Best Arguments Against Christianity

[hazelm]

One has to be a bit careful here because some Christian sects insist on an "Inerrant" Bible, and do include the Old Testament in that inerrancy. This is used for all sorts of things like proving that God is against homosexuality (something that's much more explicit in the Old Testament than the New).

 

It's arguable that the main differences between Christian sects is the picking and choosing of what's open to interpretation (and it should be noted, "inerrancy" is mostly a way to say that your interpretation is the only true one, which mostly goes down a No True Scotsman logical hole).

 

As an administrative note, A-wal was banned quite a while ago for unrepentant trolling and won't be back to reply (at least we hope not). You might wish to continue this discussion over in the other thread about Old vs. New that you already have open. It's certainly an interesting theological discussion.

 

 

The bible is so simple you have to have someone else help you misunderstand it, :phones:

Buffy

You are right.  I realized later that I did overdo that.  Brain and mouth do not work in conjunction.  After all, it was Catholic bishops who gathered their choices of books together to form their Bible and they do use parts of the OT for teaching or inspiration.    Thanks.

[studentgary]

What do people here think are the strongest arguments against Christianity? I'm interested in arguing against it from both philosophical and historical points, but in my opinion one of the most effective arguments is based on the fact that Christianity stole so many things from other religious traditions. Characters and events depicted in the Christian writings were clearly plagiarized, thus disproving the originality of them. This article sums up the argument well:

http://see_the_truth.webs.com/Old%20Testament.html

What other arguments do people think are most effective? Like I said, I'm particularly interested in philosophical and historical ones, but if someone could argue from a different point, that'd be interesting as well.

While this is against 'chr!stianity', lt is definitely Against Churches.

l was reading the gospels and saw a pattern and then did some research.

 

Depending on the translation you read the 4 gospels have the phrase "son of Man"  200+ times in the Bible and 80+ times in the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). And almost entirely, Jesus described himself this way.

 

The phrase "son of god" occurs over 50 times in the Bible and nearly all these occur in the Four Gospels. Almost every time it is Satan, "unclean spirit", devil, etc who says "son of god".

 

So why do "christ!ans"  -most anyway- believe and preach the "Words of the Devil" ? ? ?

 

Quoting Satan is a little nefarious.

[hazelm]

If I am allowed a comment, this has gone through my mind many a time.  Are we judging "Christianity".  Or are we judging the churches that claimed (and still claim) to be "Christians"?  Is Christianity a political organization that has gone terribly astray?    Or is Christianity a philosophy that never came to be?  If you want to argue against Christianity, is it wrong for me to ask which Christianity? Or, what is Christianity?  Is it the ethics that "mellows people so they live and work together in peace"?  (HydrogenBond)  Or is it the "hell fire and brimstone" shouted from pulpits?  Or, to be historical, the inquisition?

 

I had better stop.  Please define the Christianity you want to debate.  Or is my question out of order?

[Buffy]

I had better stop.  Please define the Christianity you want to debate.  Or is my question out of order?

 

Don't stop Hazel, there's lots to discuss.

 

My thesis since childhood is that churches from time immemorial have been simply a means of enforcing the legitimacy of government. To the extent we've separated the two, religion has moved toward simple moral suasion over politics. This reduction of power has bred jealousy,and attempts to increase the influence like the current US administration's new rule allowing explicit political advocacy while retaining their tax exempt status.

 

Of course the political capture of the Evangelical Christian movement by the conservatives in America in service of libertarian philosophy has created a very strange movement with all sorts of potential cognitive dissonance glossed over by the extremity of pure "faith" in those philosophies.

 

Thus we end up with Evangelicals being the biggest backers of Roy Moore despite his very un-Christian behavior that disgust virtually everyone else.

 

And of course look what Jesus did to those money changers, and gosh all that talk about rich people and camels and eye's of needles.

 

Jesus was a Trotskyite, you know.

 

 

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity, :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

If I am allowed a comment, this has gone through my mind many a time.  Are we judging "Christianity".  Or are we judging the churches that claimed (and still claim) to be "Christians"?  Is Christianity a political organization that has gone terribly astray?    Or is Christianity a philosophy that never came to be?  If you want to argue against Christianity, is it wrong for me to ask which Christianity? Or, what is Christianity?  Is it the ethics that "mellows people so they live and work together in peace"?  (HydrogenBond)  Or is it the "hell fire and brimstone" shouted from pulpits?  Or, to be historical, the inquisition?

 

I had better stop.  Please define the Christianity you want to debate.  Or is my question out of order?

I think it is very good and quite tricky question. There are so many varieties of Christianity that it can be difficult to discern what is the common core of all Christian belief. It must be something to do with belief in Jesus as God-made-Man, the redemptive value of His ministry, the Trinity and the Resurrection, I would think.

 

But when it comes to arguments against Christianity (the thread title), it seems to me one can argue either against the core doctrines themselves or against the forms that Christianity has taken in practice in society.  

 

But ridiculing the practices or beliefs of just one particular denomination or sect won't do, as that is not an argument against the religion as a whole.   

Edited January 6, 2018 by exchemist

[hazelm]

Don't stop Hazel, there's lots to discuss.

 

My thesis since childhood is that churches from time immemorial have been simply a means of enforcing the legitimacy of government. To the extent we've separated the two, religion has moved toward simple moral suasion over politics. This reduction of power has bred jealousy,and attempts to increase the influence like the current US administration's new rule allowing explicit political advocacy while retaining their tax exempt status.

 

Of course the political capture of the Evangelical Christian movement by the conservatives in America in service of libertarian philosophy has created a very strange movement with all sorts of potential cognitive dissonance glossed over by the extremity of pure "faith" in those philosophies.

 

Thus we end up with Evangelicals being the biggest backers of Roy Moore despite his very un-Christian behavior that disgust virtually everyone else.

 

And of course look what Jesus did to those money changers, and gosh all that talk about rich people and camels and eye's of needles.

 

Jesus was a Trotskyite, you know.

 

 

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity, :phones:

Buffy

Oh, I didn't mean I was quitting this thread.  I only meant I'd better stop before the day ended.  I could go on forever.    This is why I asked my question.  If I'm going to follow what should be a good debate, I want to know from what angle it is being debated.   The word "Christianity" is too loosely defined nowadays.  About like the word "love".   So, are we  talking the ethical philosophy of "Christianity"?  Or are we talking about the history of the churches that allege to be "Christian".  The fact that church rulers call themselves Christian does not phase me one whit.  I am sorry HydrogenBond is banned.  I'd really like to hear him defend and prove those wonderful things he says Christianity has done.  If I'm not mistaken, the early church fought science tooth and nail.  Didn't they even execute one man for his scientific views? 

 

Someone else's turn.  Carry on.  I shall return manana.   hazelm

Edited January 6, 2018 by hazelm

[studentgary]

Don't stop Hazel, there's lots to discuss.

 

My thesis since childhood is that churches from time immemorial have been simply a means of enforcing the legitimacy of government. To the extent we've separated the two, religion has moved toward simple moral suasion over politics. This reduction of power has bred jealousy,and attempts to increase the influence like the current US administration's new rule allowing explicit political advocacy while retaining their tax exempt status.

 

Of course the political capture of the Evangelical Christian movement by the conservatives in America in service of libertarian philosophy has created a very strange movement with all sorts of potential cognitive dissonance glossed over by the extremity of pure "faith" in those philosophies.

 

Thus we end up with Evangelicals being the biggest backers of Roy Moore despite his very un-Christian behavior that disgust virtually everyone else.

 

And ...

Your thesis about churches being an "arm of gov't" is, recently, correct.

At first the Church had to gain legitimacy in the 4th Century and then faked things like the Donation of Constantine. Beginning with the Middle Ages the Church was essentially the only "state" structure as Europe was self-agonizing feudalistic (from the mosaic and conflicting feudal oaths). Skipping some things. The rise of independent national states begins with Henry Vlll and the rise of 'national churches' assisted by Lutheranism. This was enforced to keep masses of people from killing each other --like the Thirty Years War.

In the post-Napoleonic Era, nation states began to use churches as unifiers. [Observing this from study, Japan decided to make Shinto the national religion in the Meiji Era.] This didn't happen in the US until after WW2 when this began. Firstly, by starting a movement to collectivize tens-of-thousands of independent churches into "mainstream" congregations --excepting Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox which already had this.

 

The "political capture" you refer to began in the mid-1970s with the rise of TV-evilgelicals --Jimmy Swaggert, Liberty Club, Family Council and so on.

From what l read recently, the mega-churches and their sing-along-services are going out of fashion.

[studentgary]

If I am allowed a comment, this has gone through my mind many a time.  Are we judging "Christianity". Yes, essentially.

 Or are we judging the churches that claimed (and still claim) to be "Christians"? Rhetorically, 'How Christian was Jesus?" Yes, l for one, am judging churches.

 Is Christianity a political organization that has gone terribly astray?  Every religion is a socio-political organization with powers of permission and criticism.

  Or is Christianity a philosophy that never came to be? Religion is organized, formal mystical beliefs. Philosophy is a system of axioms and questions.

If you want to argue against Christianity, is it wrong for me to ask which Christianity? l read that there are 30,800 denominations of Christians. Sounds high to me. Yet to my knowledge, they nearly ALL affirm the Docoloxy and the Niceane Creed (the Trinity Assertion) which make them promulgators of Devil Speak/Words of the Devils (my post above).

Or, what is Christianity? That answer is probably "lost" forever.

 Is it the ethics that "mellows people so they live and work together in peace"? Ethics is secular, beginning with Confucious(5th Century BCE) and the Greeks (4th Century BCE) 

Or is it the "hell fire and brimstone" shouted from pulpits?  Or, to be historical, the inquisition? These will always be around.

 

 

I had better stop.  Please define the Christianity you want to debate.  Or is my question out of order?

Your questions are fine.

[hazelm]

Your questions are fine.

Alll right.  I'll take it that we are arguing as to what the churches have done to what we want to believe Christianity should be.  That makes sense to me.  Goodness knows there is plenty to say con.  Let's see what the pros say.  What is their defense against history?  A priest once told me not to judge the Church by what its members do.  In response I  told him "But the members are the Church.  To that he  said nothing.  But wasn't it those same churches who first called themselves Christian?  Whatever they meant by the name, they were woefully misled. 

 

A follow-up?  Are the attitudes and actions of the churches improving today?  Some things are not happening simply because governments have forbidden such acts.  So improvement in that field was forced on them.  Sad when we have to pass laws to make people do right.  Yes?

[exchemist]

Oh, I didn't mean I was quitting this thread.  I only meant I'd better stop before the day ended.  I could go on forever.    This is why I asked my question.  If I'm going to follow what should be a good debate, I want to know from what angle it is being debated.   The word "Christianity" is too loosely defined nowadays.  About like the word "love".   So, are we  talking the ethical philosophy of "Christianity"?  Or are we talking about the history of the churches that allege to be "Christian".  The fact that church rulers call themselves Christian does not phase me one whit.  I am sorry HydrogenBond is banned.  I'd really like to hear him defend and prove those wonderful things he says Christianity has done.  If I'm not mistaken, the early church fought science tooth and nail.  Didn't they even execute one man for his scientific views? 

 

Someone else's turn.  Carry on.  I shall return manana.   hazelm

I don't think the church fought tooth and nail against science. Many of the early scientists were churchmen, or close to it, e.g. Newton, Copernicus etc.  

 

Galileo was notoriously put under house arrest, even though Copernicus had already delighted the previous pope with details of his heliocentric system. But I cannot think offhand of anyone put to death by the church on the grounds of his scientific views. Can you recall who this might have been, or the topic in question? 

 

(I find myself often, on forums like this one, trying to turn back the tide of false antithesis between science and religion, which seems to have been stirred up nowadays by various extremists. All part of the hideous, childish polarisation of our discourse brought about by modern "social" media, I suppose. Trump being an epiphenomenon.) 

Edited January 7, 2018 by exchemist

[studentgary]

Alll right.  I'll take it that we are arguing as to what the churches have done to what we want to believe Christianity should be.  That makes sense to me.  Goodness knows there is plenty to say con.  Let's see what the pros say.  What is their defense against history?  A priest once told me not to judge the Church by what its members do.  In response I  told him "But the members are the Church.  To that he  said nothing.  But wasn't it those same churches who first called themselves Christian?  Whatever they meant by the name, they were woefully misled. 

 

A follow-up?  Are the attitudes and actions of the churches improving today?  Some things are not happening simply because governments have forbidden such acts.  So improvement in that field was forced on them.  Sad when we have to pass laws to make people do right.  Yes?  True, yet laws are also to regulate taxation AND to organize things.

From what l learned in history, the First Century disciples and 'saints'(which meant those that received baptism) thought of themselves as Jews in religion but also believe that they should now be the leaders in the religion. They also suffered from a lot of harassment --as Polycarp attested to.  Most Jews didn't follow them. So as time went on and new generations came into existence by the Third Century they thought of themselves as 'new era' and adopted things to more and more separate themselves from the Jewish communities, especially in Alexandria and Carthage.  This is when adaption of Hellenic ideas and formal incorporation of 'satan Saul' who became "St. Paul" in Acts 13:9  when Saul/Paul went to a church in Antioch preaching the Words of the Devil and was where they were first called 'christians'. (Acts 11); as Satan-Saul did in Acts 9:20.

More if you wish. Gotta go.