I invite you to pick apart Christianity

[ragashree]

Egalitarian certainly when understood in a metaphysical sense, but the "modern" perversion of these teachings is to claim that this somehow applies in the earthly realm. That simply is not so. It should be noted that the term hierarchy was actually coined by the Christian writer Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, when talking about the ordering of Angels.

I'm unclear as to how the etymology of the word "hierarchy" substantiates the preceding assertion that Christian egalitarianism is only valid as a metaphysical concept.

The connection between Christianity and worldly egalitarianism probably dates to the heretical teachings of the renegade Medieval monk Joachim of Fiore; who taught that the coming "Age of the Holy Spirit" would be one of perfect equality between all humans, without churches and other institutions.

Has it never arisen independently then, particularly post-renaissance through biblical exigesis? And, by the way, I'm not convinced the sectarian adjectives are really necessary, though I will admit that they make your own perspective pretty clear, if I couldn't guess already

 

[Jeremy]

I just don't believe in it. I have faith in my own convictions about the world, and I don't need a 2000 year old book of fictionary fables to tell me otherwise.

 

[Argus]

I just don't believe in it. I have faith in my own convictions about the world, and I don't need a 2000 year old book of fictionary fables to tell me otherwise.

Believing in the Bible is a stumbling block for many people. They see parts of the Bible as being scientifically impossible, historically unreliable, and culturally regressive.


"We can't trust the Bible historically"
Rather than examining the historic accuracy of each part of the Bible, you should instead ask yourself whether you can trust the gospels to be historically reliable.
The following following reasons are why the gospel accounts should be considered historically reliable vs. legends:
1. The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends.
Gospels were written only 40-60 years after Jesus' death and Biblical accounts of Jesus' life were circulating within the lifetimes of hundreds who had been present at the events of His ministry.
2. The content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be legends. (i.e. Jesus' crucifixion, Jesus' cries to God about abandoning Him, women as eyewitnesses, weaknesses of apostles)
3. The literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend.
Ancient fiction was nothing like modern fiction. Modern fiction is realistic. It contains details and dialogue and reads like an eyewitness account. This genre of fiction, however, was unknown in the first century and was only developed within the last 300 years.
Therefore, the gospels written with so much detail at that time could not be fiction but could only come from actual eyewitness accounts.

"We Can't Trust the Bible Culturally"
More people now are especially upset by what they call the outmoded and regressive teaching of the Bible (i.e. slavery and the subjugation of women).
I would suggest that you slow down and try out several different perspectives on the issues that trouble you. Many of the texts people find offensive can be cleared up with a decent commentary that puts the issue into historical context.
We should make sure we distinguish between the major themes and message of the Bible and its less primary teachings...It is therefore important to consider the Bible's core claims about who Jesus is and whether he rose from the dead before you reject it for its less central and more controversial teachings.




I would also submit to you this.
If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you have a God that can contradict you? You won't! You'll have a God of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction with. Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage) will you know that you have hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it.

 

[taoistmofo]

My two cents, Vol 1

I find the debates of the validity of Christianity extremely interesting in the fact that one can often find the same arguments between Christians as one can between Christians and non Christians. Christians use the bible as a point of reference as though it’s to be taken as fact outside of its own circle of thought. I hear scripture upon scripture tossed out to prove the validity as though they were using a dictionary or an encyclopedia. The problem with this is that the bible itself is not a fully agreed upon work. There are so many versions not to mention the debate over the original translations. Lilith came before Eve; Lilith did not come before Eve. Mary was a Virgin, Mary was not a virgin. I find it hard to take stock in a book that its own believers can’t seem to agree upon. Christians disagree with Christians on what is valid as much as non-Christians and Christians do. To me this invalidates the bible as a legitimate source.

I was raised Methodist and worked my way up through church to lay speaker can Sunday school teacher. I preached several times. In all my years in Christianity I have never seen so much elitism, oppression and need for control over others. Christianity is by nature an elitist religion, the idea that their religion is not only the only right one (I realize I just put “only” in the same sentence almost back to back, sorry) but also the only one that is allowed to be practiced without punishment. Christianity isn’t the only one that subscribes to this idea of elitism but none the less it does. Not all Christians proselytize I agree but all Christians do believe that anyone not practicing their religion will be punished. That their religion is the only one allowed to be practiced. Christianity has a long history of oppression. Laws are passed and cultures are erased all to perpetuate Christian ideals. This is evident with the missionaries that travel abroad to change the religion of other countries, the change in pledge of allegiance, the banning of gay marriage (or civil union) and the In God We Trust that was put on the coins. Christians shout from the roof tops that this country was found on Christian ideals when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

My biggest problem with Christianity is its complete disregard for right and wrong. The good that one has done is irrelevant when it comes to going to heaven. I was having a discussion with my son on about Christianity and he asked me what happened to Buddha according to Christianity and I told him that he was removed from the eyes of God and not allowed in their heaven. He asked me why since he was such a peaceful person and didn’t harm anyone. I told him it didn’t matter how compassionate of a person he was. That doesn’t matter in Christianity. He didn’t accept Jesus as his savior so he was punished. He looked at me in shock. The same look I gave my minister when I asked the same question about His Holiness the Dali Lama. Through out all the scripture you want. Promise me eternal life. It’s all meaningless.

Justify to me that it’s okay to condemn a person for not having the same set of beliefs as you do. Justify to me that Gandhi deserved to be dealt with in the same manner as Hitler in the eyes of God. This is where I pick apart Christianity. It refuses to believe any other religion should be allowed to be practiced to point of punishment. Even those that devote their life to helping others fall to the same fate as those that devote their lives to destroying it. To me, this the biggest issue of Christianity.

I will post later on Free will....

 

[hommefatal]

Religion sucks because it's dishonest and hypocritical.

 

[rainoneventide]

There's three things that piss me off about Christianity:

1. Why the hell do they put more value on Jesus dying on the cross for their sins when he had a ton of amazing parables and an awesome personality that are just kind of pushed aside? Poor Jesus. Talk about a waste of Bible.

2. The "holier than thou" attitude some Christians have toward anyone that isn't Christian, and their need to convert everyone for more "I'm a good person" points. Yeah, I'm going to hell. Fine. Let me go to hell in peace.

3. Their whole "right vs. wrong" and "good vs. bad" thing. Seriously, wake up and take a look around, life isn't that simple.

I'm agnostic. I believe that there is something far greater out there, but we weren't made to be capable of understanding or grasping it.

I don't believe in a grumpy, strict man hovering around in the sky that apparently loves everybody, but if you disobey him he's going to hand you over to some sadistic guy who'll fry you for eternity. However, if you conform to the Bible written by misogynistic men thousands of years ago you'll float to Heaven and stare down at all the screaming, tortured sinners in their fiery pit with a wave and a smile? What the fuck?

The gospel isn't offensive. What offends me is the people that take it literally and then act in ways that the Bible clearly condemns under the handy name of "faith." (Such as, love your neighbor, except gay neighbors.)

Doesn't anyone ever wonder why Jesus told his lessons in parables? It was to make people actually pause and think about them, rather than swallowing down every word and then running off to do whatever the hell they think they're supposed to do to get an automatic ticket to salvation.

Sorry Jesus.



Edit: Don't get me wrong, I know that there are also a lot of Christians out there who don't fit in with the ones I'm criticizing above, and I really respect them for sticking with their views despite all the heat and criticism their religion is getting.

 

[Quinlan]

The reliablility of the bible is about on par with the reliability of the writings of modern cult followers, after which those writings were translated and rewritten over hundreds of years.

 

[Owl]

That certainly makes sense. However I'm curious how a blind or deaf child could reference to other beings. Eitherway I'd imagine a being would have a sense of identity that they control themselves unless we're going on the assumption that these people locked up are completely void of the idea that they have thoughts etc.



1) Why?
2) Why?
3) Punishment is the only form of justice?

b) It's essentially the question: Why does God punish people for not believing? Which is commonly answered by: It's free will. To which I ask, it's clear that God has not provided enough evidence to convert these people, therefore why would he set up a system where these non-believers are condemning themselves?

1) The answer to this is tied up with the answer to b. According to Christian thesim, the existence of God is clear such that those who don't believe are without excuse. If there weren't enough evidence to show that God existed, then the unbeliever would have an excuse. If there were enough evidence, but it was hard to know, then the unbeliever would have an excuse. The claim is that God's existence is so clear that the only way to avoid seeing it is either to be wholly, culpably negligent in belief formation or, if one has done any rigorous examination of his beliefs, to deny the basic distinctions that make thought possible; in order to fail to know God, one must commit intellectual suicide, and so the spiritually dead person will not be in a condition to recognize any truth: not that God exists, the reality of his condition, or that he needs to change.

2) God is just. The consequence of not seeking to know God is failure to know God. This consequence is built into the very nature of what it means to be human; it is immediate and inherent in the act, and so it's neither arbitrary nor imposed; to not inflict this consequence would be unjust. To bring a person back from this state would be an act of mercy, and God will have mercy on those whom he wills, and he will harden those whom he wills.

3) No.

b) has been answered above, but the free will defense is no defense at all. Free will makes sin possible, not actual. Even if sin were actual, that does not mean it's necessary: God is free and without sin, as are the angels and saints in heaven. Free will is necessary for sin; it is not sufficient.

 

[ragashree]

"We can't trust the Bible historically"
Rather than examining the historic accuracy of each part of the Bible, you should instead ask yourself whether you can trust the gospels to be historically reliable.
The following following reasons are why the gospel accounts should be considered historically reliable vs. legends:

I just thought I'd point out that this is a fallacy of composition. Even an acceptance of the argument that follows does absolutely nothing to substantiate the general historical valididity of the Bible as you are suggesting it should. What you are saying relates specifically to the gospels, and there's no justification given for why the same should apply to the whole Bible.

I would also submit to you this.
If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you have a God that can contradict you? You won't! You'll have a God of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction with. Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage) will you know that you have hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination.

Interesting argument, but I do wonder how many who consider themselves believers could be found wanting by it. Quite a lot I suspect. Would you then say that someone who is not constantly challenging themselves in relation to their faith (or is at least open to that challenge) is failing to truly believe? This seems implicit in what you're saying, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Totenkindly]

If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you have a God that can contradict you? You won't! You'll have a God of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction with. Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage) will you know that you have hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it.

Exactly.

And since you have to CHOOSE to accept that authority -- where there is no direct universal evidence to PROVE it -- you are now worshiping a "god of your own making" just like you accuse others of.

The flaw in your reasoning is basically that somehow you have a handle on which god is "right" and others do not... whereas in actuality, you're worshiping the god you want to worship, based on the assumptions you'd like to make about god and whatever authorities you're going to decide are more valid than others.

You're not a "special case," and you don't have a provable handle on reality. This isn't math, where 2+2=4, even if one wants to believe the answer should be 5 -- faith is highly speculative and subjective and impacted greatly by socialization and life experience.

 

[ragashree]

My biggest problem with Christianity is its complete disregard for right and wrong. The good that one has done is irrelevant when it comes to going to heaven. I was having a discussion with my son on about Christianity and he asked me what happened to Buddha according to Christianity and I told him that he was removed from the eyes of God and not allowed in their heaven. He asked me why since he was such a peaceful person and didn’t harm anyone. I told him it didn’t matter how compassionate of a person he was. That doesn’t matter in Christianity. He didn’t accept Jesus as his savior so he was punished. He looked at me in shock. The same look I gave my minister when I asked the same question about His Holiness the Dali Lama. Through out all the scripture you want. Promise me eternal life. It’s all meaningless.

Justify to me that it’s okay to condemn a person for not having the same set of beliefs as you do. Justify to me that Gandhi deserved to be dealt with in the same manner as Hitler in the eyes of God. This is where I pick apart Christianity. It refuses to believe any other religion should be allowed to be practiced to point of punishment. Even those that devote their life to helping others fall to the same fate as those that devote their lives to destroying it. To me, this the biggest issue of Christianity.

Bearing in mind that he was writing during a time of great intolerance of other faiths, and expressing views pretty much in concordance with orthodox theology of the time, you might be interested to see the view Dante took of this in his Divine Comedy. It at any rate seems to challenge the simplistic but widespread view that literal belief in Christ is necessary for salvation even from an exclusive Christian perspective; and provides an argument for why those who are virtuous in human terms may be treated differently to both sinners and true believers.

I was looking for a good online reference then found this convenient synopsis and commentary, which addresses the whole issue in a page or two - hopefully it's more digestible than the whole three books of the original at any rate! The Destiny of a Virtuous Pagan

 

[Gioolia]

What I never understood about Christianity is this:

If I were to say that between the earth and the moon there was a small Chinese store, and provided that this store is so small that you will never be able to see it, but nonetheless it controls your life and and it created everything that you see and more, you would tell me that I'm insane.
And you would be right.
BUT if you read the same story in a book written thousands of years ago and read in Church every sunday, then not only I am right, but I can also declare that your beliefs are invalid because they're different.

That is nonsense.

By the way, from my experience I can tell that most of the people claim they have faith just to hide their intellectual laziness.
"Let's obey to a God whose rules makes no sense at all just because I'm too lazy to look for real answers, come on! It's gonna be fun."
Pathetic.

 

[ragashree]

If I were to say that between the earth and the moon there was a small Chinese store, and provided that this store is so small that you will never be able to see it, but nonetheless it controls your life and and it created everything that you see and more, you would tell me that I'm insane.
And you would be right.

*nods*

BUT if you read the same story in a book written thousands of years ago and read in Church every sunday, then not only I am right, but I can also declare that your beliefs are invalid because they're different.

That is nonsense.

*nods again*

By the way, from my experience I can tell that most of the people claim they have faith just to hide their intellectual laziness.

*Pot, kettle, anyone?*

"Let's make criticisms which make no sense at all just because I'm too lazy to look for real answers, come on! It's gonna be fun."

Fixed

Pathetic.

 

[Snow Turtle]

1) The answer to this is tied up with the answer to b. According to Christian thesim, the existence of God is clear such that those who don't believe are without excuse. If there weren't enough evidence to show that God existed, then the unbeliever would have an excuse. If there were enough evidence, but it was hard to know, then the unbeliever would have an excuse. The claim is that God's existence is so clear that the only way to avoid seeing it is either to be wholly, culpably negligent in belief formation or, if one has done any rigorous examination of his beliefs, to deny the basic distinctions that make thought possible; in order to fail to know God, one must commit intellectual suicide, and so the spiritually dead person will not be in a condition to recognize any truth: not that God exists, the reality of his condition, or that he needs to change.

It's been a while but that's a good answer, and the first I've heard of it's kind. I was not aware that christianity believed this, however it does somewhat contradict with the common idea of faith.

It's still hard to shake away the idea if God's existance was so obvious, then there is no need for people to really have much faith at all. But reality dictates otherwise...

 

[Nadir]

Christianity is a belief that is consistent within itself, but is not scientifically verifiable and falsifiable. There's no way to disprove any aspect. This is true for any divine belief.

So,
1. It doesn't need to be picked apart.
2. Attempting to do so would be futile anyhow.
3. What one can do is to simply refuse it, as with any other non-falsifiable idea.

 

[Sniffles]

By the way, from my experience I can tell that most of the people claim they have faith just to hide their intellectual laziness.
"Let's obey to a God whose rules makes no sense at all just because I'm too lazy to look for real answers, come on! It's gonna be fun."
Pathetic.

The only problem with such an argument is that it fails to tell the whole story. Christianity has a very rich intellectual heritage which continues to this very day. Arguably one of the greatest living philosophers today, Alasdair MacIntyre, is a Catholic actually.

St. Anselm of Centerbury famous stated "I believe so that I may understand." This means that faith is merely the first step in one seeking to comprehend the world better. Reason is a gift from God so that we may better understand his nature and his works. So reason and faith are not necessarily enemies; but Christianity is ultimately a matter of faith.

That was the major point behind Tertullian supposedly stating: "I believe because it's absurd." This is often wrongly misinterpreted to protray him and Christianity in general as irrational in nature. That's simply not so. The criteria for extraordinary claims can only apply to certain limited circumstances - one is not simply free to believe any bullshit they please.

You see this basic mentality in play in regards to issues of miracles. Miracles by their very nature are unusual events. This is contrasted by the view of Occasionalism, which states that everything that occurs is simply the will of God. Contrary to popular view, this has not been upheld much within Christian philosophy - in fact it's more often found within Islam. However, perhaps it should be mentioned that the Islamic philosopher Averroes contended that faith and reason(philosophy) were two means to the same end - ie the truth.

One of the great things about Christianity is that it has room for those seeking intellectual understanding and those of more simple faith. So this notion of religion merely being for the intellectually lazy is simply not correct. If anything, religious philosophers have presented some of the most profound insights ever.

 

[Argus]

Nicely done, Peguy.

 

[Baltar]

How do you know....

God is suddenly going to give a shit about you AFTER YOU DIE? Why would an all-powerful Deity need to wait before he gives a shit. If you have a life indicating he gives a shit about you NOW, good for you, but that is not the case for all of us, so why should we believe he'll suddenly give a shit when we croak? Also, I'll bet you cannot find one bible verse about how to be "saved" that is not contradicted elsewhere. Even the New Testament is at odds with itself about we are supposed to be saved by God from, well, his own bad temper. There are many places that say we will be judged by our works, not faith. So which is it?

 

[Mayflow]

God is suddenly going to give a shit about you AFTER YOU DIE? Why would an all-powerful Deity need to wait before he gives a shit. If you have a life indicating he gives a shit about you NOW, good for you, but that is not the case for all of us, so why should we believe he'll suddenly give a shit when we croak? Also, I'll bet you cannot find one bible verse about how to be "saved" that is not contradicted elsewhere. Even the New Testament is at odds with itself about we are supposed to be saved by God from, well, his own bad temper. There are many places that say we will be judged by our works, not faith. So which is it?

Here is the thing Baltar. Judge not that ye be not judged, but if you do judge, be fair. And go beyond being fair and be benevolent, for however you choose to see things is totally up to you.

 

[Mempy]

I'm glad this thread hasn't been done before.

Buford: Whadayawanna do today, Frank?
Frank: I dunno, Buford, shoot beers cans off that fence?
Buford: But that's what we do EVERY day, Frank!
Frank: But what the heck else are we gonna do with all the beer cans, Buford?
Buford: You're right, good buddy, load 'em up!



To get right to the point, without even needing to focus on content:

You're presenting a self-contained idea or a theology.
There's no way to authenticate said theology, nor is it "self-evident."
Hence, you either choose to believe it as an accurate depiction of the world or you don't -- a discussion of the content is irrelevant to that bottom-line point.

Word.

Can we canonize this post, sticking it to a bulletin that every would-be religion discussor has to read before they post?

Damn. *flicks this invitation to criticizing Christianity in with the shoebox full of other invites of this sort that she's received in the last six months, then dumps it in the garbage--but keeps the box*

Although, in your favor, thread-starter, I liked your description of Christianity. It flowed well, and it refreshed my memory on a lot of stuff I learned in eight years of Catholic grade school, so I'd say it was probably pretty complete.