Simple Test to Disprove Christianity

[boatsnguitars]

1. Find Christians who claim to have a relationship with Jesus
2. Ask them individually a series of questions
3. Compare the answers.
4. If the answers don't line up, then it shows that Christians don't have a relationship with Jesus.
5. The most likely answer is that Jesus doesn't exist in the way Christians claim.

Some questions:
A. What was your favorite food as a child, Jesus?
B. What should America do about it's National Debt, if anything? What steps should be done to reduce it, or should it be reduced at all?
C. Where is my great-great-great-great-grandmother buried?
D. Are both Hitler and Anne Frank in Heaven?
E. What is the 1 billionth digit in Pi?

These are samples of questions that could be compared. (Obviously, you'd want a double-blind study, etc.)

Objections:

1. "Jesus/God doesn't work that way!"
This is obvious to non-believers, since it's exactly what you'd expect from a non-existent person in a "relationship". However, Christians who claim to have a relationship with Jesus are often heard all the ways Jesus talks to them:
"I was drinkin' and druggin' and bein' all bad, and I asked Jesus, "Jesus, should I stop all this self-destructive behavior?", and he said, "Yes.""
"I was unemployed, surfin' on my Mom's couch and she was naggin' me, so I prayed to Jesus, "Jesus, should I get a job?", and I heard him clear as a bell, "Yes"."

So, this is very simple. Ask Jesus better questions, otherwise, it appears Jesus is no better than an incel's mother telling him to get a job. We expect more from our deities, no?

2. "Well, not all Christians are being honest about their relationship with Jesus"
This is certain. Christians of all stripes lie about Jesus. There's a reason there are over 10,000 denominations, many of those led by men (usually men) who claim to have had a revelation from Jesus to start their church. The Pope, Fred Phelps, Marcion, etc. They've all claimed to have a relationship with Jesus in some way - and they've all been either lying, or Jesus is telling them different answers (so much for not being the author of confusion!).
In fact, can't we sum up all religions as started by liars?
Aren't all people stained by Original Sin and liars? Aren't 99% of all religions automatically wrong - started by liars? Why do we simply accept the claims of one person over another?

3. "OK, maybe everyone is a liar, except me! If I can answer all those questions correctly, then Christianity must be true."
Not so fast. Sure, if one person answered all the questions correctly, we'd have a data point. But with over 1 billion Christians in the world, we'd expect 1 person to randomly get it right.
Besides, Christianity claims - in it's own book (unless it's a lie) - that Jesus DESIRES a relationship with us. If only one person can answer those questions (that could also be answered randomly), that doesn't support the claims of Christianity.

4. "You can't test God!"
(Why not? How convenient!) But, we're not really testing God - we're testing the people's claims of having a relationship with Jesus. After all, Christians want us to accept that Jesus has told them x, y, z, and that's why we can't have Gay Marriage, or eat meat on Friday, or have premarital sex, etc. In other words, see #1, they are more than happy to tell us Jesus has spoken with them and told them the 'facts" (yet, Chrtistians disagree). This is exactly what you'd expect from a false religion.

Conclusion:
This is a simple test. Almost stupidly simple. Committed Christians will do everything they can to avoid ever having to take this test - which belies their motivation.
This would be perfectly normal in a real relationship. If you wanted to know if Warren Buffet existed (or if people who claimed to know him, actually knew him), you could simply ask a series of questions. The people who answer the same, and answer what only Buffet would know, are most likely the ones in a relationship with Buffet.
The fact is, there is no difference between "Christians relationship with Jesus" and "There is no Jesus".

Bonus round:
Not all religions claim to have this kind of relationship with God. Thus, making those religions more likely true (or, at least, more difficult to prove the negative; that they aren't true).
Therefore, if Christians want to make Pascal's Wager, they should pick a different religion.

Are any Christians here willing to take the test? Wouldn't you like to know if Jesus is real - or which Christians are false?

Important Note:
This test highlights not only why Christianity is false, but shows how vastly different our world would be if it were true.
If Christianity were true, and Jesus/God had actual relationships with the millions of people who claim to have this relationship, we'd see a vast agreement from all those Christians on all kinds of issues. Politics, parenting, science, math, etc: All these would be supercharged if we could tap into the knowledge of God.

Our legal system: "Jesus, did he kill his wife? No? OK, sir, you are free to go. We've been told it's your neighbor."

Parenting: "Should I spank my children? Oh, you say one of them will learn from it but the other will be forever scarred emotionally and never be able to form meaningful relationships? Wow, thanks, Jesus?"

I know Christians will claim Jesus doesn't want to give us the answers. But this is just an excuse - and a lie - since they claim Jesus does, in fact, give them answers on a number of things when it comes to them personally, or things that involve the culture war. How many Christians are convinced Jesus doesn't like abortion - despite those babies getting a free trip to God, without any of the pain and agony in this mortal life? (As one of many examples)

Thoughts?

[Clownboat]

Thus you still haven't responded to my post on the gaps of atheism or the scientific theories you believe in , so with that being said we can conclude that atheism is a fallacy.

And there we have it. There is no defense for this religion. Therefore, they attack. At least swords are not being used this time around!

[Clownboat]

The real question is why haven't you responded to my posts about your atheism because this is a two way argument you have to defend why atheism is right .

More attacks and zero defense once again.

What Adonai fails to realize is that they are an atheist, towards all the available god concepts, less one.
The real problem is when the religious are willing to kill to spread their religion. Those days thankfully seem to be a thing of the past. An atheists, like the Christian, doesn't find gods as credible. Less the god concept of their geography, which is pretty weak reasoning for accepting a god belief if you ask me.

Cause failure to do so means this will be my last post to you . And proves that atheism is followed by deluded people that claim to be "scientific "

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[POI]

So I will put it simply those who don't read the scriptures with spiritual understanding do not hear Jesus , it is either their mind or they heard Satan , and education in the scriptures does not equate to understanding of the scriptures I brought scripture to show you this .

Ah, yes, straight out of "The Giant Omnibus of Christian Loopholes". You can't possibly be right because you don't have spiritual understanding, or sometimes, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or Satan did it. No evidence to support such claims, but what the heck, throw it out there and see if it sticks. Total waste of time.

What kills me is that he continues to double down. This is why I'm asking him, and others, to ask a very straightforward and simplistic question of Jesus. We do not even need to go THAT far. Instead, the question can be even more simplified. Thus, eliminating any possibility for lack in any "spiritual understanding" nonsense: (i.e.):

"Dear Jesus, what the flood event A) literal or B) not literal?". Just a simple A) or B) will suffice.

What Adonai seems to lack, is that I do not believe him. Just like I do not believe the Scientologist who claims direct communication with Xenu. Just like I do not believe the "psychic" who claims this/that. Just like I do not believe the "medium" who claims this/that.

The BEST he could 'argue', is that all who claim to speak to Jesus and get a differing answer MUST not have the same understanding, or are blocked by 'evil', or some other nonsense. And the ones that do have the same understanding may or may not have true understanding. Meaning, they do or got the interpretation right by happy accident.

But the kicker is... the Christians next to him, could make the EXACT same claim. "Nuh-uh, I have the correct understanding, and you don't." Just like the two pastors at the church I sometimes still attend.

I think he's missing the point of this topic. It boils down to a big if/then proposition....

1. IF Jesus exists....
2. IF Jesus communicates....
3. IF Jesus wants to communicate the truth....
4. IF there exists many earnest followers....

THEN Jesus would not be giving differing answers to differing earnest seeking Christians. Hence, it's common sense to question premise 1. Just like anyone would about the claims of a 'medium' who speaks to dead people.

To easily exploit the absurdity of such claimed 'mediums', go to 10 different ones, ask them to summon up one of your dead relatives, and have them ask the dead relative the same question. And when differing answers are reported, you can ask yourself... "What's most likely?"

[otseng]

And proves that atheism is followed by deluded people that claim to be "scientific "

Moderator Warning



Please debate the topic without commenting on others.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
But the kicker is... the Christians next to him, could make the EXACT same claim. "Nuh-uh, I have the correct understanding, and you don't." Just like the two pastors at the church I sometimes still attend.
...

Very much.

Otherwise there'd be no need for the Theology, Doctrine & Dogma subforoom.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's actually one of the Theist - stumpers in the debate, but it rarely gets to there, just as we rarely get from Cosmic origins to 'which god?' So much of it taken up by fencing flawed arguments like 'Why do you hate God?' and 'What bad thing happened to turn you against Christianity?' which are rarely if ever what makes an atheist.
It resembles trickery but it isn't, but is a mindset based on the assumption that God is real. Thus atheists know that God is real but are in denial for some reason. They seem unable to argue on the basis (even if they don't believe it) that a person can disbelieve in a god. Just as much as all religious believers disbelieve in all the other gods. That's another one I can't recall the argument getting to. Or at least i never remember getting an answer.

Atheists could control the debate, but what happens is that the believers don't respond. It is why debates don't get anywhere, half the time (others like evolution can go on for ever) but it does seem to end up that the atheists' tag team are left looking around the ring wondering where the other team went to.

Didn't even touch on the two other instinctive ploys of theist -argument - red herrings and changing the subject - because what they want to do is preach unopposed and unquestioned about their beliefs. You know how the doorstop - sale technique works; get the objection - stumper and Hook in and then the spiel - reel of well-drilled apologetics with fulfilled prophecies, reliable historical record and a lot of claims...how many man in the streets even know that Darwin is claimed to have recanted in his deathbed, let alone know that he actually didn't? In fact, how many theist apologists know that - if they didn't look at the particular apologetics website?

It's funny really, Theist apologists may deny epistemology at need and especially the validity of textbook authority, but I am sure that most of their apologetics are lifted from online Biblical thinktanks. How many Genesis -literalists would have come up with the argument we saw not long ago that the continents fell into the flood - water unless he (1) had read and misunderstood the Hydroplate theory (1a). How many Bible apologists would claim 'indentured servitude' unless they'd read it somewhere? How many would even know the genealogies don't match, let alone have heard the 'One is the genealogy of Mary" excuse (forget checking and finding out it's false)? They use textbook epistemology all the time. When it suits them.

At the risk of being obvious when they play those losing hands here, why wouldn't they feel the bucket of cold water one deconvert recalls when he realised the deaths of Judas contradict (by the time he read the excuses, it was too late ) They know it is true on Faith and so there is some answer even if they don't know what it is. Rethinking in the light of proof, really, is not what they do. And it is always what rationalists do, which is why they are 'always changing their minds' which in fact makes the arguing position actually stronger, while the Bible - apologetic position requires more slipping out of the Temple and hiding.

I was going to cite the recent effort to excuse the Septuagint quote by Jesus by proposing a really improbable Lost Hebrew 'text which absolutely shows that Faith in being right trumps evidence every time. Thus the Mary genealogy when the apologetic gets knocked down does not lead to '"Coo...that is wrong...what else is wrong?" Never; it is dropping that apologetic and reverting to Faith, using any apologetic like'there is some explanation' or just 'that may be wrong - the rest is true'. I recall some attempt to dismiss the debunked nativities as 'not doctrinally important' but maybe i dreamed that as it's such a terribly blinkered and dismissive argument and I may be imagining it. But anyway...I won't as I've been preaching my sermon long enough already.

(1) No woman would have misunderstood that theory like that
(1a) the ark -crew and cargo would all have drowned and there would be no continents today. Pangaea has to have had all the animals sorted into today's "Kinds" and then surfed to their present locations. in the inerrant thread Walt Brown's hydroplate theory was understood correctly.

[Diogenes]

The real question is why haven't you responded to my posts about your atheism because this is a two way argument you have to defend why atheism is right . Cause failure to do so means this will be my last post to you . And proves that atheism is followed by deluded people that claim to be "scientific "

[emphasis applied]
Perhaps because your arguments are too weak to merit a response. Maybe because of insults calling people "deluded." Or perhaps it's just the name you've given yourself, the blasphemy of calling your self God and doing so redundantly. And it's not just using the Lord's name in vain, but using the Tetragrammaton. 'YHWH' should be used sparingly and not even pronounced aloud, yet you give yourself this name along with "Adonai" another name for God.
Good thing God does not exist, since 'He' is known to wreak vengeance upon even those who follow him, and for lesser offenses such as steadying the Ark of the Covenant (according to 'scripture').

[Avoice]

I suppose the Jesus they see looks like the Jesus in a DaVinci painting huh? He looks all European right?

Does he look like a Hebrew?
Christianity is essentially rooted in Europe. It’s amazing how it just so happens that all the paintings and statues happen to look like the Europeans. He is man’s attempt to make God like them.

They can’t even draw him honestly!!! Why not? I’ll tell you why. Becsuse Europeans would find it difficult to look at an image of a middle eastern man and point to it and say That’s my lord and savior. Or to an oriental. Or an African. Yeah… funny how Buddha looks like the people that worship him. Gee… go figure

Europeans created God in their image. They can’t even be truthful about his looks. He was a Hebrew! Obviously they are ashamed of him. Shame on Christians for trying to make Jesus into a white guy.

Watch…. The lie will continue for generations. None have demanded an historically more correct image. Why not? Wassup? They just can’t do it. Imagine hanging up a picture of someone who looks like Saddam Hussein and Europeans saying “that’s my lord and savior “. Never… they need their lie in white skin. They created their god. Don’t even try to make them be honest they can’t do it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Avoice in post #238]

Yes. Circumcised, too, so became subject to the Law, unless God made special conditions for Him to be sinless. But then, how could have been sacrificed as a man if he really wasn't? But that aside, I have seen some pretty nordic Jesuses and it sorta makes me sigh because it's..like you say. I did Buddhism and you are right. Buddha was Nepalese, and yet the ones you see look like the locals. Cue the excuses - It is reflecting the transcendental and universal nature of Buddha, not the exact person. You won't find a Buddha in Myanmar that looks too much like an Indian.

But back to Jesus, I have a Theory....that the original Jesus image, deep dark eyes,long hair, beard, was derived from Byzantine art, got translated to more Caucasian models and ended up as you Blond blue eyed Light of the world. Buddy Jesus is of course dark enough but it knocks me sideways to see him posing for bubblegum commercials.

Incidentally, there was a 1920 book that was a fake account of Jesus...very much a Caucasian one. I saw it Once put up as evidence for Jesus.The others have either not been misled by it or have never heard of it. Like most will never have heard of the book I have where the traveller to Galilee exclaims that you could get a shekel into the mouth of the Lake Galilee John Dory. Like that makes Matthew 17.24 a credible story.

[Adonai Yahweh]

Perhaps because your arguments are too weak to merit a response. Maybe because of insults calling people "deluded." Or perhaps it's just the name you've given yourself, the blasphemy of calling your self God and doing so redundantly. And it's not just using the Lord's name in vain, but using the Tetragrammaton. 'YHWH' should be used sparingly and not even pronounced aloud, yet you give yourself this name along with "Adonai" another name for God.
Good thing God does not exist, since 'He' is known to wreak vengeance upon even those who follow him, and for lesser offenses such as steadying the Ark of the Covenant (according to 'scripture').[/size]

My argument for atheism isn't weak it's just that you are unable to bring any information that can prove that atheism is correct . Just in the same way that all of you called Christians insulting names . And who said I am calling myself God in any of my arguments did I say I am God .. no I did not .Who is the person in my profile pic ? An atheist cant even comprehend what term blasphemy is . Yet alone try and argue what blasphemy is . For you dont even believe in Jesus . And according to which scripture ? Give scriptural references since you said its from scripture