You Can't Disprove Christianity ( Don't Even Try )

[Yozavan]

Premise Of Debate: Can you disprove Christianity or the Bible?

Open Challenge: I know a King James Bible, Charismatic Christian. His name is Jethro. Present your best arguments against Christianity or the Bible. I will post Jethro's response to your argument. We work at a warehouse. He doesn't believe in the Internet, but he does believe in defending the Bible.

An Example Of Jethro's Apologetics: I presented Jethro with the following contradiction: How many horsemen did David capture? 700 ( 2 Samuel 8:4 ) or 7000 ( 1 Chronicles 18:4 ) ? Jethro's response: The authors employed different styles of arithmetic!


Jethro: Bring it on. I will smash your arguments!

[1213]

… End of world prophecies based on the Bible …has never happened.

What end of world prophesy has not happened that should have happened already? And why do you think it should have happened?

…Yes, I believe that Christianity can be disproved, and rather easily, too….

In a way it is nice that you are optimistic.

If you could disprove it, you would have already done that and be a celebrated atheist and considered the god of atheists. But no, you fail the same way as all atheists with delusions of their own greatness.

Don't worry, you can still give up delusions and come to the light. It is not a bad thing to admit when you have been wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

… End of world prophecies based on the Bible …has never happened.

What end of world prophesy has not happened that should have happened already? And why do you think it should have happened?

…Yes, I believe that Christianity can be disproved, and rather easily, too….

In a way it is nice that you are optimistic.

If you could disprove it, you would have already done that and be a celebrated atheist and considered the god of atheists. But no, you fail the same way as all atheists with delusions of their own greatness.

Don't worry, you can still give up delusions and come to the light. It is not a bad thing to admit when you have been wrong.

Trying for 2nd coming denial? No, while that Ought to have happenned before the 2nd c was out, Apologists can still claim it is open - ended.

No, it is others with definite dates given. The 'net doesn't give a list but I saw of course the maya calendar, the old JW end of world claim, in my time the BCM ambassador end of world claim that made me reject Christian Fundamentalist claims, Harold Camping was mentioned, the Blood Moon, that comet, a bit of Millenium panic - not all these Bible relayed - and that one about the USA splitting in half. I did mention Biblical ones. It is not so much the Bible, but humans Interpreting the Bible. Their credit has long run out.

A number of matters I have proven, and you could not in the end counter them, and just let them drop.

Daylight before the sun,
Tyre was rebuilt.
Nativity (I don't recall you even argued that, much)
Slavery in the Bible,
Resurrection, and I think timing of resurrection
And of course the cetan sequence.

I beat you each time and you just came back as you do now claiming not only that you didn't lose but you proved me wrong and trying to peddle me delusional faith as though it would do me good.

I'd be insulted, if it wasn't so funny..

and a p.s anticipating the cue "Where did..?"

I won' be sent off to search out where I made my case but I am happy to do it again right here on each of those debates where you got beat.

[1213]

Trying for 2nd coming denial? No, while that Ought to have happenned before the 2nd c was out, Apologists can still claim it is open - ended.

Please explain what do you mean with "2nd coming denial"?

A number of matters I have proven, and you could not in the end counter them, and just let them drop.

Daylight before the sun,
Tyre was rebuilt.
Nativity (I don't recall you even argued that, much)
Slavery in the Bible,
Resurrection, and I think timing of resurrection
And of course the cetan sequence.

I beat you each time and you just came back as you do now claiming not only that you didn't lose but you proved me wrong and trying to peddle me delusional faith as though it would do me good.

I'd be insulted, if it wasn't so funny..

and a p.s anticipating the cue "Where did..?"

I won' be sent off to search out where I made my case...

Yes, no need to go to seek something that doesn't exist. You must have some own meaning for word "prove", because you have not really proven anything, except maybe that you are consistent in making that baseless claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

Trying for 2nd coming denial? No, while that Ought to have happenned before the 2nd c was out, Apologists can still claim it is open - ended.

Please explain what do you mean with "2nd coming denial"?

A number of matters I have proven, and you could not in the end counter them, and just let them drop.

Daylight before the sun,
Tyre was rebuilt.
Nativity (I don't recall you even argued that, much)
Slavery in the Bible,
Resurrection, and I think timing of resurrection
And of course the cetan sequence.

I beat you each time and you just came back as you do now claiming not only that you didn't lose but you proved me wrong and trying to peddle me delusional faith as though it would do me good.

I'd be insulted, if it wasn't so funny..

and a p.s anticipating the cue "Where did..?"

I won' be sent off to search out where I made my case...

Yes, no need to go to seek something that doesn't exist. You must have some own meaning for word "prove", because you have not really proven anything, except maybe that you are consistent in making that baseless claim.

You just seem to be in a repeat loop of denial. I explained 2nd coming. Jesus should have returned in the lifetimes of those who were (supposedly) listening to him. Luke I believe refutes any attempts to alter the meaning by saying that some were alive in his (supposed) time though some had 'fallen asleep' (died). So, just as Luke refutes your effort to claim that Mary Magalene ran off by herself (which is in no gospel - and is totally made up) and IF the women had met Jesus on the way, Luke shows that she would have been one of them, Luke shows that the meaning of the 2nd coming was Jesus returning in the 1st or early 2nd c AD.

Hasn't happened and cannot now happen, not as the Bible says. So it has to be altered to stretch the prophecy by an elastic timeline. But to anyone not determined to be foole,d it is a failed prophecy. And not to the only one, which is significant, as Bible apologists seem to think that the effect is not cumulative.

The rest, apart from semantic fiddling about what 'prove' means (you are smart enough to know what 'reasonable doubt' means) you deny everything.

Which is fine as - as i find myself often saying with theist apologetics - it is not Winning for you because you refuse to admit you lost everry point (cue Black Knight but other seeing not only that the Bible critic has the best army but how bad denialist Bible apologetics look.

Like i say, I.m willing to do thos fails again to prove my point, as if I hadn't done it several times before now, and the thing is, if you prove speciation once, it validates the whole. With the Bible...ok at a pinch the nativity can be thrown out as 'not doctrinally necessary', as I recall one apologist using as an evasion) but the Resurrection - nearly as bad - brings down the whole eglise, if it collapses.

[1213]

...Jesus should have returned in the lifetimes of those who were (supposedly) listening to him. Luke I believe refutes any attempts to alter the meaning by saying that some were alive in his (supposed) time though some had 'fallen asleep' (died). So, just as Luke refutes your effort to claim that Mary Magalene ran off by herself (which is in no gospel - and is totally made up) and IF the women had met Jesus on the way, Luke shows that she would have been one of them, Luke shows that the meaning of the 2nd coming was Jesus returning in the 1st or early 2nd c AD.

With that much misunderstanding, you can make any text look wrong. But, why do you think you interpretation, which makes the story look wrong, would be the right? Can you give any good reason why others should replace reasonable understanding of the text with your version that makes it look wrong?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Jesus should have returned in the lifetimes of those who were (supposedly) listening to him. Luke I believe refutes any attempts to alter the meaning by saying that some were alive in his (supposed) time though some had 'fallen asleep' (died). So, just as Luke refutes your effort to claim that Mary Magalene ran off by herself (which is in no gospel - and is totally made up) and IF the women had met Jesus on the way, Luke shows that she would have been one of them, Luke shows that the meaning of the 2nd coming was Jesus returning in the 1st or early 2nd c AD.

With that much misunderstanding, you can make any text look wrong. But, why do you think you interpretation, which makes the story look wrong, would be the right? Can you give any good reason why others should replace reasonable understanding of the text with your version that makes it look wrong?

Because that is what the text says, and anyone reading it would understand that and see an Interpretation of it as something else as just an excuse for not accepting that it was wrong. It is clear to all that the choice in between understanding what the Bible plainly says (at least when someone troubles to point it out) and the denial that the faithful do to evade such an unwelcome result - the Bible is not true, reliable, trustworthy, free of error and contradiction no a valid record of what Jesus did.

[1213]

...Jesus should have returned in the lifetimes of those who were (supposedly) listening to him. Luke I believe refutes any attempts to alter the meaning by saying that some were alive in his (supposed) time though some had 'fallen asleep' (died). So, just as Luke refutes your effort to claim that Mary Magalene ran off by herself (which is in no gospel - and is totally made up) and IF the women had met Jesus on the way, Luke shows that she would have been one of them, Luke shows that the meaning of the 2nd coming was Jesus returning in the 1st or early 2nd c AD.

With that much misunderstanding, you can make any text look wrong. But, why do you think you interpretation, which makes the story look wrong, would be the right? Can you give any good reason why others should replace reasonable understanding of the text with your version that makes it look wrong?

Because that is what the text says...

Sorry, I don't think you are accurate enough.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Jesus should have returned in the lifetimes of those who were (supposedly) listening to him. Luke I believe refutes any attempts to alter the meaning by saying that some were alive in his (supposed) time though some had 'fallen asleep' (died). So, just as Luke refutes your effort to claim that Mary Magalene ran off by herself (which is in no gospel - and is totally made up) and IF the women had met Jesus on the way, Luke shows that she would have been one of them, Luke shows that the meaning of the 2nd coming was Jesus returning in the 1st or early 2nd c AD.

With that much misunderstanding, you can make any text look wrong. But, why do you think you interpretation, which makes the story look wrong, would be the right? Can you give any good reason why others should replace reasonable understanding of the text with your version that makes it look wrong?

Because that is what the text says...

Sorry, I don't think you are accurate enough.

That is what is says. What I think you mean is that I don't interpret it in the way you do, by changing the meaning, making stuff up and denying what it actually says.

But that doesn't matter, because your denial isn't what counts, but the Case, and your denial, invention and fiddling of what the Bible actually says is just an example to those whose minds are still open, of how Bible apologetics misleads them.

They are looking for something better than "Sorry, I disagree with you, therefore i win". But to me it is just more evidence if the basic illogic of Religious apologetics; faithbased assumption that the god - claim is the default theory and it is not.

Of course, it is for the believer but, as I have said before it isn't all about them and their faith, even if they think it is. I still say the Method of religious Faith is even more interesting that the religious apologetics themselves, which are generally derivative, old hat and denialist.

Now..what was the topic again? Ah yes, disproving Christianity. Well, the illogic, denial and dirty tricks doesn't help...IF, if these are pointed out as popvox knows, telling lies can be very effective, IF one can silence any other voice.

But of course, to me, the Pillar, support and arch of Christianity has been the capstone of the corner, or rather, centre of the arch that holds the whole blooming thing up. The resurrection. If that goes, it all goes. And brethren and sistren, I truly believe that terminal contradiction is the key and proof that there was no resurrection - not as the Gospels have it, anyway.

So let them deny, dismiss and deprecate as well as claim, conceal and cobble together in hopes to make work what doesn't. The truth will out eventually

[Purple Knight]

You can't disprove that magical things happen, you can just say they probably don't. Maybe Jesus did walk on water or raise the dead. For all we know, we'll someday be able to raise the dead and walk on water too. Yesterday's magic is tomorrow's science, if we're making progress. If we're regressing, yesterday's science will be tomorrow's magic. Curtains come down, versus more curtains go up. Maybe when all the curtains come down, there's still magic.

To me this is a distractive issue and it doesn't matter whether God or Jesus existed, or whether they had or have magic powers. Though frankly the magic powers thing is a red flag and indicates to me that in the case this is all true, whatever being is at the top, actually believes in might-makes-right - and that's not morality. That's tyranny. Though you could say that because the people at the time were primitive, it might have been necessary toperform supernatural feats for them, because there's a legitimate question of what to do if the people believe in might-makes-right, because there might not be a way to break them out of that except prove you are the mightiest god, and then teach them actual right from wrong.

You disprove Christianity by unmaking God as a villain. Doesn't matter if he's powerful, even omnipotent.

[1213]

That is what is says. What I think you mean is that I don't interpret it in the way you do, by changing the meaning, making stuff up and denying what it actually says.

But that doesn't matter, because your denial isn't what counts, but the Case, and your denial, invention and fiddling of what the Bible actually says is just an example to those whose minds are still open, of how Bible apologetics misleads them.

Ok, so, maybe you should show the scripture and tell what is really means?