If you didn't want to believe in Christianity...

[Justin108]

If you didn't want to believe in Christianity, would you stop believing? Suppose you didn't like Christianity at all. Suppose you didn't like the idea of Jesus dying for your sins, an afterlife, etc. would your belief in Christianity stop?

If not, what is it about Christianity that makes any alternative so absolutely unbelievable?

[OnceConvinced]

I don't see how you can choose to stop believing something. Belief, as far as I can see doesn't work that way. Likewise you can't choose to START believing something.

I'm actually an atheist that wants to believe in Christianity. I believed it for 40 years and never wanted to disbelieve it, but the disbelief was forced upon me. I had no choice in the matter. If I could have chosen to continue to believe, I would have and remained a Christian.

I wish I could believe again, because I loved being part of churches, working for God and having the comfortable beliefs that God was in control and that I had eternal life.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

That to me is like asking, "Suppose you didn't like that Lincoln emancipated slaves? Would you go on believing that he did?"

The answer is, what has like or dislike to do with fact or falsehood? Either the evidence supports the emancipation, or it doesn't.

Likewise, either there is sufficient evidence for one's theological convictions, or there isn't.

[Divine Insight]

If you didn't want to believe in Christianity, would you stop believing? Suppose you didn't like Christianity at all. Suppose you didn't like the idea of Jesus dying for your sins, an afterlife, etc. would your belief in Christianity stop?

As others have said, belief shouldn't be based on whether or not you want to believe in something. It should be based on whether or not there exists compelling evidence to believe in it. In the case of Christianity I don't see any compelling evidence, and I actually see overwhelming evidence why it can't be true, at least not as written in the Bible.

Strangely though, many Christian evangelists will argue that a person should continue to believe in it on faith alone even if the evidence for it seems dismal and the evidence against it seems overwhelming. It think the question of "wanting" to place your faith in a religion does come into question at that point. And when it comes down to the question, "Would I want Christianity to be true", my answer is no. I wouldn't even want to place my faith in the idea that it's true. It's clearly a very negative religion that pins the blame onto humans for everything wrong and gives God glory for everything right. Why should I want to place my faith in such a negative religion?

So as a matter of faith it makes no sense to "want" to believe in Christianity as far as I can see.

If not, what is it about Christianity that makes any alternative so absolutely unbelievable?

Alternatives to Christianity are not unbelievable to me. In fact, something like Buddhism is far more believable than Christianity.

I can't honesty say that a purely secular existence is "believable" for me. But actually when compared with Christianity I would have to say that it's still more believable than Christianity.

[1213]

If you didn't want to believe in Christianity, would you stop believing? Suppose you didn't like Christianity at all. Suppose you didn't like the idea of Jesus dying for your sins, an afterlife, etc. would your belief in Christianity stop?

If not, what is it about Christianity that makes any alternative so absolutely unbelievable?

For me that is like asking, would you stop to believe that president Obama exists, if you would disagree with his ideas. When I have seen enough evidence for existence, I should somehow deny what I have seen or experienced or understood. And that is quite hard and I think it would also be stupid.

However, I think the existence question is not very important, important is are people righteous and do they understand what is right and good.

The teachings of Jesus are good. I hope I wouldn’t reject them, even if I would not believe that he exists.

[Divine Insight]

If you didn't want to believe in Christianity, would you stop believing? Suppose you didn't like Christianity at all. Suppose you didn't like the idea of Jesus dying for your sins, an afterlife, etc. would your belief in Christianity stop?

If not, what is it about Christianity that makes any alternative so absolutely unbelievable?

For me that is like asking, would you stop to believe that president Obama exists, if you would disagree with his ideas. When I have seen enough evidence for existence, I should somehow deny what I have seen or experienced or understood. And that is quite hard and I think it would also be stupid.

However, I think the existence question is not very important, important is are people righteous and do they understand what is right and good.

The teachings of Jesus are good. I hope I wouldn’t reject them, even if I would not believe that he exists.

How can you judge that the teachings of Jesus are "good".

If you are in a position to judge whether something is good or bad, then you must necessarily be above Jesus in that ability. Otherwise how could you be able to know whether what he teaches is good or not. All you could do is offer your own subjective opinion.

Moreover, according to the Old Testament Jesus taught a lot of blaspheme against the words of Yahweh. Therefore according to the Old Testament what Jesus taught was necessarily evil.

Yahweh told you to stone sinners to death. Jesus taught you to ignore and disobey Yahweh on this commandment.

And actually if you feel that Jesus stands on the higher moral ground on this issue, then clearly this places Yahweh in the moral gutter since Yahweh commanded that you are to judge others and stone sinners to death.

Which is "good" and which is "bad"? Jesus or Yahweh?

And how could you know short of having a personal subjective opinion on the matter?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

That to me is like asking, "Suppose you didn't like that Lincoln emancipated slaves? Would you go on believing that he did?"

The answer is, what has like or dislike to do with fact or falsehood? Either the evidence supports the emancipation, or it doesn't.

Likewise, either there is sufficient evidence for one's theological convictions, or there isn't.

Isn't the notion of faith dependent on the desire for that which you have faith in to be true? If I believed my wife would never cheat on me, I "have faith" in her not cheating on me. It would sound strange if I said that "I have faith that she will cheat on me. Faith, in every instance of its use, is tied to the desire for it to be true.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If you didn't want to believe in Christianity, would you stop believing? Suppose you didn't like Christianity at all. Suppose you didn't like the idea of Jesus dying for your sins, an afterlife, etc. would your belief in Christianity stop?

If not, what is it about Christianity that makes any alternative so absolutely unbelievable?

I didn't want to stop believing in Santa Claus particularly. It's just that I reached the point where I could see that the Santa story simply was not true. It was the same when I stopped believing in Christianity. It wasn't that I set out to not believe in Christianity anymore, especially. It's just that belief faded away. Like no longer believing in Santa, once you realize that it is not true there is no going back.

[1213]

All you could do is offer your own subjective opinion.

That is what I think all do.

Moreover, according to the Old Testament Jesus taught a lot of blaspheme against the words of Yahweh.

Where can that be seen?

Yahweh told you to stone sinners to death. Jesus taught you to ignore and disobey Yahweh on this commandment.

Where is that said?

When OT gives rules for judges, it also says:
…judge righteously …
Deuteronomy 1:16-17

Jesus teachings are on line with that.

[Divine Insight]

When OT gives rules for judges, it also says:
…judge righteously …
Deuteronomy 1:16-17

Jesus teachings are on line with that.

No Jesus' teaching are not in line with this.

Consider the following event as written in the Bible:

John 8:
[1] Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
[2] And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
[3] And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
[4] They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
[5] Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
[6] This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Notice that in this story it is the "judges" themselves brought this woman before Jesus to see what Jesus would have to say about it. Supposedly they wanted to catch him saying something wrong. And ironically he did say something very wrong, but the Bible fails to point out this fact.

So what's wrong with this story?

Well, the scribes and Pharisees are actually right. The law of Moses commands that they are to stone adulterers to death. And this is supposedly "righteous" according to the Law of God.

Also there was no question of the woman's guilt or innocence. The story clearly states that she was "Caught in the Act". So there's no question about righteous judgement here. She committed the sin, was caught in the act, and now the LAW of God must be carried out.

What does Jesus say? "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

What does this have to do with the Laws given by God through Moses? Where in those laws does it state that only sinless people are to carry out this directive?

It doesn't. Therefore Jesus' seeming "clever" answer is actually dead wrong.

There is no question about whether or not the judges themselves are sinless. The question is whether or not God's Laws should be carried out. And Jesus was basically suggesting that they should ignore the Laws given to Moses by God, and instead never stone anyone to death unless they themselves are totally free of sin. But WHERE was that ever mentioned in the original Laws? It wasn't.

In fact, this fails miserably far more than you might first realize. If only sinless people are to carry out this directive, and no man is free of sin, then shouldn't an omniscient God have known this in the first place and never given the commandment that sinful men should be stoning sinners to death?

You see this religion fails in ever case. There is no way to vindicate this religion from it's extreme self-contradictory nature. If only sin free men are to stone sinners to death, then why did the Biblical God ever command sinful men to stone sinners to death in the first place?

Who's idea was it to stone sinners to death? Clearly this was supposedly a LAW commanded by God for men.

So this religion falls flat on its face in the mud. Jesus excuse that only sin free people should be stoning people to death is not compatible with this religion's demand that all men are sinners.

So it fails. Jesus' teaching here may appear desirable to us because we don't like the Old Testament Laws. But this is still extremely problematic with the idea of a a supposedly omniscient God having commended sinful men to be stoning sinners to death in the first place.

So if the intent of the scribes and Pharisees were to catch Jesus teaching something that cannot be supported by the Old Testament laws then they actually succeeded in doing so. Apparently they either weren't bright enough to realize it, or the author of the Gospels just wrote up totally false stories about the scribes and Pharisees in an effort to make them look stupid.

So no, you are wrong. Jesus' teachings are not in line with the Old Testament Laws of Moses.

~~~~~~~

In fact, this was a HUGE issue for me back when I was still a Christian. I too liked the idea that Jesus was actually "letting us off the hook" from having to stone sinners to death. But I could also see the extreme problem with this.

My question to Jesus (had I been there at the time) would have been, "So does God want us to stone sinners to death or not?"

If Jesus answers, "No he doesn't". Then I would ask why God had ever commanded us to do this thing in the first place.

If Jesus answers, "Yes he does, but only if you are without sin". Then I would ask why God didn't make this CLEAR in the original directive. Also this would require that there exist men before Jesus who are sin free. So that's a problem for Christianity as well.

~~~~~

Do I want to stone sinners to death? No. I actually favor Jesus' idea to reject the original LAW.

However, this doesn't solve the problem. The original law made no mention that only sin-free men should carry out this law, and if it had actually made that distinction that would require that Christians re-think their claim that all men are sinners. And reject Paul's claim that all men are sinners.

So this is an extremely troubled collection of religious myths that clearly are not consistent and cannot be made to be consistent. Jesus is a contradiction to the Old Testament Laws.

And ironically Matthew 5:17-18 even has Jesus proclaiming that he did not come to change the law and that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. But clearly he did change the law. It used to be that we are to stone sinners to death, now according to Jesus we are only to do that if we are sin-free ourselves. But that opens up a whole new can of worms that I just outlined above.

So no, the teachings of Jesus are not in line with the with laws of the OT.