Prove It's Right or Prove It's Not Wrong

[ElCodeMonkey]

One thing that really made a huge difference for me was the concept of needing to prove Christianity right to believe it rather than not being able to prove it wrong to believe it. I had started with the base assumption that it was right and I could work around any proof of it being wrong. But once requiring it to be proven right, well, nothing could really ever "prove" it. So without actual proof and chocking it up to God not wanting us to believe based upon proof but faith (something we'd obviously just have to take for granted since there's no proof this is true), then how do we know which religion to simply believe without proof? Why believe the Christian faith without proof rather than, say, the Matrix concept without proof? Now, keep in mind, I'm talking about actual proof. Not just evidence. We can have "evidence" all day long such as the world being complex and thus God, but that doesn't prove God nor does it mean we should follow Christianity specifically. So, should you base beliefs off being proven they are right or base beliefs on them not being proven wrong? And if the latter, how do you distinguish for which beliefs require proof of wrongness rather than proof of rightness since you cannot prove the spaghetti monster does not exist any more than any other God?

[Tart]

I dont know man... If we really believe we cant prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesnt exist... We are all lost... I think thats crazy

[Divine Insight]

So, should you base beliefs off being proven they are right or base beliefs on them not being proven wrong?

With respect to this question and Christianity in particular, as far as I'm concerned, Christianity is easily proven to be false. Both the Old Testament and the New. Each can easily be proven false, as far as I am concerned.

So I'm certainly not going to believe in a religion that I know to be false.

Now let's take your question further. What about other religions that cannot be proven to be false.

I can name three of them right off the top of my head:

1. The Greek myths of Zeus and company.

No one ever claimed that Zeus is trustworthy or honest. Therefore we can never know if Zeus as tricked us. Perhaps the Gods did live on Mt. Olympus at some point in the past and when humans became more technological, they simply left without a trace. Omnipotent Gods could certainly do this.

So I can't disprove the existence of Zeus. Yet just because I can't disprove Zeus is no reason to become a believer in Zeus.

2. The Moon Goddess of Wicca.

Again, a picture of God that I cannot disprove. Proclaiming that the Moon is not a Goddess, and that no Goddess lives on the moon basically misses the point. The moon is simply symbolic of the Goddess, and not the Goddess herself.

So again, I cannot disprove the existence of the Wicca Moon Goddess. Does this mean that I should then believe that she actually exists?

3. The God of Buddhism

There are many different forms of Buddhism, some of them I cannot disprove. So should I believe in one of these versions just because I can't find a way to disprove them?

4. Solipsism (as an extra bonus topic)

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that I am all that exists and the entire rest of the world is a figment of my own imagination. Can I disprove solipsism? Nope.

So does this mean that I should believe in Solipsism?

I think not.

[ElCodeMonkey]

I dont know man... If we really believe we cant prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesnt exist... We are all lost... I think thats crazy

Well... but you can't. The only way to prove it doesn't exist is to have all knowledge of all existence. You can never prove it doesn't exist. I don't think that makes us lost since we also cannot prove we are not in a simulation. But we can prove that when we drop things, they fall. I mean, until they don't, anyway.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

I would argue that any Christianity that you argue that can be proven false is just a straw man Christianity and not the real Christianity. The real Christianity adds up. Just because one person's interpretation doesn't add up doesn't mean that the "real" Christianity doesn't. So if you prove something wrong, then alter your initial stances.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

I would argue that any Christianity that you argue that can be proven false is just a straw man Christianity and not the real Christianity. The real Christianity adds up. Just because one person's interpretation doesn't add up doesn't mean that the "real" Christianity doesn't. So if you prove something wrong, then alter your initial stances.

I'm talking about the basic Biblical Canon. I hold that the Canon of scriptures upon which Christianity is built can be demonstrated to be false by self-contradiction as it is written.

If you claim to have an alternative Christianity that is based on alternative scriptures, then yes, you can indeed make a case for that. At that point I would simply ask you to send me a copy of the written canon of scriptures that you are basing your version of Christianity upon.

Who knows, I might actually agree that your version makes sense.

But the current Biblical Canon does not.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

I will sound like a broken record, but Christians today follow a modified form of Christianity that Jesus did not preach. He could not have preached anything about the Bible since it had not yet been written. So quite clearly Christianity is already different than Jesus' version. That said, I believe the Bible has enough info to paint a proper picture via the very recognitions of what is not making sense. If you resolve the inconsistencies (not by making them fit or ignoring them), you can determine the actual truth of the original Christianity.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

I will sound like a broken record, but Christians today follow a modified form of Christianity that Jesus did not preach. He could not have preached anything about the Bible since it had not yet been written. So quite clearly Christianity is already different than Jesus' version. That said, I believe the Bible has enough info to paint a proper picture via the very recognitions of what is not making sense. If you resolve the inconsistencies (not by making them fit or ignoring them), you can determine the actual truth of the original Christianity.

This is obviously a major theological discussion that you would like to have. And I've heard these types of scenarios before. IMHO, they are impossible to sustain.

To begin with you really can't start with Jesus and the New Testament. Before you even get started you need to justify the entire Old Testament. Because keep in mind that Jesus is nothing if not the Son of Yahweh. Being the Son of Yahweh (or some sort of incarnation of Yahweh) is what supposedly gives Jesus the authority and "divinity" to make the claims he made about a promise of eternal life, etc.

If all you want to do is talk about moral philosophy, then there's really no point in even mentioning Jesus or Christianity. You can find plenty of other philosophers who have espoused moral philosophies based on reason, love, and compassion. So there's not point in trying to create a "Christianity" based on moral philosophy alone.

Christianity also cannot be made into a religion where Jesus is God (i.e. totally divorced from the Yahweh of the Old Testament)

So if all you are trying to do is make claims that Jesus had a different message from what much of what Christendom claims from the Gospel scriptures, then you really aren't seeing the big picture.

Most of the problems I have with this religion have to do with the Old Testament, and how the teachings of Jesus don't even match up with the teachings of the Old Testament.

Jesus was telling people not to cast the first stone to stone convicted sinners to death, but Yahweh commanded men to do precisely that. And the story of Jesus is to claim that he didn't come to change the laws of the prophets (i.e. the prophets of the Old Testament).

So you can't just dismiss the New Testament and claim that Jesus actually had a different message. You'd need to justify the entire Old Testament as well.

I don't know how many posts of mine you have read on this forum, but I argue for unorthodox teachings of Jesus as well. And I argue this straight from the current New Testament Gospels. At least from Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. I don't bother with the writings of Paul because Paul doesn't claim to be quoting Jesus, nor do his teachings appear to be in harmony with what Jesus taught according to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

But you can't just focus on the New Testament. You still need to address the divinity of Jesus. After all, if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, or God incarnate himself, then why should anyone care what Jesus taught. We can reason on our own. So why should we think Jesus was anything special if he was not divine and had no divine knowledge.

Trying to "save Jesus" in this religion becomes an extremely difficult thing to do. What about the crucifixion? Was that part of "God's Plan"? If so what was that all about? Why would God plan to have himself, or his son brutally crucified by humans?

And we can hardly have men doing this to God's utter shock and surprise. That's not going to work either.

So you've got tons of problems to deal with. You can't just argue that Jesus seemed to be teaching reasonable things, like as if that's sufficient to salvage this religion. There's far more to it than that.

Jesus promised eternal life for the righteous. Is that true? Or was Jesus just a human who has hopes and dreams of such things himself?

Arguing that Jesus had a different message than orthodox Christendom thinks, is hardly going to be a compelling argument for this religion.

Jesus either was the virgin-born Son of Yahweh, or he wasn't.

And before we can even talk to that issue we need to justify Yahweh long before we even start to talk about what Jesus might have been trying to teach.

~~~~~~

By the way. Isn't there also a problem with suggesting that the vast majority of Christendom got Jesus' message all wrong?

It seems to me that this would then suggest that Jesus must have been one whale of a terrible teacher. How's that going to work?

And not only that, but if after giving your case for what you believe Jesus was trying to teach many Christians do not "see it" and still disagree with you. Then what?

That would imply that Jesus was such a horrible teacher that even after you explain to people what Jesus was trying to teach they still can't see it.

And how did so many Christian Theists, Scholars, Clergy, and Apologists, miss this message, and you just happened to see it?

I mean, I wish you the very best of luck trying to change an entire religion, but think about. You're basically saying that it took some 2000 years before someone could see the correct message. And by golly here you are!

Does this really sound reasonable to you?

Over the centuries, they didn't come up with the sacrificial lamb idea, and trinity, etc, just for fun. They came up with all those apologies in an effort to try to make sense of a collection of stories that weren't making any sense. They still don't make any sense with all their additional apologies. But hey, they sure did try hard.

And now you're going to say, "Oh no, that's all wrong. Here's how to make sense of these stories".

It seems to me that you're a few thousand years too late.

Had you been around back when they were designing this theology and were in a position to offer input, you might have been able to change the theology back when they were first designing it.

But I think your a bit late now.

I'm just giving you my opinion.

I mean, how likely is it that someone is going to correct a religion after some 2000 years and everyone else is going to slap themselves on the forehead and say,

"By Golly! He's Right!"

That's just not likely to happen.

[StuartJ]

"Jesus is God"

I can't prove the claim is wrong.

I can't prove the claim is not wrong.

Neither of these things I can't do is sufficient to prove that Jesus is God.

Either of these things I can't do may be sufficient for me to BELIEVE that Jesus is God.

I can't prove that the claim Jesus is God is right, so I can't move beyond belief here either.

Belief is what props Christianity up on its feet of clay.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by ElCodeMonkey]

How does one prove anything right or wrong?
Examine the claims and see if they are right.
What are the claim about God, Jesus etc., examine them and shoot them down.

It's pretty easy.