What would it take to make you a Christian?

[Temirlan]

Faith
noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence;
optimism, hopefulness, hope, expectation
"he completely justified his boss's faith in him"

So? Ani lo mevin.

 

[caerlerion]

If you feel like sharing the reasons, that would be interesting. There are different types of reasons for doubting and disbelieving Christianity and they require different types of rebuttals - in some cases there is no conceivable rebuttal. Furthermore, there are different types of Christianity and a reason that kills one type of Christianity may only slightly wound another type of Christianity.

Thanks for offering to hear my reasons. I don't have these arranged in any specific order, just what comes to mind. I will try to keep them short, but I can expand on any of them if needed. These are from years of careful study, not knee-jerk reactions.

- The supreme deity of the Bible is an artificial amalgam of El and Yahweh, originally two unrelated deities. (Some parts of the Bible maintain their original distinction!) The monotheism of the Bible is the result of a slow historical process as cultures met and borrowed from each other.
- The Bible presents a universe only a few thousand years old, and a literal pair of first humans, and Paul's soteriology requires the literal truth of these things. The evidence we have shows the universe is billions of years old, the human species is the result of millions of years of evolution, and there were no first humans.
- The Bible presents a universal flood as historical fact, taking place a few thousand years ago, and Jesus' eschatology requires these the literal truth of this event. There is no evidence the global flood happened, and the story in the Bible is physically impossible.
- The Exodus and the conquest of Canaan are the foundation for Israel's history. There is no evidence the Exodus or conquest happened. There is evidence the Israelites were Canaanites. No Exodus means no basis for the claim of Israel's covenant with God.
- The law contradicts itself on a variety of topics. Several parts closely resemble law codes from throughout the region. Israel's law did not come from God, it's an amalgam of several local law codes and added to over time.
- There is evidence a few of the Judges evolved out of pagan gods, demigods, and heroes. The period of the Judges is at least a partial fabrication.
- David's rise from shepherd to king is almost entirely legendary, created from two or three different versions of the same story. The divine ordination of his rule is an invention.
- The kingdom of Israel was never as large as the Bible says it was during Solomon's rule.
- Many of the events from the period of the divided monarchy are not historically attested by Israel or Judah's contemporaries. For some events, such as the death of thousands upon thousands of Assyrians in a failed invasion of Jerusalem, this is extremely implausible.
- The prophets in the Bible, including Jesus, make dozens of unconditional predictions which were never fulfilled.
- The two stories of the virgin birth contradict each other in most of their details, including when it happened. Matthew places Jesus' birth before 4 BC, while Luke places Jesus' birth about AD 6. Matthew borrows from legends about Moses' birth, while Luke borrows ideas from Judges and 1 Samuel. The stories were invented to put Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, since he is otherwise shown belong to Nazareth.
- Some of Jesus' teachings and miracles require a post-70 context to make sense. This means some things in the gospels are much later inventions retroactively attributed to Jesus.
- John's story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is based on Luke's parable of Lazarus and the rich man. An allegory Jesus told in one gospel is reshaped into literal history in a later gospel. There are a handful of other examples like this which suggest John's literary dependence on Luke.
- The crucifixion stories in all four gospels contradict on several minor details, except for John's major contradiction placing Jesus' death a full day before the other three.
- The crucifixion story is full of historically implausible information whose sole purpose is to vilify the Jews and withhold guilt from Rome, despite Jesus being executed by the Romans.
- The most substantial contradiction of all is the nature of Jesus' resurrection appearances. All four gospels show the disciples were still in Jerusalem when the empty tomb was discovered, but none of them agree on what happened next. Mark has no resurrection appearance. (Verses 9-20 are a later addition from someone who had read at least Luke and Matthew.) Luke says Jesus first appeared alive to the disciples in a house in Jerusalem on the same day. (John does the same, but his order of events is different.) Matthew has the first appearance on a mountain in Galilee, requiring the disciples to travel ninety miles from Jerusalem (or farther if they went around Samaria, which was common), which means the disciples could not have seen the risen Jesus for the first time until about a week after the empty tomb was found. This major difference of where and when Jesus first appeared to the disciples is an insurmountable contradiction.
- Luke ends with Jesus' ascension the same day the empty tomb was found, shortly after his first appearance to the disciples. Acts begins by backtracking and adding a forty-day period between Jesus' first appearance and his ascension. These not only contradict each other, but they add another contradiction with Matthew and John. Luke and Acts shows the disciples remained in Jerusalem from the day of the empty tomb all the way through Pentecost. This cannot be reconciled with Matthew's story of the disciples going to Galilee to find Jesus alive on the mountain, nor with John's story of the disciples returning to their fishing life in Galilee.
- The Bible contradicts itself on the ethics required by God and Jesus.
- The Bible contradicts itself on the nature and duration of afterlife punishment.

Sorry if this is too much all at once.

 

[cloudyday2]

Thanks for offering to hear my reasons. I don't have these arranged in any specific order, just what comes to mind. I will try to keep them short, but I can expand on any of them if needed. These are from years of careful study, not knee-jerk reactions.

- The supreme deity of the Bible is an artificial amalgam of El and Yahweh, originally two unrelated deities. (Some parts of the Bible maintain their original distinction!) The monotheism of the Bible is the result of a slow historical process as cultures met and borrowed from each other.
- The Bible presents a universe only a few thousand years old, and a literal pair of first humans, and Paul's soteriology requires the literal truth of these things. The evidence we have shows the universe is billions of years old, the human species is the result of millions of years of evolution, and there were no first humans.
- The Bible presents a universal flood as historical fact, taking place a few thousand years ago, and Jesus' eschatology requires these the literal truth of this event. There is no evidence the global flood happened, and the story in the Bible is physically impossible.
- The Exodus and the conquest of Canaan are the foundation for Israel's history. There is no evidence the Exodus or conquest happened. There is evidence the Israelites were Canaanites. No Exodus means no basis for the claim of Israel's covenant with God.
- The law contradicts itself on a variety of topics. Several parts closely resemble law codes from throughout the region. Israel's law did not come from God, it's an amalgam of several local law codes and added to over time.
- There is evidence a few of the Judges evolved out of pagan gods, demigods, and heroes. The period of the Judges is at least a partial fabrication.
- David's rise from shepherd to king is almost entirely legendary, created from two or three different versions of the same story. The divine ordination of his rule is an invention.
- The kingdom of Israel was never as large as the Bible says it was during Solomon's rule.
- Many of the events from the period of the divided monarchy are not historically attested by Israel or Judah's contemporaries. For some events, such as the death of thousands upon thousands of Assyrians in a failed invasion of Jerusalem, this is extremely implausible.
- The prophets in the Bible, including Jesus, make dozens of unconditional predictions which were never fulfilled.
- The two stories of the virgin birth contradict each other in most of their details, including when it happened. Matthew places Jesus' birth before 4 BC, while Luke places Jesus' birth about AD 6. Matthew borrows from legends about Moses' birth, while Luke borrows ideas from Judges and 1 Samuel. The stories were invented to put Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, since he is otherwise shown belong to Nazareth.
- Some of Jesus' teachings and miracles require a post-70 context to make sense. This means some things in the gospels are much later inventions retroactively attributed to Jesus.
- John's story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is based on Luke's parable of Lazarus and the rich man. An allegory Jesus told in one gospel is reshaped into literal history in a later gospel. There are a handful of other examples like this which suggest John's literary dependence on Luke.
- The crucifixion stories in all four gospels contradict on several minor details, except for John's major contradiction placing Jesus' death a full day before the other three.
- The crucifixion story is full of historically implausible information whose sole purpose is to vilify the Jews and withhold guilt from Rome, despite Jesus being executed by the Romans.
- The most substantial contradiction of all is the nature of Jesus' resurrection appearances. All four gospels show the disciples were still in Jerusalem when the empty tomb was discovered, but none of them agree on what happened next. Mark has no resurrection appearance. (Verses 9-20 are a later addition from someone who had read at least Luke and Matthew.) Luke says Jesus first appeared alive to the disciples in a house in Jerusalem on the same day. (John does the same, but his order of events is different.) Matthew has the first appearance on a mountain in Galilee, requiring the disciples to travel ninety miles from Jerusalem (or farther if they went around Samaria, which was common), which means the disciples could not have seen the risen Jesus for the first time until about a week after the empty tomb was found. This major difference of where and when Jesus first appeared to the disciples is an insurmountable contradiction.
- Luke ends with Jesus' ascension the same day the empty tomb was found, shortly after his first appearance to the disciples. Acts begins by backtracking and adding a forty-day period between Jesus' first appearance and his ascension. These not only contradict each other, but they add another contradiction with Matthew and John. Luke and Acts shows the disciples remained in Jerusalem from the day of the empty tomb all the way through Pentecost. This cannot be reconciled with Matthew's story of the disciples going to Galilee to find Jesus alive on the mountain, nor with John's story of the disciples returning to their fishing life in Galilee.
- The Bible contradicts itself on the ethics required by God and Jesus.
- The Bible contradicts itself on the nature and duration of afterlife punishment.

Sorry if this is too much all at once.

Thanks, those are similar to the reasons for my lack of faith. I see Judaism and Christianity evolving rather than being inspired by divine revelations. Jesus seems to have believed that Judaism was inspired by God, so that means Jesus probably had no special divine connection or inspiration.

 

[CherubRam]

So? Ani lo mevin.

Faith is not necessarily deceptive, but it is things hoped for. All of the facts say there is a God.

 

[jacks]

Thanks for offering to hear my reasons. I don't have these arranged in any specific order, just what comes to mind. I will try to keep them short, but I can expand on any of them if needed. These are from years of careful study, not knee-jerk reactions.

- The supreme deity of the Bible is an artificial amalgam of El and Yahweh, originally two unrelated deities. (Some parts of the Bible maintain their original distinction!) The monotheism of the Bible is the result of a slow historical process as cultures met and borrowed from each other.
- The Bible presents a universe only a few thousand years old, and a literal pair of first humans, and Paul's soteriology requires the literal truth of these things. The evidence we have shows the universe is billions of years old, the human species is the result of millions of years of evolution, and there were no first humans.
- The Bible presents a universal flood as historical fact, taking place a few thousand years ago, and Jesus' eschatology requires these the literal truth of this event. There is no evidence the global flood happened, and the story in the Bible is physically impossible.
- The Exodus and the conquest of Canaan are the foundation for Israel's history. There is no evidence the Exodus or conquest happened. There is evidence the Israelites were Canaanites. No Exodus means no basis for the claim of Israel's covenant with God.
- The law contradicts itself on a variety of topics. Several parts closely resemble law codes from throughout the region. Israel's law did not come from God, it's an amalgam of several local law codes and added to over time.
- There is evidence a few of the Judges evolved out of pagan gods, demigods, and heroes. The period of the Judges is at least a partial fabrication.
- David's rise from shepherd to king is almost entirely legendary, created from two or three different versions of the same story. The divine ordination of his rule is an invention.
- The kingdom of Israel was never as large as the Bible says it was during Solomon's rule.
- Many of the events from the period of the divided monarchy are not historically attested by Israel or Judah's contemporaries. For some events, such as the death of thousands upon thousands of Assyrians in a failed invasion of Jerusalem, this is extremely implausible.
- The prophets in the Bible, including Jesus, make dozens of unconditional predictions which were never fulfilled.
- The two stories of the virgin birth contradict each other in most of their details, including when it happened. Matthew places Jesus' birth before 4 BC, while Luke places Jesus' birth about AD 6. Matthew borrows from legends about Moses' birth, while Luke borrows ideas from Judges and 1 Samuel. The stories were invented to put Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, since he is otherwise shown belong to Nazareth.
- Some of Jesus' teachings and miracles require a post-70 context to make sense. This means some things in the gospels are much later inventions retroactively attributed to Jesus.
- John's story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is based on Luke's parable of Lazarus and the rich man. An allegory Jesus told in one gospel is reshaped into literal history in a later gospel. There are a handful of other examples like this which suggest John's literary dependence on Luke.
- The crucifixion stories in all four gospels contradict on several minor details, except for John's major contradiction placing Jesus' death a full day before the other three.
- The crucifixion story is full of historically implausible information whose sole purpose is to vilify the Jews and withhold guilt from Rome, despite Jesus being executed by the Romans.
- The most substantial contradiction of all is the nature of Jesus' resurrection appearances. All four gospels show the disciples were still in Jerusalem when the empty tomb was discovered, but none of them agree on what happened next. Mark has no resurrection appearance. (Verses 9-20 are a later addition from someone who had read at least Luke and Matthew.) Luke says Jesus first appeared alive to the disciples in a house in Jerusalem on the same day. (John does the same, but his order of events is different.) Matthew has the first appearance on a mountain in Galilee, requiring the disciples to travel ninety miles from Jerusalem (or farther if they went around Samaria, which was common), which means the disciples could not have seen the risen Jesus for the first time until about a week after the empty tomb was found. This major difference of where and when Jesus first appeared to the disciples is an insurmountable contradiction.
- Luke ends with Jesus' ascension the same day the empty tomb was found, shortly after his first appearance to the disciples. Acts begins by backtracking and adding a forty-day period between Jesus' first appearance and his ascension. These not only contradict each other, but they add another contradiction with Matthew and John. Luke and Acts shows the disciples remained in Jerusalem from the day of the empty tomb all the way through Pentecost. This cannot be reconciled with Matthew's story of the disciples going to Galilee to find Jesus alive on the mountain, nor with John's story of the disciples returning to their fishing life in Galilee.
- The Bible contradicts itself on the ethics required by God and Jesus.
- The Bible contradicts itself on the nature and duration of afterlife punishment.

Sorry if this is too much all at once.

Would all these objections go away if you didn't consider the bible to be either a history, science or anthropological text? What if you viewed it as a divine drama about the world we live in, the purpose of life and our role within it? This is in fact how many Christians view it.

 

[dlamberth]

Would all these objections go away if you didn't consider the bible to be either a history, science or anthropological text? What if you viewed it as a divine drama about the world we live in, the purpose of life and our role within it? This is in fact how many Christians view it.

Speaking only for myself, the duality that one sees in the Divine Drama in the Bible, our purpose in life and our role in as it match up with how I experience life.

 

[caerlerion]

Would all these objections go away if you didn't consider the bible to be either a history, science or anthropological text? What if you viewed it as a divine drama about the world we live in, the purpose of life and our role within it? This is in fact how many Christians view it.

I have considered this approach, but ultimately I decided it is not an intellectually honest hermeneutic. It's revisionist, which I do not think is a positive quality in this context. It's not how the books were intended to be read when they were written. It's not how they were interpreted for most of their existence. I see it instead as an interpretation of convenience, driven by the need to harmonize the Christian faith with the Bible's many errors and failures.

If the Bible presents something as history, and that history is false, then the problem is not with our interpretation but with the text itself.

 

[Yytz6]

Jesus seems to have believed that Judaism was inspired by God, so that means Jesus probably had no special divine connection or inspiration.

How did those dots connect if they did?

 

[Yytz6]

If the Bible presents something as history, and that history is false, then the problem is not with our interpretation but with the text itself.

True. A lot of Christians take the bible as rather symbolical, not the real thing. But they like it. They like it like they like a simple pretty painting on their bed room wall.

 

[Yytz6]

Would all these objections go away if you didn't consider the bible to be either a history, science or anthropological text? What if you viewed it as a divine drama about the world we live in, the purpose of life and our role within it? This is in fact how many Christians view it.

Most of them never read it though.

 

[Yytz6]

Believe whatever you wish. A friendly reality check: There is no eternal life heaven for anyone. Neither is there eternal punishment in hell. Both are ancient myths.

The good thing about Christianity is that according to the belief of majority(?), you either go to heaven or nowhere at all. They half believe in heaven but they never even consider hell. If Jesus already died for them, they'd have to be really bad to still miss salvation?

 

[cloudyday2]

How did those dots connect if they did?

I might not be understanding your question. I think you are asking for more details on my reason for disbelieving Christianity?

Disbelieving Christianity is not as simple as it sounds, because there are so many different ways to understand Christianity.
- there are Christians who take every word of the Bible literally (bible believing fundamentalists)
- there are Christians who focus more on the rituals (Catholics, Orthodox)
- there are Christians who focus on the ethical teachings of Jesus (liberal Christians)
- ... and so many more - tens of thousands of denominations

So to disbelieve in Christianity, a person needs to find some commonalities between all those varying Christian beliefs. It is like finding the keystone of an arch to remove so that EVERY version of Christian belief comes tumbling down.

For me, the keystone of the arch was the historical origins and evolution of the Abrahamic religions. As far as I can tell, the historical Jesus believed that Judaism was inspired by God, but the history and archaeology suggests that Judaism was no more inspired than Hinduism or Zoroastrianism or any other religion. So any religion that assumes that Judaism was specially inspired by God is mistaken. (I say "specially inspired", because I suspect that God's inspiration is at work all the time in all our lives regardless of religion. I also suspect that God values and utilizes our silly human religions and values the efforts of religious people to seek Him.)

I could go on an on, because disbelieving is a complicated project (at least for me). I'm not sure if you are even interested, so I will stop at that.

 

[jacks]

I have considered this approach, but ultimately I decided it is not an intellectually honest hermeneutic. It's revisionist, which I do not think is a positive quality in this context. It's not how the books were intended to be read when they were written. It's not how they were interpreted for most of their existence. I see it instead as an interpretation of convenience, driven by the need to harmonize the Christian faith with the Bible's many errors and failures.

If the Bible presents something as history, and that history is false, then the problem is not with our interpretation but with the text itself.

So...Fundamentalism or Bust!

 

[Yytz6]

I might not be understanding your question. I think you are asking for more details on my reason for disbelieving Christianity?

That did answer my question. Thank you.

A lot of Muslims believe Zarathustra was a prophet of Islam. The Ahmadiyya sect officially recognises him as such.

 

[caerlerion]

So...Fundamentalism or Bust!

Please don't reduce what I've said into a straw man that you can dismiss.

 

[jacks]

Please don't reduce what I've said into a straw man that you can dismiss.

I wasn't dismissing your post, nor creating a "straw man." Your first paragraph (the majority of your entire post) could well have been written by a Christian Fundamentalist. My conception of your post was that you will only consider the legitimacy of the Bible in the context of being literal; and that any other interpretation is invalid. If you were trying to make a different point, then I misunderstood you.

 

[caerlerion]

If you were trying to make a different point, then I misunderstood you.

Yes, fundamentalism is not what I was talking about. This is why I consider reducing my critique to "fundamentalism or bust" to be a straw man.

 

[dlamberth]

God being within belief systems isn't the same as God being love.

...or Love in one's Heart.

 

[Joyousperson]

It is now 17 pages, not sure if i had responded in this thread.

Note my definition of 'Who is a Christian' here,
Who is a Christian?

My understanding of Who is a Christian is as follows;
A Christian is a person who;

1. Believes in Jesus as son of God and his teachings [John 3:16, etc.],
   
   
2. is Baptized accordingly,
   
   
3. Surrender to God via Jesus as Son of God,
   
   
4. Entered into a personal relationship with God via a covenant with God to comply with God's words in the Gospels to the best of his/her ability.

In term of weightages, I understand 4 - entering into a covenant with God, is most critical which I would place at 75%. The covenant if not explicit is implied. Without a covenant [divine contract], then no true relationship is effected between God [& Jesus] and the believers.

The balance of 25% is divided among the others. Baptism is common but it is a ritual and form which can be abused.

 

[cloudyday2]

Note my definition of 'Who is a Christian' here,
Who is a Christian?

That is an interesting definition. There is a lot more detail than most definitions I have read.

What would need to change for you to become a Christian? Would you need for Jesus to appear to a group of you and your friends inside a locked room so that you could examine his crucifixion wounds (as was the case for St. Thomas)? Would you need to fall in love with a Christian who wants to marry you, but first you must also become a Christian? ... Lots of possibilities.