What Exactly Is Your Problem With Christianity?

[Benson]

Lots of people say Christians "Are trying to jam religion and God down our throats." Yes, I know how this is a figure of speech. But, I doubt any of these people can say how this actually happens. Nobody is forcing them to do anything about God or religion. Why the complaint?

To help non Believers in God to better understand why Christianity is good for them, here are some reasons:

1.) If you want to have a better life, obey God. Jesus says those who obey His Commands will live better and longer. Such as getting everything they need for life, and living forever.

2.) If you give yourself completely to God, you will not go to Hell.

3.) If you belong to God, you will feel better.

4.) If you become a Christian, you can even accidentally believe the wrong Theology, but as long as you state Jesus is God and He died for you, you can still go to Heaven.

5.) After you become a Christian, you will not go to Hell for not understanding The Bible, because no person alive understands The Bible. That is why every part of The Bible is argued about. After you die, then you will understand everything about it.

6.) If you become a Christian, you will always have someone important to talk to who lives you.

7.) Finally, when you are a Christian, you will probably save a lot of money on useless things. Maybe.

[2ndpillar2]

A big problem for me with Christianity, the orthodox kind, is, well, it's orthodoxy. That is, in order to accept one, or a few, aspects of its doctrine, you are obliged to accept wholesale ALL of it. This I am against. I do not think it is essential to accept every last point of Dogma.

However, I can understand the "all or nothing" mentality of many Christians, and can see even how it is logically surmisable. It all centers on whether the Bible is an absolute authority. If God is truthful, so the argument goes, then it follows that all he says is true, or else he is a liar, and in that case everything he says is therefore questionable.

I can see how people can regard that line of thought as the only genuine one. It makes logical sense. If you assume that God must be truthful in giving us knowledge. That he is a "bad god" if he lies or gives us bad information. I would posit that God need not be truthful all the time in order to be good, or that his revelation, the Bible, needs to be an airtight logical document. In the first case, God can lie or bend the truth for a number of good reasons. One of which is that he does not want us to have the whole truth for reasons of free will, or because it would overwhelm us. It may be the case, in my view, that the complete Truth is something far too difficult to accept for the masses of people than a paired down version which can be more accessible. If people knew the Absolute Truth without any mediation, then perhaps people would go insane or use it for nefarious ends. Surely we do not know the Whole Truth, so how can we even speculate as to the effects of its outcome on the masses of people? Diplomats may take it as their duty to lie to keep the peace, so why not God? The idea that lying is absolutely wrong in every case is a very specific, Kantian philosophical view that I don't think most people are even in their own lives entirely on board with.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Christian God could be both partially supernatural and partially a projection of the collective Jungian Mind. Perhaps we only see in the Christian God that which we want to see. Perhaps the Christian God is a karmic feedback loop of all the desires and dreams we projected in a former life, returning to us in the form of an absolutized Idea that seems fixed but isn't.

And thus, regarding the Bible being inerrant, we can see how it may follow that the Scriptures, having their source in this Mysterious Projection of Holiness, is simply a mirror image of our own wants and illusions and half-thoughts. Something absolutized in the mind and not so in Reality.

The concept of being "Christian" is a bit vague. There are approximately 38,000 different sects who are not on the same page. As for what Yeshua testified, and what "Christians" believe, is two different things. Yeshua in Matthew 13 testified that his message, the good seed, would be planted in the same field/book/NT, as the message of the devil, the tare seed, the message of lawlessness, that of the false prophet Paul's false gospel of grace. The gospel of grace is the same as the message of the serpent in Genesis 3:3-4, whereas "you surely shall not die"/sleep. Paul and his contemporary followers are all dead, and his current followers will all die also (Jeremiah 31:30). As for who will be "saved", (Matthew 24), such as saved from destruction during the coming of the son of man, it will be those who "endure to the end", which is heed the message of Yeshua (Matthew 7:26-27). The followers of the wolves in sheep's clothing, the false prophets, such as Paul, will have their foundation swept away with rain wind and floods (Matthew 7:27).

[Benson]

A big problem for me with Christianity, the orthodox kind, is, well, it's orthodoxy. That is, in order to accept one, or a few, aspects of its doctrine, you are obliged to accept wholesale ALL of it. This I am against. I do not think it is essential to accept every last point of Dogma.

However, I can understand the "all or nothing" mentality of many Christians, and can see even how it is logically surmisable. It all centers on whether the Bible is an absolute authority. If God is truthful, so the argument goes, then it follows that all he says is true, or else he is a liar, and in that case everything he says is therefore questionable.

I can see how people can regard that line of thought as the only genuine one. It makes logical sense. If you assume that God must be truthful in giving us knowledge. That he is a "bad god" if he lies or gives us bad information. I would posit that God need not be truthful all the time in order to be good, or that his revelation, the Bible, needs to be an airtight logical document. In the first case, God can lie or bend the truth for a number of good reasons. One of which is that he does not want us to have the whole truth for reasons of free will, or because it would overwhelm us. It may be the case, in my view, that the complete Truth is something far too difficult to accept for the masses of people than a paired down version which can be more accessible. If people knew the Absolute Truth without any mediation, then perhaps people would go insane or use it for nefarious ends. Surely we do not know the Whole Truth, so how can we even speculate as to the effects of its outcome on the masses of people? Diplomats may take it as their duty to lie to keep the peace, so why not God? The idea that lying is absolutely wrong in every case is a very specific, Kantian philosophical view that I don't think most people are even in their own lives entirely on board with.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Christian God could be both partially supernatural and partially a projection of the collective Jungian Mind. Perhaps we only see in the Christian God that which we want to see. Perhaps the Christian God is a karmic feedback loop of all the desires and dreams we projected in a former life, returning to us in the form of an absolutized Idea that seems fixed but isn't.

And thus, regarding the Bible being inerrant, we can see how it may follow that the Scriptures, having their source in this Mysterious Projection of Holiness, is simply a mirror image of our own wants and illusions and half-thoughts. Something absolutized in the mind and not so in Reality.

The concept of being "Christian" is a bit vague. There are approximately 38,000 different sects who are not on the same page. As for what Yeshua testified, and what "Christians" believe, is two different things. Yeshua in Matthew 13 testified that his message, the good seed, would be planted in the same field/book/NT, as the message of the devil, the tare seed, the message of lawlessness, that of the false prophet Paul's false gospel of grace. The gospel of grace is the same as the message of the serpent in Genesis 3:3-4, whereas "you surely shall not die"/sleep. Paul and his contemporary followers are all dead, and his current followers will all die also (Jeremiah 31:30). As for who will be "saved", (Matthew 24), such as saved from destruction during the coming of the son of man, it will be those who "endure to the end", which is heed the message of Yeshua (Matthew 7:26-27). The followers of the wolves in sheep's clothing, the false prophets, such as Paul, will have their foundation swept away with rain wind and floods (Matthew 7:27).

Matthew 7:26-27 is Jesus instructing His followers to obediently build their lives upon Him as The Rock.

I see you cannot give either a description of doing so or give an example, but rather can only criticize others who fail.

Are you anything but talk?

[otseng]

I see you cannot give either a description of doing so or give an example, but rather can only criticize others who fail.

Are you anything but talk?

Moderator Warning


Please do not comment on other posters.

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.

[2ndpillar2]

A big problem for me with Christianity, the orthodox kind, is, well, it's orthodoxy. That is, in order to accept one, or a few, aspects of its doctrine, you are obliged to accept wholesale ALL of it. This I am against. I do not think it is essential to accept every last point of Dogma.

However, I can understand the "all or nothing" mentality of many Christians, and can see even how it is logically surmisable. It all centers on whether the Bible is an absolute authority. If God is truthful, so the argument goes, then it follows that all he says is true, or else he is a liar, and in that case everything he says is therefore questionable.

I can see how people can regard that line of thought as the only genuine one. It makes logical sense. If you assume that God must be truthful in giving us knowledge. That he is a "bad god" if he lies or gives us bad information. I would posit that God need not be truthful all the time in order to be good, or that his revelation, the Bible, needs to be an airtight logical document. In the first case, God can lie or bend the truth for a number of good reasons. One of which is that he does not want us to have the whole truth for reasons of free will, or because it would overwhelm us. It may be the case, in my view, that the complete Truth is something far too difficult to accept for the masses of people than a paired down version which can be more accessible. If people knew the Absolute Truth without any mediation, then perhaps people would go insane or use it for nefarious ends. Surely we do not know the Whole Truth, so how can we even speculate as to the effects of its outcome on the masses of people? Diplomats may take it as their duty to lie to keep the peace, so why not God? The idea that lying is absolutely wrong in every case is a very specific, Kantian philosophical view that I don't think most people are even in their own lives entirely on board with.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Christian God could be both partially supernatural and partially a projection of the collective Jungian Mind. Perhaps we only see in the Christian God that which we want to see. Perhaps the Christian God is a karmic feedback loop of all the desires and dreams we projected in a former life, returning to us in the form of an absolutized Idea that seems fixed but isn't.

And thus, regarding the Bible being inerrant, we can see how it may follow that the Scriptures, having their source in this Mysterious Projection of Holiness, is simply a mirror image of our own wants and illusions and half-thoughts. Something absolutized in the mind and not so in Reality.

The concept of being "Christian" is a bit vague. There are approximately 38,000 different sects who are not on the same page. As for what Yeshua testified, and what "Christians" believe, is two different things. Yeshua in Matthew 13 testified that his message, the good seed, would be planted in the same field/book/NT, as the message of the devil, the tare seed, the message of lawlessness, that of the false prophet Paul's false gospel of grace. The gospel of grace is the same as the message of the serpent in Genesis 3:3-4, whereas "you surely shall not die"/sleep. Paul and his contemporary followers are all dead, and his current followers will all die also (Jeremiah 31:30). As for who will be "saved", (Matthew 24), such as saved from destruction during the coming of the son of man, it will be those who "endure to the end", which is heed the message of Yeshua (Matthew 7:26-27). The followers of the wolves in sheep's clothing, the false prophets, such as Paul, will have their foundation swept away with rain wind and floods (Matthew 7:27).

Matthew 7:26-27 is Jesus instructing His followers to obediently build their lives upon Him as The Rock.

I see you cannot give either a description of doing so or give an example, but rather can only criticize others who fail.

Are you anything but talk?

I think Matthew 7:26-27 builds on Matthew 7:13-26, which is to say, one is not to follow the wide path laid down by the false prophets, who are wolves in sheep clothing, but to act upon my words. Act is not saying one believes what the demons believe (James 2:18-19) but to act on the testimony of Yeshua, and not to nail it on a cross. The gospel of the cross, the false gospel of grace, is the same message the serpent gave to Eve, believe me, and you surely shall not die/sleep. Genesis 3:3-4

[Haven]

My problems with Christianity are simple. Let me state them as briefly as possible:

1. It’s based entirely on the worship of a personal god, and I do not believe that a person (even a divine one) is the type of thing that can ground a healthy spiritual belief and practice. All persons (even personal gods, as depicted in all religions that worship them, including Christianity) have desires, wants, needs, demands, preferences, all of which make them prone to arbitrariness and distortion of truth and principle.

2. (Conservative) Christianity states as Fact (that is, objective truth for all) several claims that are known to be false, and several that are extremely unlikely to be true, and completely unevidenced. This includes special creation 6,000 years ago, a global flood, miraculous events, known historical errors (like the Census mentioned in Luke, which did not happen at the time Luke said it did), the resurrection of Jesus, and the End Times. Ordinarily I would overlook such errors, as all human spiritualities contain them, but conservative Christianity claims to be a perfect faith, with a 100% true, direct-from-God Bible and doctrine. Because of these aggressive claims, I must hold it to a higher standard than those faiths that don’t claim perfection.

3. (Conservative) Christianity is profoundly sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and judgmental to nonbelievers. It explicitly calls for male supremacy, says women are merely objects for male pleasure and assistance, and considers LGBTQIA+ people little more than abominations that deserve extinction and eternal hellfire. It is also racist, pitting Christendom (traditional Western society) against the “demonic” faiths of non-Western people. I cannot believe that any deity worthy of respect and honor* would condemn or subjugate someone for WHAT they are, rather than looking at their hearts.

*I don’t believe any deity can be worthy of worship, for reasons stated in (1)

[Benson]

A big problem for me with Christianity, the orthodox kind, is, well, it's orthodoxy. That is, in order to accept one, or a few, aspects of its doctrine, you are obliged to accept wholesale ALL of it. This I am against. I do not think it is essential to accept every last point of Dogma.

However, I can understand the "all or nothing" mentality of many Christians, and can see even how it is logically surmisable. It all centers on whether the Bible is an absolute authority. If God is truthful, so the argument goes, then it follows that all he says is true, or else he is a liar, and in that case everything he says is therefore questionable.

I can see how people can regard that line of thought as the only genuine one. It makes logical sense. If you assume that God must be truthful in giving us knowledge. That he is a "bad god" if he lies or gives us bad information. I would posit that God need not be truthful all the time in order to be good, or that his revelation, the Bible, needs to be an airtight logical document. In the first case, God can lie or bend the truth for a number of good reasons. One of which is that he does not want us to have the whole truth for reasons of free will, or because it would overwhelm us. It may be the case, in my view, that the complete Truth is something far too difficult to accept for the masses of people than a paired down version which can be more accessible. If people knew the Absolute Truth without any mediation, then perhaps people would go insane or use it for nefarious ends. Surely we do not know the Whole Truth, so how can we even speculate as to the effects of its outcome on the masses of people? Diplomats may take it as their duty to lie to keep the peace, so why not God? The idea that lying is absolutely wrong in every case is a very specific, Kantian philosophical view that I don't think most people are even in their own lives entirely on board with.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Christian God could be both partially supernatural and partially a projection of the collective Jungian Mind. Perhaps we only see in the Christian God that which we want to see. Perhaps the Christian God is a karmic feedback loop of all the desires and dreams we projected in a former life, returning to us in the form of an absolutized Idea that seems fixed but isn't.

And thus, regarding the Bible being inerrant, we can see how it may follow that the Scriptures, having their source in this Mysterious Projection of Holiness, is simply a mirror image of our own wants and illusions and half-thoughts. Something absolutized in the mind and not so in Reality.

The concept of being "Christian" is a bit vague. There are approximately 38,000 different sects who are not on the same page. As for what Yeshua testified, and what "Christians" believe, is two different things. Yeshua in Matthew 13 testified that his message, the good seed, would be planted in the same field/book/NT, as the message of the devil, the tare seed, the message of lawlessness, that of the false prophet Paul's false gospel of grace. The gospel of grace is the same as the message of the serpent in Genesis 3:3-4, whereas "you surely shall not die"/sleep. Paul and his contemporary followers are all dead, and his current followers will all die also (Jeremiah 31:30). As for who will be "saved", (Matthew 24), such as saved from destruction during the coming of the son of man, it will be those who "endure to the end", which is heed the message of Yeshua (Matthew 7:26-27). The followers of the wolves in sheep's clothing, the false prophets, such as Paul, will have their foundation swept away with rain wind and floods (Matthew 7:27).

Matthew 7:26-27 is Jesus instructing His followers to obediently build their lives upon Him as The Rock.

I see you cannot give either a description of doing so or give an example, but rather can only criticize others who fail.

Are you anything but talk?

I think Matthew 7:26-27 builds on Matthew 7:13-26, which is to say, one is not to follow the wide path laid down by the false prophets, who are wolves in sheep clothing, but to act upon my words. Act is not saying one believes what the demons believe (James 2:18-19) but to act on the testimony of Yeshua, and not to nail it on a cross. The gospel of the cross, the false gospel of grace, is the same message the serpent gave to Eve, believe me, and you surely shall not die/sleep. Genesis 3:3-4

Does God's Grace exist? If it does, what is it? Hopefully it is more than speculative thought in one's mind.

[Benson]

My problems with Christianity are simple. Let me state them as briefly as possible:

1. It’s based entirely on the worship of a personal god, and I do not believe that a person (even a divine one) is the type of thing that can ground a healthy spiritual belief and practice. All persons (even personal gods, as depicted in all religions that worship them, including Christianity) have desires, wants, needs, demands, preferences, all of which make them prone to arbitrariness and distortion of truth and principle.

2. (Conservative) Christianity states as Fact (that is, objective truth for all) several claims that are known to be false, and several that are extremely unlikely to be true, and completely unevidenced. This includes special creation 6,000 years ago, a global flood, miraculous events, known historical errors (like the Census mentioned in Luke, which did not happen at the time Luke said it did), the resurrection of Jesus, and the End Times. Ordinarily I would overlook such errors, as all human spiritualities contain them, but conservative Christianity claims to be a perfect faith, with a 100% true, direct-from-God Bible and doctrine. Because of these aggressive claims, I must hold it to a higher standard than those faiths that don’t claim perfection.

3. (Conservative) Christianity is profoundly sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and judgmental to nonbelievers. It explicitly calls for male supremacy, says women are merely objects for male pleasure and assistance, and considers LGBTQIA+ people little more than abominations that deserve extinction and eternal hellfire. It is also racist, pitting Christendom (traditional Western society) against the “demonic” faiths of non-Western people. I cannot believe that any deity worthy of respect and honor* would condemn or subjugate someone for WHAT they are, rather than looking at their hearts.

*I don’t believe any deity can be worthy of worship, for reasons stated in (1)

Yes, I agree your thoughts are accurately presented.

[Haven]

Yes, I agree your thoughts are accurately presented.

You agree with everything I've said on Christianity?

[historia]

I find modern Christianity a disgusting and vile, barbaric ritualization that has no place in society that values the individual and fosters independent thought.

And yet, ironically, a major reason why the society in which you live does value the individual and fosters independent thought is due to Christianity.

Immaterial to my opinion of it.
People can take almost anything and contort it to serve their purpose. Christianity isn't immune to this.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying your problem is not with Christianity, but rather people who "contort it to serve their purpose"?

[historia]

(Conservative) Christianity states as Fact

What do you mean by "conservative" Christianity?