I think, a thousand years in the future, that when Jesus still hasn’t returned the faithful will finally realize that he isn’t coming back.
What do others think falsifies or will falsify Christianity?
I also think that if there was a loving, caring, personal God who watches over us and has a plan for our life, there wouldn’t be three year old children in cancer wards. That’s not love.
One last point. Evolution falsifies Christianity. How can you reconcile the Abba, the loving Father of the New Testament with the reality of the voracious wasteful process of natural selection? If there was no Fall then what need for Redemption? If no first Adam what need for the second? Paul’s entire argument in Romans completely falls apart. Death didn’t come because of sin; death was inherent in the process from the beginning. No wonder fundamentalists reject evolution. They understand that accepting it undermines everything. So-called Christian “liberals" accept evolution because they can’t deny the evidence and they regard the process of evolution as the way God created life. But they haven’t thought it through. A god who used evolution to create life would not be the loving Abba but an unspeakable monster. Look at how evolution by natural selection actually works.
I think, a thousand years in the future, that when Jesus still hasn't returned the faithful will finally realize that he isn't coming back. What do others think falsifies or will falsify Christianity?Nothing will falsify it for believers. I think it comes down to whether you're a rationalist or not, because if you're a rationalist, of course you see that faith is falsifiable. If you're not a rationalist, the chances are slim.
I also think that if there was a loving, caring, personal God who watches over us and has a plan for our life, there wouldn't be three year old children in cancer wards. That's not love.There must be some variation with this concept of a loving god. My understanding of it is that god is capable of benevolence and malevolence, not some eternally nice deity.
Religious belief seems to thrive in the face of adversity, believers would seem to get comfort from their belief in God.
So the idea that suffering would prove the non-existence or malevolence of God does not seem to work.
Perhaps the world is more complicated than that.
I also think that if there was a loving, caring, personal God who watches over us and has a plan for our life, there wouldn't be three year old children in cancer wards. That's not love.There must be some variation with this concept of a loving god. My understanding of it is that god is capable of benevolence and malevolence, not some eternally nice deity. If one is very generorous of character, some of the verses in the oral tradition of the OT could be interpreted as story telling and the concept of God's wrath might indicate an implaccable God. Spiritual ethical allegories such as, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap", is not different in principle from the more secular ethic, "All knowledge is vain save when there is work", or even the scientific definitions of "potential energy" or "U = mgh" The concept of graphically (illustrative) description of certain inherent and fundamental universal laws from which we have learned and gained wisdom is often used to explain complicated abstract ideas, even in science. But whereas science tells its story without moral judgement, religion tells only the personal moral aspect of one's relationship to the universe. That would be fine, if it had stayed clear of the science. These religious spiritual allegories have become so corrupted by literal interpretation that the entire scriptures have become useless. In law that would be the secular moral (legal) tenet, "Fruit of a poisoned tree". Of course it has nothing to do with orchards. I find a certain irony in the biblical allegory of Adam and Eve eating the "Fruit of the tree of knowledge" and "knew shame" (subjective), IOW, "Became intelligently self-aware" (objetive). There is nothing wrong with an informed moral guide to a "fruitful" life. It is when this guide trespasses on scientific knowledge, that it's messages become corrupted by subjective interpretations and emotions. When the messages lead to violence, it is clearly not morally defensible either.
The problem with your question is that it is open to multiple interpretations (based upon the responses I am seeing). There are three different things: 1 - Christianity 2 - Organized religion in general 3 - Belief in a god or gods. At least I see them as different and distinct things.
If you are looking for an opinion as to what will once and for all determine Christianity to be false (number 1 and I am assuming you are not looking for Christianity to be proven false while Islam, Judaism or whatever proven to be the one true faith) or the existence of a god or gods (number 3), it will never happen.
The better question is: When will organized religion cease to exist?
The answer to that, in my opinion, is not that there will be some defining moment but rather an evolutionary process in which mankind will reach the stage wherein reliance upon some supernatural crutch will gradually but entirely diminish. The process is underway. Generation by generation it will become less and less important until it is all but a memory. 1,000 years? 10,000 years? More? Who can say?
Jesus was supposed to come back 2,000 years ago. His absence hasn’t bothered Christians much.
As MA said, rationalists can see through Christianity quite easily. I’m not going to look up the Bible verses right now but a long time ago, using material in the Bible, I figured out the concept of the Christian god is logically impossible. The Bible states:
God is love.
Love is not jealous.
I am a jealous god.
Only two of those three statements can be true.
Jesus was a cool guy. Took on a major task. Did a good job.
John76, you are asking about a thousand years from now. Take the last twenty thousand years and follow the meaning of “God". First “God" was gnostic, it was a meaning that meant the “knowledge of man". And Jesus understood that and preach that in his gnostic teachings. So up until sometime around six thousand years, est. Mankind was in the Age of Gnostic (knowledge). Then the Age of Deities started, and you can follow the evolution of gods. We are now starting to head out of the Age of Deities and back into the Age of Gnostic. The internet is now the main path leading the way back into the Age of Gnostic again.
As far as Jesus coming back. More people will understand Jesus’s gnostic teachings and understand that he had several different groups of belief to preach to and used several different methods based upon which group he was talking to. And most likely you will see people realizing that the bible’s Christian teachings do not always agree with the teaching of Jesus.
All my life I have been hearing the world is coming to an end and God is coming. The bible itself was put together at a time when the world was coming to an end.
I think Mid Atlantic said it best, “Nothing will falsify it for believers."
Nothing will falsify it for believers. I think it comes down to whether you're a rationalist or not, because if you're a rationalist, of course you see that faith is falsifiable. If you're not a rationalist, the chances are slim.I don't think "falsify for believers" is a standard that needs to be met. You might as well ask can a deaf person hear you. Falsifiability is not a philosophical question. But to hone the question a little better, it should be, "are the claims of Christianity falsifiable", and that's a lot easier. A few simple ones: Born of a virgin: false Talked to people after he died: false Performed miracles: false Will return: false Those pretty well destroy current theology. The mythology remains and churches might survive that transition, but they are fighting a losing battle right now.
Wait. Which Christianity are you talking about? The Pope one? The ones that think the Pope one isn’t even Christianity? The snake talker ones? The Muhammad one that considers Jesus a prophet from Allah? Wait, wait, which one?
Wait. Which Christianity are you talking about? The Pope one? The ones that think the Pope one isn't even Christianity? The snake talker ones? The Muhammad one that considers Jesus a prophet from Allah? Wait, wait, which one?Every religion which assigns supernatural, non-verifiable properties and powers to any God, prophet, messenger, priest, minister. nun, acolyte. While individually these people may be good people and sincere in their beliefs, their belief in a motivated deity are non-falsifiable. Personally I have no problem with any belief which fosters positive humanistic activities. My problem is when a religion advocates violence in the name of "divine right" and believers assume the "individual right" to enforce "God's Commands". At trhat point falsification of that religion becomes necessary in oreder to demonstrate to the believers the error of their ways.
I have never heard from God he is silent tome but my brothers said he talked to him. I began to question this when I found out Santa Clause wasn’t real. How have Muslims and Christianity grown so large with a church on every corner. What I don’t understand is why I question the existence of god all my life. Why can’t I accept his existence?
Why can’t I accept his existence?I'd suggest that it's probably because you've weighed the evidence and it proves to you that the notion of a personal god who intervenes in our lives is a fairytale that originates and prospers within our own oh so fertile imaginations - but not in the real world of atoms and stuff and time relentlessly flowing into the future.
So the great beyond we current and past humans won’t know anything.
Christianity is not “falsifiable” in any way and cannot ever be. People in this thread are confusing “people stop believing” with “it has been falsified”. Even if God went the way of Zeus it just means nobody believes it any more, not that it has been falsified. The gods of Olympus have never been falsified and, like any religion based in the supernatural, cannot be.
For something to be falsifiable there must be a way to test that thing so that, if it is not true, we can show that. There is no way to test a deity. You can’t put him in a beaker with a chemical solution and look for a color change or anything. Christianity can never be proven “false” because assuming it is false then none of the magics claimed by it are real, so there is nothing to test. And if it is true then of course it couldn’t be proved false.
Why can’t I accept his (God's) existence?Maybe you have intellectual integrity.
Jesus is about to coming, because of you and many others that don’t trust in Him, by His mercy before He comes He will sent His true servant that can answered all the BIBLICAL.
God has already a plan before this world has fall in sin.
Before that you exist, you was already in His mind to come in existence.
Before you have born, God knows already your name and prepare you to be His servant.
Today if you are still alive, don’t hardened your heart.
There is still hope.
Somebody once suggested that myths should be approached as if you are an investigative journalist visiting the scene. What makes you suspicious? For a start upon being told of the resurrection, my first thought would be that this is his party piece. He has already resurrected three people now he’s doing himself.
For me the one that really smells bad is the blind man. For a start, he takes him some distance away. Then he has to spit in the guy’s eye. This is the man who raises the dead, feeds multitudes and walks on water. How come he is now reduced to unsavory practices?
Son of god, so what is the relevance of Joseph’s genealogy? Quite simply this story does not hang together.