u/Cool-Medicine-8222

Christianity has been unable to prove that it is objectively true throughout its history. There are many reasons for this but I will keep it focused on the differences between the Christian groups as proof.

Please also read my responses to common objections so that we can move towards the point that Christianity is fundamentally unable to prove its claims objectively.

Christianity is foundationally subjective

The differences between Arian vs Nicean, Orthodox vs Catholic, Catholic vs Protestant and whatever is going on in the Protestant free-for-all which culminates in Mormonism are fundamental. They have scriptural differences, they see the Trinity differently and some even question whether Jesus is even divine.

The original scriptural sources are actually documents written by biased followers of the religion, amplifying miracles and other supernatural claims (e.g. virgin birth) that were never traced directly to Jesus' own teachings. Then we have subjective translations into Greek and Latin, and then further subjective translations into English, famously the King James Bible.

This demonstrates that Christian theology is actually based on a subjective foundation that belies its 'objective' exterior. (We won't go into Christianity's "historicity" here but the conclusions here are subjectively applied by biased historians.)

Christianity cannot prove itself to itself

Additionally, successive generations of Christians can add their own ideas to the original canon, which is another cause for dispute since whatever is taken to be true is usually done via subjective consensus and political strength rather than a logically complete argument.

These are not minor disagreements - they're fundamental to the religion. For example the Arians did not believe in Jesus' divinity and after centuries they lost the debate in Nicea 325 CE. So its clear the theology, facts, evidence and logic were insufficient to resolve the issue, even after hundreds of years.

So whilst each Christian group believes that it is making logically sound arguments based on an objective reality, the logic breaks down and their claims are unpersuasive to other Christians who have their own subjective claims. So they schism

These shisms are across all aspects of Christendom from scriptural interpretations, moral outcomes, the role of women in the Church and of course, the nature of their own god.

This is proof that Christianity's subjectively-chosen foundation is not helped by their individual theologies and the theological disagreements remain unsolvable, causing formal schisms. Garbage-in, garbage out is probably more ungenerous but it makes the point that no amount of logic will help if the axioms of the systems are weak to begin with.

Common Response: Science also has disagreements

Apologists will retort that of course there are different opinions - even science has that.

However, all of science is working on the same reality and using the same methodologies to determine an objective truth. This is how science has been able to come to actual conclusions and resolve differences.

Christianity has multiple simultaneous claims that remain unresolved after centuries to this day. This is because the different groups don't share the same metaphysical universe and they don't share the same system to determine what is true or not. This is obvious because ultimately the religion is based on subjective decisions, bolstered by political strength and indoctrinated via cultural momentum.

Common Response: That doesn't mean its not true

Another apologist response is that even if there are differences, it doesn't mean that Christianity is not true. However, that is a Red Herring - whether Christianity is true or not is a different argument altogether.

Whilst this seems like a strong argument it is easily dismantled by asking the apologist to compare Arian vs Nicean vs Mormon viewpoints on Jesus, and ask them which is actually true. It generally resolves to an appeal to authority (e.g. Nicea) or, eventually, if they are honest, a personal belief.

Whether Christianity or true is not, or whether a specific Christian claim is true or not is actually not as important as the fact that Christian Theology doesn't have the means to prove things either way! As discussed above, it is impossible to come to agreements on the universe if each Christian group is not living in the same universe.

Christianity has been unable to prove that it is objectively true throughout its history. There are many reasons for this but I will keep it focused on the differences between the Christian groups as proof.

Please also read my responses to common objections so that we can move towards the point that Christianity is fundamentally unable to prove its claims objectively.

Christianity is foundationally subjective

The differences between Arian vs Nicean, Orthodox vs Catholic, Catholic vs Protestant and whatever is going on in the Protestant free-for-all which culminates in Mormonism are fundamental. They have scriptural differences, they see the Trinity differently and some even question whether Jesus is even divine.

The original scriptural sources are actually documents written by biased followers of the religion, amplifying miracles and other supernatural claims (e.g. virgin birth) that were never traced directly to Jesus' own teachings. Then we have subjective translations into Greek and Latin, and then further subjective translations into English, famously the King James Bible.

This demonstrates that Christian theology is actually based on a subjective foundation that belies its 'objective' exterior. (We won't go into Christianity's "historicity" here but the conclusions here are subjectively applied by biased historians.)

Christianity cannot prove itself to itself

Additionally, successive generations of Christians can add their own ideas to the original canon, which is another cause for dispute since whatever is taken to be true is usually done via subjective consensus and political strength rather than a logically complete argument.

These are not minor disagreements - they're fundamental to the religion. For example the Arians did not believe in Jesus' divinity and after centuries they lost the debate in Nicea 325 CE. So its clear the theology, facts, evidence and logic were insufficient to resolve the issue, even after hundreds of years.

So whilst each Christian group believes that it is making logically sound arguments based on an objective reality, the logic breaks down and their claims are unpersuasive to other Christians who have their own subjective claims. So they schism

These shisms are across all aspects of Christendom from scriptural interpretations, moral outcomes, the role of women in the Church and of course, the nature of their own god.

This is proof that Christianity's subjectively-chosen foundation is not helped by their individual theologies and the theological disagreements remain unsolvable, causing formal schisms. Garbage-in, garbage out is probably more ungenerous but it makes the point that no amount of logic will help if the axioms of the systems are weak to begin with.

Common Response: Science also has disagreements

Apologists will retort that of course there are different opinions - even science has that.

However, all of science is working on the same reality and using the same methodologies to determine an objective truth. This is how science has been able to come to actual conclusions and resolve differences.

Christianity has multiple simultaneous claims that remain unresolved after centuries to this day. This is because the different groups don't share the same metaphysical universe and they don't share the same system to determine what is true or not. This is obvious because ultimately the religion is based on subjective decisions, bolstered by political strength and indoctrinated via cultural momentum.

Common Response: That doesn't mean its not true

Another apologist response is that even if there are differences, it doesn't mean that Christianity is not true. However, that is a Red Herring - whether Christianity is true or not is a different argument altogether.

Whilst this seems like a strong argument it is easily dismantled by asking the apologist to compare Arian vs Nicean vs Mormon viewpoints on Jesus, and ask them which is actually true. It generally resolves to an appeal to authority (e.g. Nicea) or, eventually, if they are honest, a personal belief.

Whether Christianity or true is not, or whether a specific Christian claim is true or not is actually not as important as the fact that Christian Theology doesn't have the means to prove things either way! As discussed above, it is impossible to come to agreements on the universe if each Christian group is not living in the same universe.

(I'm posting this here to see if it can be steelmanned by others.)

The need for Christianity to insist on "objective" morality, historicity, and reality exposes its core philosophical weaknesses.

The insistence on the historicity of the religion, is a key claim of Christianity "proving" itself to be true. This ranges from banal claims of having occurred during a period of history or having been written by eyewitnesses all the way to co-opting secular historical techniques to draw conclusions. The biggest weakness is that the eye witnesses are promoters of the religion in the first place as evidenced by the lack of contemporaneous independent writings from an external perspective. This makes their impartiality suspect since they stand to benefit most of extraordinary claims - we see this in the introduction of the virgin birth, something that we never originally claimed by Jesus. Coupled with the propensity for self-martyrdom points to a fanatical apocalyptic cult rather than a reasoned description of actual happenings. It is this historical perspective that requires us to accurately interpret "scripture" accordingly.

Presupposing their conception of god before the argument begins. This is seen in the use of deistic apologetics to "prove" some kind of god, but hiding an unstated assumption that it happens to be the Christian conception of god that is being argued. This is seen in the many iterations of the Cosmological Argument, and all the Teleological ones.

The claim that Christianity is the only morality (Divine Command Theory) because it is 'objective' due to the source being God has multiple weaknesses. The first is that it is a circular argument. Christianity claims God is the source of morality but those claims are made in the scripture that, according to the religion, is written by God himself. So whether or not God exists, this self-anointment of being the moral source is not an objective claim: it is a subjective one made by God himself and therefore circular and invalid.

The second problem with Christian objective morality is that throughout its history Christians have been on opposing sides of many moral issues from slavery, child-marriage, homosexuality, women's role in society (and the Church). This is an ongoing debate that have constantly caused schisms as recently as today. A text that can produce contradictory results is logically inconsistent and one where even its interpretation can vary is obviously not one that is objective - the religion itself is subjective.

The claim on scriptural inerrancy is clearly false given the number of bad translations, differing interpretations on top of multiple layers of interpretation from the original Aramaic to Greek or Latin then to English.

The claim of describing an objective reality is the all the weaknesses of the above: the claims are made on faulty text by faulty humans. It is most exposed in the various Teleological arguments that use the stolen credibility of science to explain that science has 'proven' god. These arguments range from the simplistic Paley Watchmaker, which is basically saying it's so complicated, therefore God; to slightly more sophisticated ones such as the Fine Tuning Argument or Psychophysical Harmony arguments that misunderstand the science and incredibly bad probability to suggest God must have created the universe.

The claim of Christianity being the only objective description of reality is belied by the fact that there are many different interpretations of the text: with each denomination claiming to be the only truth but unable to prove it to each other. Critically, one of these disagreements is on the nature of God - the Trinity and Jesus' role in it. This by far is the greatest weakness of any claims of Christianity being objective true on anything since all of it points to a god they cannot even agree to within the religion.

Essentially the weaknesses of Christianity are exposed by it's strongest claims:

historicity is failed by actual facts on the ground that contradict the scriptural happenings. morality (DCT) is self-claimed by a deity, which is hardly 'objective' in any sense of the word. objectivity is failed by the circular nature of all of theology and apologetics. Thoughts?

The need for Christianity to insist on "objective" morality, historicity, and reality exposes its core philosophical weaknesses.

The insistence on the historicity of the religion, is a key claim of Christianity "proving" itself to be true. This ranges from banal claims of having occurred during a period of history or having been written by eyewitnesses all the way to co-opting secular historical techniques to draw conclusions. The biggest weakness is that the eye witnesses are promoters of the religion in the first place as evidenced by the lack of contemporaneous independent writings from an external perspective. This makes their impartiality suspect since they stand to benefit most of extraordinary claims - we see this in the introduction of the virgin birth, something that we never originally claimed by Jesus. Coupled with the propensity for self-martyrdom points to a fanatical apocalyptic cult rather than a reasoned description of actual happenings. It is this historical perspective that requires us to accurately interpret "scripture" accordingly.

Presupposing their conception of god before the argument begins. This is seen in the use of deistic apologetics to "prove" some kind of god, but hiding an unstated assumption that it happens to be the Christian conception of god that is being argued. This is seen in the many iterations of the Cosmological Argument, and all the Teleological ones.

The claim that Christianity is the only morality (Divine Command Theory) because it is 'objective' due to the source being God has multiple weaknesses. The first is that it is a circular argument. Christianity claims God is the source of morality but those claims are made in the scripture that, according to the religion, is written by God himself. So whether or not God exists, this self-anointment of being the moral source is not an objective claim: it is a subjective one made by God himself and therefore circular and invalid.

The second problem with Christian objective morality is that throughout its history Christians have been on opposing sides of many moral issues from slavery, child-marriage, homosexuality, women's role in society (and the Church). This is an ongoing debate that have constantly caused schisms as recently as today. A text that can produce contradictory results is logically inconsistent and one where even its interpretation can vary is obviously not one that is objective - the religion itself is subjective.

The claim on scriptural inerrancy is clearly false given the number of bad translations, differing interpretations on top of multiple layers of interpretation from the original Aramaic to Greek or Latin then to English.

The claim of describing an objective reality is the all the weaknesses of the above: the claims are made on faulty text by faulty humans. It is most exposed in the various Teleological arguments that use the stolen credibility of science to explain that science has 'proven' god. These arguments range from the simplistic Paley Watchmaker, which is basically saying it's so complicated, therefore God; to slightly more sophisticated ones such as the Fine Tuning Argument or Psychophysical Harmony arguments that misunderstand the science and incredibly bad probability to suggest God must have created the universe.

The claim of Christianity being the only objective description of reality is belied by the fact that there are many different interpretations of the text: with each denomination claiming to be the only truth but unable to prove it to each other. Critically, one of these disagreements is on the nature of God - the Trinity and Jesus' role in it. This by far is the greatest weakness of any claims of Christianity being objective true on anything since all of it points to a god they cannot even agree to within the religion.

Essentially the weaknesses of Christianity are exposed by it's strongest claims:

historicity is failed by actual facts on the ground that contradict the scriptural happenings. morality (DCT) is self-claimed by a deity, which is hardly 'objective' in any sense of the word. objectivity is failed by the circular nature of all of theology and apologetics. Thoughts?

The need for Christianity to insist on "objective" morality, historicity, and reality exposes its core philosophical weaknesses.

1. The insistence on the historicity of the religion, is a key claim of Christianity "proving" itself to be true. This ranges from banal claims of having occurred during a period of history or having been written by eyewitnesses all the way to co-opting secular historical techniques to draw conclusions. The biggest weakness is that the eye witnesses are promoters of the religion in the first place as evidenced by the lack of contemporaneous independent writings from an external perspective. This makes their impartiality suspect since they stand to benefit most of extraordinary claims - we see this in the introduction of the virgin birth, something that we never originally claimed by Jesus. Coupled with the propensity for self-martyrdom points to a fanatical apocalyptic cult rather than a reasoned description of actual happenings. It is this historical perspective that requires us to accurately interpret "scripture" accordingly.

2. Presupposing their conception of god before the argument begins. This is seen in the use of deistic apologetics to "prove" some kind of god, but hiding an unstated assumption that it happens to be the Christian conception of god that is being argued. This is seen in the many iterations of the Cosmological Argument, and all the Teleological ones.

3. The claim that Christianity is the only morality (Divine Command Theory) because it is 'objective' due to the source being God has multiple weaknesses. The first is that it is a circular argument. Christianity claims God is the source of morality but those claims are made in the scripture that, according to the religion, is written by God himself. So whether or not God exists, this self-anointment of being the moral source is not an objective claim: it is a subjective one made by God himself and therefore circular and invalid.

4. The second problem with Christian objective morality is that throughout its history Christians have been on opposing sides of many moral issues from slavery, child-marriage, homosexuality, women's role in society (and the Church). This is an ongoing debate that have constantly caused schisms as recently as today. A text that can produce contradictory results is logically inconsistent and one where even its interpretation can vary is obviously not one that is objective - the religion itself is subjective.

5. The claim on scriptural inerrancy is clearly false given the number of bad translations, differing interpretations on top of multiple layers of interpretation from the original Aramaic to Greek or Latin then to English.

6. The claim of describing an objective reality is the all the weaknesses of the above: the claims are made on faulty text by faulty humans. It is most exposed in the various Teleological arguments that use the stolen credibility of science to explain that science has 'proven' god. These arguments range from the simplistic Paley Watchmaker, which is basically saying it's so complicated, therefore God; to slightly more sophisticated ones such as the Fine Tuning Argument or Psychophysical Harmony arguments that misunderstand the science and incredibly bad probability to suggest God must have created the universe.

7. The claim of Christianity being the only objective description of reality is belied by the fact that there are many different interpretations of the text: with each denomination claiming to be the only truth but unable to prove it to each other. Critically, one of these disagreements is on the nature of God - the Trinity and Jesus' role in it. This by far is the greatest weakness of any claims of Christianity being objective true on anything since all of it points to a god they cannot even agree to within the religion.

Essentially the weaknesses of Christianity are exposed by it's strongest claims:

• historicity is failed by actual facts on the ground that contradict the scriptural happenings.
• morality (DCT) is self-claimed by a deity, which is hardly 'objective' in any sense of the word.
• objectivity is failed by the circular nature of all of theology and apologetics.

Thoughts?

Much of what's bad about Christianity can be laid at the feet of the the political leaders co-copting the religion from its religious leaders, and its fragementation due to its lack of a solid framework to determine what is true within the religion or not, no matter what the 'apologists' would have you believe. However, it was Jesus himself that caused a lot of the attitudes, stubbornness, othering, disrespect towards these external groups, and arrogance that some see out of some apologetic quarters.

Below is a justification that some of these behaviors come from Jesus' own attitudes and teachings which has been mimicked across history as Christianity splits itself apart using Jesus' own playbook:

Reliance of personal revelations and attestations

Jesus' own baptism is an example where his anointment isn't very well attested to.

Mark 1:10–11 : “He saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son…’”

**John: 1:32 ** :And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Isn't very clear as to whether this was in Jesus' or John's head but it's more likely that it was since there isn't much, even in the NT regarding external witnesses.

Jesus' divinity is challenged by Judaism, certain factions of Christianity itself from the beginning in Arianism and since by the Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians and the Mormons continue the challenge first set forth by the Arians against the Trinity. And of course the Trinity itself has caused the split between the original Greek Orthodox and the Catholic branches.

These disparate views stem from Jesus' own reliance on personal revelation and personal charisma, which is insufficient evidence to non-believers and un-believers. Few actual witnesses to his miracles don't help and the missing attestations of the more public miracles (feeding of 5000 and Matthew's dead rising during the resurrection) are tell a more accurate picture as to whether they happened at all.

Gatekeeping

Jesus claimed to the one and only way that Heaven can be reached throughout the NT:

John 14:6 : "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Matthew 10:32–33 : "Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven."

These are Jesus' own statements that he is the fulfillment of the Torah as the Jew's King, (even though he actually doesn't and Christians claim that's the point of his second coming) and also for all of humanity.

However, the gatekeeping wasn't just limited to other Jews, but all of humanity:

Matthew 25:31–32 “When the Son of man shall come in his glory… before him shall be gathered all nations…” Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…”

So not only does Jesus claim religious dominion over his own religion but also to all human religions.

In establishing himself, and his religion as being the only truth, combined with personal revelations as the primary source of said truth, Jesus has kicked off his religion on shaky ground with one unproven claim on top of another. Little wonder this has little impact on the religious establishment, and to this day, Jews reject his claims.

Exclusivity and othering

In addition to basic gatekeeping, Jesus created an in-group and out-group mentality:

Matthew 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me. Matthew 12:34 “You brood of vipers…” John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil…” Matthew 7:6 “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

This idea that there are external groups is bad enough but that they are to be condemned on Earth as well as the afterlife sets up the permission structure for a lot of the human misery caused in the name of the religion. This pain is caused not only to Jews during the Catholic Inquisition and throughout much of Christian history but also as each Christian sect apposed each other.

Disruption of existing religious hierarchy whilst preserving the politican one

All of this culminated in a rejection of the religious status quo:

Matthew 23:13 “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men…” Matthew 21:12–13 *As Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple: “My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” Matthew 12:6–8 “But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.” Mark 2:27–28: “The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”

John 18:33–36 Before Pontius Pilate: 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight…” Luke 20:25 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.”

Inflexibility, stubbornnes, martyrdom

Jesus' conviction of being right was a black & white issue that challenged consensus but in a rigid way that we see today. This included sacrificing one's own life as an example to others.

Mark 3:1–6 Jesus heals on the Sabbath despite knowing it is provocative: “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil?…”" Matthew 26:63–65 Before the high priest: “Tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus answers affirmatively in a way understood as blasphemous: ... “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power…” ... “He hath spoken blasphemy.”

John 10:17–18 "I lay down my life… No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.”

What we see as a result of this is some of the arrogance from some theists that just because they have reasoned themselves into a certain set of beliefs, all others are necessarily wrong. We see horrific acts of conversions and torture between Christian groups, both of whom are inflexible in their beliefs.

---

There's a lot here and I tried to condense other ideas but this would be good to see if the idea of Jesus' playbook is really a good one since, used against itself, has probably caused more harm than good to humanity.

One thing I’ve learned through decades of debate is that every single theological argument, every apologetic, is not there to “prove” anything. They’re not even philosophical doorways into the religion. Instead they’re walls to keep people in and intellectual band-aids to fill in gaps in evidence, proof or plot holes.

It’s not productive to address them head on because you’re already buying into the hidden claims. If you notice, the trajectory of claims about god have moved from actual physical interactions with humans to outside of even space and time. Does it even make sense to talk about a non-natural universe in the first place, as impressive as it sounds, never mind the nature of it and the possible beings therein?

It’s also churlish to even use the so-called ontological argument about god when the Abrahamic religions disagree about the nature of god anyway. The trinity is still disputed in significant quarters of Christianity so there’s still doubt even what this supposed Christian godhood is supposed to be, even if the existence of such a being is addressed. Sometimes I feel it is atheists keeping these arguments alive more so than Christians themselves!

When I see atheists debating the Ontological Argument or Kalam's Cosmological Argument and other "Arguments", from a perspective of "proving Christianity wrong", they are arguing from inside the religion, accepting the unspoken cultural commonality we have such as souls, heaven, angels and demons, etc.

Instead, we should let Christians bring up their own arguments and debate there. Assuming there are still any left here!

Atheists, imho, should be debating religion on stronger grounds - such as Christianity's claims to truth is unfounded, the effectiveness of religion in a modern age, moral outcomes, and religion's role in society.

Thoughts?

PS: Look my other thread on The Problems of Christianity begin with John 14:6 to see what I'm getting at.

Christianity suffers from several foundational problems leading from Jesus' own teachings. These problems explain the fragmentation of the religion, the lack of epistemological, ontological and moral consistency and why it is hard to debate against. Here we discuss how Christianity's gatekeeping is its strength but ultimately why it fails.

Jesus said it several times himself, most famously in John 14:6

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

This gatekeeping of Heaven is the root of Christianity's success since it establishes a single Earthly Authority and guarantees a central authority. It is a strong idea that is convincing as a tool for proselytizing and allows believers to generate reasonings for themselves launching a whole industry of apologists.

However, as with all religions and all theological arguments, it isn't backed by any evidence. Thus early Christianity went through many revisions to even define its own god - the Trinity and its nature. This led to a lot of Christians killing each over as to who is right and when the killing stopped, schisms leading to the three major denominations of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches. And Protestantism leading to the thousands of denominations we see today.

Each branch clings to their own interpretation being "true" and all others "false"; and because no one has proof or strong arguments, it becomes a battle of blood and political will to survive. This exposes Christianity as a subjective system that on the surface looks as if it is based on facts and reasoning but ultimately a system that can't even convince its own members of the truth.

Worse, Jesus' own martyrdom is mimicked by his followers, and although Christians see this as a strength with some even arguing it is a sign of truth, it is a self-defeating symptom. Although martyrdom is seen as honorable, in practice it makes Christians stubborn to counter arguments, particularly ones that aren't really fact-based and open to interpretation.

As an atheist this dilution of the core religion proves there is very little objective truth. It is clear the widely disparate ideas from the same text and the wholesale inventions that have been made points to foundational problems.

Writ-large that Judaism still exists means Jesus wasn't very convincing to begin with, and Islam's claim that Jesus was "just" a prophet, means that those outside of Christianity don't find its arguments very convincing either. Indeed, Mormonism is a religion within the walls of Christianity that used the same playbook to anoint their own leader, its own texts and its own practices.

Putting all this together, it is very hard to see how Christians can defend itself in these debates when they can't even convince its own members what's actually true.

Thoughts?

Atheists: is there really any point arguing against Christianity?

Christians: how do you see other denominations?

Others: how does Christianity fit with your world views?