How can we prove christianity?

[Peter_Plato]

Knowing the those you love are suffering is enough to induce suffering for a Buddhist. Even just being separated from those you love is enough to induce suffering.

rossum

The obvious answer then would be not to love others, but simply be ambivalent to them in order to spare yourself the pain. Furthermore, it would seem a reason to dissuade others from loving altogether, even to dissuade them from loving oneself to spare them suffering. Sounds like a very impersonal, disconnected mode of being would be the highest state of existence for a Buddhist. Not caring and not caring if you are cared about would be idyllic to spare everyone from suffering.

The Christian answer is that suffering ought not be a disincentive to caring about others. Loving beyond and through suffering and tolerating it for the sake of others would be more heroic than making an avoidance of suffering the goal.

 

[Ion]

Knowing the those you love are suffering is enough to induce suffering for a Buddhist. Even just being separated from those you love is enough to induce suffering.

The Christian version of heaven is eternal suffering to a Buddhist.

rossum

This is why the law says: First “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; Second: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
If somebody I love dies in sin then the person is against the Lord and life and is against my love for God and for life; i’m sorry for that person but not to the point to join in the Hell.
Buddist love is weird; it is prideful (if you love that person then the person is ok) and seeks for consumation (we feel good together) . The second point is the worst as you do not have anything in yourself to opose it.

On second thought becomes like that without God. If you look at how we love and what love is for us, then it is very clear that we were created by God; without him we make a nonsense from it.

 

[Kaninchen]

You are making an excellent point for me.

There is NO PROOF of Christianity. To think that there is shows a very shallow understanding of your fellow man.

What we DO have is reasonable arguments in favor of Christianity, but it first of all depends on whether your listener has similar first principles. IOW, people are all different, and are coming from various first principles that are the foundations for all of their beliefs and conclusions.

So the topic of this thread is really a bust.

We can rather intellectualise things though. You and I, veterans no doubt of many such discussions can agree that there’s ‘no proof/disproof’ and, indeed, there isn’t. On the other hand, many people have accepted the ‘proofs’ of people like Josh McDowell or the ‘trilemma’ - so a shallow understanding of one’s ‘fellow man’ obviously works at one level.

The mistake is to think that this will work every time and that arguments that one uses to bolster one’s own beliefs will convince others, of course.

 

[rossum]

This is why the law says: First “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; Second: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Buddhism only has the second of those: “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakara vyakarana sutra, 91. God is included in the “others”, so the first of the Christian rules is redundant.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The obvious answer then would be not to love others, but simply be ambivalent to them in order to spare yourself the pain.

Not ambivalent, but detached. Detachment, or non-clinging, is one of the Buddhist virtues. We should not cling to things because everything changes and whatever you are clinging to will change even as you try to keep it unchanged. That is what causes the suffering. We tend to cling to our mental image of something and as things change, our mental image of that thing gets more and more out of step with the actual thing. That gap between our mental image and the actual thing is what causes the problem.

If we do not cling to the mental image, but allow it to change also, then we reduce the gap between the two and so reduce our suffering.

rossum

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Actually, along the lines of proof, Jesus said, “If you don’t believe my words, then believe because of the works I do.” He did many miracles, even does them today, and these are indeed proof for the honest person.

But remember, many of the Jews that witnessed the works didn’t believe. IOW, the works were not PROOFS, they were arguments if favor of belief to the soul seeking Truth. But even then, we might keep in mind Saul of Tarsus, who was a devout Jew, and studied under Hillel. He didn’t see ANY proofs in the works or the message until he was knocked off his horse by Jesus Himself!

Those first principles which undergird all of our beliefs cause one person to see a “proof” (of what he already believes) while another person sees trickery or fables.

We must first get below the surface to the first principles and see if we can understand our opponent better before we offer our own cherished “proofs.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

We can rather intellectualise things though. You and I, veterans no doubt of many such discussions can agree that there’s ‘no proof/disproof’ and, indeed, there isn’t. On the other hand, many people have accepted the ‘proofs’ of people like Josh McDowell or the ‘trilemma’ - so a shallow understanding of one’s ‘fellow man’ obviously works at one level.

The mistake is to think that this will work every time and that arguments that one uses to bolster one’s own beliefs will convince others, of course.

Good points.

Some WILL accept the proofs, if they have similar first principles. But that is a shotgun approach. It also leads to the kind of false thinking that engenders this type of thread. Perhaps the OP really meant to say “How can we defend Christianity.” But with the wording “How can we prove Christianity” it sounds arrogant and ignorant of the great spectrum of first principles that guide religious thought in others.

After all we might also consider how in the past Muslims “proved” Islam to Christians and Jews with state benefits and other rewards.

 

[Ion]

Buddhism only has the second of those: “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakara vyakarana sutra, 91. God is included in the “others”, so the first of the Christian rules is redundant.

rossum

By contrary, gives meaning to the second. God included in “others” is not even reasonable.
Without Him there is no fulfilling love, but only a source for disappointment evildoing and suffering.

 

[rossum]

By contrary, gives meaning to the second. God included in “others” is not even reasonable.

I am not God, so therefore, from my point of view, all the gods and other spiritual beings, as well as animals, are included in “others”.

Without Him there is no fulfilling love, but only a source for disappointment evildoing and suffering.

That is the perspective of the Abrahamic religions. It is not the perspective of Buddhism. If God made everything then He is responsible for everything. Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

If you give God the credit for making the good stuff in the universe, then you have to give him the blame for the nasty stuff as well. Otherwise there will be more than one creator, with the other creator(s) making the nasty stuff. It seems to me that is more of the Zoroastrian approach, rather than the Christian approach.

rossum

 

[Godluvsu]

“my” REASONS TO TRUST THE BIBLE

1. Historically the Bible has been verified over and over through books and archeological digs. Many in the archeological field believed much/most/all of the Old Testament was just stories or legends, but they have found so many things (and still are). There is actually a magazine devoted to it (maybe more) I think it is called Biblical Archeological Review. I used to get it. It had some amazing finds.
2. Miracles (written/verified by non-Christians outside the Bible too Even Jewish sources that were not in favor of Christianity, acknowledged the miracles)
3. Fulfilled prophesies - both about Jesus and other things in the OT and NT. There are books written about this…amazing.
4. Changed lives (even though other religions can make this claim, it is still an awesome thing)
   5 The resurrection-men will willingly die for something they believe to be true…but the disciples knew whether they were telling the truth and people don’t die for something they know to be a lie…and almost all of the disciples died a martyrs death)
5. So many authors, over thousands of yrs, telling one consistent story…God’s love and salvation.
6. Knowledge revealed in the Bible that the authors would have had no way to know…ie, the earth is a sphere, the number of stars, stars “sing”…many more too
7. Consistency with secular writers of the day over many issues
8. Though many have tried to destroy God’s Word and Christianity…they have failed
9. The Bible has more extant copies than any other work in ancient history (There are more copies complete and partial then all of the ancient works put together
10. Lack of ancient literature claiming that Jeseus didn’t do miracles, that he didn’t do other things.
    12.They told the faults of leaders…when people are trying to paint a good picture of people, they don’t include the faults. (Abraham, David, Moses, Noah, Peter, Paul…etc
    13 When they compared older copies to newer ones, the stories didn’t become more and more embellished like legends do
11. The Church Christ founded said it is The Word of God.

I went through an 8 month struggle with with why I should trust the Bible.
After this time of study, here were my reasons to trust the Bible:

 

[Timi_Celcer]

youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ

Watch this. William Lane Craig one of the best Christian apologist today about the evidence of Jesus ressuruction.

 

[jorge_carrillo]

hi

I want know, what is the formal way to prove that Christianity is the true religion.

Lets think some one believes in God and believes that God may give religions to people, but he didn’t choose any religion yet. What is catholic formal way to prove that true religion is Christianity?

In addition, please introduce me some pdf book in internet that proves catholic beliefs for non-christians.

The best way that Christianity defends its self is through the Bible, through the Word of God. I am Catholic, And as many here I also know that Philosophical discussion on the existence of God only can end in the Logical conclusion that The very existence of everything needs a transcendent Creator. But To Prove that such Transcendent creator is God Father, Son and Holy Spirit you have to proclaim the word of God.

Now, The sacred scripture is really large in length, so to give a first hard punch I recommend you to start with the concordance between The Prophesies of Daniel, Isaiah and Jeremy and in parallel check the concordance with factual History. Now if those great prophets were able of foreseen the events that occurred after they prophesize, then you have the prove that they were talking in the name of the Transcendent God who revealed such future events due His omniscience.

Now those prophets have prophesies which are in completion in our very days, the capacity to understand the signs of the times is required and it also requires careful guidance in order to avoid misunderstandings.

 

[Peter_Plato]

:nope:
There is no way. You can’t prove it.
If you could, everyone would be Christian or Catholic–cased closed.

But that is not the case.

.

Assuming that every human is reasonable and absolutely compelled or motivated to accept only propositions that are true.

It is highly doubtful that murderers and thieves do what they do because no one has proven to them that murder or theft is wrong. There is a very high probability that they know both are wrong, but continue on their chosen path in spite of that knowledge. It is likewise very probable that many, if not most, individuals are not moved so much by what has been proven to be true or false, but more out of convenience or some other pragmatic consideration. It is very easy for most human beings to rationalize away truths that don’t correspond to a willed or desired outcome.

The case is decidedly not closed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wouldn’t suggest this “Can We Trust the Bible” article as a good source.
I took a quick glance and saw many errors within two minutes of reading.
The information/details given on most of the disciple’s deaths, for example. And the question of whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem…and other prophecies that may have not have been fulfilled, as well.
This source does not seem solid.

.

This is an interesting post given that you only “read” for two minutes, but in that time arrived at errors concerning the disciples deaths that were near the end of the article (Section 8 of 10) which you dispute. You must be a fast rea… ah, skimmer.

It is also interesting that you provide not a sniff of counter evidence by which a determination might be made about your claim. You simply state that there are “many errors” as if you are the ultimate authority that should be trusted just 'cause.

If any source does not seem solid, well…

 

[jorge_carrillo]

:nope:
There is no way. You can’t prove it.
If you could, everyone would be Christian or Catholic–cased closed.

But that is not the case.

.

You are wrong, We can prove it through concordance between Prophesies and historical facts that happened after such prophesies, and which are ocurring now in our days.

If not everybody is catholic is because we are bad catholics who don’t proclaim the truth of God.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Assuming that every human is reasonable and absolutely compelled or motivated to accept only propositions that are true.

It is highly doubtful that murderers and thieves do what they do because no one has proven to them that murder or theft is wrong. There is a very high probability that they know both are wrong, but continue on their chosen path in spite of that knowledge. It is likewise very probable that many, if not most, individuals are not moved so much by what has been proven to be true or false, but more out of convenience or some other pragmatic consideration. It is very easy for most human beings to rationalize away truths that don’t correspond to a willed or desired outcome.

The case is decidedly not closed.

Just because someone is “reasonable and absolutely compelled or motivated to accept only propositions that are true” will NOT guarantee their acceptance of Christianity.

Just look at the example in Acts. St. Paul was a devout and serious Jew, doing all that he could to defend his ideas of Judaism. There are MANY examples of very good men, seeking after the Truth, who were not convinced of Christianity or Catholicism, depending on your time period.

IT IS WRONG to assume that people who aren’t convinced by your arguments are either prejudiced, lazy, or willfully ignorant.

You must be sensible of other people’s first principles. Those unquestioned assumptions that underlie everything a person believes or accepts as true. That is where people must be engaged. Even then, it is not easy to overthrow someone’s first principles with mere logic or arguments. It usually takes something deeply moving for that person to suddenly question his long held first principles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isn’t it interesting that Christians are often mocked for offering explanations of our faith that are well-thought out in advance, studied and memorized? “That’s just Josh McDowell” the critic will say, or “You’re taking that from CS Lewis” or “William Lane Craig” or whoever.

Is that really a problem? Is it wrong for us to learn the best possible arguments supporting our views and to offer those arguments when confronted by a non-believer? In the New Testament we read,

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared (emphasis added) to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

If we are to be prepared, we will have studied and learned the best ways to explain why we believe that Jesus is God.

Otherwise, imagine the derision we would face from the Jew, the Buddhist or the atheist who called us to account for the hope within us, and we had nothing to say.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Just because someone is “reasonable and absolutely compelled or motivated to accept only propositions that are true” will NOT guarantee their acceptance of Christianity.

You can lead a horse to water but…

Just look at the example in Acts. St. Paul was a devout and serious Jew, doing all that he could to defend his ideas of Judaism. There are MANY examples of very good men, seeking after the Truth, who were not convinced of Christianity or Catholicism, depending on your time period.

IT IS WRONG to assume that people who aren’t convinced by your arguments are either prejudiced, lazy, or willfully ignorant.

You must be sensible of other people’s first principles. Those unquestioned assumptions that underlie everything a person believes or accepts as true. That is where people must be engaged. Even then, it is not easy to overthrow someone’s first principles with mere logic or arguments. It usually takes something deeply moving for that person to suddenly question his long held first principles.

This is another way of saying that people might not have full access to the truth and therefore might not accept it for reasons other than they are “prejudiced, lazy or willfully ignorant.” I accept that individuals might not be in a position to see or recognize the truth when they encounter it, but DaddyGirl’s point was that the truth should be and would be accepted by all merely by being the truth. I disagreed with her. It seems you are also.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Peter Plato:

I accept that individuals might not be in a position to see or recognize the truth when they encounter it, but DaddyGirl’s point was that the truth should be and would be accepted by all merely by being the truth. I disagreed with her. It seems you are also.

Yes.

I am always reminded of John Henry Newman, himself a holy and devout seeker after the Truth, even while he was an Anglican. He had Cardinal Wiseman trying to help him see the Truth in a new light. But it took hearing it over and over before he finally made the connection to his own first principles: “securus judicat orbis terrarum”

The first time he heard this he was like, “yeah, yeah, blah blah blah” But after several years, and continuing study on the question of whether Rome was the True Church, it finally clicked in one day. That was what caused the first crack to appear in his first principles. It still took much more time before Newman was convinced that Rome was truly the Church of Christ, and the Church of England was not.

If it can take someone as holy, devout, thoughtful and intelligent and J H Newman to finally see the Truth, it won’t be difficult to realize that others are just as much in his predicament.

Newman always said no one gives up his life for a logical argument.