Strongest reasons to disbelieve Christianity

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Lots of little things to mention in that one, but what strikes me about it is that the argument presuposes that God's plan must be a certain way that isn't what we see in Scripture -- very presumptuous, to say the least -- and that therefore what we see in Scripture isn't God's plan. Seems circular to me.
Maybe I will start a thread on that item, and we can get into the detail then.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Possibly the dumbest one on the list would be #12, which just asserts that souls must be made of particles, and that God would have to have used particles to make eternal souls that could go to an afterlife. But physics can't show the existence of so-called "soul particles" and therefore souls aren't real and Christianity is wrong.
That point in particular was what prompted me to disagree earlier. It's really, really stupid.
Really?Sounds perfectly sensible to me:
In physics, we know the rules of the everyday world, and this constrains the kinds of things that make sense. We know enough to simply rule out astrology, claims of clairvoyance, ESP, life after death, homeopathy, and other supernatural claims. If these claims were true, we would know that already. If you claim that a soul exists and lives on in the afterlife, tell us the physics by which the soul moves to the afterlife.
Anyone can make up any idea, of course, but that's no reason why people should believe it. If someone told you that the position of the stars determines your life, you'd ask how that works and how they know. If someone said that diluting a chemical a few million times increases its power, you'd want to know how that works, and how they know.
And if someone tells me that when you die you don't really die, but instead continue living in an immaterial "body" - how does that work, exactly? And how do you know?
And when you say, "I don't know, it just works like that," I know that you don't really know. It's just something you were told and, failing to apply critical thinking skills, believed.

I don't think there really are alot of so-called "silver bullets". For some Christians, their faith is incredibly robust and won't fall prone to what amounts to soundbites.
Yes. Quite true. People with irrational beliefs are extremely good at defending them, especially when they are strongly anchored by emotional bonds, childhood indoctrination, social harmony, and a whole industry of priests, preachers and apologists, churning out rationalisations for their beliefs. .

How about instead a thread on the Eight reasons why Atheists 'should' seek to remove Christianity from the world, or some other similar vein involving not only unbelief but the political and social motive behind it that drives it ... ?
Sounds like the thing known as "concern trolling".
Also, not partocularly interesting, frankly.

I think this would be more interesting, particularly since I'm coming to think that atheism itself isn't the main bug-a-boo; no, it's overt Anti-christianism that is.
What Christians tend to call overt anti-Christianism is usually just the normal thoughts of atheism expressed publicly.
All atheists think the idea of God is ridiculous. Otherwise, they'd be theists.

I would probably vote for #20 "because the Bible story keeps rebooting" (I feel like I am on a game show LOL)
Lots of little things to mention in that one, but what strikes me about it is that the argument presupposes that God's plan must be a certain way that isn't what we see in Scripture -- very presumptuous, to say the least -- and that therefore what we see in Scripture isn't God's plan. Seems circular to me.
The argument strikes me as simple common sense:
If a perfect god actually existed, he would get his story straight from the beginning, and it wouldn’t look like what it is—a collection of loosely connected ancient mythology and legend.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The issue is that you are not qualified to forgive. You have not the authority needed. In the neck snapping example, for example. And if the suspects asks for mercy, your forgiveness falls on the perpetrators deaf ears. They don't recognise your forgiveness in their crimes.
But in the bible, God commands us to forgive. He tells us to even bless those who persecute us. But he himself apparently can't do that (or doesn't want to). Sometimes he'll forgive the most horrendous crime, in other cases he demands a blood sacrifice for smaller sins. It's internally inconsistent.
 
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I will try my best to be charitable here and simply say that if you think the arguments presented are "perfectly sensible" then you are sorely mistaken.

The first thing wrong with all this is that the author repeatedly makes an extremely basic category error in talking about the soul in terms of particles or some sort of physical existence. Physics, like any natural science, concerns itself with the natural, material universe. This is beyond dispute. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition spiritual and immaterial, and thus entirely outside the purview of physics or any other kind of natural science. Whether you believe in souls or not, you cannot disprove the existence of the soul using physics any more than you could disprove God using physics. Such questions are beyond the concern of science.

Furthermore, the blog author here is presupposing in his argumentation what he's supposed to set out to prove. His reduction of questions to the soul to physical particles presupposes a sort of philosophical naturalism -- in other words, it assumes a priori that the supernatural does not and cannot exist. The problem is that the thing being argued about is the very existence of some supernatural thing. It's question begging and very poor reasoning.


Anyone can make up any idea, of course, but that's no reason why people should believe it. If someone told you that the position of the stars determines your life, you'd ask how that works and how they know. If someone said that diluting a chemical a few million times increases its power, you'd want to know how that works, and how they know.
And if someone tells me that when you die you don't really die, but instead continue living in an immaterial "body" - how does that work, exactly? And how do you know?
And when you say, "I don't know, it just works like that," I know that you don't really know. It's just something you were told and, failing to apply critical thinking skills, believed.
Coming to different conclusions from you is not the same as failing to think critically about things.

It appears to be question begging.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The supposed reason christianity if false:
^_^

1There is clear evidence that prayer does not work despite the Bible promising prayers will be answered.
most atheist and even christian do not understand there is a difference between petition and prayer.
Prayer is a one way deal and luke 11 had Jesus Himself describing how it is we pray. this is often referred to as the lord's prayer. thing is it is the only true prayer period. it is not meant as a chant but an outline that has one humbly going before God giving thanks asking God to chnge him to change this world to forgive sins IF and only if we can inturn forgive those who sin against us (meaning do not forgive out sins unless we forgive those who sin against us) and we are prompted to ask for our daily needs as well! Jesus even goes so far to say ask anything in his name meaning anything you think he would want for you... but it has to be with in the frame work of the prayer structure he provided. That is what ask in my name means..

EVERYTHING ELSE is a petition Paul even makes this distinction. (that we are to bring prayer and petition to God) To have God internal change you and to work on your life and basic need is prayer.

new car new girl friend sickness no matter how nobel it is or you thik it is or that you need it. if it does not fit Christ's frame work in luke 11 you are not praying. petitioning God you could be worshiping God you could be talking to yourself. who knows. what is certain Christ when asked gave a singular example and paul when asked makes the distinction between prayer and petition/asking god for stuff.

So yes God answers prayer the thing is I do not know of an atheist who knows how to pray. So no his petition probably did not get answered.
2There is clear evidence that humans invent gods.
argumentum ad populum fallacy
Just because the group generally does does not mean all do all the time.

3 Humans have invented so many gods that the default assumption should be that a god is a supernatural entity invented by humans. Christianity would need solid evidence that the Jewish god is an exception to this rule but there is no such evidence.
actually there is, but what is available is dismissed by the community of disbelievers as a whole. In fact most atheist can not tell you what evidence they would need only that anything you offer is not acceptable.

4There is clear evidence that religions and gods are propagated through culture by infecting children, and no evidence that they are propagated by gods.
That's bunk.. in fact current stats indicate that by the second year of collage 75% of christian children in a public university cast off their beliefs. I guess the indoctrination of young children either does not have the hold that atheist claim or the universities have found a stronger form of indoctrination.

There is clear evidence that Christianity has evolved as human understanding of the world has changed whilst a real, God-given religion, should never need to change.
This is a straw man argument as Christianity was never about science nor explaining the world around us. it was only ever about the forgiveness of our sins.
Slow to understand atheist have made christianity a religion based on the world around us because of what was written out for the OT jews in Genesis.

There is clear evidence that humans on this planet have unequal access to Christianity so, if Christianity were true, billions would be condemned to hell for no fault of their own.
Last I checked the bible it was Jesus' call on whom burned in Hell and who did not. not one of us is privy to how Christ will judge those individuals, I should suspect far more fairly than any judge who has claimed that title.
This contradicts the Christian notion that God is omnibenevolent.
somebody not only has never read his bible he has never even bother to check to see if God claims to be omnibenevolent.. Here's the thing the bible never describes that way nor does God claim this title. in fact the bible gives a list of those in whom God hates!!! How then can God be omnibenevolent and hate a short list of people?
I guess maybe the god of this list is different than the christian God of the bible because of all these supposed contradictions no God could be so contrary!!

There is clear evidence that the Bible, supposedly inspired by God, is liberally sprinkled with the type of errors we would expect from its Iron Age authors but would not expect from the creator of the universe.
Argumentum ad lapidem= fallacy of sweeping dismissal through trivializing they made a charge and in hopes of prejudice would validate the unsupported charge.
Christian theology is incoherent to the point of absurdity. God killing his son so he can forgive our future sin is like me breaking my son’s legs so I can forgive my neighbor in case she ever parks her car on my drive. It is quite ridiculous.
it is ridiculous like buying a house is ridiculous to a cow or a pig... in that pig's outdoor life doesnot need all the things a house/home afford those who need to live in them. Just because a pig thinks houses are stupid does it mean we should stop building and living in them? like wise if a near sited person who can not see how Jesus saves us all, does it mean we should stop worshiping him?

Death was not the only purpose of the sacrifice. the resurrection was. Can't have a resurrection with out first a death. God sacrificed Jesus so he could be resurrected and then by extension resurrect those in him.

We all sin period. meaning we all owe a death. As we are told the wages of sin is death. meaning we will die in this life for the sins this body committed. like Jesus died, and because he over came death, he left the door open for his followers to also over come death. So that those in Him can rise up without sin and serve and live with him eternally. (this is the gist)

There is clear evidence that the arguments presented for the existence of the Jewish God are logically flawed—all of them have been shown to be unreliable. If this were not the case, all honest and intelligent people would accept that God exists, just as all honest and intelligent people accept that black holes exist.
^_^
Argumentum ad lapidem= fallacy of sweeping dismissal through trivializing... no citations no examples... just "smarter people than i don't believe because of smart stuff. and if there wasn't smart stuff then all would believe.. "

this is the worst we should believe list I think I even seen.. Honestly if the reason you do not believe are on this list I think God will allow you into heaven under the "corky's law" (mentally handicap clause)
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If anybody thinks some of these reasons for disbelief deserve a dedicated thread discussion then feel free to create those threads. I am going to try to stay out of trouble, so I will let others start the threads if they want them to be started.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
A slew of modern thinkers, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Jung... are what lead me to really question Christianity. These are far more penetrating than somebody dishing up 18th century rationalistic objections. Rationalism is dead in philosophy and has been for some time.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Coming to different conclusions from you is not the same as failing to think critically about things.
Of course it isn’t. But accepting something that as true when you do not understand how it works, cannot explain it, and have no real reason to think that it is true – that is failing to think critically about things.

It appears to be question begging.
Saying
If a perfect god actually existed, he would get his story straight from the beginning, and it wouldn’t look like what it is—a collection of loosely connected ancient mythology and legend.
isn’t question begging. It’s common sense. A perfect God would do something perfectly. The world isn’t perfect. QED.

Now, if I were a Christian apologist, rather than address the spirit of this argument, I would address its letter, and point out something about how free will, or the presence of Satan or some other complicating factor means that God is excused from his failure in making a perfect world. But to do so would be to miss the point: God, as portrayed in the Bible (even the most generously non-literal non-Creationist form which some Christians subscribe to) does not appear as a perfect being, or even a competent being.
Look at what He did:
He creates paradise, watches it go wrong, and petulantly destroys it. He follows His chosen people around, instructing them in incompetent ways, watching as it all goes wrong again and again. He brings down Himself, as His Son, to spread the word. And He immediately gets executed. He manages to start a religion which is now worldwide – with worldwide scandals, a history of blood and ruin, and a thousand different sects, all busily disagreeing with each other. Not to mention the vast majority of humans who are or were not Christians at all.
It’s just comical.
The argument is well-named as a silver bullet. While die-hard believers have excellent mental defenses against seeing the truth, God couldn’t have made it more obvious that He doesn’t really exist if He had failed to manifest Himself anywhere outside of ridiculously colourful stories.
Which, of course, is what He did.

The first thing wrong with all this is that the author repeatedly makes an extremely basic category error in talking about the soul in terms of particles or some sort of physical existence. Physics, like any natural science, concerns itself with the natural, material universe. This is beyond dispute. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition spiritual and immaterial, and thus entirely outside the purview of physics or any other kind of natural science. Whether you believe in souls or not, you cannot disprove the existence of the soul using physics any more than you could disprove God using physics. Such questions are beyond the concern of science.

Furthermore, the blog author here is presupposing in his argumentation what he's supposed to set out to prove. His reduction of questions to the soul to physical particles presupposes a sort of philosophical naturalism -- in other words, it assumes a priori that the supernatural does not and cannot exist. The problem is that the thing being argued about is the very existence of some supernatural thing. It's question begging and very poor reasoning.
Since Bob Seidenstecker, who runs the Cross Examined blog, isn’t here to defend his work, I’ll do my best on his behalf.
It’s not a categorical mistake. It’s a strategy. And it worked perfectly. Because now you've put your own thinking on display, where its mistakes can be seen.

It works ike this:
Seidenstecker: In physics, we know the rules of the everyday world, and this constrains the kinds of things that make sense. We know enough to simply rule out astrology, claims of clairvoyance, ESP, life after death, homeopathy, and other supernatural claims. If these claims were true, we would know that already. If you claim that a soul exists and lives on in the afterlife, tell us the physics by which the soul moves to the afterlife.
Redac: What a dumb thing to say. He’s made a complete category error. The soul isn’t part of science. It’s spiritual and immaterial, and so we wouldn’t expect to find some sort of “soul particle”.
IA (speaking on behalf of S): What Seidenstecker was doing was paying you the compliment of taking you seriously. Not many people do that. They just say, “Well, it’s a free country, they can believe whatever they like.” But Seidenstecker takes you at your word.
You actually believe there’s a soul, do you? Okay. Prove it. Tell us how this “soul” thing works. Explain it. Tell us why you believe in it, and why we should believe in it.
In short, give us some reason to think it’s not just some made-up thing.
You believe – correct me if I’m wrong – that the soul is immaterial, unobservable and undetectacle. So how does it work? What does it do? And how do you know any of this? Because from where I stand, “immaterial” sounds like “made of nothing” or “nonexistent”.
You say we “can’t disprove the soul”?
It’s not our job to disprove it. The burden of proof is on you.

So: how does this "soul" thing work exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: holo
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat

I don't think that's a good argument against all forms of Christian belief. Some forms of Christianity are more than perfectly happy to say that the narratives we have in the Bible are human in origin, for instance. They would focus on Jesus, rather than the Bible, for instance, as God's revelation.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't think that's a good argument against all forms of Christian belief. Some forms of Christianity are more than perfectly happy to say that the narratives we have in the Bible are human in origin, for instance. They would focus on Jesus, rather than the Bible, for instance, as God's revelation.
Could be. But the Jesus story is a whole other example of God getting it wrong.
I like the way this article puts it:
An Almighty Screwup - Daylight Atheism

At this point, God realized he had one last chance to redeem his people, and he came up with a daring, drastic plan to do it. He descended to Earth and took mortal form, incarnating himself in a human body. Upon reaching adulthood, he sought out his people and told them he had come to give them a completely new message, abandoning his old promises that the Messiah would be a king and military leader. He revoked all the old, cruel laws he had once given them, letting them know that he had changed his mind, that they were no longer necessary. In their place he substituted new, simple principles, teaching them about forgiveness, about their shared humanity, and most importantly, about the deep and abiding love he had for every one of his precious children.

For once obeying the law they had been given so long ago, the Jews promptly seized this incarnated god, charged him with blasphemy, and killed him.

Christians, of course, claim that this was what God had in mind all along, that only through the shedding of his blood could we be forgiven for our sins. However, I am not so sure. Throughout all the millennia God knew the Jews, he failed to ever tell them that this was the method of redemption he had in mind. There is not a single prophecy anywhere in the Old Testament that clearly predicts the sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection of an incarnated god. Besides, God is supposed to be all-powerful. If he wanted to forgive us, why couldn’t he just forgive us? Why was the agonizing and bloody death of an innocent person necessary for human salvation? Perhaps it was not, and God’s propagandists only attributed this significance to it afterward to avoid this debacle being labeled as another complete failure.

In any case, God returned to Heaven and appointed apostles to spread his new faith to the Jews. This failed, as the evangelists were viciously persecuted and soundly rejected in town after town, winning relatively few converts. Flustered by his chosen people’s rejection of him, God had no choice but to abandon them entirely and pass his promise of salvation on to the Gentiles, creating a new religion called Christianity. A church formed and almost immediately fragmented into numerous squabbling sects, all deeply divided as to the nature and intent of God.

At this point, God could have simply stepped in and set the record straight by letting all concerned know what he really meant. He failed to do so, and the church continued to splinter, breaking off into many smaller sects and denominations, consumed by infighting. God could also have sent more signs and wonders, as he routinely did in Old Testament times, to let the world know that the new religion really was of him; but he failed to do this as well, and for several centuries Christianity remained a small fringe group on the verge of extinction, heavily persecuted, its followers routinely tortured and slaughtered by the authorities.

It was only by luck that the new church caught the eye of a Roman emperor and survived. (Of course, God may have had a hand in this, but his inexplicably waiting so long to do it can be considered a failure. Certainly it was no comfort to the thousands who had already been tortured to death or mauled by wild animals in great stadiums for the edification of the masses.) But finally Christianity caught on, and became the dominant religion of Europe.

At this point, God could have used his dominance over the civilized world to bring forth a new golden age of enlightenment and peace. Instead, he suddenly decided to completely stop sending new revelations and miracles, and his church stultified and dragged humanity down into the Dark Ages. Knowledge declined and superstition and ignorance ruled; innocent people were imprisoned, tortured and killed in vicious inquisitions, scientists whose findings contradicted holy scripture were silenced and forced to recant, and plague after plague decimated humanity because, incidentally, God had failed to tell people that washing one’s hands, and not whipping oneself or singing hymns, would keep illness away. Newdenominations arose that almost immediately became embroiled in savage religious wars, including a series of military expeditions called the Crusades that sent millions of people to their deaths, and conquistadors in foreign lands enslaved and slaughtered millions more in God’s name. (Somehow, throughout all the thousands of years he had been speaking to humanity, God failed to ever provide a single clear-cut condemnation of slavery.) Kings and popes claimed divine right, stifling democracy and free speech. And all this time, the lot of the common man remained full of misery and suffering.

At any point during this time, God could have stepped in to stop these atrocities and correct people’s ignorance. He failed to do so, and it was not until the Enlightenment, when people rediscovered the principles of science and democracy and began to investigate and think for themselves, that things began to improve – no thanks to humanity’s cosmic absentee landlord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Could be. But the Jesus story is a whole other example of God getting it wrong.
I like the way this article puts it:
An Almighty Screwup - Daylight Atheism

At this point, God realized he had one last chance to redeem his people, and he came up with a daring, drastic plan to do it. He descended to Earth and took mortal form, incarnating himself in a human body. Upon reaching adulthood, he sought out his people and told them he had come to give them a completely new message, abandoning his old promises that the Messiah would be a king and military leader. He revoked all the old, cruel laws he had once given them, letting them know that he had changed his mind, that they were no longer necessary. In their place he substituted new, simple principles, teaching them about forgiveness, about their shared humanity, and most importantly, about the deep and abiding love he had for every one of his precious children.

For once obeying the law they had been given so long ago, the Jews promptly seized this incarnated god, charged him with blasphemy, and killed him.

Christians, of course, claim that this was what God had in mind all along, that only through the shedding of his blood could we be forgiven for our sins. However, I am not so sure. Throughout all the millennia God knew the Jews, he failed to ever tell them that this was the method of redemption he had in mind. There is not a single prophecy anywhere in the Old Testament that clearly predicts the sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection of an incarnated god. Besides, God is supposed to be all-powerful. If he wanted to forgive us, why couldn’t he just forgive us? Why was the agonizing and bloody death of an innocent person necessary for human salvation? Perhaps it was not, and God’s propagandists only attributed this significance to it afterward to avoid this debacle being labeled as another complete failure.

In any case, God returned to Heaven and appointed apostles to spread his new faith to the Jews. This failed, as the evangelists were viciously persecuted and soundly rejected in town after town, winning relatively few converts. Flustered by his chosen people’s rejection of him, God had no choice but to abandon them entirely and pass his promise of salvation on to the Gentiles, creating a new religion called Christianity. A church formed and almost immediately fragmented into numerous squabbling sects, all deeply divided as to the nature and intent of God.

At this point, God could have simply stepped in and set the record straight by letting all concerned know what he really meant. He failed to do so, and the church continued to splinter, breaking off into many smaller sects and denominations, consumed by infighting. God could also have sent more signs and wonders, as he routinely did in Old Testament times, to let the world know that the new religion really was of him; but he failed to do this as well, and for several centuries Christianity remained a small fringe group on the verge of extinction, heavily persecuted, its followers routinely tortured and slaughtered by the authorities.

It was only by luck that the new church caught the eye of a Roman emperor and survived. (Of course, God may have had a hand in this, but his inexplicably waiting so long to do it can be considered a failure. Certainly it was no comfort to the thousands who had already been tortured to death or mauled by wild animals in great stadiums for the edification of the masses.) But finally Christianity caught on, and became the dominant religion of Europe.

At this point, God could have used his dominance over the civilized world to bring forth a new golden age of enlightenment and peace. Instead, he suddenly decided to completely stop sending new revelations and miracles, and his church stultified and dragged humanity down into the Dark Ages. Knowledge declined and superstition and ignorance ruled; innocent people were imprisoned, tortured and killed in vicious inquisitions, scientists whose findings contradicted holy scripture were silenced and forced to recant, and plague after plague decimated humanity because, incidentally, God had failed to tell people that washing one’s hands, and not whipping oneself or singing hymns, would keep illness away. Newdenominations arose that almost immediately became embroiled in savage religious wars, including a series of military expeditions called the Crusades that sent millions of people to their deaths, and conquistadors in foreign lands enslaved and slaughtered millions more in God’s name. (Somehow, throughout all the thousands of years he had been speaking to humanity, God failed to ever provide a single clear-cut condemnation of slavery.) Kings and popes claimed divine right, stifling democracy and free speech. And all this time, the lot of the common man remained full of misery and suffering.

At any point during this time, God could have stepped in to stop these atrocities and correct people’s ignorance. He failed to do so, and it was not until the Enlightenment, when people rediscovered the principles of science and democracy and began to investigate and think for themselves, that things began to improve – no thanks to humanity’s cosmic absentee landlord.

The religion you are describing is not the religion of a substantial number of mainline Protestants.

Are you familiar with Marcus Borg?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The religion you are describing is not the religion of a substantial number of mainline Protestants.

Are you familiar with Marcus Borg?
With respect to Mr. Borg and other liberal Christians like him, the religion I'm describing is completely standard and unremarkable. Many Christians believe that the Old Testament literally happened, especially the more recent sections of it. Almost all Christians believe that the New Testament happened more or less as it is written. And Christianity's role in history over the last one thousand five hundred years or so is not open to dispute.

It's certainly true that most mainline Protestants, not to say most Christians, would not describe God's stories as a series of ridiculous blunders. But, looked at objectively, that's exactly what they are.

"I do not, of course, believe that all the events described above actually happened, or that God was behind the ones that did happen. I am merely pointing out that, even if taken on its own terms, the Christian story implies a deity who is massively incompetent, and this creates a fundamental contradiction with the tenets of Christian belief that there is a god who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good. Since the facts of this world’s history are not open to change, and since we are justified in believing things would be much better if there was such a being, the most likely conclusion is that no such being exists."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
It's certainly true that most mainline Protestants, not to say most Christians, would not describe God's stories as a series of ridiculous blunders. But, looked at objectively, that's exactly what they are.

Objectively? I don't see how you can claim such a privileged perspective. I rarely even venture in that direction myself.

Obviously, Christians conceive of God acting in the historical process. That involves the possibility of condescending to human finitude and limitation, including the myths and stories of various peoples. The Bible therefore need not be strictly speaking, history or fact.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Objectively? I don't see how you can claim such a privileged perspective. I rarely even venture in that direction myself.
Perfect objectivity may be out of our reach. But you surely didn't think I was claiming that, did you? So what's wrong about suggesting that we step back and at least try to free ourselves of some of our biases?
And if you do so, here is what you see. God wants things. He wants people to believe in Him. He wants people to become Christians. He wants people to act in certain ways, and to do, say and think certain things.
And He's really bad at it. This is obvious.
Just step back and look at it: if these are the things God wants, how well is He doing at getting them?
And the answer is, not very well at all.

Obviously, Christians conceive of God acting in the historical process. That involves the possibility of condescending to human finitude and limitation, including the myths and stories of various peoples. The Bible therefore need not be strictly speaking, history or fact.
I can't really see your point here. Many Christians believe the Bible to be both history and fact. So take them at their word. Examine how God, the character in the Bible, actually behaves. And you'll see that, far from being all-wise, He's something of a buffoon.

If you think that the Bible stories aren't actually true, bully for you. If you think God doesn't exist, then no problem. If either of these describes you, then you don't need to worry about this.

But for the people who think God is real, and that the stories in the Bible - either Old Testament or New - are accurate to any degree, then they have a serious problem.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Perfect objectivity may be out of our reach. But you surely didn't think I was claiming that, did you? So what's wrong about suggesting that we step back and at least try to free ourselves of some of our biases?
And if you do so, here is what you see. God wants things. He wants people to believe in Him. He wants people to become Christians. He wants people to act in certain ways, and to do, say and think certain things.
And He's really bad at it. This is obvious.
Just step back and look at it: if these are the things God wants, how well is He doing at getting them?
And the answer is, not very well at all.


I can't really see your point here. Many Christians believe the Bible to be both history and fact.

That attitude is mostly restricted to religious fundamentalism. Granted, in the US there are alot of religious fundamentalists, but I think that's an important distinction.

If you think that the Bible stories aren't actually true, bully for you.

As Marcus Borg would put it , truth and fact aren't necessarily the same thing.

But for the people who think God is real, and that the stories in the Bible - either Old Testament or New - are accurate to any degree, then they have a serious problem.

Well, as I pointed out recently, philosophers are still mulling over what things like existence and reality actually mean.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That attitude is mostly restricted to religious fundamentalism. Granted, in the US there are alot of religious fundamentalists, but I think that's an important distinction.



As Marcus Borg would put it , truth and fact aren't necessarily the same thing.



Well, as I pointed out recently, philosophers are still mulling over what things like existence and reality actually mean.
There's a large percentage of Christians who believe that the Bible is essentially fact, an even larger percentage of Christians who believe that the only the most ancient Bible stories are fiction, and a majority of Christians who believe that the New Testament is factually correct. In short, most Christians believe in Christianity; and if you take Christianity seriously, then it shows God to be incompetent. I think that's all we need to consider as far as this question is concerned.
I'm afraid I'm not interested, at present, in discussing exactly what percentage of Christians accept what part of the Bible. Let's stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
There's a large percentage of Christians who believe that the Bible is essentially fact, an even larger percentage of Christians who believe that the only the most ancient Bible stories are fiction, and a majority of Christians who believe that the New Testament is factually correct. In short, most Christians believe in Christianity; and if you take Christianity seriously, then it shows God to be incompetent. I think that's all we need to consider as far as this question is concerned.
I'm afraid I'm not interested, at present, in discussing exactly what percentage of Christians accept what part of the Bible. Let's stay on topic.
Also, even if a person believes that the ENTIRE Bible is a myth it is still valid to look at the behavior of God in those myths. Myths are supposed to teach something about reality, and any Christian worthy of the label would surely expect the Bible - even as a myth - to teach about a real God and His relationship to real humans.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,384.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Also, even if a person believes that the ENTIRE Bible is a myth it is still valid to look at the behavior of God in those myths. Myths are supposed to teach something about reality, and any Christian worthy of the label would surely expect the Bible - even as a myth - to teach about a real God and His relationship to real humans.
The problem I have with those Biblical myths about God is that they describe a God more in line with the ancient Greek/Roman Pagan images of their God's. As such, I fully reject the the idea that the Bible teaches about a "real" God as well as His relationship with "real" humans. Even the images of God posed as a male is foreign to me as well as a God sitting somewhere high upon a Golden Throne casting judgment, causing global floods, destroying cities and giving instruction for War...all which is a reflection of ancient Pagan God's of the past that I believe are brought forward into the Biblical image of God.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The problem I have with those Biblical myths about God is that they describe a God more in line with the ancient Greek/Roman Pagan images of their God's. As such, I fully reject the the idea that the Bible teaches about a "real" God as well as His relationship with "real" humans. Even the images of God posed as a male is foreign to me as well as a God sitting somewhere high upon a Golden Throne casting judgment, causing global floods, destroying cities and giving instruction for War...all which is a reflection of ancient Pagan God's of the past that I believe are brought forward into the Biblical image of God.
That is true.

One of the solutions popular among Jews is to hypothesize that there is a deeper message concealed within idiosyncrasies of the literal Bible stories. So these Jews might notice a Hebrew word with a minor grammatical oddity and discern a deeper message that might be totally unrelated to the literal narrative. The more obvious explanation for the grammatical oddity would be that some scribe or editor made a mistake, but these Jews believe the Torah is perfect. If you find enough deeper messages in the Torah then you can largely ignore the literal narrative with its problems. In fact, I suppose the most troubling Bible narratives would seem to the most likely candidates for concealing these deeper meanings. At least that is my impression. Sorry to any Jews out there if I mis-characterized how it works.

Apparently the Essenes were notorious for seeing these deeper messages in Scripture. If Jesus and his followers were related to the Essenes then it would make sense that they shared this approach to Scripture and possibly some of the gospel stories were written as fiction to conceal deeper messages?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
There's a large percentage of Christians who believe that the Bible is essentially fact, an even larger percentage of Christians who believe that the only the most ancient Bible stories are fiction, and a majority of Christians who believe that the New Testament is factually correct. In short, most Christians believe in Christianity; and if you take Christianity seriously, then it shows God to be incompetent. I think that's all we need to consider as far as this question is concerned.
I'm afraid I'm not interested, at present, in discussing exactly what percentage of Christians accept what part of the Bible. Let's stay on topic.

Are we debating God, the Bible, or Christianity? It seems to me there is some confusion here.

I'm sure @2PhiloVoid could give you the run down on the intricacies of hermeneutics. Suffice it to say, I don't think the Bible is so straightforward on what it has to say about God. There isn't one single perspective, but multiple perspectives.

If the Bible were so straightforward, Jesus and the Pharisees would not have disagreed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0