Arguments against Christianity

[liamconnor]

I am beginning to think that most arguments against Christianity on this site are really made against a specific brand of Christianity.

The impression would be like meeting a foreigner who disliked America, but the more you inquired into this dislike, you found out what the foreigner disliked was Republicans (or a substitute).

For instance: I am constantly asked to prove aspects of the O.T. before arguing for aspects of the New! As if a Roman historian had to prove that Romulus and Remus existed before he can have a serious conversation about Julius Caesar!

Or, he has to show that every discrepancy about Jesus is resolvable, otherwise, anything he says about Jesus is automatically false.

What?! Must a historian of ancient Rome show that every historical statement made from every ancient historian of Rome is 100% compatible before studying them!!!!!

Has it not become obvious, that skeptics here have presupposed a very specific Christian opponent in their debates, and a type that is not even prevalent on this forum?

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics on this site WANT to presuppose a very specific Christian opponent, because the other opponents, the ones that actually frequent this site, are far more difficult to debate?

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics, when presented with basic historical arguments, are saying, "Woooo....your'e supposed to be arguing for the inerrancy of Scripture!" And when we don't, when we defend our case upon the contents of the bible as any historical data, say Josephus or Plutarch, they cry "Unfair; that makes this a far more difficult problem than we are used to?"


Just a thought.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

As if a Roman historian had to prove that Romulus and Remus existed before he can have a serious conversation about Julius Caesar!

What is that conversation about exactly? The topic? Let's say the topic was "Julius Caesar justified his right to rule Rome by claiming descent from Romulus and/or Remus" and the Roman historian was a supporter of Julius Caesar. Well then, in that conversation, yes we do need to prove that Romulus and Remus existed, and that Julius Caesar is a direct descendant, in order to validate his right to rule (oh, and that right to rule done via descent from a previous ruler, and not based on some other criteria).
Or to give a modern example - the topic is "Lyndon Johnson was a legitimate President of the United States, by virtue of having been the Vice President to President John F Kennedy". Well, we would want to establish that JFK really did exist, and that the rules/laws governing the office of POTUS do indeed allow a Vice President to be elevated to full President upon death of the incumbent.

When you complain about having to prove the God of the OT, it's a similar conversation. Jesus is nothing [exceptional] if not the Son of God, the God of the Old Testament. So if you want to have a conversation and convince me that this Jesus guy is extraordinary, the son of a divine figure, well guess what you have to do?
You have to prove that the divine figure exists. I can't believe that X is a child of Y if I don't believe that Y exists. No exceptions.

I am constantly asked to prove aspects of the O.T. before arguing for aspects of the New!

If you mean Jesus supposedly fulfilling prophecy, then yes. We would need to establish FIRST that these are actual bona fide prophecies, before we could even attempt to talk about whether Person XYZ fulfilled them.

Or, he has to show that every discrepancy about Jesus is resolvable, otherwise, anything he says about Jesus is automatically false.

We're approaching the New Testament writings by giving them the BEST possible position; that they were indeed written or inspired by an all knowing, infallible God.
When we find discrepancies, that destroys that position. So God is not all knowing, not infallible. God doesn't know certain things, and can make mistakes.
This allows for the possibility that the entire thing is not true.

What?! Must a historian of ancient Rome show that every historical statement made from every ancient historian of Rome is 100% compatible before studying them!!!!!

Do people trying to uphold teachings, etc from Rome make the claim that the ancient Romans were infallible, knew all, were perfect, etc?
No. Thus, no-one expects ancient Roman documents and historians to be perfect and 100% compatible.

Also, no need for the multiple exclamation marks. This indicates to me that your topic is an emotional outburst, rather than one coming from logic and reason.

Has it not become obvious, that skeptics here have presupposed a very specific Christian opponent in their debates, and a type that is not even prevalent on this forum?

There are indeed Christian fundamentalists on this site. I've spoken to them.

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics on this site WANT to presuppose a very specific Christian opponent, because the other opponents, the ones that actually frequent this site, are far more difficult to debate?

They are far more difficult to debate in that what they say they believe quite frequently has little to nothing to do with any evidence proffered (including Bible texts). I recently communicated with one such person who makes the claim that the Holy Spirit 'carries the word of life' but that God is a mere character in a story, that when he sees someone helping an old lady cross the road, he 'sees' the Holy Spirit.
No evidence there is offered, not even Bible texts. If all that is being discussed is purely what this person believes, and they offer no evidence...then yes, they are very difficult to debate.

And when we don't, when we defend our case upon the contents of the bible as any historical data, say Josephus or Plutarch,

In which case, the resurrection cannot be established either.
Someone who investigates and researches the Heaven's Gate cult will take note that its members believed very strongly in an alien spacecraft that could retrieve their souls after death. They believed this so strongly that they were willing and did indeed commit suicide en mass.
If I, as a historian, research this, how can I support a conclusion where the alien spacecraft actually does exist?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]
The premise that fundamentalists are not prevalent on this forum, is false.

[Divine Insight]

I am beginning to think that most arguments against Christianity on this site are really made against a specific brand of Christianity.

Any "brand" of Christianity that denies the importance of the Old Testament is not a valid "brand" of Christianity, IMHO. Jesus cannot stand on his own feet. He is only meaningful as the Son of Yahweh.

The impression would be like meeting a foreigner who disliked America, but the more you inquired into this dislike, you found out what the foreigner disliked was Republicans (or a substitute).

To the contrary, just the opposite is true. You are more like the American who denies everything about American except for what the Republicans stand for. And you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of other points of view as being important to American as a whole.

For instance: I am constantly asked to prove aspects of the O.T. before arguing for aspects of the New! As if a Roman historian had to prove that Romulus and Remus existed before he can have a serious conversation about Julius Caesar!

The history of Julius Caesar is not dependent upon who founded Rome. This history of Jesus IS dependent upon the religious beliefs associated with the Old Testament. So your analogy here fails miserably.

Or, he has to show that every discrepancy about Jesus is resolvable, otherwise, anything he says about Jesus is automatically false.

If there existed many discrepancies in the historical account of Julius Caesar then those accounts would also be highly questionable.

What?! Must a historian of ancient Rome show that every historical statement made from every ancient historian of Rome is 100% compatible before studying them!!!!!

If you can't show that a historical statement about ancient Rome is 100% compatible with all the historical evidence about Rome, then as a historian you would need to acknowledge that what you think you know about the history of Rome may very well be false information.

Why should rumors about demigod be any different?

Has it not become obvious, that skeptics here have presupposed a very specific Christian opponent in their debates, and a type that is not even prevalent on this forum?

As far as I'm concerned any Christian who thinks they can ignore the Old Testament whilst trying to make a case for the New Testament claims about Jesus simply isn't being realistic.

Are you forgetting that these Gospel rumors have Jesus proclaiming that no one comes to the Father God but through him? Who is this Father God if you refuse to acknowledge the Old Testament?

The Gospel Rumors depend on this God existing in many of their claims.

1. Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit of this previous God.
2. This previous God speaks from the clouds proclaiming that Jesus is his Son.
3. Jesus himself proclaims that all of his powers and even his words come from this Father God.
4. After the resurrection Jesus is said to have ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of this God.
5. And don't forget Jesus is also tempted by Satan in these Gospel rumors. What sense is that going to make if you have no clue who Satan even is?

The whole story of Jesus is inseparably entangled with the Old Testament myths of Yahweh and Satan. The fables of Jesus don't even make any sense outside of that mythological HISTORY. So as a historian you are in no position to be ignoring the history upon which the Gospel rumors are built.

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics on this site WANT to presuppose a very specific Christian opponent, because the other opponents, the ones that actually frequent this site, are far more difficult to debate?

It's difficult to debate someone when they refuse to acknowledge the totality of the religion they are claiming to support. You want to argue that it somehow makes sense that some guy was magically raised from the dead, all the while totally denying the entire superstitious religion that led up to those rumors.

I personally don't consider that to be even remotely reasonable. Especially considering the fact that the authors of the Gospel rumors clearly had the OT in their hands at the time of their writing and were themselves trying to make a case for various prophesies having been fulfilled. It's crystal clear that their previous superstitious beliefs played a major role in what they believed had happened.

This is paramount because it's reasonable that people will make up new rumors based on old rumors that they had already believed.

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics, when presented with basic historical arguments, are saying, "Woooo....your'e supposed to be arguing for the inerrancy of Scripture!" And when we don't, when we defend our case upon the contents of the bible as any historical data, say Josephus or Plutarch, they cry "Unfair; that makes this a far more difficult problem than we are used to?"

Just a thought.

A more difficult problem than you are used to?

What are you used to doing? Preaching Bible Study to people who have already accepted the Old Testament stories?

This isn't a Bible Study forum. And even if it were, you would still be required to justify any discrepancies between the OT and the NT.

Is sounds to me like you are just used to preaching to believers and you simply don't understand why anyone should be skeptical of these religious claims.

[Inigo Montoya]

I am beginning to think that most arguments against Christianity on this site are really made against a specific brand of Christianity.

.

Nah. Most of the opposition is against the magical, illogical, irrational, and implausible elements of the stories sold as true.

What you're talking about is secondary to that.

[OnceConvinced]

Not all of us skeptics presume that all Christians take the bible as the infallible word of God. The problem is that even those that aren't fundamentalists will demand that their interpretation of the bible is the correct one. So it always comes down to a claim that what the bible is saying is the absolute truth and it's exactly as the theist claims it is.

Perhaps all Christians are fundamentalists to a certain extent?

[Realworldjack]

I am beginning to think that most arguments against Christianity on this site are really made against a specific brand of Christianity.

The impression would be like meeting a foreigner who disliked America, but the more you inquired into this dislike, you found out what the foreigner disliked was Republicans (or a substitute).

For instance: I am constantly asked to prove aspects of the O.T. before arguing for aspects of the New! As if a Roman historian had to prove that Romulus and Remus existed before he can have a serious conversation about Julius Caesar!

Or, he has to show that every discrepancy about Jesus is resolvable, otherwise, anything he says about Jesus is automatically false.


What?! Must a historian of ancient Rome show that every historical statement made from every ancient historian of Rome is 100% compatible before studying them!!!!!

Has it not become obvious, that skeptics here have presupposed a very specific Christian opponent in their debates, and a type that is not even prevalent on this forum?

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics on this site WANT to presuppose a very specific Christian opponent, because the other opponents, the ones that actually frequent this site, are far more difficult to debate?

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics, when presented with basic historical arguments, are saying, "Woooo....your'e supposed to be arguing for the inerrancy of Scripture!" And when we don't, when we defend our case upon the contents of the bible as any historical data, say Josephus or Plutarch, they cry "Unfair; that makes this a far more difficult problem than we are used to?"


Just a thought.

I am beginning to think that most arguments against Christianity on this site are really made against a specific brand of Christianity.

I tend to agree with you here, but I am not sure if it is actually "a specific brand of Christianity", rather than, most of the Christian Church here in the U.S.A. teach and believe a, false, reckless, dangerous, and skewed view of Christianity.

With this being the case, the skeptics here on this site, most of the time, are not arguing against Christianity, but rather against a false, and skewed view, that is not difficult to refute at all!

In fact, many of the skeptics here on this site, claim to have been a Christian at some point, and were more than likely exposed to this, false, and reckless theology, but instead of investigating to understand if what they were taught, was actually taught in the Bible, they actually tell us, "they simply accepted what they were taught, without thinking about it."

Now, they want us to believe that at some point they began to think, and it was this thinking process, that has caused them to reject Christianity. However, when they go on to explain to me, what their understanding of Christianity is, it is completely foreign to what I have actually read in the Bible.

One thing I cannot for the life of me understand, is why an adult would simply accept what they are told, without thinking about it? I don't get it?

This is what causes me to truly wonder, if they have really began to think? Or, are they simply taking the easiest route? In other words, it was easier to simply accept what they were taught when they decided to become a Christian, than to actually think through the process, so then when things do not work out as they believed they should, it is easier to simply reject Christianity out right, than to actually think through the whole process.

Now, I want to be clear here. Although I am convinced that Christianity is true, this does not in any way mean, that I am convinced, that there is absolutely no possibility that I could be wrong. I absolutely could be wrong. But one thing is certain, I have not taken the word of anyone else, and simply accepted what I was told!

[Divine Insight]

I tend to agree with you here, but I am not sure if it is actually "a specific brand of Christianity", rather than, most of the Christian Church here in the U.S.A. teach and believe a, false, reckless, dangerous, and skewed view of Christianity.

With this being the case, the skeptics here on this site, most of the time, are not arguing against Christianity, but rather against a false, and skewed view, that is not difficult to refute at all!

I love this argument because, if true, it actually means that the people who reject this false Christianity are actually doing the righteous thing. Right?

After all, if there actually exists a loving benevolent God and Christianity is the USA is a false Christianity, then this loving benevolent God should be tickled pink with the atheists who reject it.

Nothing is a greater religious compliment than to tell an atheist that they have a gross misunderstanding of Christianity. Because that can only mean that they did the RIGHT thing in rejecting it.

In fact, many of the skeptics here on this site, claim to have been a Christian at some point, and were more than likely exposed to this, false, and reckless theology, but instead of investigating to understand if what they were taught, was actually taught in the Bible, they actually tell us, "they simply accepted what they were taught, without thinking about it."

Now, they want us to believe that at some point they began to think, and it was this thinking process, that has caused them to reject Christianity. However, when they go on to explain to me, what their understanding of Christianity is, it is completely foreign to what I have actually read in the Bible.

One thing I cannot for the life of me understand, is why an adult would simply accept what they are told, without thinking about it? I don't get it?

This is what causes me to truly wonder, if they have really began to think? Or, are they simply taking the easiest route? In other words, it was easier to simply accept what they were taught when they decided to become a Christian, than to actually think through the process, so then when things do not work out as they believed they should, it is easier to simply reject Christianity out right, than to actually think through the whole process.

Now, I want to be clear here. Although I am convinced that Christianity is true, this does not in any way mean, that I am convinced, that there is absolutely no possibility that I could be wrong. I absolutely could be wrong. But one thing is certain, I have not taken the word of anyone else, and simply accepted what I was told!

I've studied the Bible in detail and I've concluded that the Bible cannot possibly be true as written. So my rejection of the religion is a rejection of the Bible, not a rejection of some other teachings of Christianity.

Many people ask me if I would teach my kids that Christianity is false. And my answer is "Yes I would" (if I had kids). They often argue that I should allow the kids to make up their own mind. But why should I do that? We don't do that with Greek Mythology. We don't tell our kids to figure out for themselves whether they believe that Greek mythology has any merit. We tell them outright that it's obviously mythology.

I see no reason not to do this with Hebrew mythology as well. Seriously. The Bible clearly has no more merit than Greek mythology so why tell the kids that they need to figure this out for themselves? Why not just tell them the truth and let them move on to more productive endeavors? There's no point in wasting their time making them "re-invent the wheel" so-to-speak. It's simply more productive to just tell them that it cannot be true as written. Even Christians who are not fundamentalists will agree with that conclusion.

[Realworldjack]

I tend to agree with you here, but I am not sure if it is actually "a specific brand of Christianity", rather than, most of the Christian Church here in the U.S.A. teach and believe a, false, reckless, dangerous, and skewed view of Christianity.

With this being the case, the skeptics here on this site, most of the time, are not arguing against Christianity, but rather against a false, and skewed view, that is not difficult to refute at all!

I love this argument because, if true, it actually means that the people who reject this false Christianity are actually doing the righteous thing. Right?



After all, if there actually exists a loving benevolent God and Christianity is the USA is a false Christianity, then this loving benevolent God should be tickled pink with the atheists who reject it.

Nothing is a greater religious compliment than to tell an atheist that they have a gross misunderstanding of Christianity. Because that can only mean that they did the RIGHT thing in rejecting it.

In fact, many of the skeptics here on this site, claim to have been a Christian at some point, and were more than likely exposed to this, false, and reckless theology, but instead of investigating to understand if what they were taught, was actually taught in the Bible, they actually tell us, "they simply accepted what they were taught, without thinking about it."

Now, they want us to believe that at some point they began to think, and it was this thinking process, that has caused them to reject Christianity. However, when they go on to explain to me, what their understanding of Christianity is, it is completely foreign to what I have actually read in the Bible.

One thing I cannot for the life of me understand, is why an adult would simply accept what they are told, without thinking about it? I don't get it?

This is what causes me to truly wonder, if they have really began to think? Or, are they simply taking the easiest route? In other words, it was easier to simply accept what they were taught when they decided to become a Christian, than to actually think through the process, so then when things do not work out as they believed they should, it is easier to simply reject Christianity out right, than to actually think through the whole process.

Now, I want to be clear here. Although I am convinced that Christianity is true, this does not in any way mean, that I am convinced, that there is absolutely no possibility that I could be wrong. I absolutely could be wrong. But one thing is certain, I have not taken the word of anyone else, and simply accepted what I was told!

I've studied the Bible in detail and I've concluded that the Bible cannot possibly be true as written. So my rejection of the religion is a rejection of the Bible, not a rejection of some other teachings of Christianity.

Many people ask me if I would teach my kids that Christianity is false. And my answer is "Yes I would" (if I had kids). They often argue that I should allow the kids to make up their own mind. But why should I do that? We don't do that with Greek Mythology. We don't tell our kids to figure out for themselves whether they believe that Greek mythology has any merit. We tell them outright that it's obviously mythology.

I see no reason not to do this with Hebrew mythology as well. Seriously. The Bible clearly has no more merit than Greek mythology so why tell the kids that they need to figure this out for themselves? Why not just tell them the truth and let them move on to more productive endeavors? There's no point in wasting their time making them "re-invent the wheel" so-to-speak. It's simply more productive to just tell them that it cannot be true as written. Even Christians who are not fundamentalists will agree with that conclusion.

I love this argument because, if true, it actually means that the people who reject this false Christianity are actually doing the righteous thing. Right?

No, I would not call it the "righteous thing", rather I would call it the "obvious thing", since it is so easy to refute, when you actually read the Bible. And since it is so obvious, I highly doubt that God would be, "tickled pink."

Nothing is a greater religious compliment than to tell an atheist that they have a gross misunderstanding of Christianity. Because that can only mean that they did the RIGHT thing in rejecting it.

So, if I have, "a gross misunderstanding of how electricity works" and refuse to use it because of this misunderstanding, would this mean I am doing the right thing by rejecting it? Or, would it be better for me, to correct my misunderstanding?

I've studied the Bible in detail and I've concluded that the Bible cannot possibly be true as written.

Okay? Well I have done the same exact thing, and have concluded that, Christianity is true. So what now?

So my rejection of the religion is a rejection of the Bible, not a rejection of some other teachings of Christianity.

This could possibly be true, which is why I went to the trouble to qualify by saying,

Before I move on please allow me to qualify so that we do not get off track. I am not saying this is always the case. So if this does not apply to you, then lets not begin to debate that.

However, I do believe that you have shared with us that you were at one time a Christian. If I am not mistaken, I also believe it may have been you who stated that you, "was not a skeptical" when coming to the Faith. If I am correct, this seems to suggest, you were willing to accept whatever you were told about Christianity at the time. In fact, here is one of you comments from back on June 14th.

So went into Christianity as a very naive "believer" expecting the "Word of God" to be meaningful

The point is, if you went into Christianity, not being a skeptic, which caused you to be naive, then it is very possible that you were exposed to faulty teachings, that has influenced what you now believe. At any rate, as I said, lets do not get off track debating such things since they cannot be proven.

Many people ask me if I would teach my kids that Christianity is false. And my answer is "Yes I would" (if I had kids). They often argue that I should allow the kids to make up their own mind. But why should I do that? We don't do that with Greek Mythology. We don't tell our kids to figure out for themselves whether they believe that Greek mythology has any merit. We tell them outright that it's obviously mythology.

I see no reason not to do this with Hebrew mythology as well. Seriously. The Bible clearly has no more merit than Greek mythology so why tell the kids that they need to figure this out for themselves? Why not just tell them the truth and let them move on to more productive endeavors? There's no point in wasting their time making them "re-invent the wheel" so-to-speak. It's simply more productive to just tell them that it cannot be true as written. Even Christians who are not fundamentalists will agree with that conclusion.

My position with my children has been, NOT to tell them Christianity is true, but rather to explain to them, what I believe, and also why I believe it. At this point, they are free to examine what it is I have explained to them, along with examining the Bible, and comparing all of this to the objection of those who are opposed. Hopefully, this has prepared them to make a wise, and informed decision.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Perhaps.....but I don't challenge Christian claims in that manner at all..........

You do point out one thing.....Christian claims and Christianity in general is all over the map and been fighting it out among believers for 2,000 years as to what an accepted orthodox doctrine of the foundation of the faith and its essential salvation doctrine........and they still can't get their act together..........

That's some God who decides to have a personal revelation with humans through human written manuscripts dug up and debated over to establish a canon and then continually debating over the interpretation of that canon................sounds more like a God created from human ignorance than an external supernatural personal agency that is independent of human thought.

Anyway, the main reason I discredit Christianity is because its claims don't concur with reality.

James Ch5 verse 14-15.............start with that fantasy and tell me how it fits in reality.