Comments on: Disproving Christianity (Short Version)

By: michael

michael — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:06:48 +0000

I don’t see how any of these are actual disproofs, unless by logic you mean very informal arguments — but even then none of these disprove Christianity. Perhaps a full treatment of some of these might work but not at this level of detail.

By: S

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:43:15 +0000

Logically disproving Christianity is easy.
1.An omnipotent being that is older than time itself is foolish , if he existed there must be time so he himself must of been created

2 . the bible was writen by man , Man is falliable therefor the bible is falliable along with the translations from old hebrew to english

3. The notion of creating the earth in 7 days is illogical

4. Christianity is the most violant religion , more wars were started over it than anything else , all from a religion of ” the prince of peace”

By: sam makey

sam makey — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:33:26 +0000

I personaly testify that through the name of christ many things have happened for me. 1, my brother who was a long time alcholic went to a christian rehab program and is no longer an alcholic, 2, in times of harship my church got help from a wealthy couple they didn’t even know living thousands of miles away, you could call it coinsedence but that sounds more like an answer to prayer, 3 ive personaly felt his presence, you could say that what i felt has scientific explanation, but it doesn’t stop the fact that ive feeled his presence, three many of the people we’ve had in are church have had cancer and we prayed for them, they’re cancer and there are lots of other examples i can give if you want them, but if this was coinsedence, why would coinsedence be so kind to a few praying people

By: Rambo Mcsheere

Rambo Mcsheere — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:31:36 +0000

First of all you really didnt disprove anything you moron! In addition to all the truth that James Rayment stated. If chrisitainty is not real how do you argue with peoples personal testimonial experiences or even historyand geography for that matter. try telling people who have been healed while in prater from parlization christianity is not real!

By: James Rayment

James Rayment — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:02:48 +0000

This is completely ridiculous.
First off to use Numbers 15 in order to say that God has to follow his own laws is absurd, it is clearly talking about not discriminating against foreigners who wish to become part of Hebrew society. The Hebrew laws were there to help people become right with God, God is not a sinner and does not need to be reconciled to himself.

Then you said. “Well since you’re taking this a little literally, I’ll continue in the same manner: what makes you draw the distinction between having sex with Mary and “annointing” her with Jesus?”
- Because God did not use a penis to make Mary pregnant, there was no romantic music there was no sexual attraction.
I would challenge you to find any dictionary definition that cited adultery as anything other than one person being intimate with another persons partner. If a couple could not have children and got pregnant using a donor no one would call that adultery.
I’m not saying there aren’t genuinely challenging arguments out there, I’m just saying neither of yours are among them

By: Derek

Derek — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:45:34 +0000

wow… i am impressed, jared! i too believe in the same contradictions that christians are too ignorant to even see.

By: Jared

Jared — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:31:06 +0000

Loved this post! Although you don’t even need to go that far with it. The Bible contradicts itself right off the bat in the book of Genesis, first it says both Adam and Eve were created at the same time, then in the very next chapter it says that first Adam was made and he became lonely so he went to God and God created Eve from Adam’s rib. Besides that, I feel utterly embarrassed for any moron(especially an adult) who actually believes that the Earth was created in 6 days or that 2 of every single one of the 10 billion species on Earth were lead onto an arc and then dispersed to their permanent homes by one man after a flood wiped out the entire world.

By: Chris Z

Chris Z — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:23:40 +0000

This may be the funniest attempt to disprove Christianity I have ever seen. Thank you for the laugh.

By: michael

michael — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:41:44 +0000

Well since you’re taking this a little literally, I’ll continue in the same manner: what makes you draw the distinction between having sex with Mary and “annointing” her with Jesus?

And of course the fact that Joseph was Mary’s husband only plays into my [now deadly serious] argument — without Joseph there’s no adultery and God would still be alive.

By: Nice try

Nice try — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:54:30 +0000

You didn’t disprove anything.
1) God didn’t have sex with mary he annointed mary with Jesus as a child without having sex. hence “virgin mary”
2) mathew 1:16 is saying that joseph is the husband of mary.