Arguments/hypotheticals against Christianity

[2PhiloVoid]

Why is she close, but yet so far away?

...some of it has to do with the edit I just made to that same post.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why is she close, but yet so far away?

...also, some of it has to do with the fact that she knows very well what the various perspectives might be; she just isn't convinced by the side that is more biblically inclined.

 

[bhsmte]

...also, some of it has to do with the fact that she knows very well what the various perspectives might be; she just isn't convinced by the side that is more biblically inclined.

Tons of perspectives out there, no question. Tend to think it comes down to the process one uses, to evaluate the credibility of each.

 

[bhsmte]

Jane, you're so close, but yet still so far away. (Why do I have this kind of Yin-Yang feeling about you...?) One thing you might also want to consider: that in politics in the U.S., voting choices are not just a matter of whether one is either "Liberal" or "Conservative"---there can also be a difference in choices between those who are educated and those who are generally uneducated. I count myself as an educated conservative, so in my case, I didn't fall into the social confluences of typicality.

I would agree.

Voting trends of different individuals, is actually very interesting to analyze. Some folks vote for more emotional reasons, and others vote more pragmatically.

This last election had a lot of lessons in that regard. You actually had the two most unpopular candidates win their parties primaries and that is not something that comes along everyday. Which would mean, there were factors beneath the surface, that played a role.

You have a certain percentage of the population, that will automatically vote for either democrat or republican, even if the candidate is a serial killer, it just doesn't matter. Beyond that, you have varying degrees of folks who lean a certain way, but can be influenced depending on the candidate. What a lot of people missed in the last election, is just how unhappy a lot of Americans have become, with what they see as; establishment/elitist politicians and there general ineffectiveness for sometime now. This is why Clinton was such a poor candidate and at the wrong time. She was upset by Obama in 08, because Obama was the change candidate, Trump beat 15 other republicans because he was the change candidate and Sanders won 20 states, because he was also considered the change candidate.

We had a lot of clues of what would happen in 2016, the vast majority of the experts just missed them.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Oh, don't tempt me into derailing the thread!
I was not so much talking about the vote itself, as about the fact that evangelicals are statistically the most likely to STILL support Donald Trump and believe in his promises. (And don't get me started on people who believe that a notorious billionaire con man is "the voice of the people and the champion of the common man", draining the swamp and providing the best health care for everyone.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, don't tempt me into derailing the thread!
I was not so much talking about the vote itself, as about the fact that evangelicals are statistically the most likely to STILL support Donald Trump and believe in his promises. (And don't get me started on people who believe that a notorious billionaire con man is "the voice of the people and the champion of the common man", draining the swamp and providing the best health care for everyone.)

Yes, statistically speaking, evangelicals do trend that way when voting in the U.S.

I must be one of the political outliers among evangelicals.

 

[Zoness]

Ugh, Marcion.

The Gnostics had some good ideas, but their general disdain for physicality (and their veneration for disembodied, "pure" spirit) renders them hard to stomach. Christianity in general has got this tendency to demonize "the World", but Gnosticism took this to even more ridiculous extremes. Such dissociation is never healthy. (And look at what Origen did just to escape the "sins of the flesh"...)

Yeah I mostly like Marcion's idea that the God of the Hebrew Bible is different than the God of the NT. I only even thought about it because of reading a reddit thread that suggested Satan wasn't an evil figure for rebelling against god but was actually rebelling for free agency of beings, putting him on the good side. At any rate, your definition of good would be culturally informed, in that case.

Maybe like isn't the right word for Marcion? More like, I find it interesting or intriguing.

Gnosticism is a bit of a bore and a vapid oversimplification of our world, imo.

For the record, although Marcion is lumped with the Gnostics by many, he technically was not, nor did he teach Gnosticism. A lot of his ideas are compatable, but they have significant differences.

Marcion taught a spiritual Christ and that the OT God was a demiurge, but unlike gnosticism he did not teach that divine sparks were embedded in matter that needed to be freed from it. Nor was his demiurge fallen from or ultimately related to the spiritual realm as in Gnosticism. It was utterly separate realms in a way. While Valentinian had complex syzygies and essences of Sophia or Wisdom captured in matter, Marcion taught no revelatory doctrine of secret knowledge nor entrapped divine sparks.

I started writing my reply before seeing this but this is more or less what I thought; I don't think entertaining Marcion is equal to entertaining Gnosticism.

I would not describe myself as a Gnostic and am suspicious of sometimes frequent appearance of it within my tradition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah I mostly like Marcion's idea that the God of the Hebrew Bible is different than the God of the NT. ...

The only problem with Marcion's idea is that it's evident to anyone looking thoroughly enough through both Testaments that both are presenting the same "violent" God. Interestingly, one of my fellow atheist students who I attended some classes with, and with whom I had a discussion over this very thing, admitted to me that he thought Jesus was the same "violent" God and that the Gospels and the book of Revelation make this fairly clear.

[Note: I personally wouldn't describe God's nature as violent, but rather as Holy, a state of being that can be dangerous to us if we're not careful---it's kind of like handling fire, there's a right way to do that and a wrong way.]

 

[TheOldWays]

Yeah I mostly like Marcion's idea that the God of the Hebrew Bible is different than the God of the NT.

There is a theory that God evolved as the Bible progressed. From the vengeful Yahweh to the loving father Abba. The theory basically states that God uses humans for self awareness.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Images of deity became demonstrably less violent as mankind became less helplessly exposed to and incomprehending of the forces of nature.
When every flood and every thunderstorm was an inexplicable supernatural threat, demons and deities were almost interchangeable.
But give people a sense of relative security, and their gods become benevolent, kind, and serene.
Jonathan Edwards's sermons would have been a colossal failure, had they been written in less troubling times.

 

[Silmarien]

Images of deity became demonstrably less violent as mankind became less helplessly exposed to and incomprehending of the forces of nature.
When every flood and every thunderstorm was an inexplicable supernatural threat, demons and deities were almost interchangeable.
But give people a sense of relative security, and their gods become benevolent, kind, and serene.
Jonathan Edwards's sermons would have been a colossal failure, had they been written in less troubling times.

It's interesting to look at the differences between religion in North American indigenous societies and Mesoamerica. The security that comes with a more advanced society did not lead to less violent images of deity amongst the Aztecs and Mayas--quite the opposite! The Great Spirit of the northern tribes may be more of an uncontrollable force, but technological and scientific advances historically don't lead to benevolent gods. They lead to transactionally minded gods that you can appease and control with enough sacrifices.

 

[dlamberth]

It's interesting to look at the differences between religion in North American indigenous societies and Mesoamerica. The security that comes with a more advanced society did not lead to less violent images of deity amongst the Aztecs and Mayas--quite the opposite! The Great Spirit of the northern tribes may be more of an uncontrollable force, but technological and scientific advances historically don't lead to benevolent gods. They lead to transactionally minded gods that you can appease and control with enough sacrifices.

To make your point even more poignant, an even more technologically advanced society invaded Mesoamerica with the full intent of ever more violence, sacrifice and untold human horror upon human with all intent of control over the heathen population.

 

[Silmarien]

To make your point even more poignant, an even more technologically advanced society invaded Mesoamerica with the full intent of ever more violence, sacrifice and untold human horror upon human with all intent of control over the heathen population.

Queen Isabella actually established laws concerning the fair treatment of the Native Americans, though the conquistadores ultimately didn't adhere to those orders. There's been a 500 year propaganda war waged against Spain in Protestant countries, so a lot of what happened is more complicated than we realize.

I honestly have no problem with the conquest of the Aztec Empire. What followed during the colonial period was ugly, but a society built upon the ritual slaughter of its neighbors deserves destruction.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To make your point even more poignant, an even more technologically advanced society invaded Mesoamerica with the full intent of ever more violence, sacrifice and untold human horror upon human with all intent of control over the heathen population.

I'd strongly recommend Hugh Thomas' books on the Spanish Empire, like The Golden Age or Rivers of Silver: They are well researched, even handed approaches, and quite good.

The fact is that there were always those opposed to cruelty against the natives, like Las Casas, and it is not coincidence that priests led so many of the independance movements later.

The Aztecs were however horrendous, and the Conquistedors should be commended for ending their large scale human sacrifice, if nothing else. It is a pity that they proceded to construct large estates based on forced labour thereafter, but not really their fault that New World peoples weren't immune to Old World diseases.

Queen Isabella actually established laws concerning the fair treatment of the Native Americans, though the conquistadores ultimately didn't adhere to those orders. There's been a 500 year propaganda war waged against Spain in Protestant countries, so a lot of what happened is more complicated than we realize.

I honestly have no problem with the conquest of the Aztec Empire. What followed during the colonial period was ugly, but a society built upon the ritual slaughter of its neighbors deserves destruction.

Interestingly, some think that Human Sacrifice played an important part in population control in Meso-America. Being dependant on Maize and lacking large livestock animals, their arable land was limited - the predominant pattern was slash and burn, as deep ploughing and large-scale irrigation was impractical without horses or oxen. This is why large cities like Tenochtitlan and Texcoco were based on lakes with floating gardens, or why the Maya were based around Cenote wells. Maize without livestock gives nutrional deficiencies and Malthusian population limits get reached quite quickly. Societies that had periodic starvation would by necessity be less stable, than those that could shear off excess population. Meso-America was bounded by desert to the north and jungle to the south, so expansion was not feasible, so warlike and sacrificial cultures with high mortality rates thereby, would likely be favoured. It is an intriguing theory, and although it doesn't excuse it either, gives pause. Anyway, more advanced societies usually start engaging in human sacrifice, which appears to be uncommon amongst primitives.

 

[Berl]

I was a christian most of my life, but there were several reasons i could no longer reconcile the basic christian theology.

The momentum started when i chose to thoroughly investigate the NT, by reading the works of various well credentialed NT scholars and historians. I learned quite a bit through that process, which causes me to take a step back and really analyze my belief. As i did and i overlay the basic christian theology, with the evidence we have about the world and universe we live in, it just did not align with any level of logic to me. The traits christianity places on god, dont relate to the world we live in. Also, the whole piece of christianity (most christians at least) that one must be a christian or they are basically doomed, appears morally corrupt to me and quite primitive. Tends to smell like a man made religion, that wants to scare people to stay in line. If you look at the world, ones religion is mostly formed by where one was born and who their parents where, which is another indicator different cultures search for answers and form their own religion. According to many who are christians, 2/3 of the worlds population is doomed. Not quite the loving god who cares for all his creation equally.

The method of teaching by the Ancient Sages is the deceptive link in all sacred writings that were wrote to deceive the deceivers, to keep the vain stuck in vanity until sleeping beauty wakes up by the kiss within. The scripture tells us the letter kills seeing its a distortable doctrine machine built on the shadows of the substance casting it, people just don't see the symbology being perverted into secular history which isn't the scriptures fault, people follow well dressed blind guides that have credentials from the best education money can purchase, yet never understand they are killing the message. I recommend Bill Donahue who has some revelation mind candy.
.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

All I need to see in order to unmistakably identify the moral bankruptcy at the heart of evangelical Christianity is the way they treated Barack Obama for eight years, in contrast to how they treat Donald Trump now.

 

[bhsmte]

The method of teaching by the Ancient Sages is the deceptive link in all sacred writings that were wrote to deceive the deceivers, to keep the vain stuck in vanity until sleeping beauty wakes up by the kiss within. The scripture tells us the letter kills seeing its a distortable doctrine machine built on the shadows of the substance casting it, people just don't see the symbology being perverted into secular history which isn't the scriptures fault, people follow well dressed blind guides that have credentials from the best education money can purchase, yet never understand they are killing the message. I recommend Bill Donahue who has some revelation mind candy.
.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All I need to see in order to unmistakably identify the moral bankruptcy at the heart of evangelical Christianity is the way they treated Barack Obama for eight years, in contrast to how they treat Donald Trump now.

...I see people from all walks of life who are guilty of "two-dimensional" thinking; it isn't only Evangelical Christians who are at fault for some of this kind of thing, Jane.

By the way, I'm somewhat Evangelical and I voted for Obama...............for his first term, that is, but not for his second.

 

[mathinspiration]

Actually people say that math and evolution are the proof of some divine or something out there like aliens or supernatural beings.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is a theory that God evolved as the Bible progressed. From the vengeful Yahweh to the loving father Abba. The theory basically states that God uses humans for self awareness.

I suspect that it's more likely that views of God changed, not that God actually changed. From a Christian perspective this is generally understood as progressive revelation, which has its fullness in Jesus, God Himself made man.

-CryptoLutheran