Christians are Revolting - Sean Lauren

[otseng]

This thread will debate the book Christians are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress, by Sean Lauren.

We will go through the book one chapter at a time and discuss the contents of each chapter. I anticipate we'll spend several days on each chapter and then move on to the next one. Please avoid jumping ahead, but you're free to discuss previous chapters (for those that join late). We'll end the debate with each person giving a general overview of the book. The thread will then be closed.

If you'd like to participate, sign up here.

[Elijah John]

It's simply more plausible and coherent.

Christians aren't interested in what's plausible and coherent. Are you kidding me?

They believe in a God who curses a serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days.

They believe in a God who at one moment is sorry he ever created mankind and drowns out the whole planet, only to turn around later and offer undeserving sinners unwarranted amnesty.

They believe in a Jesus who had cast evil demons out of humans and into pigs.

They believe in a Jesus who cursed a fig tree because it wasn't bearing fruit out of season.

They believe a God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son.

They believe God caused an earthquake that meticulously opened the graves of saints so they could physically crawl out of those graves and go into the holy city to show themselves to the people there.

They believe Jesus was raised from the dead and was lifted up to heaven on a cloud to sit at the right-hand of God in a monotheistic religion.

Does it sound to you like Christians are interested in anything that is coherent or plausible?

There you go again. "Christians". A blanket statement.

I'm going to stop right there and call "foul". Once again you conflate Fundamentalist, literalistic Christianity with mainline Christianity. You seem to define Christianity in the same manner as Evangelicals do. But they are a loud but distinct minority when compared to the world's majority. Most Christians in the world are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestant. Combined, they still vastly outnumber Fundamentalist and Evangelicals. And they do not literally believe in "talking snakes" in the like, nor do their Churches teach that.

Evangelicals and Fundamentalist, Bible Literalists, do not speak for the majority of Christians worldwide.

[Divine Insight]

There you go again. "Christians". A blanket statement.

Hey, don't look at me. This is what you and Sean want to do. You want to make "Christians" a blanket statement (or valid label) for anyone who merely agrees with the moral values of Jesus. Never mind believing in the divinity of Jesus.

Based on that definition then I would be a "Christian".

I'm going to stop right there and call "foul". Once again you conflate Fundamentalist, literalistic Christianity with mainline Christianity.

You can call "foul" all you want. Your objections are pointless. In fact, everything you say in the following quote is totally false.

You seem to define Christianity in the same manner as Evangelicals do. But they are a loud but distinct minority when compared to the world's majority. Most Christians in the world are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestant. Combined, they still vastly outnumber Fundamentalist and Evangelicals. And they do not literally believe in "talking snakes" in the like, nor do their Churches teach that.

You're only kidding yourself if you think Roman Catholics, and Mainline Protestants don't hold that Jesus is the "Only begotten Son of God given by God for the purpose of our salvation."

You're also kidding yourself if you think that Roman Catholics and Mainline Protestants reject the claims made both, in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament.

Evangelicals and Fundamentalist, Bible Literalists, do not speak for the majority of Christians worldwide.

Neither are they the only ones who hold up things like John 3:16.

I simply disagree with your claim that the vast majority of Christianity doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. You've got to be kidding yourself because you most certainly aren't kidding me.

Do you honestly think that only Evangelicals and Fundamentalists celebrate Christmas as the "Birth of Christ" (born of the virgin Mary and placed in a manger)?

Do you honestly think that only Evangelicals and Fundamentalists celebrate Good Friday and Easter as the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead?

You've got to be kidding me?

If you really believe these things, then I suggest that it's you who knows very little about Roman Catholicism and Mainstream Protestantism. These people aren't tossing out the Gospel of Paul and John like you do. They aren't rejecting the resurrection or the divinity of Jesus.

Apparently you're living in a dream world.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]


Moderator Warning


Do not accuse people of being uninterested in what is plausible or coherent. Such base insults have no place in civil debate.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

You shifted from talking snakes to John 3.16. Yes, most Christians today believe that Jesus was God and died to "pay for" our sins, but most do not believe in the literalism you alluded to earlier.

You are conflating and engaging in bait and switch. Strawman arguments.

And yes, Sean and I (correct me if I'm wrong here Sean) differ with orthodox Christianity on such things as the Trinity and blood-sacrifice, as well as literalist Christianity on things like the six day Creation and talking snakes.

One need not believe in talking snakes in order to believe that Jesus died to pay for the sins of mankind, or to believe that he was God.

That fact that Sean and I differ with both mainline AND fundamentalist Christianity, is not the point.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

You shifted from talking snakes to John 3.16. Yes, most Christians today believe that Jesus was God and died to "pay for" our sins, but most do not believe in the literalism you alluded to earlier.

You are conflating and engaging in bait and switch. Strawman arguments.

And yes, Sean and I (correct me if I'm wrong here Sean) differ with orthodox Christianity on such things as the Trinity and blood-sacrifice, as well as literalist Christianity on things like the six day Creation and talking snakes.

One need not believe in talking snakes in order to believe that Jesus died to pay for the sins of mankind, or to believe that he was God.

That fact that Sean and I differ with both mainline AND fundamentalist Christianity, is not the point.

I didn't mention anything about any "Talking Snakes".

I posted:

They believe in a God who curses a serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

If you want to translate that into a "talking snake", that's your business. I didn't use that term. I stick with what the Bible actually says. Are you in denial of the book of Genesis?

Also, I thought you supported a belief in the Old Testament God? Isn't that YHVH? As far as I'm aware YHVH is just another name for Yahweh, or Jehovah, or any other names given to the Biblical God. I've heard him called all sorts of names, but in the end, they are all talking about the Biblical God right?

You accuse me of "bait and switch" and Strawman tactics, when all I did was quote the Bible.

Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of the Biblical God. Whatever name you prefer to call God. The name you choose is irrelevant when talking about the Biblical God. You may as well just say, "The Biblical God".

Christianity INCLUDES the Old Testament. So how can it be considered "bait and switch" to bring up things in the Old Testament when discussing Chrsitianity? It's all part of the religion. Christians don't toss out the Old Testament as being irrelevant, or pertaining to a false God. For Christians, the God of the Old Testament is the God who supposedly decreed from a cloud that Jesus was his "Son".

So how does referencing the Old Testament become "bait and switch" when discussing Christianity? It's an inseparable part of Christianity. You can't toss out the OT in Christianity.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 34 by Divine Insight]

Because you switched from talking about some OT absurdities to John 3.16. And again, one does not need to believe in the former to embrace the latter, though you seem to be arguing one necessitates the other.

The fact that I differ with John 3.16 as well is not the point, though you seemed to be making it the point.

Yes, both Sean and I differ with orthodox Christianity and orthodox literalist Christianity.

But both of us perceive a different teaching in the Bible OT and NT. That is a thread that seems more enlightened and aligned with Reason than what we know today as orthodox Christinity.

Namely a vision of YHVH who does not need, nor does He demand blood. (Micah 6.6-6.8 and many other verses) and a vison of Jesus who did not preach blood atonement, but rather repentance, a return to the merciful Father, and Jesus as a first century apolcalyptic prophet, who preached the Kingdom of God.

The fact that Sean and I differ on the veracity of that vision, does not mean we do not see a similar vision, and a viable, alternative Biblical theme running through both the "Old" and New Testaments.

Our vision is just as "Biblical" as theirs. ("theirs" meaning the orthodox)

And we arrived at similar Biblical conclusions independently, we did not collaborate.

[ElCodeMonkey]

I simply disagree with your claim that the vast majority of Christianity doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. You've got to be kidding yourself because you most certainly aren't kidding me.

This was never claimed. Thus, the accusation of bait and switch. You did the same to me when you claimed that I claimed I had "proof" which I very explicitly stated just the obvious. It's difficult to converse and have real debate if you put words in our mouths for us and ignore what we're truly saying. Please simply acknowledge the error and be more cautious so that the debate can be more beneficial to us all.

[Divine Insight]

Because you switched from talking about some OT absurdities to John 3.16. And again, one does not need to believe in the former to embrace the latter, though you seem to be arguing one necessitates the other.

But in Christianity it's assumed that John 3:16 is referring to the God of the Old Testament. In fact, Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus was prophesied to come by the prophesies given in the Old Testament.

So I don't see where it helps anything to try to pretend that anything in the New Testament could be independent of the Old Testament God.

In fact, the New Testament has Jesus going into the Jewish temples proclaiming them to be the house of his Father. Why would he did that if he wasn't supporting this particular God as being God. Jesus didn't go into any Pagan temples proclaiming them to be the house of his Father.

These are serious problems for anyone who wants to pretend that Jesus could be about some "other God" different from the God of the Old Testament. In fact, I keep bringing up Matthew 5:17-18 that has Jesus supporting every jot and tittle of the Old Testament prophets. He wasn't supporting every jot and tittle of some Pagan religion.

So the Gospel story of Jesus has Jesus tied directly to the previous Jewish God described in the OT, and according to Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus supports every jot and tittle of the OT. At least the Torah, or first 5 books of the OT.

The fact that I differ with John 3.16 as well is not the point, though you seemed to be making it the point.

My only question to you would be to ask you how many forms of "Christianity" you are aware of that reject John 3:16?

You are the one who was claiming that "most" forms of Christianity do not accept this sort of orthodoxy. I suggest otherwise. I suggest that "most" do. And any that don't would be the very rare exception to be sure. In fact, I've never heard of a Christianity that rejects John 3:16, but it wouldn't be surprised if such fringe groups actually exist. But they would certainly be "fringe" groups and not mainstream.

Yes, both Sean and I differ with orthodox Christianity and orthodox literalist Christianity.

I see that.

But that doesn't make your views "mainstream".

But both of us perceive a different teaching in the Bible OT and NT. That is a thread that seems more enlightened and aligned with Reason than what we know today as orthodox Christinity.

Namely a vision of YHVH who does not need, nor does He demand blood. (Micah 6.6-6.8 and many other verses) and a vison of Jesus who did not preach blood atonement, but rather repentance, a return to the merciful Father, and Jesus as a first century apolcalyptic prophet, who preached the Kingdom of God.

You can certainly argue for that. But as far as I can see you'd need to start arguing against much of what's in the Old Testament first. A lot of the blood sacrificing for the atonement of sins is in the Old Testament.

The fact that Sean and I differ on the veracity of that vision, does not mean we do not see a similar vision, and a viable, alternative Biblical theme running through both the "Old" and New Testaments.

Our vision is just as "Biblical" as theirs. ("theirs" meaning the orthodox)

That's fine, but then I would suggest that you are both going about it all wrong. Instead of trying to convince orthodox Christians that Christianity has the teachings of Jesus all wrong, I think you would both be much further ahead if you started by trying to convince orthodox Christians that they have the teachings of the Old Testament all wrong.

May as well start at the beginning if you want to put forth a coherent picture.

~~~~~~~~~

There's also another HUGE problem here.

Let's just say that you are right. This religion has gotten so far off track that even the Old Testament is totally corrupt and doesn't even convey "God's Word" correctly.

If that's the case, then why isn't this omnipotent God fixing this problem himself? In fact, why would he have stood by and done absolutely nothing to keep things from getting this bad in the first place?

Why would a God who wants us to behave in a particular way allow us to be misguided for thousands upon thousands of years by totally incorrect and false teachings?

The Bible claims that this God is going to JUDGE humans. Well, what sense would it make to allow them to become totally misguided as to what he actually expects from them only to JUDGE them for having been grossly misguided?

It just seems to me that the core of your necessary premises simply don't hold up.

What you are basically suggesting is that we were created by a judgemental God who expects something from us, but has allowed that information to become totally lost or corrupt so that we have become totally confused about what is expected of us.

I just don't see where this makes any sense at all.

I would think that an omnipotent omniscient God should be able to do better than that. So I just don't see where these kinds of arguments for a "misguided" Christianity could ever hold water. This would require that a God that we are supposed to be able to TRUST we can't even trust to make his message clear to us without ambiguity and error.

And this is an especially horrific nightmare if by getting it wrong we could end up being condemned into eternal damnation.

How could we ever expect to trust a God who can't even communicate to us clearly without ambiguity?

For you guys to be right, our Creator God would need to be an extremely inept communicator.

How could that be?

[Divine Insight]

No one is asking you to bow out, we're simply asking that you listen to what we're actually saying and not contort our views.

You claim in the book,...

"I write this mostly for Christians since it is their faith which has been corrupted and which I wish to see restored."

You are claiming to restore a corrupted Christianity. I'd say that's a pretty humongous claim. Especially for someone who doesn't even believe in the main tenants of Christianity.

I'll try to be less present in this debate for a while.

I'll just sit back and let other's ask their questions and bring up their concerns. I'd like to hear what various Christians are thinking. I imagine they will be more interested later on when you start interpreting actual verses attributed to Jesus. That always gets the apologists going.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Ok, I'll be glad to bow out of this book debate.

As far I see it's a book on speculation that appears to ignore many of the serious issues associated with the totality of the religion. What you are talking about appears to me to not be about Chrsitianity at all, but rather it's a rejection of Christianity.

I don't blame you at all for rejecting this religion. But I agree with Otseng at this point. Once you've rejected the religion, what you might think Jesus might have meant is quite irrelevant. It's certainly not going to be a 'restoration' of Christianity to what it supposedly once was before the Gospels were written.

And I do believe that you made that claim.

No one is asking you to bow out, we're simply asking that you listen to what we're actually saying and not contort our views. As for rejecting the religion, we're only rejecting what it has become, not what we believe it was. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to wait and see the remaining evidence to determine if I could possibly have a good reason for what I believe rather than simply claiming ahead of time that it's all wrong and impossible. I'm not sure why you're so unwilling to check it out. As for Otseng, I don't believe he said any such thing so I'm not sure where you're coming up with that understanding. In fact, he said he also believes that Christianity is far from the original intent which seems to at least partially agree with me. Don't bow out just because you're called out. Simply acknowledge and continue. We're not here to judge each other by initial premise, we're here to debate for the sake of comprehension and understanding and perhaps grow in the process. I just recently realized that immigration might indeed be a big problem when I thought before it was mere righty-hype. Now it seems it might be lefty-hype. Just let the facts fall where they may and absorb them.