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.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

I'm not sure I agree it is simple and straightforward. What could you imagine could possibly ever be valid for proving anyone's father from the past apart from documentation? Clearly DNA tests aren't available from back then and clearly God has no DNA to test against. Or, if he did, it is not available for such testing. I can't imagine where answering such a question can lead to any useful conclusions. No, it can't be proven. Doesn't mean it's not true though. Not that I believe it is, of course...

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

I'm not sure I agree it is simple and straightforward. What could you imagine could possibly ever be valid for proving anyone's father from the past apart from documentation? Clearly DNA tests aren't available from back then and clearly God has no DNA to test against. Or, if he did, it is not available for such testing. I can't imagine where answering such a question can lead to any useful conclusions. No, it can't be proven. Doesn't mean it's not true though. Not that I believe it is, of course...

Perfectly simple if your Divine Leader's father is "God".

Behold, I am Yahweh, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? Jeremiah 32:27

Christians DO claim that their Divine Leader was (not in so many words) sired by two thirds of the Christian Trinity on a human virgin.

It's up to them to demonstrate that it's true ...

And they are not trying to lead us astray by charlatanry.

HOW they do it is up to them.

They NEVER do

But DO continue to claim that it's true.

I suggest that, because it's a fantastical notion without evidence, it's charlatanry.

Just like OTHER fantastical, evidence-free notions

But the door is still WIDE open.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Given that this is a debate forum, I can see the need to prove a belief to other people, but that does pose an interesting problem if the very nature of God and Christianity is not intended to be based on evidential proofs. They have no "requirement" to "prove" anything to anybody. They can believe and let others not believe. They can share the "good news" and have done their part even without proof since God himself should be aiding in that arena. And someone, hearing such "news" and being led by God to seek out the "truth" should then find it of their own accord if they are truly willing to see it. I admit, it is all very convenient and charlatany, but as long as it's logically consistent, what can we say or do to convince them otherwise?

I believe the logic is more generally: I felt this, I felt that, God must therefore be true, I was thinking about God from the Biblical sense, therefore the Bible is true, and therefore Jesus is the son of God.

[Tcg]

They can believe and let others not believe.

Sure, but that doesn't address the topic of this thread as expressed clearly in the OP:

"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?"

The question is not about what Christians can believe, but rather what can they demonstrate.

[StuartJ]

They can believe and let others not believe.

Sure, but that doesn't address the topic of this thread as expressed clearly in the OP:

"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?"

The question is not about what Christians can believe, but rather what can they demonstrate.

Thank you ...

Repeating beliefs or quoting the propaganda is NOT demonstrating the paternity of the possibly fictional Jesus character.

One would think that Christians would WELCOME the opportunity to demonstrate that they don't believe in make-believe.

Their reactions to this most fundamental question OFTEN tell me that they DO know fine well that it's a game of Pretend.

[ElCodeMonkey]

I had already addressed the OP. In short, No, they obviously can't demonstrate that God is Jesus' father any more than we can demonstrate that Julius Caesar was the father of Augustus Caesar. Especially with the constraint not to use ancient texts. It's not a simple and straightforward question unless you want the simple and straightforward answer of "no" without any assumptions as to what this means. But then what's to discuss? Why ask it?

[StuartJ]

I had already addressed the OP. In short, No, they obviously can't demonstrate that God is Jesus' father any more than we can demonstrate that Julius Caesar was the father of Augustus Caesar. Especially with the constraint not to use ancient texts. It's not a simple and straightforward question unless you want the simple and straightforward answer of "no" without any assumptions as to what this means. But then what's to discuss? Why ask it?

"No" would be the HONEST answer ...

In my view.

To admit "No" leads to a whole bunch of other uncomfortable self-questioning.

Many Christians - in my view - won't confront the possibility of "No".

Others can ... and DO ...

https://owlcation.com/misc/Atheists-in- ... the-Clergy

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 8 by StuartJ]

But that's exactly why I followed up to say that "No" is essentially meaningless. It presupposes that it creates a problem or a logical error on behalf of Christians but it really doesn't (which is what I was addressing). It's like "Ha, Atheists, can you even PROVE that Julius was the father of Augustus? Just a straight yes or no, come on." And we'd scratch our heads wondering why they're asking such a question and what it has to do with our lack of faith.

[Don McIntosh]

But then what's to discuss?

Nothing. The whole idea is to avoid meaningful discussion, because meaningful discussion would lend too much credibility to a purportedly absurd belief in a purportedly mythological Christian deity.

Why ask it?

Because it scores lots of cheap rhetorical points and stirs up the home crowd.