Why reject Christianity?

[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.

[another day]

Because it is nothing more then mythical folklore, just like any story book.

[Jack]

The failure of Christians to provide any sort of testable evidence that supports the need for or existence of their proposed god.

[belverron]

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

[Cephus]

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

Same reason for rejecting every other religion out there. There isn't a shred of evidence to demonstrate that it's true.

That was a hard question?

[Eclipse]

Silly Response: It's easier for me to say everything minus a few things.

Serious Response:
A - Not really
B - Would lead me to reject the bible
C - It's not about disagreement. Science, as of now, does not have all the answers.
D - Just leads me to know that some Christians are in fact not Christians.
E - Just more rejection of a particular aspect.
F - Not really.
G - Should not lead a person to reject the whole if you look at it from that angle.

None of these should logically lead a person to fully reject the Judaeo-Christian God. Since this is not about God and is about religion, they do a lot of damage, with the addition of other reasons, to the religion itself and other theistic religions.

[Zhavric]

LetThereBe, you forgot the most important reason to reject Christianity: the demonstrable fact Jesus never existed.

[Technosoul]

(H) - The idea that their belief is the "only one" and that all else is wrong, deceptive, or false.

[shunyadragon]

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 believe that Christ was a Jewish messiah, but for his place and time, but regardless of my belief, ALL ancient religions and texts reflect a limited worldview of their culture, place and time. In today's world these ancient texts and beliefs contain a lot of false or limited expressions of truth, history and science that we know today as reasonable. These worldviews are no longer reasonable, therefore they need a lot patchwork, wedgies and fixes in an attempt make them fit today. That is why ancient religions divide and subdivide into varying worldviews and denominations ranging from the bizaar to bland.

The identity of God or some other concept or word for the 'Source' takes on a
heavy cultural and ethnic burden that is expressed in a limited chosen people who know the truth, The absurd nature of these claims is apparent when taking into consideration the diversity of cultures and claims throughout the thousands of years of human history all over the globe.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood The failure of Christians to provide any sort of testable evidence that supports the need for or existence of their proposed god.

Well, you can certainly test the claim that there is currently no way for life to have come about without aid, but hey, wouldn't that contradict the scientific law that spontaneous generation doesn't can't happen. SOOO, you got your testable evidence. There is evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Test that more. Go run your tests and let me know the results.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: shunyadragon I believe that Christ was a Jewish messiah, but for his place and time, but regardless of my belief, ALL ancient religions and texts reflect a limited worldview of their culture, place and time. In today's world these ancient texts and beliefs contain a lot of false or limited expressions of truth, history and science that we know today as reasonable. These worldviews are no longer reasonable, therefore they need a lot patchwork, wedgies and fixes in an attempt make them fit today. That is why ancient religions divide and subdivide into varying worldviews and denominations ranging from the bizaar to bland. The identity of God or some other concept or word for the 'Source' takes on a heavy cultural and ethnic burden that is expressed in a limited chosen people who know the truth, The absurd nature of these claims is apparent when taking into consideration the diversity of cultures and claims throughout the thousands of years of human history all over the globe. God is not a chess player with the white pieces. God is the sea and we are the fishes.

we never said God was a chess player. God is a king and we are the citizens of his kingdom.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric LetThereBe, you forgot the most important reason to reject Christianity: the demonstrable fact Jesus never existed.

I am sorry, but it would be impossible to disprove Jesus's existence with the fact that then there would be no foundation to the gospels and no possibility of them being so consistent with eachother. Without Jesus, there is no explanation of the similarities of the gospels, since they were written in different places, times, and by different authors, one with maybe two writers of the same name (The book of John). We could have four people confirming facts in the same room and writing seperate accounts of it and never have as much consistency in describing the same incident, much less a biography.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: dthmstr254 I am sorry, but it would be impossible to disprove Jesus's existence with the fact that then there would be no foundation to the gospels and no possibility of them being so consistent with eachother. Without Jesus, there is no explanation of the similarities of the gospels, since they were written in different places, times, and by different authors, one with maybe two writers of the same name (The book of John). We could have four people confirming facts in the same room and writing seperate accounts of it and never have as much consistency in describing the same incident, much less a biography.

What a ridiculous handful of assertions? I can't help but notice the thread I linked to which discusses the non-existence of the gospel Jesus hasn't been bumped to the front page with your detailed reply, nor have you offered anything of substance here. The gospels do not agree in the manner you have alleged.

For example, Mark (the first gospel to be written) tells us a story nearly devoid of miracles and is embarassingly ignorant of Jesus' parentage. The virgin birth isn't mentioned at all (owing to it being a mistranslation). The gospels don't appear in Christian consciousness until near the end of the second century, over a hundred years after the events they alleged. Athenagoras, a second century writer, wrote "A Plea for the Christians" which attempted to explain to the Alexandria church what Christianity was all about. In 37 chapters, he never mentions Jesus as an actual person, using him interchangeably with logos.

As I've stated elsewhere, apologists & Christians in general aren't encouraged to examine their religion, but instead are trained to defend it. None of you ask the big important questions... which is the hallmark of all good propaganda. You'd probably never hear a nazi asking DID the Jews burn the Reichstagg, but you would hear them ask HOW the Jews did it. Likewise, you've probably never considered Philo of Alexandria... or tried to wrap your head around how Jesus can be born of a virgin AND be part of the house of David....

Perhaps you hold courage in your convictions and will address the thread, yes?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric What a ridiculous handful of assertions? I can't help but notice the thread I linked to which discusses the non-existence of the gospel Jesus hasn't been bumped to the front page with your detailed reply, nor have you offered anything of substance here. The gospels do not agree in the manner you have alleged.

Ok, since you decide to disagree, let me dispell these:

For example, Mark (the first gospel to be written) tells us a story nearly devoid of miracles and is embarassingly ignorant of Jesus' parentage. The virgin birth isn't mentioned at all (owing to it being a mistranslation).

The New Testament shows Jesus as all man AND all God. If He were not all of either of them, His death would be for nought. If he were not all-man he would not have died. And if He were not all God, He would have sinned and thus made His death pointless. Mark simply focuses on the fact that He was also the Son of man. The lack of miracles in one book hardly denies the existence of them, and thus, does not contradict the claim of miracles from the others. You will have to try harder on that one.

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.

These arguments are like saying that 9/11 didn't happen simply because somebody reported the fire and collapse without the planes flying into the towers.

The gospels don't appear in Christian consciousness until near the end of the second century, over a hundred years after the events they alleged.

Again, an incorrect assumption. The earliest known COPIES of the gospels date to then. That doesn't mean that the originals were written then. Based on what is reported in the gospels, and what is reported by sources such as Papias and other commentaries about the gospels that date BEFORE the second century AD, we can easily pin them down to before 100 BC, still only a generation from the death and resurrection of Christ.

Athenagoras, a second century writer, wrote "A Plea for the Christians" which attempted to explain to the Alexandria church what Christianity was all about. In 37 chapters, he never mentions Jesus as an actual person, using him interchangeably with logos.

Note that the same word is used in John 1 in the same way. Thanks for giving me resources to show dates. WIth this, we can now date the writing of John to before that, and with Papias, a first century writer who posited the dual writer theory of John in implicit terms, we can then date it to before then.

As I've stated elsewhere, apologists & Christians in general aren't encouraged to examine their religion, but instead are trained to defend it. None of you ask the big important questions... which is the hallmark of all good propaganda. You'd probably never hear a nazi asking DID the Jews burn the Reichstagg, but you would hear them ask HOW the Jews did it. Likewise, you've probably never considered Philo of Alexandria... or tried to wrap your head around how Jesus can be born of a virgin AND be part of the house of David....

There are two different genealogies in the gospels. IT has long been said that one is of Mary and the other of Joseph. Warp your head around that.

Perhaps you hold courage in your convictions and will address the thread, yes?

I would if I could. right now, I don't have time to read through all the posts so I don't present old meterial. I do have to read about 6-7 books for school, not counting reading to be done for projects, Deaf events for ASL 2, 20 hrs a week for work study, and church on Sunday, Wednesday and Thursday, not to mention classes. I fit this in when I can, which means early in the morning and late at night. Unless you would like to come and do my classes for me.

Perhaps you will hold courage and address it here and now. You give your reason, now defend it. So far, you haven't given me anything I haven't seen before, and looked into fully.

[Lotharia]

Because none of it makes any sense. Some superhero all-knowing, all-powerful god designs this HUMUMGOUS universe, populates a minor planet in a minor galaxy with some mammals who develop large brains, for the single purpose of having these mammals worship him? Nah.

[Fonceai]

Christianity is a great idea, based on some very vivid parables with very valuable lessons.

But the idea has become an institution, which loses the flexibility of the idea and locks it into the rigid bindings of routine and procedure.

So if it's a question of the religions of Christianity, I reject them.

If it's a question of the morals and ethics of Christianity, I embrace them.

[Lotharia]

All societies have come up with lists of pretty good morals and ethics. The one about "worship this god or burn in hell" kinda sticks out as one of the bad ones Christianity came up with.

[Praxius]

Just not logical and doesn't answer any of the questions I wanted answered.

[Zhavric]

Mark, being the first gospel written, had no knowledge of the virgin birth because that aspect of the Jesus mythology hadn't yet been invented. He had no other gospels to write from because there weren't any in existence at the time of his writing. If we look at the gospels, Mark has almost no miracles in it while the following gospels invented more of them. Oh... and which Peter are you referring to? The one beheaded by Nero as claimed by Anicetus in the second century? The Peter mentioned in the Clementines who was the "First Bishop of Rome" for 25 years making it impossible for him to be beheaded by Nero? Or do you mean the Peter Origen tells us about in the third century who was crucified upside down?

I'm afraid the disciples are every bit as fictional as their mythical teacher.

These arguments are like saying that 9/11 didn't happen simply because somebody reported the fire and collapse without the planes flying into the towers.

Please don't use analogies. This is a terrible mischaracterization of my argument. Stick to debating what's being said and leave analogies be. My argument is nothing of the sort.

Again, an incorrect assumption. The earliest known COPIES of the gospels date to then.

In 90 generations of scholarship, no one has found a copy or original gospel dating before the second century. This wouldn't be a problem if we had other texts from that era which mentioned the gospels. The problem is that we have no such documents and many other documents, such as Athenagoras' writings and the Diachne which are woefully ignorant & unconcerned about the gospels. We don't see a third party mention of the gospels until 180 ce.

Note that the same word is used in John 1 in the same way. Thanks for giving me resources to show dates.

Don't be so quick to thank me.

We could imagine that modern day Christians living in the 21st century would fall all over themselves to mention the specific details of the gospels & Jesus' life. Athenagoras, living in the 2nd century was completely unconcerned with these alleged "facts". Here's what he had to say:

"...we acknowledge one God... by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being... we acknowledge also a Son of God... But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made..."

No Sermon on the Mount. No virgin birth. No walking on water. No water into wine.

No all-important sacrifice.

Just another aspect of god that helped him create the universe. It establishes the fact the gospels weren't quite on the scene yet in the way most Christians believe they were.

There are two different genealogies in the gospels. IT has long been said that one is of Mary and the other of Joseph. Warp your head around that.

LOL. No, as an atheist, I can see it for the ridiculousness it is. I'll thank you to answer my original question or concede that you cannot.

So far, you haven't given me anything I haven't seen before, and looked into fully.

If you'd looked into it fully, you'd likely not be Christian anymore. What you've done is seen the answer apologists offer and looked no further. But, since you asked for it...

[Zhavric]

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

V. The Disciples and the Sales Pitch

At the core of Christian argumentation is a VERY strong appeal to emotion (guilt). We are told of Jesus (a re-telling of Mithras who's more accessable) who's everyhing to everyone: king and pauper, righteous and meek, etc. We are told that he died for our... specifically our sins. We are given a story that's very obviously impossible that demands additional evidence. After all, people don't just come back from the dead nor does water spontaneously become wine, etc.

Instead of evidence, we are given the emotionally charged claim of the disciples; those brave martyrs who believed so strongly in the Jesus story that they died for it. This is the REAL argument that apologists use. As human beings, we're naturally inclined to be motivated by guilt. We're SUPPOSED to feel guilty for questioning the bravery of people who sacrificed their lives for what they believed.

The problem is the disciples are as fictional as their mythical creator.

Nearly all of them are attributed multiple different deaths in multiple places in multiple manners.

Peter, for example is beheaded by Nero according to Anicetus, given a 25 year pontificate as bishop of Rome in the Clementines (making it impossible for him to be murdered by Nero) and was crucified upside down by the imaginings of Origen. Bartholemew (Nathaniel) travels to India, Persia, Armenia and somewhere in Africa before being beheaded in Armenia... AND Persia. The list goes on and on.

It's an ingeneous argument: Unsupported claims (Jesus) being evidenced by more unsupported claims (the disciples) with a powerful guilt trip and an exaltation of those who believe WITHOUT evidence. It's the perfect way to get people to believe in something they'd normally scoff at.

There's other evidence we can get into later, such as the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century, but that's enough for now.
--------------------------------------------------

Sources:

jesuspuzzle.com

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible And Christianity -- The Historical Origins

BibleOrigins

Ancient Jewish Accounts of Jesus

Christian Origins Blog

The Historical Jesus: Table of Contents of on-line class notes (RL 307)

The Mystery of The Testimonium of Josephus

Welcome to Enlightenment! Religion–the Tragedy of Mankind - Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?