimes read them to have a bit of a laugh. And I think the attempt to prove the existence of a christian God is futile and totally unnecessary for christianity. Besides how can something as limited as humans even begin to contemplate an infinite being?

Personally I don't believe in any religion I know of, but I have no problem with religious people, as long as they respect my non-believing. However I get very annoyed when they try to save me from wathever punishment they believe I'm going to suffer in the after-life. If religion makes your life better and gives you a sense of purpose then fine, however I don't think there's any purpose or meaning to our existence, so I say enjoy it now instead of living under the illusion of a reward when it's all over.

I do think that christianity as a moral teaching has some very good points, they just need another justification. Preferably something not involving a mysterious higher being, please.

KJ

 

Err, ok. I'm not sure what that answers, but I'll let that stand.

I still have another question: "So Jesus is currently dead, right?"

Of course it is an ambush. Please be kind enough to walk into it.

 

Sorry Dak, I don't agree with you on that but don't have my Bible here right now to look up the text. IIRC, it is in Luke where Christ made the statement that there would be those in heaven "not of our flock." I still assert that the message is broader based than you purport.

However, herein lies the trap of trying to interpret God's word by human understanding. It just cannot be done to satisfy everyone. You take a very literal interpretation, I am just a tad bit more inclusive than that.

An interesting side trip on that theme would be James Madison's position on the constitutional separation of church and state. He referenced Christ's inclusiveness in his teaching to justify his (Madison's) position that the US should have a Christian basis as that was far more inclusive than the Anglican church, and most others. But let's not go there as that is a long way from here and an entirely different thread.

 

Why can't there be purpose and meaning to our existence without God?

 

And a perfectly reasonable answer. I too, would have trouble believing in a God who would let Gandhi spend an eternity without air conditioning. My complaint with USAsoccer is that he repeatedly refused to answer the question, citing that he was "not God".

 

You repeatedly made insults. That's not called "turning the other cheek".

Why didn't you just answer the question? dj43 and Daksims did. That's all I wanted. I disagree with what Daksims says, but he has the courage of his convictions.

I don't believe I called you that.

You offered to meet and fight me.

What? So you're comfortable with your actions? I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus said "and verily, ye shall smite them who disagree with thee upon mine internet message boards, with righteous anger, and furious karate chops."

No. I also think you're in for a surprise.

 

I believe in God but have long ago given up on any sort of formal or scientific proofs that he exists. God cannot be proved using logical constructs, but neither can he be disproved. Ultimately, it's a question of faith, but it's faith based on evidence. We can compare the two self-contained worldviews. The question is this: Do the world's existence and nature, my experiences, etc. make more sense with or without a God?

Those who claim there's no evidence for a God have almost invariably ruled him out a priori. That's just as intellectually dishonest as those who have blind religious faith and drink the Kool Aid.

 

Excellent question. I certainly don't feel qualified to provide a definitive answer but while I sit here waiting for my ankle to heel, I'll try.

An existence without God's influence is to be like the animals. You are born/hatched, live your life and die. In between, the strong and powerful eat the weak and slow and that is it. Yes there are certain maternal instincts that are exhibited but there is certainly nothing like the Human Values we all cherish.

Let's compare a pride of lions to humans:
When the existing alpha male is deposed, the new alpha will go around and kill all the cubs in the pride that he can find. In humans, if the original father is lost, the new father will father his adopted children just as well as the original. At least is what we assume given normal relations.

Now, I would submit that approach does not come from the animal kingdom. And, if it does not, then what IS the origin if not from the fact that we have Biblical teachings that direct us to operate on a higher plain?

Things like honoring our parents, respecting the rights and properties of others, including their drop-dead gorgeous wives and girlfriends, and honoring the God that taught us to have this level of respect for our fellows.

That is a part of my answer as to why a life with God is not only useful, but necessary.

 

An interesing view, but I would submit that as evolutionary machines, we have evolved to a state where we recognize that what happens to him might happen to us, and that cooperation achieves far more than solitary dominance.

 

As one of the more outspoken atheists on this board, I feel an obligation to participate in these discussions. It bothers me greatly that people think atheism is inherently "dangerous." I strongly reject that claim.

At any rate, I'm not an "evangelical" atheist. It is my personal opinion that humanity would be better off if we could manage to shrug off religion moving forward, but I realize that is unlikely to ever happen. However, I do not begrudge anyone their faith. Individually speaking, most people of faith are honest in their belief, and represent their beliefs well. It's those who (mis)use their faith to spread hate and fear that I've got a beef with.