Arguments against Christianity
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
OK, I thought of another thing against Christianity. It emphasizes the miraculous legends surrounding his execution rather than his teaching itself.
Hmm. I disagree here. I've been to church a bit, and they never really harped on the miracles stuff. A bit around Christmas and Easter. Loaves, fishes, you know. But the whole homily is about getting jiggy with Jesus. Which denomination are you referring to?
The whole died for your sins thing is central. Otherwise Jesus would just be a Jewish philosopher.
I really didn't want this to turn in to a Christian apologetics thread. Seems every thread here turns in to that. But I decided to read my own Bible and look in to this.
I looked up the reference you mention. Ylooshi mentions 3 discrepancies, I decided to look at the first two. Lets read:
This miracle is mentioned in 3 Gospels. Lets take a look at these verses:
First, the Bible does not point to specific cities, it points to regions. So the author of this “discrepancy” is already being disingenuous.
Second, the regions are: region of the Gadarenes, or region of the Gerasenes. Is this a contradiction? The region of the Gerasenes would be in Gentile territory on the southeastern side of the Sea of Galilee across from Galilee. The region of the Gadarenes would also be in Gentile territory on the southeastern side of the Sea of Galilee across from Galilee. Jesus came into the region, which contains two cities Gadara and Gergesa, and one evangelist mentioned one, and the other another. The difference between Matthew and Luke has to do with uses of variant regional terms.
The region of Gadara extended to the Sea of Galilee and included the town of Sennabris on the southern shore – the town that the herdsmen most likely entered after the drowning of the pigs. There is no contradiction, therefore, in the evangelists. No men would have written in this manner unless they were acquainted with the facts.
There is nothing wrong with looking for errors in the Bible. But try to be objective about it. For whatever reason Ylooshi decided to be dishonest. Ylooshi WANTS to believe there are errors to justify her faith the Bible is wrong.
So you mean that as miracle then? A bit: but it's also a philosophy, innit?
Believing in a creator god leads to the person becoming cognitively and morally corrupt:
Because believing in a creator god means believing that everything one does and is, is ultimately due to someone or something else and not oneself.
This way, believing in a creator god means the person effectively absolves themselves from the responsibility for their own happiness and suffering, and for the happiness and suffering of others.
So basically your argument is that if God created us, then He is to blame for the way we are not us?
I don't think this is right, because we aren't puppets. God created us perfect, any resulting stuff up was due to our choices. The Bible teaches that we will be held accountable for what we do whether right or wrong.
If your argument had any credibility then parents of murderers would be put in prison not the murderers themselves. Because according to you the creator is to blame, therefore the people that created their child and raised their child in a way that eventually lead it to murder, must be to blame. Or it's societies fault for not giving the right guidance. This is pretty ridiculous reasoning.
The fact is you have to take responsibility for your own actions by our laws and by God's laws, because when it comes right down to it, you make the choice.
Yes.
If we would be perfect, we would never do anything wrong or blamable.
This is not my argument. You are strawmaning.
I have never claimed that "parents create their children".
Not if you believe you have been created by God.
"If we were perfect we would never do anything wrong?"
What bull sh*t. You can be created perfect and given a choice for imperfection, like we were. People have a choice, people always have a choice. God doesn't make YOUR choices, that is why they are called YOUR choices. You can believe whatever you want, but Christianity doesn't teach that God is responsible for YOUR choices, it teaches that YOU are.
What bull sh*t. You can be created perfect and given a choice for imperfection, like we were. People have a choice, people always have a choice. God doesn't make YOUR choices, that is why they are called YOUR choices. You can believe whatever you want, but Christianity doesn't teach that God is responsible for YOUR choices, it teaches that YOU are.
A perfect being would not choose the imperfect, even given the chance.
Yes, this is what Christianity teaches, and I have never argued it teaches otherwise.
I am stating that this Christian teaching is cognitively and morally corruptive, though.
Believing in a creator god necessarily implies that one will ultimately not take responsibility for one's choices.
Believing in a creator god, one might be held responsible for one's choices, one might face the consequences for one's choices - but while believing in a creator god, one will ultimately not take responsibility for one's choices.
"perfect being would not choose the imperfect, even given the chance."
Why not? You don't think perfection can be corrupted by outside influences? Someone perfect is still capable of choosing something evil, they aren't imperfect until they have made the choice.
Why not? You don't think perfection can be corrupted by outside influences? Someone perfect is still capable of choosing something evil, they aren't imperfect until they have made the choice.
Because of their perfection.
No. Perfection, if it is to be perfection, cannot be corrupted.
No. A perfect being would not choose something evil.
The Christian apologist could of course argue that we, imperfect that we are, have no idea what perfection is on God's terms, and that we simply define perfection on our own terms. But we do not have God's terms, what we have are merely words of men.
If you wish to argue this line of the argument, then understand that you are arguing for blind belief. Ie., saying "You can't understand it, but you have to believe it anyway".
Are you just not thinking critically or are you intentionally misrepresenting Christianity?
Christians do not use any of these arguments.
What is it you believe, that if a God exists, it must therefore act like some kind of heavenly thermostat, regulating things for your personal comfort?
The OP is asking for arguments against Christianity.
This is what I presented: an argument against Christianity.
For example:
In the face of a god as often described by Christianity, issues of human suffering and happiness become trivial, yes.
- Who cares if I am happy or unhappy, as long as God's will is done, right?
John99,
Yup. If there wasn't so much overwhelming doubt and uncertainty there would be no reason to debate it. And, gee, you'd think that given 2000 years someone might by now have found at least a tiny scrap of evidence to show it had an element of truth. But no, the Christians continue to make their absurd claims, and everyone asks them to suport what they say - and there is just gibberish as answers.