Give me the proof of Bible and Christianity

[psychdave]

OK, so I tell you that according to several accounts written many years after it occurred by primitive men, a dragon plagued a town somewhere in Libya and was slayed by the patron saint of England, St George, would you believe me?

If I told you that a series of books written 2000 years + ago many years after the events took place, the majority of which events are not verifiable by 3rd party historians (yes I know some bits are), billions of people believe it.... I don't for one minute dispute that the bible is a great instruction book for moral living and handling life generally, however, I can see no categorical proof that a book written by MAN many years after the events occurred is the "word of God".

Christianity itself to me is a placebo. If you believe anything strongly enough, it becomes a reality to you, this is strongly re-enforced if you congregate with others that believe the same, just look at any cult... If I am convinced that touching a "sacred" tree everyday will make my life better and fully believe it then psychologically I will feel better after touching that tree in the same way somebody taking a placebo pill is 100% convinced it has real effects.

Take prayer for example. Whilst praying or meditating is a good relaxation method and good at calming and relaxing the mind, the efficacy is unproven. Just as many people that are prayed for die of illnesses as those that don't. The placebo effect again can kick in here as people believe that prayer (like a placebo pill) IS making them better and hence have a more positive outlook and get better quicker.

Church worship in pentecostal churches particularly follows exactly the same routine as a hypnotic session. People enter in a Beta brain state, get softened by music to an Alpha brainstate and then eventually enter a theta brainstate where they are strongly influenceable as if under hypnotic trance. This is when fake healings take place (basically hypnotic suggestion) that are gone when the brain state returns to normal and in the case of televangelists, the key time to ask for money for their mission...

What Christians have failed to do on these forums is prove 100% the accuracy of the Bible, the efficacy of prayer and the reality of the church worship service. I was a Christian for many year until in my early 40's I studied a psychology diploma and began to realize it was fake and unsubstantiated. The same applies to other religions which like Christianity will be just as convinced that their religion is 100% true.

[JehovahsWitness]

With this logic, absolutely no claim ever made in the history of mankind can ever be said to be false

It can be "said" to be false, it cannot necessarily be PROVEN to be. History is effectively our best bet based on physical evidence, literature doesn't work that way. If a text has room for metaphore, symbolism, etc, then there is no way to prove how it should be understood.

People must therefore apply logic and come to their personal conclusion. What they cannot logically do is say a particular passage that can be taken symbolically must be understood in a certain way. Ergo your not being able to make a catagoric statement that the bible is inaccurate or untrue. All you can say is by your personal understanding this is how you see things.

Which is what I do. I present the Jehovah's Witness point of view free of inaccuracies and errors to the very best of my ability. People can make up their own minds if its reasonable or not.

Logic,

JW

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

Well if your argument just boils down you "you can't prove it's false" then please save us the effort next time and start with this. Or do you usually leave this obvious statement as a last resort?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

Well if your argument just boils down you "you can't prove it's false" then please save us the effort next time and start with this. Or do you usually leave this obvious statement as a last resort?

I will start my posts any way I like. As long as I do not violate forum guidelines I'll do exactly as I please. You off course are free to simply ignore them (I also believe there is an "ignore" option). Otherwise the moderaters here I think are very good, if you see something that I write that you find offensive or objectionable, feel free to report it.


Have an excellent afternoon,

JW

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 23 by JehovahsWitness]

Boy, and all this time people on this site have been wasting their time on actual arguments with substance. Turns out, we should all just shout "prove God exists!" and "prove God doesn't exist!"

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 24 by Justin108]

Or share you opinion and be logical enough to recognize when you (general "you", not you as an individual) are sharing opinion, and when you are sharing facts and show evidence in one's posts you know how to distinguish between the two. In any case was there something you (as an individual) wanted to debate about the nature of this debating forum? I think there's a subforum for suggestions too.

Pretty much all the bases seem to be covered here,

Enjoy

JW

[psychdave]

So as suspected, nobody can prove the Bible/Christianity is true all we can do is turn it on its' head and say it's difficult to prove its' untrue. I could say exactly the same for the Koran or many other history books. If I went to court to be convicted of a crime, my lawyer would have to have prove I'm NOT guilty and the prosecution would need proof I was guilty or there would be no point going to court. It seems in the Bible case, no substantial proof it's untrue is sufficient, so in my court case no substantial proof I'm not guilty automatically makes me guilty??? Maybe/maybe not..

[Talishi]

If I went to court to be convicted of a crime, my lawyer would have to have prove I'm NOT guilty and the prosecution would need proof I was guilty or there would be no point going to court.

That's not how it works. The Prosecution has to prove you are guilty, that is true, but your lawyer merely has to raise reasonable doubt. In the case of the existence of God, there is a preponderance of reasonable doubt.

[rikuoamero]

Therefore either the claim in Genesis 2 is UNTRUE, or the data of the reigns of the kings and the ages of the patriarchs when they begat the next patriarch is UNTRUE.

Doesn’t that exclude the entire middle? Augustine of Hippo taught that the creation narrative was metaphorical in nature; Philo Juddaeus taught the same thing from Alexandria. They taught it in a time when everyone would have been okay with a slavishly literal interpretation of Genesis since there was no science that said otherwise.

If Genesis, specifically the creation account, were simply metaphorical fiction, then logically the people mentioned in Genesis would also be fictional. If so, why is it that a supposedly fictional character (namely Adam) appears in Jesus' genealogy as listed in Luke 3:23-38?

Rather, more to the point, if Genesis is metaphorical...there is no creation account. There is nothing for a Christian to point to in order to say "Here, this is how the universe began, this is how our god entity did it all".

[Talishi]

Rather, more to the point, if Genesis is metaphorical...there is no creation account. There is nothing for a Christian to point to in order to say "Here, this is how the universe began, this is how our god entity did it all".

If Genesis is metaphorical, then the "Fall" is metaphorical, there's no real need for a Savior, and no need to throw money in the plate every Sunday.

[ttruscott]

Therefore either the claim in Genesis 2 is UNTRUE, or the data of the reigns of the kings and the ages of the patriarchs when they begat the next patriarch is UNTRUE.

What is your proof that GOD didn't create mature trees of advanced age after Adam, please. HE obviously did not create Adam as an infant in the garden, why trees as infants?