Why reject Christianity?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy 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.

Are you perfect? is any human perfect? case closed.

[Matt W]

Perhaps everyone here should re-read the original post, hmm? This isn't particularly a debate topic, just a poll. Go argue elsewhere.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Okay. If He was not man, explain how HE died. IF He was not God, how did he then ressurect Himself?

That's a little like asking "If Superman isn't real then who saved Lois Lane all those times?" Jesus didn't die on a cross nor did he resurrect because the story is just that: a story.

Papias,

What about it?

Four similar gospels,

All of which are fictional. With the exception of Mark, each builds from the earlier existing gospels and weren't written until the 2nd century. All of which didn't come into Christian consciousness until two decades prior to the third century. I've presented evidence on this. Where is your counter-evidence?

several independent sources,

False. There are no independent sources for the gospels what-so-ever. There are simply individuals like Josephus & Tacitus who just happened to be the first in a VERY long line of individuals (yourself included) to encounter Christians and assume there was a Christ.

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.

Muslim suicide bombers die for Allah all the time. Do you acknowledge their religion as valid?

On the other hand, we know the disciples are as fictional as their mythical teacher. Each one is attributed multiple deaths and ludicrous travels nor do we have a shred of evidence for their existence.

Or explain why the Jews NEVER said he didn't exist when the early church started preaching about Him.

They did. Quite often, in fact. It's why there are still Jews today and why they didn't all convert to Christianity. Remember that the Christian timeline of events is also a work of fiction. There wasn't any hooplah in Judea where bodies came back from the dead. Christianity started off as just another Jesus cult and there had been Jesus cults since 88 bce as evidenced by Yeshua Ben Pandira.

The argument that Jesus never existed is young. It is a new argument fabricated by non-Christians to hide from the truth.

What a horrendous and dishonest thing to offer in a debate? Do you know what's young? The idea that Christians don't MURDER non-Christians or individuals who posit that Jesus never existed. History is litered with the bodies of CHRISTIANS who "dared" to suggest the Jesus myth happened differently. I shudder to think what torterous atrocities would have awaited the atheist during the age of the inquisition.

Also, the knowledge that Jesus never existed isn't as new as you'd think. For the past 200 years, a minority of scholars have understood the truth. They included some of our founding fathers:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

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?

Because the first gospel, Mark, wasn't penned until circa 70 ce, nearly four decades after the events alleged in the book. Factor in an adjustment for the relatively short lifespans, and it would be like me stating the Messiah showed up at a road stop in North Olmstead, OH in 1837 and went on to do something really amazing in Circleville, OH in 1867. The "fact" that you can't find anyone to contradict me "proves" it happened. Nevermind that the journals & newspapers from that era & area mention nothing...

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.

See above. Terrible analogy.

Are you reading the translations made before or after the life of Jesus.

There were no writings about Jesus from the alleged "time of Jesus" because he never existed.

The oldest copies of the OT are in Greek, and the Greek reads as virgin, not handmaiden.

No. You're wrong.

The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah is (almah), which undisputedly means 'young woman', with no implication of virginity. If 'virgin' had been intended (bethulah) could have been used instead (the ambiguous English word 'maiden' illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The 'mutation' occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered almah into .... (parthenos), which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards), quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel' (Authorised English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) prophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give 'young woman' in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave 'virgin' in Matthew, since there they are translating from the Greek."

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.

Of course they wouldn't have. They weren't real. You may as well say, "Lois Lane would NEVER miss a chance to tell the world who Superman really is, but she doesn't!" and demand we see that as "evidence" of Superman's existense.

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.

Don't be silly. You cannot torture a person who never existed... but one can be motivated into believing such a thing happened because of how memes function.

[dthmstr254]

You know, I ain't arguing with someone who ain't even going to look at the evidence and refuses to put up more than their own assertions. I have presented mountains of evidence to a blind man who evidently can't see past his own ego.

Dthmstr254, over and out.

[Zhavric]

Neither you nor I are under any obligation to consider propaganda as "mountains of facts". In glancing through your posts, I haven't seen anything beyond logical arguments based on unsound assumptions & appeals to the gospels (which we've established are faulty & unsupported).

On the other hand, I've clearly indicated why each and every claim you've made is flawed. Where is your counter-argument?

Drizzt would be disapointed in you for giving up. :)

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Are you perfect? is any human perfect? case closed.

The perfection was referring to God; not to people.

[Cephus]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Okay. If He was not man, explain how HE died. IF He was not God, how did he then ressurect Himself?

The Bible is a story. What you're asking is like wondering how Harry Potter flew on a broom. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus ever resurrected from the dead in reality, any more than there's a reason to think Mohammed rode off to heaven on horseback.

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.

People die for all kinds of stupid and very wrong beliefs. Look at all the Islamic suicide bombers. Look at the Heaven's Gate cult. Look at Jim Jones and David Koresh. Those are just a few modern day examples, there are millions throughout history who have died for truly stupid and very wrong things. Christians are no different.

Come on, you're being ridiculous.

[Cephus]

Quote by: dthmstr254 You know, I ain't arguing with someone who ain't even going to look at the evidence and refuses to put up more than their own assertions. I have presented mountains of evidence to a blind man who evidently can't see past his own ego.

In other words, you got your head handed to you and now you're going to go pout in the corner.

Real mature.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Cephus The Bible is a story. What you're asking is like wondering how Harry Potter flew on a broom. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus ever resurrected from the dead in reality,

Also, since we know the disciples are fictional, claiming "no one would have died for a lie" is about as compelling as "No one would have been friends with Harry Potter if he hadn't fought Voldemort".

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: LetThereBe Salutations noble debators. Just curious what everyone here thinks is their number one reason for rejecting Christianity. I'm sure for many they have many reasons, but I just want the one that carries the most weight. I would also appreciate it if this did not turn into a debate, but rather remained a poll, so one post per person would be great. A few possible reasons that I know of: A) Presence of suffering B) Internal Biblical Inconsistencies C) Disagreement with science (ie, creation) D) Hypocrisy of most Christians E) The claim of miracles F) Being one out of literally thousands of religions G) Travesties committed in the name of the religion Or whatever else you can think of.

I don't know about other people's reasons, but personally, never believing in Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, or God at all my entire life is probably the reason I reject it. If I was convinced of it at an early age, maybe I would have trouble rejecting it, but (though exposed to religion) it never took. I have to imagine this is a common experience.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Zhavric Also, since we know the disciples are fictional, claiming "no one would have died for a lie" is about as compelling as "No one would have been friends with Harry Potter if he hadn't fought Voldemort".

Which is probably true as well. We know that the people who wrote the Gospels were never disciples of a real Jesus or even eyewitnesses to anything that they claimed happened. Thinking that Matthew actually walked with Jesus is like thinking J.K. Rowling hangs out with Hagrid.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: dthmstr254 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.

Oh well...

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: belverron No real logic behind it, no answers, just a bunch of bullshit that many people try and fail to justify.

Logic isn't necessarily the the biggest thing we should live our lives on. Sometimes people overestimate their smartness and unduly overemphasize rationality; it's possible to get addicted to one's own sense of self-power, in other words. To call something "bullshit" just because it doesn't seem to correspond with your inflated sense of self is misguided and irresponsible, in my opinion.

True, there are some BS claims out there, but sometimes standards for normalcy suggest that some claims, despite their apparent departure from logical standards, aren't necessarily BS. Of course, it depends on your perspective, but I don't like your abusive tone. Maybe you don't care though, so carry on.

[Zhavric]

You do know no one has touched this thread since January, yes?

Quote by: Epistemologist Logic isn't necessarily the the biggest thing we should live our lives on. Sometimes people overestimate their smartness and unduly overemphasize rationality; it's possible to get addicted to one's own sense of self-power, in other words. To call something "bullshit" just because it doesn't seem to correspond with your inflated sense of self is misguided and irresponsible, in my opinion. True, there are some BS claims out there, but sometimes standards for normalcy suggest that some claims, despite their apparent departure from logical standards, aren't necessarily BS. Of course, it depends on your perspective, but I don't like your abusive tone. Maybe you don't care though, so carry on.

Do you see how your second paragraph contradicts your first? If we're not so interested in logic, then how are we to discern BS from truth?

[Epistemologist]

In reference to our cultural standards, I suppose. In fact, a dominance of logic in thought processes can also be attributed to a particular culture(s), just as emotional determination can.

Sorry about responding.

[OratorDeVeritas]

I found this interesting, Zhavric.

You said on the first page:
"Please don't use analogies...Stick to debating what's being said and leave analogies be."

On the last page:
"Of course they wouldn't have. They weren't real. You may as well say, 'Lois Lane would NEVER miss a chance to tell the world who Superman really is, but she doesn't!' and demand we see that as 'evidence' of Superman's existense."

I believe you used a couple other "Superman" analogies, too.


Is that not an analogy, and therefore an inconsistency in your words?


P.S. Zhavric, I was wondering if you would put a link to this in your signature.

[Vivid]

Inconsistencies - all of the inconsistencies. A few examples:

Major parts of the ideology itself conflicts with other major parts of the ideology, (Like a good God that is in control of of every event wouldn't create helpless humans that are born evil only to force/allow/destine them to sin and then punish them, lol - or God can't create itself, especially not from nothing, because it wouldn't have existed yet in order to do so.) much of it conflicts with observed outer reality (bad things happen to good people!) as well as conflicting with my inner (emotional / psychological) reality (IE: If God doesn't want us having sex except in very strict controlled circumstances, why are our sex drives so powerful? If God knows everything, God must know that I don't change my behaviors (think necessary evils) until I have an alternative - so why didn't he just put those alternatives in the Bible?)

* Note: I reject the religion aspect of the Bible, but I do believe in Jesus, and occasionally read his words to glean wisdoms. But I am also Buddhist and Discordian in the same non-religious trying to get to the heart of spirituality sort of way. So on a technicality, I am Christian, but I am nothing like the typical religious Christians, so I don't even bother to call myself one, in order to avoid confusion, lol.

[Jagged]

Illogical. In all respects.

[Yasa]

I'm quite turned off by the fact that the supposed god created a situation of blackmail. If I don't believe in him, it's off to eternal torture for me. Free will my ass.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: LetThereBe Salutations noble debators. Just curious what everyone here thinks is their number one reason for rejecting Christianity. I'm sure for many they have many reasons, but I just want the one that carries the most weight. I would also appreciate it if this did not turn into a debate, but rather remained a poll, so one post per person would be great. A few possible reasons that I know of: A) Presence of suffering B) Internal Biblical Inconsistencies C) Disagreement with science (ie, creation) D) Hypocrisy of most Christians E) The claim of miracles F) Being one out of literally thousands of religions G) Travesties committed in the name of the religion Or whatever else you can think of.

Wish it was a real poll so I could check the results with ease.
I reject the idea of having a title or "name tag" as belonging to a group identity.