V
Valke2
Guest
What do you mean, “if”?
- Status
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Good answer.It’s kind of like asking If Oxygen did not exist, what would we breathe
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
In Sikh Gurdwaras they speak Punjabi. Its a pretty difficult language to learn, I’m struggling with it myself right now
S
swariffin
Guest
I will still looking for the truth of God, given many options and sources to check. At least I will continue to keep reasoning. For sure, I would still be swariffin not AgnosTheist, but I would still have brothers such as AgnosTheist, Montalban, InJesus, Demaria, MannyFit, Notself, Paarsurrey, Hamba2han, etc, to whom I can discuss about what my believe and theirs. I wonder if the Forum will still carry the name “Catholic Answers” given Agnos’ condition.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Well I guess my answer would depend on whether or not something occurred that caused some other choice to seem correct. If not then I’d probably just stay Christian. I like who I am as a Christian and if Christianity is a lie I find it a beautiful one.
H
hamba2han
Guest
I did a somewhat similar poll on another online forum not too long ago, only I worded it differently.
The question that I posed then was – If you lived in a world where there are only two beliefs i.e. either Islam or atheism, that you could choose from… and with absolutely NO discrimination whatsoever between them from the secular powers that be… then which of the two would you choose?
Virtually none of those who responded then answered that they would become Muslims i.e. they would choose not to believe in God at all rather than choose Islam… and so the result of this poll does not really come as a surprise to me.
It is not difficult at all to realise that the real reason why most people do not willingly choose the Truth of Islam is because of PRIDE i.e. the very same thing that got Satan thrown out of Paradise.
The question that I posed then was – If you lived in a world where there are only two beliefs i.e. either Islam or atheism, that you could choose from… and with absolutely NO discrimination whatsoever between them from the secular powers that be… then which of the two would you choose?
Virtually none of those who responded then answered that they would become Muslims i.e. they would choose not to believe in God at all rather than choose Islam… and so the result of this poll does not really come as a surprise to me.
It is not difficult at all to realise that the real reason why most people do not willingly choose the Truth of Islam is because of PRIDE i.e. the very same thing that got Satan thrown out of Paradise.
S
sandmountainsli
Guest
I would say
“Howdy Jews! Hope you got a little extra room”
WP
“Howdy Jews! Hope you got a little extra room”
WP
B
birdsong
Guest
this has to be one of the silliest questions ever !
first of all, how can Christianity ever be proven false?
once you come up with a sound and valid method/rationale to prove Christianity to be false, then you can sincerely/legitimately ask such a question!
so the challenge for you AgnosTheist is to illuminate us on how to undoubtedly and unmistakeably prove Christianity false! until then, your question sounds more like an attempt to create stupid polemic and controversy
first of all, how can Christianity ever be proven false?
once you come up with a sound and valid method/rationale to prove Christianity to be false, then you can sincerely/legitimately ask such a question!
so the challenge for you AgnosTheist is to illuminate us on how to undoubtedly and unmistakeably prove Christianity false! until then, your question sounds more like an attempt to create stupid polemic and controversy
R
RomanCrusader
Guest
Agnostic theist I guess.
I
inthecloud
Guest
I become either a philosphical theist or deist. Thats what I’m doing now but I decided to give christianity a try.
I give Unitarian Universalism or Judaism a try.
If I cease to believe in G-D i become a Zen Buddist.
I give Unitarian Universalism or Judaism a try.
If I cease to believe in G-D i become a Zen Buddist.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
This one is confusing. Are you asking the question along the lines of:
**What would you do if truth was wrong?
**
or
If you had to pick a religion besides Christianity, which is the best one?
If the first question, then I’d implode.
And if the second question, I’d go to a philosophical religion, probably Buddhist or something.
J
jblake
Guest
hamba2han;:
For starters, the Six Pillars of Islam are contradicted in tota by the Q’ran. (For those that claim that there are only five pillars of Islam, look at what the sixth one is, and understand why it was removed — politics is the sole reason for the existence of Islam.)
Secondly, all of the archaeological evidence indicates that Mohammed never existed.
I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
xan
joanthon
How about the fact that Islam is a demonstrably false religion?
For starters, the Six Pillars of Islam are contradicted in tota by the Q’ran. (For those that claim that there are only five pillars of Islam, look at what the sixth one is, and understand why it was removed — politics is the sole reason for the existence of Islam.)
Secondly, all of the archaeological evidence indicates that Mohammed never existed.
I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
xan
joanthon
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
the preannouncement of Christ guarantees the factuality of Catholic Christianity.
J
jblake
Guest
birdsong;:
This one is going to be very hard to prove, because both Christian and Jewish sources claim that he was crucified on the Cross. (IIRC, It wasn’t until The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ that there is a non-Indian source that makes that claim.)
a] ii) Provide an objective demonstration that Jesus did not die on the Cross.
I’m not sure how to do this one. Whilst there is theoretical support for such a claim, the hard part is finding evidence for either, if not both of the following propositions:
I’ve seen references to a Sanskrit manuscript that makes the claim that he survived crucification. I don’t remember the name of that manuscript though.
One major issue with the Indian sources is that claim he either survived, or was not crucified, is that the furtherest back they can be traced is roughly one millennium. The Mar Thomist Church can point to a documented history that goes back to roughly the middle of the First Century.
b)Provide an objective demonstration that Jesus was never born;
The only group that might be capable of doing so, are the mythists. Their position requires that one reject all evidence that does not support their theory, on the grounds that it contradicts their theory, and hence there is no possible way for that evidence to be either accurate, and genuine.
The real irony here is if the Shroud of Turin, Longinuis’ Spear, Veronica’s handkerchief, and a couple of other, similar artifacts have DNA on them, that can be tested, and it all turns out to be identical. Going one step further, DNA can be profiled for both ethnicity, and when in time the individual lived. If there is enough DNA for those tests to be run, and the results match the expected “First century Jewish male”, then we have very strong circumstantial evidence that the artifacts are of Jesus.
c) Demonstrate that Paul never existed;
This position is asserted by mythists, based on the fact that there is no documentation of Paul, outside of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. IOW, they “prove” it by using an absence of data to affirm non-existence.
Unfortunately for the mythists, we do have a first century handwriting sample of at least one of his scribes. Whilst in and of itself that doesn’t mean much, it does tend to discredit the “the epistles were second century forgeries” theory.
d) Demonstrate that Mary of Magdala never existed;
This position is asserted by mythists, based on the fact that there is no documentation of Mary Magdala, outside of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. IOW, they “prove” it by using an absence of data to affirm non-existence.
e) Demonstrate that Peter never existed;
This position is asserted by mythists, based on the fact that there is no documentation of Peter, outside of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. IOW, they “prove” it by using an absence of data to affirm non-existence.
There is this not-so-insignificant building in Rome that tends to discredit this proposition. There is a matter of roughly a 300 year gap for which there is nothing preserving the integrity of the chain of evidence.
A second approach is to demonstrate that the Bible was written long after Christians claim it was written;
A third approach is to demonstrate that whilst the characters did physically exist, their teachings and practices are not in accordance with what is in the Bible;
xan
jonathon
a] i) Provide an objective demonstration that Jesus was not on the Cross;
This one is going to be very hard to prove, because both Christian and Jewish sources claim that he was crucified on the Cross. (IIRC, It wasn’t until The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ that there is a non-Indian source that makes that claim.)
a] ii) Provide an objective demonstration that Jesus did not die on the Cross.
I’m not sure how to do this one. Whilst there is theoretical support for such a claim, the hard part is finding evidence for either, if not both of the following propositions:
- people routinely survived crucifixion;
- Jesus survived Crucifixion;
I’ve seen references to a Sanskrit manuscript that makes the claim that he survived crucification. I don’t remember the name of that manuscript though.
One major issue with the Indian sources is that claim he either survived, or was not crucified, is that the furtherest back they can be traced is roughly one millennium. The Mar Thomist Church can point to a documented history that goes back to roughly the middle of the First Century.
b)Provide an objective demonstration that Jesus was never born;
The only group that might be capable of doing so, are the mythists. Their position requires that one reject all evidence that does not support their theory, on the grounds that it contradicts their theory, and hence there is no possible way for that evidence to be either accurate, and genuine.
The real irony here is if the Shroud of Turin, Longinuis’ Spear, Veronica’s handkerchief, and a couple of other, similar artifacts have DNA on them, that can be tested, and it all turns out to be identical. Going one step further, DNA can be profiled for both ethnicity, and when in time the individual lived. If there is enough DNA for those tests to be run, and the results match the expected “First century Jewish male”, then we have very strong circumstantial evidence that the artifacts are of Jesus.
c) Demonstrate that Paul never existed;
This position is asserted by mythists, based on the fact that there is no documentation of Paul, outside of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. IOW, they “prove” it by using an absence of data to affirm non-existence.
Unfortunately for the mythists, we do have a first century handwriting sample of at least one of his scribes. Whilst in and of itself that doesn’t mean much, it does tend to discredit the “the epistles were second century forgeries” theory.
d) Demonstrate that Mary of Magdala never existed;
This position is asserted by mythists, based on the fact that there is no documentation of Mary Magdala, outside of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. IOW, they “prove” it by using an absence of data to affirm non-existence.
e) Demonstrate that Peter never existed;
This position is asserted by mythists, based on the fact that there is no documentation of Peter, outside of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. IOW, they “prove” it by using an absence of data to affirm non-existence.
There is this not-so-insignificant building in Rome that tends to discredit this proposition. There is a matter of roughly a 300 year gap for which there is nothing preserving the integrity of the chain of evidence.
One approach is to demonstrate that none of the characters mentioned in the Bible existed.
A second approach is to demonstrate that the Bible was written long after Christians claim it was written;
A third approach is to demonstrate that whilst the characters did physically exist, their teachings and practices are not in accordance with what is in the Bible;
xan
jonathon
H
Holly3278
Guest
None of the above. Christianity will never go wrong.
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
If something that is true is, for the sake of argument, not true, what is true instead?
Someone else addressed this idea earlier in the thread.
If Christianity was wrong about the existence of God, then I would reject all theistic religions and become an atheist.
If Christianity was right about the existence of a divine being, but wrong about there only being one of them, I would reject all monotheistic religions, and study the various polytheistic religions, in an attempt to determine their truth.
If Christianity was right about the existence of God, but wrong about Jesus being God in the flesh, I would study the other monotheistic religions. If it could be shown that the Old Testament Scriptures are true, then I would become Jewish. If it could be shown that they were corrupted and filled with slanderous lies about the prophets, then I would consider Islam. I would also see if there are any other monotheistic faiths, and see if their claims are true.
If Christianity was wrong about everything (including the belief that we should love our neighbor and do good deeds), then civilization would completely collapse, and I probably wouldn’t be spending any time studying religions.
Someone else addressed this idea earlier in the thread.
If Christianity was wrong about the existence of God, then I would reject all theistic religions and become an atheist.
If Christianity was right about the existence of a divine being, but wrong about there only being one of them, I would reject all monotheistic religions, and study the various polytheistic religions, in an attempt to determine their truth.
If Christianity was right about the existence of God, but wrong about Jesus being God in the flesh, I would study the other monotheistic religions. If it could be shown that the Old Testament Scriptures are true, then I would become Jewish. If it could be shown that they were corrupted and filled with slanderous lies about the prophets, then I would consider Islam. I would also see if there are any other monotheistic faiths, and see if their claims are true.
If Christianity was wrong about everything (including the belief that we should love our neighbor and do good deeds), then civilization would completely collapse, and I probably wouldn’t be spending any time studying religions.
M
MattG
Guest
Many posts here come close to the correct answer, which, IMO is If Christianity itself is wrong, we wouldn’t be.
D
DLC
Guest
If Christianity is wrong then we are still in our sins, most miserable, and on our way to hell.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
Thanks.
- Status