Arguments/hypotheticals against Christianity

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Personally, I simply find that the Bible does just as poor a job at describing reality and our place within it as any other collection of mythology. The Upanishads, the Edda, Aztec myth, traditional Chinese folklore - it's all the same, and the only thing separating the TRUTH (tm) from rank superstition is the confirmation bias of the person who embraces one faith over the other, laughing at the notion that some "primitives" hang brushes into the tree to appease certain ancestor spirits while simultaneously thinking nothing about comsuming the transsubstantiated blood and flesh of their deity every Sunday.

Apart from that, I also think that apologetics fail to satisfyingly resolve the theodicy problem, i.e. the existence of suffering and evil in a universe that was/is planned, created, and maintained by a
a) benevolent,
b) omnipotent,
c) all-knowing, and
d) supernatural interventionist
deity.

You cannot combine all of these traits and then end up with the reality we live in. Not when Christians even go around using prayers as a witnessing tool by claiming that God answers their wishes, even frivolous ones like finding a parking spot or a lost key.

I can agree with the part about frivolous prayers although in my opinion the term Christian has been extended beyond what it ornigially meant in Antioch. In Antioch it was one like Christ. Nowadays it’s just one who believes in a Christ. Appreciate your post.

 

[MehGuy]

Hmm.. not sure.. other than God seems to undergo a lot of personality changes, lol.

Seems like it's holy book is full of differing perspectives on God and not a very clear and consistent overall narrative.

 

[cloudyday2]

... and Hinduism is really one of the strongest contenders there is. If you're going to reject it, it should be on historical or philosophical grounds.

It seems like you are saying that Hindu philosophy is weak? I always thought the philosophy I read in the Bhagavad Gita made a lot of sense. It didn't seem perfect, but maybe that was only due to my lack of understanding.

 

[cloudyday2]

Christianity stands or falls on the Incarnation, so an argument asking on how God as a transcendant or immanent being could incarnate in a finite human.

What if Jesus was a totally human prophet who decided to act-out a message of the nation of Israel as the suffering servant redeeming the entire world (or whatever message you choose)? No incarnation required, but I think it is still Christianity. As long as Jesus is the promised Messiah, then "Christos" applies and the religion can be called Christianity.

 

[Silmarien]

The problem with arguments based on Sin being invented, is that an innate right or wrong gets assumed and is traditional in most societies. There are everywhere concepts of purity, sacred vs profane, and what is seen as the divinely instituted order. So Sin as the power behind the throne of human morality being invented is a weak contra-Christian argument in my opinion.

I think the problem with the concept of "sin" is that we're taught to associate it with Adam and Eve and the Fall, so we end up viewing the whole thing as some fairy-tale that has no basis in reality. If you're inclined to reject all traditional societies as backwards and despotic, then the fact that sin plays a role in all of them doesn't really help. It's not specifically Christianity that invented the concept of sin, but religion in general, if you view religion as a power construct.

I think the banality of evil is a strong counterargument to this view. Genocide, for example, doesn't happen simply because a monster is in power, but because otherwise normal people can lose sight of their own values when circumstances warrant it. And of course, there are less extreme situations. Whether you think this is a product of evolution or a literal fall (or a combination of the two), I find it hard to deny that there's something pretty ugly lurking within us. Trying to normalize that will only lead to problems.

Christianity's treatment of atonement is particularly interesting to me specifically because what I associate with sin--mob mentality--is so clearly encapsulated in those Passion scenes. I wish this came up more often in Atonement theology, but I'm not sure to what degree we were conscious of this particular issue in human nature before the 20th century.

Personally, I simply find that the Bible does just as poor a job at describing reality and our place within it as any other collection of mythology. The Upanishads, the Edda, Aztec myth, traditional Chinese folklore - it's all the same, and the only thing separating the TRUTH (tm) from rank superstition is the confirmation bias of the person who embraces one faith over the other, laughing at the notion that some "primitives" hang brushes into the tree to appease certain ancestor spirits while simultaneously thinking nothing about comsuming the transsubstantiated blood and flesh of their deity every Sunday.

The Upanishads are not actually a collection of myths--those are the philosophical writings within Hinduism, and they're actually a lot like Platonism. Unless you're going to write off any contemplation of reality as mere superstition, no matter how sophisticated it is, I really don't know why you're grouping it with the various mythologies.

The idea that people in one tradition are too busy laughing at other traditions to respect or learn from them is pretty ridiculous. I don't think Hinduism and Buddhism do a great job of accounting for all of reality, but they're pretty much the masters of that aspect they do zero in on.

 

[Silmarien]

It seems like you are saying that Hindu philosophy is weak? I always thought the philosophy I read in the Bhagavad Gita made a lot of sense. It didn't seem perfect, but maybe that was only due to my lack of understanding.

No, I don't think Vedanta is weak at all. It's just not always particularly practical--Christian theology really connects heaven and earth with the Incarnation, whereas traditions based in pure meditation leave you floating in the clouds a bit. I think there's something missing. I like idealistic philosophies, but I don't think they ultimately make much sense of the world we live in. If you're convinced that physical reality is accidental, though, it's certainly a great approach. (One book I've seen recommended several times for actually understanding Vedanta philosophy is I Am That--it's probably a better resource than the Bhagavad Gita itself.)

 

[Kenny'sID]

Wrong thread.

 

[cloudyday2]

No, I don't think Vedanta is weak at all. It's just not always particularly practical--Christian theology really connects heaven and earth with the Incarnation, whereas traditions based in pure meditation leave you floating in the clouds a bit. I think there's something missing. I like idealistic philosophies, but I don't think they ultimately make much sense of the world we live in. If you're convinced that physical reality is accidental, though, it's certainly a great approach. (One book I've seen recommended several times for actually understanding Vedanta philosophy is I Am That--it's probably a better resource than the Bhagavad Gita itself.)

I think my hang-up on the Gita is free will. On the one hand the Gita seems to say we are merely passive observers, but on the other hand the Gita says "do this", "do that". Of course the exhortations of the Gita can be a "cause" that has an "effect" on the deterministic behavior of our physical selves, but I feel a nagging sense that there is a problem in this Gita teaching somewhere. It seems a person would need to model it as a math problem, and see if it actually works. IDK

That does look like an interesting book.

 

[dlamberth]

The following are not my words, but I do find in them a pretty a close reflection of the words I would use if I had better wordsmith skills.

The popular belief that a celestial Jewish baby who is also his own father, born from a virgin mother, died for three days so that he could ascend to heaven on a cloud and then make you live forever only if you symbolically eat his flesh , drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your lord and master so that he can remove an evil force from your spiritual being that is present in all humanity because an immoral woman made from a man’s rib was hoodwinked by a talking reptile possessed by a malicious angel to secretly eat forbidden fruit from a magical tree.

Sounds perfectly plausible….

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It's not specifically Christianity that invented the concept of sin, but religion in general, if you view religion as a power construct.

I think "sin" started out as a means of seeking to explain a hostile environment in terms of divine retribution - and an attempt to create some semblance of control over the same.

The river did not flood your village because an inordinate amount of snow had melted several thousand miles upstream without your knowledge, but because you did something to offend the spirits/gods/God. So, provided you didn't quite know where your offense lay, you needed to appease the forces riled against you, most often by offering a sacrifice. Confirmation bias did the rest. (The water receded? Must have been a good sacrifice. The water remained? Your offense must have been more severe than you thought.)

Conflating "sin" with "evil" does not work, though. At no point in history was it evil to cut your hair at the temples, to eat cheese and meat together, to work on the sabbath, or to be attracted to members of the same sex - just to mention a few examples from the Abrahamic tradition.

By giving peculiar cultural customs the weight of divine command, religion did not contribute to a better understanding of interpersonal conduct and morality, but instead enshrined random idiosyncracies on an "unassailable" pedestal.

Which actually leads me to the next big problem here: thankfully, you mentioned genocide.
I think genocide is impossible without an authoritarian mindset. If most people don't believe that "the Authority knows best", that they are "doing the right thing", or that their victims are "evil" - then the deed becomes impossible.
Indeed, the Bible depicts a genocide at the hands of the Israelites (although archaeology suggests that it's mostly fictional/mythological, thankfully). Even lifestock and property is utterly annihilated in the tribes' quest for ritual "purity", and their only act of "mercy" is to keep virgin girls as spoils of war and sex slaves.
The Bible never depicts this bloodshed as an abominable deed, in fact, it makes sure to drive home that the victims are "evil", and totally deserve what's coming to them.

And that is exactly what the perpetrators of any genocide in history believed about themselves and the one they killed.

Let's also not forget that the Holocaust did not happen in a void, but that it built upon centuries of Christianity-driven anti-semitism/anti-Judaism. Luther's anti-semitic writings read like a how-to guide to the Nazi years: burn down their holy sites, seize their property, put them in camps and condemn them to hard work, etc. Christianity was still the default world view in Germany back then, and twelve years of dictatorship had done little to shake that. The vast majority of the Evangelical church backed the Nazis, in fact, citing Jesus driving the moneylenders from the Temple as proof that even the LORD couldn't stand the greedy Jews.

Religion does not inoculate people against atrocity. If anything, it is the kind of world view that makes it possible.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Looking at the present day, I see a world that YEARNS for authoritarian master narratives: the world-wide resurgence of far-right ideology and the simultaneous growth of religious fundamentalism (which often go hand-in-hand) bespeaks a pronounced desire for tribal identities, bogeymen to unite against, and clear-cut, simplistic answers to complicated issues.

While conservatives bemoan the supposed moral relativism of post-modern secular society (and then cite advances in the fight against discrimination such as LGBTQ*-rights or female emancipation as signs of moral deterioration), the real threat comes from those who *do* believe they've got THE answers. No shades of grey, clear-cut black and white. Right and wrong, good and evil, let's fight the degenerate infidels.

When I hear contemporary Christians and/or conservatives speak about muslim refugees, I hear more than just a faint echo of early 20th century anti-semitism. The narrative is basically the same: it's a covert invasion, foreigners infiltrating society and gradually seeking positions of power and/or outbreeding "us". The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, re-branded as the Muftis of Mekka.

Master narratives are dangerous, and I'd always prefer a more humble, more relativistic society to one where such mechanisms are at work.

 

[Silmarien]

Which actually leads me to the next big problem here: thankfully, you mentioned genocide.
I think genocide is impossible without an authoritarian mindset. If most people don't believe that "the Authority knows best", that they are "doing the right thing", or that their victims are "evil" - then the deed becomes impossible.

I don't think that's entirely true. There was an article I read shortly after the Trump election about the moral dangers that people in the Trump administration might face when problematic policies slowly became normalized--you don't need to think that you're doing the right thing or see the people affected as evil if your moral compass is slowly being twisted by an abnormal situation.

It's almost impossible to not get sucked into an "us vs. them" mindset to some degree or another, and given the perfect storm, that could come to the surface and morph into something terrible. The other example I like to bring up is prison abuse--an otherwise normal person, put into a position of power over those in an undesirable social position, can easily start treating them as somehow less than human. You don't need authoritarianism for that. Just normal, imperfect social dynamics.

The Bible never depicts this bloodshed as an abominable deed, in fact, it makes sure to drive home that the victims are "evil", and totally deserve what's coming to them.

I think the conflict with the Canaanites is really interesting in the light of Matthew 15:21-28--that old feud still seems to be lurking in the context there, but the Canaanites are finally humanized and brought into the Kingdom when Jesus is moved to heal the woman.

Though I really think we get too caught up in reading the Bible as a literal history and ignore other ways it's been approached throughout the centuries. It's useful to see what Catholic apologists have to say about the Old Testament, since we're all too used to listening to people trying to explain away atrocities as God's will and therefore okay. Here's one take more in line with Patristic thought:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think that's entirely true. There was an article I read shortly after the Trump election about the moral dangers that people in the Trump administration might face when problematic policies slowly became normalized--you don't need to think that you're doing the right thing or see the people affected as evil if your moral compass is slowly being twisted by an abnormal situation.

It's almost impossible to not get sucked into an "us vs. them" mindset to some degree or another, and given the perfect storm, that could come to the surface and morph into something terrible. The other example I like to bring up is prison abuse--an otherwise normal person, put into a position of power over those in an undesirable social position, can easily start treating them as somehow less than human. You don't need authoritarianism for that. Just normal, imperfect social dynamics.



I think the conflict with the Canaanites is really interesting in the light of Matthew 15:21-28--that old feud still seems to be lurking in the context there, but the Canaanites are finally humanized and brought into the Kingdom when Jesus is moved to heal the woman.

Though I really think we get too caught up in reading the Bible as a literal history and ignore other ways it's been approached throughout the centuries. It's useful to see what Catholic apologists have to say about the Old Testament, since we're all too used to listening to people trying to explain away atrocities as God's will and therefore okay. Here's one take more in line with Patristic thought:

...well, then we have to explain the apocalyptic language of doom which we find in Jesus' words, in Paul's words, as well as in the book of Revelation.

Sometimes, the real problem is that the world doesn't see sin as the heinous, completely dysfunctional thing it is. For instance, there's only just so many "baby-barbecues" that can be done in the name of Moloch before God reaches the end of His patience and seeks to cleanse what He deems is His land, His world, and His teleology for humanity. In fact, we see Jesus giving His own people warnings about the same kind of things ... and then we see Jerusalem destroyed in A.D. 70 and then the rest of the Jewish people completely dispersed after another 70 years by Hadrian after that.

It...happens. And when it happens, people simply don't like it.

 

[Silmarien]

...well, then we have to explain the apocalyptic language of doom which we find in Jesus' words, in Paul's words, as well as in the book of Revelation.

Sometimes, the real problem is that the world doesn't see sin as the heinous, completely dysfunctional thing it is. For instance, there's only just so many "baby-barbecues" that can be done in the name of Moloch before God reaches the end of His patience and seeks to cleanse what He deems is His land, His world, and His teleology for humanity. In fact, we see Jesus giving His own people warnings about the same kind of things ... and then we see Jerusalem destroyed in A.D. 70 and then the rest of the Jewish people completely dispersed after another 70 years by Hadrian after that.

It...happens. And when it happens, people simply don't like it.

Eh, I think there's a difference between warning people that they'll eventually reap what they sow and divinely mandated genocide, especially in the context of rain falling on wicked and righteous alike.

But I do agree with Jane--"all of our enemies are pure evil and shall be stricken down by our God" is just too convenient. Too human a sentiment, in all the worst ways. And also probably hyberbole--I need to read Judges. I've heard the whole thing plays out differently there?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Eh, I think there's a difference between warning people that they'll eventually reap what they sow and divinely mandated genocide, especially in the context of rain falling on wicked and righteous alike.

But I do agree with Jane--"all of our enemies are pure evil and shall be stricken down by our God" is just too convenient. Too human a sentiment, in all the worst ways. And also probably hyberbole--I need to read Judges. I've heard the whole thing plays out differently there?

ahem. Judges? I'm afraid not. In fact, the whole book of Judges is essentially a moral lesson about not descending into moral relativism and debauched thinking (...with the exception of Deborah, perhaps).

Anyway. Let's separate out what happened in the Bible from what has taken place in Europe and the U.S. over the last century or two. These shouldn't be confused with one another--Jane's comments not withstanding.

 

[Silmarien]

ahem. Judges? I'm afraid not. In fact, the whole book of Judges is essentially a moral lesson about not descending into moral relativism and debauched thinking (...with the exception of Deborah, perhaps).

Anyway. Let's separate out what happened in the Bible from what has taken place in Europe and the U.S. over the last century or two. These shouldn't be confused with one another--Jane's comments not withstanding.

I'm talking about the entry into Palestine. I've heard that the historical record that Judges implies is very different than the immediate conquest and constant warfare you see in Joshua.

I'm not really worried about Europe and the US, though. I'm more worried about something like Mohammed's massacre of the Banu Qurayza and the way Islam treats that. They resisted, they didn't submit to the prophet, they got what they had coming, God's will be done.

 

[Zoness]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm talking about the entry into Palestine. I've heard that the historical record that Judges implies is very different than the immediate conquest and constant warfare you see in Joshua.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification as to the specific referent. Yes, in that case, the reality behind the biblical accounts may have been a little bit different than what we may think we read in the texts themselves. And in that case, assuming I understand your intended meaning, we also find indications in the book of Judges (and even in Joshua), that the Israelites never really did completely extinguish the Canaanites.

However, we have a conundrum present, which is one that I was attempting to refer to and leap to, and that is of the fact that while the Israelites may have not really followed through on what we, today, might define as a form of genocide, we still see in the biblical texts that this wasn't considered to be a "good thing" in the sight of God.

What I'm getting at is that we want to be careful of importing our present Democratic assumptions back INTO our moral evaluations about God's character and about what may have transpired in various ways in the Old Testament. It's not just about avoiding anachronisms; rather, it's about not conflating what we assume to be right and wrong today in the West with how God may actually see "right and wrong."

I'm not really worried about Europe and the US, though. I'm more worried about something like Mohammed's massacre of the Banu Qurayza and the way Islam treats that. They resisted, they didn't submit to the prophet, they got what they had coming, God's will be done.

Ok. But, in this case, they would be wrong to do so, not because it's wrong to put people to death if they've blasphemed God, but rather because they are 'false prophets' who, being untrue, do not have the authority to do what they do. In this, God didn't ACTUALLY tell them to do that ... they just think He did.

Furthermore, for Christians living in the dispensation of Grace in Christ on earth, resorting to holy war is not in the Messianic Directive, so Christians should not be emulating the Israelites in that regard. Unfortunately, as you know, there have been people who have claimed to be Christians who have done this very kind of thing, even lately (Kosovo, Croatia, etc., etc.). They, too, are wrong to do so.

 

[Silmarien]

What I'm getting at is that we want to be careful of importing our present Democratic assumptions back INTO our moral evaluations about God's character and about what may have transpired in various ways in the Old Testament. It's not just about avoiding anachronisms; rather, it's about not conflating what we assume to be right and wrong today in the West with how God may actually see "right and wrong."

It's not really a modern problem, though. People have been troubled by the moral character of the God of the Old Testament for the entirety of Christian history--we all know what Marcion's solution was, after all, and that was the second century.

Ok. But, in this case, they would be wrong to do so, not because it's wrong to put people to death if they've blasphemed God, but rather because they are 'false prophets' who, being untrue, do not have the authority to do what they do. In this, God didn't ACTUALLY tell them to do that ... they just think He did.

I worry that this particular approach leads to a situation where Islam is more theologically consistent with Judaism than Christianity is, though, so you're begging the question of whether the Islamic revelation is false at all. It's Islam that stresses the ways in which God is incomprehensible and not bound by human concepts of rationality or morality. Maybe it's Christianity that incorrectly humanizes the concept of God and Islam that brings people back to a proper theological understanding, in all of its authoritarian horror.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not really a modern problem, though. People have been troubled by the moral character of the God of the Old Testament for the entirety of Christian history--we all know what Marcion's solution was, after all, and that was the second century.

And then, even further back, there was Abraham, who was also troubled by how God would deal with the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. [Which is the moral dilemma within, and the point of, Abraham's dialogue with the personage in Genesis who is essentially ... the pre-incarnate Jesus. What irony! What Jewish genius! ] And for an interesting, but decidedly non-Christian, yet Jewish legal evaluation of this, you might want to read the treatment of this account presented by Alan M. Dershowitz in his book, The Genesis of Justice. I'm sure that one who is as academically and as legally minded/trained as yourself would appreciate Dershowitz' comments (although I'm not saying that his are the only ones we might consider--no, but I'd consider his first, in this case. ).

I worry that this particular approach leads to a situation where Islam is more theologically consistent with Judaism than Christianity is, though, so you're begging the question of whether the Islamic revelation is false at all. It's Islam that stresses the ways in which God is incomprehensible and not bound by human concepts of rationality or morality. Maybe it's Christianity that incorrectly humanizes the concept of God and Islam that brings people back to a proper theological understanding, in all of its authoritarian horror.

Lol! ....I don't worry about that at all, Sil.