Why reject Christianity?

[Gods_Mercenary]

All christian denominations I'm aware of believe that everything in the Bible is true, one way or another. The difference is that Catholics and others read many parts of it poetically and in context, while others don't. For instance, Catholics don't subscribe to creationism in the way the Bible states it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai christian - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Is there a reason you deliberatly say strange & off-topic things to try to derail threads? Is there a reason you didn't scroll down past the adjectives to the nouns:

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

[Fonceai]

@Zhavric

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

You're guilty of reading only part of the statement, and not only misunderstanding just the part you read but also the entire thing:

believe - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Because the word "believe" is used with an object, then this definition applies:

to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

So believe, in reference to a person, doesn't mean what you are trying to say it means.

410 Grammar: Using Colons and Semi-Colons

The use of the semi-colon is meant to link those two together... believer in Christ and adherent of Christ... the two concepts are joined in this definition

adherent - Definitions from Dictionary.com

a person who follows or upholds a leader, cause, etc.

This clarifies the purpose of the word belief by adding that a Christian follows or upholds the same.

---

Now that that bit of side-tracking is done, as I wrote earlier, you can still be a Christian and not think Jesus was a real person.

[Zhavric]

Thank you, Fonceai, for demonstrating that you're willing to sacrifice common sense on the altar of grammatic fascism. Again.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: LetThereBe Just curious what everyone here thinks is their number one reason for rejecting Christianity.

There is a myriad of reasons not to subscribe to Christianity. However, the strongest positive proof against Christianity for me is the issue of suffering. Suffering and perfection can't logically co-exist. Simple as that.

[The_Genius]

Because Christian scriptures were distorted many times... The Bible was edited at least 20 times since 1538.

[nm420]

I was raised as a Christian, but I've since rejected all the trappings of the church. Perhaps the biggest kicker for me was learning just a tiny smidgen of the history of the church. The chronology of the Gospels, how it is clear that later ones merely embellished stories from previous ones, all of which were written at least a generation after Christ's alleged death, and the logical inconsistencies they tell about Christ's life. The decision process in what books should be included in the New Testament was motivated by politics. The blatant fabrication of doctrine like Mary's Ascension and the indulgences offered by the Church. When you start looking at all of these pieces, it takes not blind faith, but blind obedience, to accept anything they tell you at face value.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Thank you, Fonceai, for demonstrating that you're willing to sacrifice common sense on the altar of grammatic fascism. Again.

Swallow your pride.

You questioned whether someone could be Christian without believing in your narrow-minded definition.

You questioned my reference, and then I clarified it for you.

It also illustrates the point I made in my first post.

I'm a "technical" Christian because I believe in the teachings of Christ. Although, it's not hard to believe that "be nice" is a good policy.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai I'm a "technical" Christian because I believe in the teachings of Christ. Although, it's not hard to believe that "be nice" is a good policy.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ literally died for your sins on a big wooden cross? If we went back about 2000 years ago would we see something not unlike Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ".

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Do you believe that Jesus Christ literally died for your sins on a big wooden cross? If we went back about 2000 years ago would we see something not unlike Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ".

You really just can't help your own little habit of asking these kinds of questions, can you?

What's your point?

[Zhavric]

Why do you have an aversion to clarifying your position? You want me to get to the point. Fine. You're keeping your stance on Christianity deliberately amorphous & vague so as to be able to evade arguments. You made a statement about your own belief system on a public internet message board. Don't cry foul when someone asks you to clarify it. I don't appreciate your semi-hostile accusations.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Why do you have an aversion to clarifying your position?

No aversion. I'm just not stupid.

Your questions are baiting and irrelevant to the reason I stated for rejecting Christianity as a religion.

Quote by: Z You're keeping your stance on Christianity deliberately amorphous & vague so as to be able to evade arguments.

Vague? Was I not clear enough for you?

I thought I made it reasonably clear that my stance on Christianity as a religion is that I reject it... but that I think the morals and ethics beneath the stories of Christianity are a good thing.

I even went so far as to say that I think "be nice" is a good idea.

How much clear do I need to be?

[Cephus]

Quote by: dthmstr254 The New Testament shows Jesus as all man AND all God.

No, the New Testament *CLAIMS* this. It does not demonstrate it in any way, shape or form. Making a claim does not make something true.

If He were not all of either of them, His death would be for nought.

There's no evidence that he existed at all, much less was crucified and certainly the stories in the Gospels are greatly embellished if he was, indeed crucified. You're arguing theological points, we're arguing reality.

As for the second and third items you posit, there is no mistranslation. Mark is reporting it as it was told to him by Peter. John Mark, being trained by and probably under Paul at the time, felt that the virgin birth would take away from the "Son of man" picture he was aiming for. Again, the lack of it in one does not automatically mean it didn't happen.

Of course it's a mistranslation, it's well known that the so-called prophecy did not refer to a virgin at all, but to a young maiden. The Gospel writers, because many "messiahs" of the ancient world were born to virgins, simply shoehorned it into their accounts and then purposely mistranslated Isaiah to support it. There is no question that Isaiah did not refer to a virgin, and did not make a prophecy in the first place.

[Gods_Mercenary]

It wouldn't be a stretch for him to be crucified(assuming he existed) Pontius Pilate was removed as governor by Rome on the grounds that he was too brutal. When you're considered too brutal by a roman emperor, you've crucified a helluva lot of people.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai It occurs to me that there might be some confusion about the word "literal"

Nobody reads the Bible literally, nobody. They read it LITERALISTICALLY.

If they read it literally, when Jesus said "I am the door", they'd demand that he have a a doorknob and be made of wood.

[Gods_Mercenary]

:)Literalictically thingy is so hard to spell! :)

[Fonceai]

@Cephus

Bravo.

The link I provided made sure to show the difference. I'm disappointed someone didn't use that against me earlier... <grins>

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai The link I provided made sure to show the difference. I'm disappointed someone didn't use that against me earlier... <grins>

Most of the time, when people use 'literal', they really mean 'literalistic' so it's not a big deal. There isn't a person on the planet, throughout all history, that really takes the Bible literally. It would be patently silly.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Cephus No, the New Testament *CLAIMS* this. It does not demonstrate it in any way, shape or form. Making a claim does not make something true.

Okay. If He was not man, explain how HE died. IF He was not God, how did he then ressurect Himself?

There's no evidence that he existed at all, much less was crucified and certainly the stories in the Gospels are greatly embellished if he was, indeed crucified. You're arguing theological points, we're arguing reality.

Papias, Four similar gospels, several independent sources, and, of course, without Jesus's existence, nobody would have gone so far as to die for such a myth. Explain the reason that simple fishermen would go through the tortures they went through, for a lie. Or explain why the Jews NEVER said he didn't exist when the early church started preaching about Him. THe argument that Jesus never existed is young. It is a new argument fabricated by non-Christians to hide from the truth. If somebody told you of somebody in our age that brought about such a huge change, that never existed, what would you think if you couldn't find anything on him? You would think, who is this guy? Why didn't the Jews of the age ask that? THAT is the reality of the it. The FACT is that Jews, who were said to have crucified Jesus, never asked WHO Jesus was. It would be like me saying my brother never existed, even though the evidence all points to the opposite. So, I posit that your parents never existed, even though your existence counters that.

Do you see the absurdity of this?

Of course it's a mistranslation, it's well known that the so-called prophecy did not refer to a virgin at all, but to a young maiden. The Gospel writers, because many "messiahs" of the ancient world were born to virgins, simply shoehorned it into their accounts and then purposely mistranslated Isaiah to support it. There is no question that Isaiah did not refer to a virgin, and did not make a prophecy in the first place.

Are you reading the translations made before or after the life of Jesus. Did you somehow find the animal skins they wrote on and deposited when they were replaced with new copies? The oldest copies of the OT are in Greek, and the Greek reads as virgin, not handmaiden. Now you must be getting truly desperate, because this is one of the oldest myths have run into. Plus the fact that, again, you have shown no motive for the disciples to lie about it. If it were legendary, they would never have shown themselves as doing such embarrassing things and asking such stupid questions. Peter would never have told Paul of his telling God that he would not eat of the "unclean food" that God offered. John would never have reported his own falling asleep at the Garden of Gesthemene. NONE OF THEM would have reported that WOMEN, who were legally incapable of being a witness to an event, were the first at the grave. Explain all those embarrassing things they reported and were tortured for. Explain away why, when they preached their gospel, thousands of Jews and gentiles turned to the Lord. The simple answer, from an investigator's view, is that they had no motive to report this if it were not the truth.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: The_Genius Because Christian scriptures were distorted many times... The Bible was edited at least 20 times since 1538.

However, we have so many copies (around 25,000) of the Bible that today's copies are more reliable than the versions we have of Gulliver's Travels.