40 Problems with Christianity

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: amazing



I think one funny thing about complaint from atheists when specifically criticizing Christianity is the literal view they take. When a Christian takes the bible 100% literally, they are scoffed at (perhaps rightfully so) but then an atheist will pick apart the Character of the Christian god using their scripture literally.



I've done the same thing many times but I never realized it was sort of ironic until now.

It is by that logic that i have thought that there is an athiest god or being on top of all the thoughts of there being no god at all. At the least the whole no god belief does create a lot of energy that a being if they exist where one could sit atop of and harness that energy. If belief is energy then perhaps it does not matter what is inside that energy but the amount itself is what would be important.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: amazing



I think one funny thing about complaint from atheists when specifically criticizing Christianity is the literal view they take. When a Christian takes the bible 100% literally, they are scoffed at (perhaps rightfully so) but then an atheist will pick apart the Character of the Christian god using their scripture literally.



I've done the same thing many times but I never realized it was sort of ironic until now.

It is by that logic that i have thought that there is an athiest god or being on top of all the thoughts of there being no god at all. At the least the whole no god belief does create a lot of energy that a being if they exist where one could sit atop of and harness that energy. If belief is energy then perhaps it does not matter what is inside that energy but the amount itself is what would be important.

Interesting. So what you're saying is that, if deities are the manifestations (thought forms, Tulpas, etc) of belief and faith, then perhaps there's an atheist god out there somewhere, suffering in his own existential crisis.

That's a cool thought.

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: amazing



I think one funny thing about complaint from atheists when specifically criticizing Christianity is the literal view they take. When a Christian takes the bible 100% literally, they are scoffed at (perhaps rightfully so) but then an atheist will pick apart the Character of the Christian god using their scripture literally.



I've done the same thing many times but I never realized it was sort of ironic until now.

It is by that logic that i have thought that there is an athiest god or being on top of all the thoughts of there being no god at all. At the least the whole no god belief does create a lot of energy that a being if they exist where one could sit atop of and harness that energy. If belief is energy then perhaps it does not matter what is inside that energy but the amount itself is what would be important.

Interesting. So what you're saying is that, if deities are the manifestations (thought forms, Tulpas, etc) of belief and faith, then perhaps there's an atheist god out there somewhere, suffering in his own existential crisis.

That's a cool thought.

I think that people only think they really know God as if religious texts share the fullness of God. The Bible makes no such claim as to knowing all of God, we are shown just little bits of God. No one can really know the fullness of God until they actually meet God.

There is no way the limited can understand the unlimited. The little bit I do know, that is what I trust. God is simply too big for me to comprehend. I am ok with the little bit and I think I do alright with that little bit.

a reply to: Cuervo

You got it. However if there is another place where they dwell then i doubt he/she is suffering. I could imagine that on that side they know the deity is real and treat him like any other one with power over others is treated. The only suffering would be on this side and the suffering of the followers just as all the rest suffer if they do suffer. At the end of the day he would be head over the followers of non belief and treated as such.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I'll give the rest a go out of respect to your request, but if any more nonsense pops up I'm not promising I'll finish the article!

I'm reminded of an old saying (well, I've been saying it for years, lol,): Why have 32 flavours when you can't get vanilla right?

Anti-theist logic:

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I'll give the rest a go out of respect to your request, but if any more nonsense pops up I'm not promising I'll finish the article!

I'm reminded of an old saying (well, I've been saying it for years, lol,): Why have 32 flavours when you can't get vanilla right?

I don't get it. Is Catholicism supposed to be Vanilla? Is Vanilla supposed to represent some unsophisticated simplistic starting point?

Anti-theist logic:

Really?

Now I'm certain that YOU don't get it.

OH, and I totally suck. I did post the link to the article but I didn't really clarify or give you my points of view on any of them. Here.

3) Barbaric Punishment. I do have a problem with this. One example.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Why would you keep this in the bible, unless you believe it? Believe in it? It's not a good passage. Where is the redeeming quality. Convince me why I should be a Christian if the bible has passages like this in it.

5) The Evil Nature of God.

This is another big problem. God as a mass murderer. So, let's take away that last sentence. God can't be a mass murderer, then why did god say this in 1 Samuel 15:3 and if this isn't a good verse why is it still in the bible?

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

10) Miracles of Jesus.

The bible is full of Miracles performed by Jesus. Why then are there no accounts of this in any Historical roman texts?
I quote the article here..."It is hard to imagine that the Romans would not have investigated these extraordinary phenomena, documented it in their written accounts, and perhaps have tried to determine if Jesus or his methods could be used to solve some of the problems of the empire. The lack of Roman documentation of the miracles makes their historicity highly suspect..."

Again a serious question worth discussing.

11) Failure to Return.

Per Jesus himself : Matthew 16:28:

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”


(14) Roman Bias

As mentioned, almost all of the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry were dead by the time of the gospel writings, either of natural causes or as a result of the Jewish-Roman war that began in AD 66. The band of Jewish followers of Jesus, led by his brother James, no longer existed. The only Christians remaining were the Romans and other Gentiles who were followers of Paul’s concept of Christianity. Consequently, the gospels are told in a manner consistent with Paul’s theology and also with an anti-Jewish, pro-Roman bias. One of the best examples of this bias is the exoneration of Pontius Pilate and the condemnation of the Jews for Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:24), a fabrication of the first order (and one that has had tragic consequences for Jewish people for the past two millennia). Another is the story of the Roman centurion who was allegedly commended by Jesus for having more faith than anybody else in Israel (Matthew 8:5-13).


(17) Raising of Lazarus and Woman Caught in Adultery

The stories of the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the woman caught in adultery are extremely important in the effort to define who Jesus was. One tells of his immense power, and the other tells of his divine wisdom. Both would have been told and retold throughout the region, spread virally, and held up as convincing evidence for having faith in Jesus.

However, curiously, neither of these events is documented in the first three gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke). Not until the gospel of John, written at least 70 years after the death of Jesus, is the raising of Lazarus documented in scripture. And the story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the oldest manuscripts of the gospel of John, and only appears in manuscripts beginning in the fifth century. This casts considerable doubt on the historical truth of these events.

(22) Other Gospel Books

The selection of the gospels to be included in the Bible was made by a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. At this council, four gospels were selected from a total of approximately 60 that were in use at the time. Three of the four gospels selected are called the Synoptic Gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. These were not independent efforts but had many elements borrowed and shared among them. The fourth gospel, John, is very different from the other three and presents a somewhat contradictory theology.

The other 56 or so gospels that were discarded do not agree for the most part with the four that were selected. Examples are the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

It is likely that the truth of what happened lies buried amid the numerous tales told by all of these gospels, with various true and fictional elements scattered throughout. But what should be troubling to a questioning believer is that the council undoubtedly preferentially selected the gospels that were favorable to the Romans (i.e., the ones that made them look good) and excluded whatever did not flatter them. It is certain that this process resulted in a whitewashed portrayal of history.

(28) Ignored Scriptures

I have a big problem with this one when someone says they are a Christian and that the old testament isn't to be taken literally and that it's just a historical document. Jesus didn't think so.

Some Christians are aware of the absurd laws that are described in the Old Testament, such as being sentenced to death if you work on the Sabbath, or for children to be killed for cursing their parents. They usually say that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament and therefore no longer applies. This is despite the fact Jesus emphatically said the opposite.

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19)

(31) Slavery

The Bible condones slavery. Some Christians today claim that the Bible actually refers to servants, who were presumably working voluntarily for wages. The following scriptures demonstrate otherwise:

Exodus 21:20-21:

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

Leviticus 25:44-46:

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

32) Homosexuality.

Now we know that Homosexuality isn't a simple choice. So why do Christians treat it as such?

33) Status of Women.
(34) Lack of Scientific Insight

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I'll give the rest a go out of respect to your request, but if any more nonsense pops up I'm not promising I'll finish the article!

I'm reminded of an old saying (well, I've been saying it for years, lol,): Why have 32 flavours when you can't get vanilla right?

Anti-theist logic:

i think that those who criticize god for allowing that to happen are actually criticizing the idea that anyone would willingly worship such a person.

From my point of view Jesus preaches non-duality just like Buddha, Nanek and Rumi to name a few. The oneness of everything and that your soul brothers and soul sisters should be treated as yourself and joining of a brotherhood/sisterhood that follows those ideal in action.

I will give you an example:

Matthew 25:31-46

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, accompanied by all the angels, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. 33 The ‘sheep’ he will place at his right hand and the ‘goats’ at his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take your inheritance, the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you made me your guest, 36 I needed clothes and you provided them, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

37 Then the people who have done what God wants will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and make you our guest, or needing clothes and provide them? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison, and visit you?’ 40 The King will say to them, ‘Yes! I tell you that whenever you did these things for one of the least important of these brothers of mine, you did them for me!’

41 “Then he will also speak to those on his left, saying, ‘Get away from me, you who are cursed! Go off into the fire prepared for the Adversary and his angels! 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 a stranger and you did not welcome me, needing clothes and you did not give them to me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’

44 Then they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, a stranger, needing clothes, sick or in prison, and not take care of you?’ 45 And he will answer them, ‘Yes! I tell you that whenever you refused to do it for the least important of these people, you refused to do it for me!’ 46 They will go off to eternal punishment, but those who have done what God wants will go to eternal life.”

Jesus here sees himself in other people suffering and thinks of their suffering as his own and judges the people that have not acted for the good of his soul brothers and sisters as goats while the ones who have been the keeper of the soul sisters and brothers are sheep.

a reply to: amazing

I'm just going to address one of your questions.

The bible is full of Miracles performed by Jesus. Why then are there no accounts of this in any Historical roman texts?

Why would there be? Judea wasn't exactly the hotspot of the Roman Empire (apart from it being a thorn in the side of the empire,) Jesus pretty much stuck with other Jews and he was one religious leader of many in the time, so it's not surprising there they wouldn't write about it.

A common fallacy of anti-Christian critics is the application of modern world expectations to the First Century. Most people of the time were illiterate, so written communication was uncommon. There was no worldwide instantaneous communication, and things in the outlying districts were usually ignored or filed away without reference.

Why are there no Roman records about the existence of Christ until decades after he died? Because there is no reason for there to be. It would be far more surprising if there were some notation about this "Jewish prophet in Judea."

One notable thing about the later references to Christ in Roman records and the accounts of Josephus is that no one ever claims that Jesus didn't exist. Not even the harshest critics of Christianity lay that claim. The first people to claim that Christ was not an historic figure were in the 19th Century, 1800 years removed from the events.

I would categorize this "objection" as one of someone who lacks critical thinking skills, combined with not being aware of history and the cultural landscape at the time in question.

a reply to: adjensen

Why are there no Roman records about the existence of Christ until decades after he died? Because there is no reason for there to be

Nonsense.

Someone who was able to summons and hold such large crowds would have been noteworthy. Josephus documents scores of pre-Jewish war zealots and their crews. Nothing about the life and deeds of Jesus the Nazarene though! (Except the very famous pious frauds)

Besides, there should be records of other things that would help prove his story is true. Some written record of the Star of Bethlehem would be helpful. Something solid about the "Slaughter of the Innocents" and any evidence of census, requiring the residents of Nazareth, in Galilee, to go to their hometown would be awesome!

Some documentation of the earthquakes the day of his supposed crucifixion. Surely, someone would have documented all the sun darkening, an impossible eclipse, graves opening up and the dead that were resurrected and walking around that day. Why wouldn't that be recorded?

a reply to: amazing

Why would you keep this in the bible, unless you believe it? Believe in it? It's not a good passage. Where is the redeeming quality. Convince me why I should be a Christian if the bible has passages like this in it.

Well, there is Hell, separation from God and eventual destruction, or there is eternal life peace and love. If you knew you had a chance of achieving the latter, what would you do? People have died for it.

You seem to think that what is being described in the gouging out of an eye is a punishment, but it's actually not. It's a warning. If you think you will commit adultery, gouge out your eye instead. Remember, this is an Old Testament passage where the only possible way to be reconciled to God was through keeping the Law and to live a life free from sin. Jesus does not change this attitude of God's; he only makes it possible for us to be forgiven for our sins and reconciled in that way to God.

The logic is that if looking at a beautiful woman was temptation enough for you to feel lust for her, then better you should gouge out your eye so as not to go there and sin. At least, this outlook acknowledges the fault lies in the heart of the man rather than blaming it on the woman which became all too common in medieval thought and is still prevalent in some schools of religious thought to this day.

Of course, I am not writing this to convince you of anything. You have to convince yourself one way or the other. If you think these arguments are compelling and suitably intellectual and make perfect sense to you, then you will decide to remain an atheist. But you aren't going to convince any of us. These arguments simply lack depth.

Oh, and here is a professor of philosophy to explain why God lets bad things happen.

a reply to: ketsuko

Oh, and here is a professor of philosophy to explain why God lets bad things happen.

Nice video, thanks. Peter Kreeft is awesome! Have you read Between Heaven and Hell? As a big fan of C.S. Lewis, when I heard about it, I snapped up a copy, and it was my introduction to Kreeft's work.

a reply to: adjensen

I haven't, but now that you reference it, it's made my list of things to read eventually. I am also a fan of C.S. Lewis.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks for the reply and also thanks to Adjensen.

Although I take issue that you think I'm an atheist. I'm not. And that you don't think these arguments or talking points lack substance. They do. If we can't have a good discussion about it, then there's an issue. You can't just dismiss my questions as lacking depth and I'm really not an idiot. I posted this article because many, not all, but at least half of these points express how I feel about Christianity and why I am not a Christian any longer.

Well my gnostic inner meanings, faith in a wonderful Good and Loving infinite Consciousness Creator/Water/Energy "God" who is not a dominator and would never force or harm anyone but only waits for us to grow up, to ask for help and start to choose happiness/love and higher frequency and Christ as the way back home, model to achiever Higher Mind/Son/Intercessor. Well, don't need a church, tithings and there is no permanent hell for anyone, and all will make it home one life or another.

None of his questions matter, and that is to me real Christianity, the true early Christians and so his argument is with fundamentalism. Oh well.

a reply to: Unity_99

Hi Unity_99

But this Loving infinite Consciousness Creator/Water/Energy "God" that you speak of are told of in many religions and people have found the source from very different scripture even if the core meta is the same in different languages.

I say Jesus is a great teacher and that people can be en-light-ened (energized from source/god and connected to source/god) thru Christian faith.

My problem with some Christian:s are that some are judging other people for choosing other religions that god/source might have thru man created to help those people become en-light-ened. They are from my point of view doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus told/taught them.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

The whole my way or the highway from humans is getting old. God/source have sent messengers all over the world to make sure the sheep are getting home. Some sheep are Christian/Buddhists/Hindus/Sufi/Sikh and some are atheists since they have not found a connection to god that is pure enough for their souls.

Personally the faith behind actions/behavior do not matter to me. From my point of view being a believer of a human religion/atheism gives no free passes to act inappropriate.

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks for the reply and also thanks to Adjensen.

Although I take issue that you think I'm an atheist. I'm not. And that you don't think these arguments or talking points lack substance. They do. If we can't have a good discussion about it, then there's an issue. You can't just dismiss my questions as lacking depth and I'm really not an idiot. I posted this article because many, not all, but at least half of these points express how I feel about Christianity and why I am not a Christian any longer.

The other points though, what do they ultimately mean to you?

Aren't you the one who said that you were once Baptist and then Methodist? Perhaps it is not the author's list, but the attempt to justify Christianity according to certain tenets and doctrines of those faith systems?

For instance, would you be a Christian if you could justify predestination by the Bible? I think I have heard this same old story before, someone finds a doctrine wrong, has difficulty justifying a certain doctrine so they drop Christianity as a whole because they couldn't justify their position in a certain doctrine.

When you "were" a Christian, what particular doctrinal stance did you promote that you then later discovered was not true? There is a difference in doctrinal views and Christianity as a whole. And it sounds like you went to churches that told you that they were the only real Christian church, all others were not Christian. So it is easy then to say "Because I am not that doctrine anymore, I am no longer a Christian".

Have you confused Christianity as a whole with mere individual doctrinal tenets of various denominations?

a reply to: WarminIndy

You said or asked..."Have you confused Christianity as a whole with mere individual doctrinal tenets of various denominations?"

I don't think so, Methodists are notoriously less strict or open to other interpretations of the bible as opposed to certain Baptists who are very fundamental, at least those that I was associated with. It's not just any one doctrine or item but many.

I believe that being LBGT is not a simple choice. That is at odds with the bible and main stream Christianity.
I believe that the old testament is full of hate and killing. I'm totally against it.
I have a problem when Jesus says to follow all the old laws.. referring to the old testament. How can I follow someone like that?
I believe that Paul took Christianity and molded it in his view not the view of Jesus.

I mean there is just so much more, as I've listed earlier.

So if you were to have an honest discourse about Christianity with me, what would you say?

What I've seen earlier in this thread are statements like "Oh another Christian Bashing thread.." "...Atheist has already made up his mind..." "If you don't believe, I can't change your mind.." " Too many threads like this already..." etc. But no real counter arguments.

a reply to: amazing

11) Failure to Return.

Per Jesus himself : Matthew 16:28:

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus is "in his kingdom" right now.
"See" is a word biblically that doesn't just mean in the sense of looking at something with your eyes, but usually meant to perceive it in a mental sense.
We see the evidence of God's kingdom on earth with Jesus on the throne, and we understand it as a reality.