Book debate on Christians Are Revolting

[otseng]

It's been suggested to debate the book "Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress":

viewtopic.php?t=34841

We'll start the debate soon in the Book Debates subforum. And who knows, we might even be able to get the author of the book to participate also!

Reply below if you'd like to be added to the book debate group to participate.

[Divine Insight]

I argue that there is a "correct" Christianity, however, the one that Jesus taught, which is quite reasonable and good even to atheists.

I guess I'll need to wait until I read your entire book.

Are you still an "atheist"? Or do you now believe that there is a God and that Jesus was somehow conveying God's message to us?

And if so, what was the crucifixion all about?

Do you cover this all in your book?

I'll be the first to agree with you that it appears that Jesus was trying to teach things that Christendom seems to have totally gotten wrong.

But then where do we place the blame? Are the vast majority of Christians incapable of understanding simple messages? And why should that be the case?

Or do we conclude that Jesus himself was a terribly inefficient teacher?

Neither of these seems reasonable. Especially if we're going to assume that Christ was "divine". How could the Son of God (or God incarnate) have been such a lousy teacher?

Or, if we're going to place the blame on billions of Christians, then how could they be so stupid? Wouldn't this require that the God who created them created them with defective brains?

There are so many issues to consider. Have you truly considered them all?

How do you explain the fact that Jesus' message eluded billions of Christians but for some unexplained reason you just happened to be able to understand it and get it right?

Something just doesn't sound quite right here. Don't you agree?

[ElCodeMonkey]

There are so many issues to consider. Have you truly considered them all?

How do you explain the fact that Jesus' message eluded billions of Christians but for some unexplained reason you just happened to be able to understand it and get it right?

Something just doesn't sound quite right here. Don't you agree?

Yes, I have considered them all . At least, all the ones you've mentioned. I have not considered the ones I have not thought of yet . You seem interested in placing blame, but Jesus specifically said this would happen. It's no one's fault today, it was a progression over time. An enemy came and sowed bad seed in the field and it grew together with the wheat. He said it wasn't worth pulling up until later. Who do you blame for a rotten 2000-year-old apple when it started fresh? He said the path is narrow and thus few people will understand. I am not the only one who sees this, but there are certainly very few. Just as predicted. It all still lines up .

[Elijah John]

How do you explain the fact that Jesus' message eluded billions of Christians but for some unexplained reason you just happened to be able to understand it and get it right?

Something just doesn't sound quite right here. Don't you agree?

It's all there DI, our viewpoint is Biblical though not "orthodox". At the end of ECM's book, he has provided many Biblical passages to support his "heretical" point of view.

It's not just him, DI. ECM and I have reached very similar positions...independently of each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong El Code, but we seem to agree on:

-The fact that the Bible is not perfect.
-That Jesus never preached that he is "God".
-Rather, Jesus preached the Kingdom of God.
-He taught that YHVH is our Heavenly Father.
-He had a special compassion for the poor, and called his disciples to have that same compassion.
-He has nothing to do with today's "prosperity Gospel"
-He did not die to "pay for" anyone's sins.
-And he taught that the Father never needed, nor did he desire blood to begin with, but rather only simple repentance, obedience and faith.
-And that essence of Jesus message was love of God and neigbor, not that he was an atonement for sin.

If I'm not mistaken, he and I agree on all those things.

What we disagree on is the existence of God.

Though neither of us believe the dogma that "Jesus is God the Son", ECM no longer believes in God at all, and I still do.

(We differ on politics as well, but that is another matter. )

But it's not just us who hold views like this. Historical Jesus scholars have reached very similar conclusions. And, we argue, our views were held by the very first Christians. Some of them anyway, though the Pauline sect existed very early on as well and came to dominate to the point of replacing us "heretics".

Ironic, that Paul the prototypical heretic is now considered normative and orthodox.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

Egads! Spoiler alerts! . Yes, I believe I would agree with all those statements.

[Divine Insight]

You seem interested in placing blame, but Jesus specifically said this would happen.

Why point to Jesus?

Clearly the God of the Bible placed blame on the serpent. Why else curse the serpent to crawl on its belly and eat dirt if it wasn't to blame for something?

Why curse Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth if she wasn't to blame for anything?

Why command that Adam will rule over Eve and that her desire shall be to him, if there is no one to blame in this scenario?

You seem to be so totally focused on Jesus that you appear to be totally ignoring the rest of the theology that goes along with it.

Jesus can hardly change what had already happened in the Old Testament.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 35 by Divine Insight]

I believe we've only been speaking of Christianity which, in theory, would be Christ's (Jesus') message. I think there is a real "message Jesus taught" which I call Christianity and part of that message is that his message would become corrupt.

[Divine Insight]

How do you explain the fact that Jesus' message eluded billions of Christians but for some unexplained reason you just happened to be able to understand it and get it right?

Something just doesn't sound quite right here. Don't you agree?

It's all there DI, our viewpoint is Biblical though not "orthodox". At the end of ECM's book, he has provided many Biblical passages to support his "heretical" point of view.

It's not just him, DI. ECM and I have reached very similar positions...independently of each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong El Code, but we seem to agree on:

-The fact that the Bible is not perfect.
-That Jesus never preached that he is "God".
-Rather, Jesus preached the Kingdom of God.
-He taught that YHVH is our Heavenly Father.
-He had a special compassion for the poor, and called his disciples to have that same compassion.
-He has nothing to do with today's "prosperity Gospel"
-He did not die to "pay for" anyone's sins.
-And he taught that the Father never needed, nor did he desire blood to begin with, but rather only simple repentance, obedience and faith.
-And that essence of Jesus message was love of God and neigbor, not that he was an atonement for sin.

If I'm not mistaken, he and I agree on all those things.

What we disagree on is the existence of God.

Though neither of us believe the dogma that "Jesus is God the Son", ECM no longer believes in God at all, and I still do.

(We differ on politics as well, but that is another matter. )

But it's not just us who hold views like this. Historical Jesus scholars have reached very similar conclusions. And, we argue, our views were held by the very first Christians. Some of them anyway, though the Pauline sect existed very early on as well and came to dominate to the point of replacing us "heretics".

Ironic, that Paul the prototypical heretic is now considered normative and orthodox.

But your argument actually rejects Christianity entirely.

You say that Jesus never claimed to be God. But what about the entire virgin-birth story of angels coming to Mary and telling her that she is pregnant with the Son of God?

You have to then chuck out a major thesis of this religion.

And if you allow that Jesus was the virgin-born Son of God, then you're stuck with all manner of problems. What Jesus a simple demigod? If so, the religion become polytheistic where Jesus is a divine entity that is separate from God. Christian theologians couldn't allow for that, and this is why they ended up inventing the idea of the "Trinity" where Jesus and God are one. Just as Jesus is quoted in the scriptures as saying, "I and the father are one".

And what about the resurrection of Jesus? Are you in denial of that as well? If so, then you have just rejected Christianity, period.

Not only does the Christian religion have Jesus rising from the dead, but they also have him ascending to heaven to sit at the right-hand of his monotheistic self, as the new Judge of humanity.

As far as I can see, both you and ElCodeMonkey are simply rejecting Christianity and trying to create a new-age totally unrelated religion (using the same label of Christianity) that requires tossing out major chunks of the Christian Gospels.

Also, it appears that you and ElCodeMonkey differ in major ways.

You renounce Jesus as God, but cling to Yahweh as God. Basically supporting Judaism, or possibly Islam, but NOT Christianity.

ElCodeMonkey appears to still be an atheist with respect to Yahweh. Neither Jesus nor Yahweh were God.

So you guys aren't anywhere near being on the same page.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

On the contrary, we're both accepting what we believe is true Christianity .

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

On the contrary, we're both accepting what we believe is true Christianity .

From my perspective I would say that what you are really talking about is what you believe is true ABOUT Christianity.

What you guys are calling "Christianity" is simply a misuse of the word IMHO.

Christianity holds that Jesus is the virgin-born Son of Yahweh. Who was ultimately crucified according to "God's Plan" for a specific purpose that was clearly associated with offering humans a chance at salvation on some level.

Christianity holds that God (Yahweh himself) spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son.

Christianity holds that Jesus was physically raised from the dead after having been buried in a tomb for 3 days.

Christianity holds that Jesus was seen by his disciples ascending into heaven on a cloud.

To suggest that "true Christianity" has nothing to do with any of this is just utter nonsense.

All this amounts to is a rejection of Christianity whilst trying to lay claim of some sort of ownership or copyright privileges to the label.

The idea that you can basically reject an entire religion, make up a whole different paradigm, and then call that "True Christianity" is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Especially if you're going to claim to be an atheist and not even believe in Yahweh or the divinity of Jesus at all.

I mean, I can truly sympathize with what you might see as the "True Historical Jesus".

But that's a whole other story. That doesn't amount to "True Christianity".

That's nothing more than a stolen label from a religion that holds that Jesus was the Son of God sent to earth through a virgin birth for a specific purpose, which includes a crucifixion. We can't have mortal men killing God's Son if this wasn't what God had planned. So it gets real complicated.

You can't just reject the core claims of Christianity and call what's left "True Christianity". That's just ridiculous. There's no other way to say it.

You may as well face the truth. You simply don't believe in Christianity anymore. Period. Trying to pretend that Christianity isn't what it is, is just ridiculous.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 39 by Divine Insight]

If anything, we're trying to reclaim the meaning of Christianity. As most arguments, let me bring it around to Hitler . He stole the meaning of the Swastika. Some people still use it for the original meaning. We're using "Christianity" as the original meaning. I mean, personally, I would separate it into a different name, but I haven't come up with a good one yet .