Sired by Yahweh on a Human Virgin

[StuartJ]

Can Christians demonstrate - other than quoting the propaganda or repeating their beliefs - that their Leader was indeed sired by Yahweh or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin?

It's a simple, straightforward question aimed at the very foundation of Christianity.

Please pay us the courtesy of answering directly this time.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 24 by Realworldjack]

It is not enough to simply point out that another's position could possibly be false.

It SHOULD be enough to make one very cautious about entering a personality cult that tells you its Divine Leader was sired by "God" on a human virgin and wants 10% of your pay.

What you have said above, is not even a debate? Rather, it would be common sense, for any reasonably intelligent adult. In other words, it is not like anyone who would have half a mind, would need to be told, "you need to be cautious, and think carefully about the things you believe, before you dedicate your life to it."

As I said, this sort of advice should not even need to be given, since it should be good old common sense, that one should not give themselves over totally with their, heart, soul, mind, money, and body, until, or unless, there are good, and solid reasons to do so.

However, when, and if this sort of advice is coming from one, who freely admits that as an adult, they gave themselves completely over, with their mind, heart, soul, body, time, energy, and money, for years, and they go on to freely admit that they had no good reasons to do this, other than they simply, strongly believed, then this sort of advice, coming from this sort of person, really carries very little weight at all, to those who may indeed use their minds, before they make such decisions.

This is especially true, when these same folks spend an enormous amount of time on a debate site, and they give arguments like, "can you prove it?"

However, these very same folks, who are now so convinced, that what they once were so convinced of is now false, can in no way demonstrate, (prove) that what they were once so convinced of, because they believed so strongly, is indeed false.

It is like their argument is, "I was once convinced Christianity was true, simply because I believed so strongly. Now I am convinced it is false, because, I now believe just as strongly that it is false, as I did when I was convinced it was true."

In other words, they could not demonstrate or prove Christianity was true when they were so convinced that it was indeed true, however they cannot demonstrate, or prove, that what they were once so convinced of, is false, and they attempt to hide behind, the weak argument of, "I do not have the burden of proof." GOOD GRIEF! This is not an argument at all!

So then, you either know Christianity is false, and you can demonstrate, and prove your case. Or, you simply believe it to be false, and can supply the reasons, along with the evidence to back up what it is you believe. Simply throwing out there, "you can't prove it"............... Well do I have to really say anything else?

Next, I have had this conversation before, but if one is convinced that Christians are command to give "10%" of their money, then this sort of demonstrates one who did not use the mind, and simply bought into what they were told, without the use of the mind, because as I have demonstrated elsewhere, Christians are nowhere in the Bible commanded to, tithe.

[StuartJ]

"I do not have the burden of proof." GOOD GRIEF! This is not an argument at all!

If someone makes a claim ...

You know, like: "The Divine Leader was fathered by God".

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim.

Now me - being clever like I am - will suspect that this is just one of the many cults claiming divinity and other magical things for their Divine Leader.

But when a cult tells me that the burden of proof lies with ME because I dared to doubt and asked for proof ...

Then that makes me EVEN MORE certain they are peddling fantasy and charlatanry.

Insisting on proof is smart self-protection.

And think how much more money Christian families would have if they hadn't been giving so much away to an institution with no proofs to back up the Divine Leader ....

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 30 by rikuoamero]

My retort to you is to ask why you believe it anyway?

Really? We have had this conversation before, and it becomes wearisome. I could write a book concerning the reasons I believe. Or, I could simply give you a few of the reasons. However, either way, none of what I would say, would convince you to believe, and this is not in any way, what I am attempting to do.

The thing is, I could ask you the same question. In other words, I could ask you, "why you do not believe?" You could give me your reasons, and we can discuss, and debate the issues, but in the end, I highly doubt, or better yet, I am convinced, that neither of us would be able to prove our case.

Therefore, I am fine with listening to your reasons, along with analyzing the evidence you may give, talking, and discussing, without insisting that you must, and have to be in error, because I understand that neither you, nor I can demonstrate our case.

However, we can enjoy using our minds together, in an attempt to understand how we each came to the conclusions we have, without insisting that the other must, and has to be in error, since neither of us can demonstrate our case.

Why believe something that you acknowledge is scientifically impossible

Well, because I am not under the impression that science can explain everything, and I am also not under the impression that this is what science is said to do. Rather, my impression is that science should explain to us what would be, "scientifically possible", but this would not necessarily mean that science is the end all, be all. If you can demonstrate how science is, or will eventually be, "the end all, be all" I will be happy to listen.

but is credible to you solely (among other possible reasons?) because it was reported.

How can it be, "solely", and then, (among other possible reasons?) I mean, do you really believe that I would believe these things simply, "because it was reported?" I can only imagine one would believe such a thing, if they themselves would have been a believer at one time, and the only reason they believed these things is, "because they were reported" and they now assume that anyone else who may believe these things, only believes for the same reasons they themselves believed. I will assure you I have my beliefs, and it entails far more than, "it was reported."

Lots of things are reported.

You are correct, and I do not believe everything that is reported.

Lots of things are talked about.

Again correct, but I do not believe everything that is talked about.

Lots of things get claimed, lots of things that are reported are not possible scientifically.

And again you are correct, but I do not discount things simply because they are demonstrated to be, scientifically impossible, because I am not under the impression that science is the, "end all be all" and that science has all the answers.

Because you see, when I go on to believe something, I go on to analyze all the information I can get my hands on, which would include science. So then, science not only tells us, but has also demonstrated that a person cannot raise from the dead after 3 days.

Now if one is the type of person to put all their eggs in one basket, and are under the impression that science has all the answers, then I would suggest this person is very susceptible to being easily deceived.

So then science has indeed demonstrated to us that being raised from the dead is scientifically impossible, but please allow me to oblige you, and give you at least 2 reasons, (remembering there would be many more) that I look past what science has demonstrated, because I am not under the impression that science, can explain everything, and this is not even what science is suppose to do. In other worlds, science can only deal with science, but this does not mean that science is all there is.

At any rate, the two reasons I will give you is, Luke, and Paul. Because you see, you act as if these things were simply reported, as if these folks were attempting to communicate these things to the entire world, and this is not the case at all.

Rather, we have Luke, who writes, not one, but two long and detailed letters to a friend, with no concern, nor any idea that these letters would have been read by anyone else at all, and he certainly could not have known a thing about some sort of Bible, or that his personal letters would one day be in this Bible.

The second letter that is authored by Luke, could not have possibly been finished until after Luke had spent decades with Paul traveling around on painful missionary journeys, and Luke begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing these events, as if he is there to witness the events, some of which would have been miraculous.

Then we have the letters of Paul, who would have been addressing different audiences, and concerns, who verifies the information that Luke gives to Theophilus. On top of this we have Luke ended his second letter with Paul being under arrest, and we have letters from Paul that would have clearly been written while under arrest.

So then, we have both the letters, and the lives of Paul, and Luke, (not simply reports). Now you may say that this does not convince you, and that would be understandable because this would simply be the tip of the iceberg. However, the letters, and lives of these men are at least evidence to the truth of what they report, and their lives, and letters must have an explanation, and it is not enough to simply suggest, "they may have been lying, deceived, delusional, etc.", because we would need some sort of facts, and evidence that would suggest such a thing.

So again to be clear, my position is, there are good, and solid reasons to believe the reports of these two men very well may be true. On the other hand, if your position is, these reports, must, and have to be false, then I am afraid you own the burden.

However, if you are simply saying there would be reasons to doubt these things, then I would agree with you, and you and I would be in the same boat, simply being able to give the reasons, along with the evidence to support our case.

Do you demand that someone prove Loch Ness Monster false? That someone prove that Zuckerberg isn't a lizard person, etc, before you'll believe these claims are false?
Just to be clear, no-one has proven to me that Zuckerberg is not a lizard person, and yet I don't believe that he is one. Can you explain why?

Can I explain why? Well, maybe I can.

There seems to be a difference between us, seeing as how I do not make dogmatic stands against things I know little about, and couldn't care less. You use the example of the "Loch Ness Monster" and "Zuckerberg" but I believe I have a better example but you can insert whatever you like.

Let's take Islam for example. I know very little about it, and couldn't care less, to know anything about it. However, I do not have to know a thing about Islam, or any of its claims, to understand if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe the claims by Luke, and Paul.

Therefore, I may choose to doubt the claims of Islam, but I do not insist that it must, and has to be false, and that there would be no good, and solid reasons to believe the claims of Islam, since I know very little about it.

However, one thing I can assure you of is, if I wanted to spend an enormous amount of time on a debate site, debating the truth of Islam, I will assure you that I would learn all I needed to know, and I would have far more to offer than, "the claims are way to far fetched, scientifically impossible, and I would especially not use the argument to a Muslim, "well you can't prove it." Which is no argument at all, unless, or untill I had proved it false.

In other words, if I were going to spend hours, upon hours on a debate site, debating the truth of a matter, I would have far more to offer than, doubt.

[Realworldjack]

"I do not have the burden of proof." GOOD GRIEF! This is not an argument at all!

If someone makes a claim ...

You know, like: "The Divine Leader was fathered by God".

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim.

Now me - being clever like I am - will suspect that this is just one of the many cults claiming divinity and other magical things for their Divine Leader.

But when a cult tells me that the burden of proof lies with ME because I dared to doubt and asked for proof ...

Then that makes me EVEN MORE certain they are peddling fantasy and charlatanry.

Insisting on proof is smart self-protection.

And think how much more money Christian families would have if they hadn't been giving so much away to an institution with no proofs to back up the Divine Leader ....

If someone makes a claim ...

You know, like: "The Divine Leader was fathered by God".

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim.

EXACTLY! So let's go through this together.

I have not made such a claim. Rather, it is my claim this event was recorded by another, and I own the burden, and can deliver the facts that would demonstrate my case.

Next, the one who made this claim, was not addressing you, nor I, nor anyone else alive at this point, and does not own the burden of proof to any of us, but may have to those he was addressing at the time, if they may have insisted.

So then, what we are reading is something that was not addressed to us, but was rather intended for a particular audience at the time. Now I am not insisting that these reports must, and have to be true, because I understand there would be reasons to doubt.

So then, thus far, I do not see where I own any sort of burden other than to demonstrate that these things were reported, and this I can do.

So then, we have these reports, and if there are those who insist these reports must, and have to be false, then can you please explain who would then, "owns the burden?"

Now me - being clever like I am - will suspect that this is just one of the many cults claiming divinity and other magical things for their Divine Leader.

And one, would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other. It certainly does not seem wise to me to discount one thing, since it is similar to another thing one has already rejected, and I cannot imagine anyone doing such a thing in other areas of life.

But when a cult tells me that the burden of proof lies with ME because I dared to doubt and asked for proof ...

I do not know what you are talking about here, but it would seem to suggest that you may have been swindled into something before investigating thoroughly. But what would this have to do with Christianity?

It is like one saying, "I was swindled by those in a Church, so this means Christianity must be false", which would be like saying, "I was sold a lemon for a car, therefore I will never buy another car." This sort of thinking does not seem any better at all then the thinking that got one in the position to have themselves swindled in the first place?

Then that makes me EVEN MORE certain they are peddling fantasy and charlatanry.

I would agree, but again, what would this have to do with Christianity, unless you can demonstrate where the Biblical writers command, or even encourage the Church to swindle folks?

It does not! In fact, as I have demonstrated, Christians are nowhere commanded to tithe, and if you believe they are, then you have simply taken someone's word for it, because you cannot possibly defend such a thing from the Bible, and referring to what God commanded of Israel, that was clearly tied to the promise of the land, is not going to get it.

I cannot help what others have allowed themselves to believe, but they cannot blame Christianity, concerning the things it never teaches, and can never be defended from the Bible, and Christians being commanded to tithe would be one of those things.

Insisting on proof is smart self-protection.

Proof is mighty strong, and I am confident that you do not have "proof" for everything you believe, and practice, but I do agree that one should investigate everything thoroughly, before making major life decisions.

And think how much more money Christian families would have if they hadn't been giving so much away to an institution with no proofs to back up the Divine Leader ....

Christians are nowhere commanded to give a dime to the Church, and I have not given a dime to the Church in years, nor have I been to a Church in years. The reason I have not been to a Church, may have to do with some of the same reasons you have not?

However, I would not make the leap from, "many, many Churches do not operate the way they have been commanded" to "this is PROOF that Christianity must, and has to be false."

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

Can Christians demonstrate - other than quoting the propaganda or repeating their beliefs - that their Leader was indeed sired by Yahweh or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin?

NO.

That is precisely WHY it is a fallacy demanding such evidence.

Once one understand this, one drops it from the list of items one can argue with.

Until then, one simply thinks the answer is 'Yes' - or worse - knows the answer, but ignores it for the sake of some shallow egocentric entertainment value.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Can Christians demonstrate - other than quoting the propaganda or repeating their beliefs - that their Leader was indeed sired by Yahweh or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin?

It's a simple, straightforward question aimed at the very foundation of Christianity.

Please pay us the courtesy of answering directly this time.

Wikipedia
Perpetual virginity of Mary
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Marian doctrine, taught by the Catholic Church and held by a number of groups in Christianity, which asserts that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was "always a virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ."This doctrine also proclaims that Mary had no marital relations after Jesus' birth nor gave birth to any children other than Jesus. While the Bible mentions brothers of Jesus, Catholic, Orthodox, and some traditional Protestant interpretations offer various explanations that align with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity; that these siblings were either children of Joseph from a previous marriage, cousins of Jesus, or were closely associated with the Holy Family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual ... ty_of_Mary

Many Christians (Catholics and Orthodox Christians, many Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists) subscribe to the dogmatic assertion that Mary was forever a virgin. This assertion is not sustained in scripture, but has been declared to be necessarily true, since the conclusion that the virgin had been despoiled by having relations is considered repugnant.

This is the method that Christians use to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs. They DECLARE that it must necessarily be so, in accordance with their assumptions.

[StuartJ]

No proof that I know of has EVER been offered to demonstrate that ANY god sired a son or daughter on a human virgin.

In my view, it's ALL nothing more than fanciful human make-believe ...

And propaganda to give human political leaders status and control over the common people.

It amazes me that intelligent, educated people still believe - or pretend to believe - the magical nonsense of Christianity and other belief systems.

Christianity is the most arrogant religion I know.

Their virgin did not simply give birth to a demi-god, she was the mother of "God" ...

Because Christianity has declared that ITS Divine Leader is "God" with a capital-G ...

And everyone else's version of "God" is FALSE and THEIR religion holds the monopoly on admission to Heaven.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 37 by StuartJ]

No proof that I know of has EVER been offered to demonstrate that ANY god sired a son or daughter on a human virgin.

Correct, and if you are looking for "PROOF" it will not be found. However, there would be any number of things which you believe that you have no "PROOF" of, but this does not seem to stop you from believing these things.

Next, there is a tremendous difference between not believing something to be true, as opposed to claiming there is no evidence, nor reason, to support a certain belief.

In my view, it's ALL nothing more than fanciful human make-believe ...

And this is opinion, with absolutely no facts, nor evidence to back it up, which is not an argument. This sort of thing is no different at all than the many Christians who believe, simply because they really want to believe.

And propaganda to give human political leaders status and control over the common people.

And again, another opinion with absolutely no facts, or evidence. Where, and how are "political leaders gaining control, and power over common people" today? On top of this, even if there have been those who have used Christianity for the purpose you cite, how would this have anything at all to do with the origin, and truth of Christianity? It doesn't follow.

It amazes me that intelligent, educated people still believe - or pretend to believe - the magical nonsense of Christianity and other belief systems.

What amazes me is that there are supposedly intelligent, educated, people who freely admit that they once truly, wholeheartedly, embraced a certain belief system, even with their money, that they would now like us to believe that there would be no reason at all to believe this system they embraced so fully at one time. Now that is amazing!

It truly is amazing to think that there would be, intelligent, educated people who would embrace something so fully, and then go on to tell us that they made such a major life decision, without thinking through all of these things before they got to the point that they realize, there is no reason to believe these things. Do you really want to compare amazing? Why, and how would anyone do such a thing is beyond my understanding.

It would be my guess that this sort of person is prone to what I call, "easy believism." In other words, easy in, and because they did not use the mind to begin with, then it does not take much at all to talk them out. "Easy in, easy out."

Christianity is the most arrogant religion I know.

Is this a debate site? Or is it an opinion site? Also, is it Christians who are arrogant? Or is it Christianity?

Their virgin did not simply give birth to a demi-god, she was the mother of "God" ...

Whatever that means? But again, it is simply an opinion without any facts, or evidence to back the statement up.

Because Christianity has declared that ITS Divine Leader is "God" with a capital-G ...

I do not think this is the way it worked. Rather, there were certain folks at the time who wrote letters to other certain folks at the time, explaining what had occurred. So then, all we have are those who were claiming certain historical events had occurred.

And everyone else's version of "God" is FALSE and THEIR religion holds the monopoly on admission to Heaven.

You may be correct that there would be a lot of Christians who have this mentality. But what would this have to do with the truth? Nothing at all that I can imagine.

At any rate, I am a Christian, and I do not hold this opinion. In other words, I do not proclaim that, "everyone else's version of "God" is FALSE." Rather, I simply point out that there is very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the things recorded in the NT. You know those things that some claim to have embraced so fully at one time, but for some reason they failed to consider all of these facts, evidence, and reasons, and fell into what I call easy believism.