120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

This is a baseless assertion. The "Christ" belief is not supported by evidence.

We have accounts of the miracle acts he performed. These are evidence. You can dispute how reliable this evidence is, but it is evidence.

IN a courtroom, unreliable evidence is DISMISSED rather than used to convict.
In a lab, unreliable observations are NOT USED to formulate a conclusion.
It's not dogmatic, it's HOW THINGS WORK.

And if that testimony is 'this other guy told me what happened' it's dismissed as hearsay, not a separate, eyewitness account.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Many people accept reports as evidence, and then consider that evidence critically and sometimes reject it as insufficient, but they still consider it as evidence.

Not once they reject it as insufficient, they don't.
Your 'evidence' has been considered. It's been rejected.
Which leaves us with no evidence to support your claims.

If you just automatically toss out reports you don't like, because of your prejudice against certain kinds of reports, that is just your own personal subjective definition of "evidence,"

You mean, the way YOU discount Joseph Smith's miracles?
Which you didn't even know about until after you'd started saying that Jesus' miracles were 'unique?'

You really should examine your own standards, Lumpy. You're stepping on your dick, here.

 

[Atheos]

This is a baseless assertion. The "Christ" belief is not supported by evidence.

We have accounts of the miracle acts he performed. These are evidence. You can dispute how reliable this evidence is, but it is evidence. There are at least 4 separate sources, from near to the time that the events happened, which we do not have for other miracle stories.

These sources are not bound together somehow into one source, but are separate. The fact that two of them use Mark does not change the fact that these are four separate sources. There is nothing wrong about using a previous source to help compose a new account of the same events. The later ones who made use of the earlier source are still separate sources, and they count as separate sources. They add additional matter not contained in the earlier source. Nothing about this reliance on an earlier source makes them less credible.

All you have ever offered is the fact that there are multiple variations of the original myth (which is true for many ancient myths) . . .

Multiple sources, or different authors or different documents attesting to the same events. No, this is not true for other ancient miracle stories. Not documents anywhere near to the time of the reported events. Name the miracle stories for which we have multiple sources 100 years or less from the time of the reported events.

I have acknowledged that for the reported miracles of Vespasian there are 2 sources. This was a famous public figure, which explains how he easily became mythologized. What is another ancient miracle-worker for whom we have multiple sources within 100 years of the reported event?

Your phrase "which is true for many ancient myths" has no application here to anything. Of course there are dozens of references to Homeric heroes over a thousand years after the period of those events. We're talking about less than 100 years, or less than 50 years.

. . . and that it is a popular myth (which is nothing more than an appeal to popularity, another horribly flawed method of argumentation).

OK, you simply start from the dogmatic premise that the reported events must be fiction, and so therefore any evidence only shows the popularity of the fiction stories. You have pronounced the reports as fiction and false, before any evidence, and you simply dismiss any evidence presented automatically as folklore, and no matter how much of it there is, you automatically rule it out. You automatically reject any evidence for this as invalid because the reported events MUST be fiction by your fiat and all possible evidence is automatically falsified. You've given no reason why this evidence has to be invalid. Except that you dogmatically rule out all miracle stories as automatically false regardless of any evidence.

The evidence for every other religious tradition is either equal to or better than the evidence supporting the Jesus myth.

This is not about one "religious tradition" being more logical than another. This is about whether the miracle events reported in the gospel accounts have credibility. Maybe some other religion has some better ideas or theories about the cosmos or the nature of the Soul or how to feel the Universal Allness, etc. But the reported miracle events of Jesus have more credibility than any other reported miracle events in the ancient world. Or from before the invention of printing.

E.g., the miracle claims for Gautama and Zoroaster are incomparable and inferior to those in the N.T. gospel accounts in terms of credible evidence for the respective events. Likewise the miracle stories of Apollonius of Tyana and Simon Magus.

I say "evidence" when in fact that is not an appropriate appellation. There is no evidence.

Documents that say something happened are evidence for what is reported as happening. If there are multiple separate documents for the same event, that is an increase of the evidence for the reported event beyond having only one document.

If you can't understand how something can be known because it is reported in a document, and that more than one report makes it more credible, then you have a special personal subjective definition of "evidence" which is fine for you but which you cannot impose onto everyone else. Many people accept reports as evidence, and then consider that evidence critically and sometimes reject it as insufficient, but they still consider it as evidence. If you just automatically toss out reports you don't like, because of your prejudice against certain kinds of reports, that is just your own personal subjective definition of "evidence," not the definition that everyone else has to accept just because you demand it.

The evidence for Bigfoot is much better than the evidence for Jesus.

You mean Bigfoot did more miracles than Jesus did? you discovered some new Bigfoot scrolls? a gnostic Gospel of Yosemite Sam (banned by the Christian Establishment) telling how Bigfoot cast out demons from people by grrrrrowling at them? Sounds like you're on to something. But you should hide those scrolls and keep quiet about it so the Christian Establishment doesn't find out -- they would come to confiscate them and destroy that evidence.

Snubbing the point of an analogy is not the same as dealing with the profound truth behind it. I stand behind my assertion that the evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is better than the evidence that your Jesus person existed. You are free to demonstrate why I'm wrong.

Meanwhile you are seriously behind in dealing with the very real problems with your claims.

• The "evidence" that Prometheus was chained to the side of a mountain for 1000 years, and that every day birds pecked a hole in his chest to feed on his liver which grew back each night so the torturous cycle could repeat itself is every bit as strong as the "evidence" that all the extraordinary feats attributed to and by Jesus is. It comes to us courtesy of anonymous sources. The tale of Prometheus is every bit as absurd as the tale of a magic Jew who cured blindness with spit and the tale of Santa Claus who visits millions of homes over a 48 hour period, drinking a glass of milk and eating cookies at each one. All are in print, all are anonymous, all are absurd.
• It does not matter whether the story took written form 1 year after the story's alleged events happened, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years or 100, 500 or 1000 years. The time frame of the story is part of the story line just as much as the levitation acts, the mind-reading acts, the turning this into that acts, etc.
• Nearly every "miracle" Jesus is claimed to have performed (and perhaps all of them for all I know) is a copycat story about him doing something some other Greek, Roman, Persian, Assyrian or Egyptian god had done earlier.
• The alleged life story of Jesus and the miracles attributed to him were so similar to ancient Roman myths that an early apologist (Justin Martyr) not only commented about how similar the story was but even attempted to offer the lame excuse that Satan knew before what Jesus would do and created these tales in earlier times in an attempt to undermine the Jesus story when it finally became the latest fad.
• The earliest writings about Jesus say nothing about any time frame in which he lived, anything he said, anything he did or anything else that would indicate Jesus was an actual person who had recently lived. For at least 20 years everything written about Jesus made no claim that he was an actual historical person. The very fact that these claims did not start appearing until decades after the events allegedly took place make it much more likely that these claims are the result of myth building than reports of actual events.
• If Jesus had lived and performed all these incredibly extraordinary activities one would expect secular reports and evidence of such activities to be commonplace. Not one piece of such evidence exists. Produce any piece of evidence or a contemporary historian writing about events of that time that references this individual and you've got a case. Until then you've got nothing.
• Inasmuch as the stories of Jesus contain nothing new, but instead are copycat versions of previous myths about other gods, their "rapid" (if one considers 30-50 years "rapid") coalescing into written form (similar to the then extant written forms many of the myths from which they were plagiarized) is itself not extraordinary. In fact it's no more extraordinary than the fact that it took humans hundreds of thousands of years of technological progress to create the first barely flight-worthy airplane, then only took about 30 more years to create super-sonic fighter jets.
• The anonymous documents GMatt, GLuke and GJohn are much more parsimoniously explained by cultural differences accruing over geography and time than to be treated as independent corroboration of miraculous activities, none of which any of the writers of any of these documents claim to have witnessed. The writers of these documents never identified themselves, never claimed to be witnesses and never claimed to have talked to anyone who was a witness of any of the things they wrote about. They constitute about the worst possible form of evidence as they provide us with agenda-filled claims about extraordinary events for which there is absolutely no evidence that any of it ever happened. Attempting to use themselves as corroboration of themselves remains circular no matter how many times you claim that they are independent corroboration. They aren't.
• Finally, quit attempting to read my mind. Your attempts to do so belie little else besides that you have no idea who I am, and that you have no clue as to why I am now skeptical about the veracity of these documents. I have never attempted to accuse you of dogmatically refusing to consider alternative explanations to the ideas you have presented and I'll thank you to start extending me the same courtesy.

 

[DBT]

Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post

We have accounts of the miracle acts he performed. These are evidence. You can dispute how reliable this evidence is, but it is evidence.

An account alone is not necessarily evidence that the account is true and accurate.
It may be mistaken.
It may be a work of fiction.
It may have been written to promote a set of religious beliefs.
You can't use the account itself to prove the account is a reliable description of events. It's circular reasoning.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Belief in Christ is based in reason and evidence, not superstition or prejudice or flawed logic.

You've offered no reason to think Christainity is any different from any other occult superstitious system, but appear to be rationalizing your choice.

The difference is that we have evidence that Christ had extensive life-giving power, whereas we do not have evidence of others having such power, or, where there are some claims of some miracle events, like for Gautama, that evidence is very poor compared to the evidence we have for the Christ miracles. Or, in a very few cases, where someone may have performed a miracle act, their power was very limited, like Rasputin the mad monk, who apparently had power to cure one person.

I'm giving reasons why I think Christ has this power, to grant eternal life. If there are also some other proposed routes to "Heaven," then let believers in them give their reasons.

Actually, i'm asking you why you dismissed everything but your flavor of Christainty.

If I "dismissed everything . . ." etc. then I should be taken out and shot.

My "flavor" is simply believing in Christ, which means basically believing that he had power, though most christology tries to emphasize more than just his power, but his power seems to be at the basis of the belief or the theology. So I'm not dismissing any "flavor" of Christianity that is based on belief in Christ, which most of the denominations are, despite the many different doctrines.

You don't prove any other religion is wrong by trying to get me to agree to ignore them.

My only point about "any other religion" is that the mere existence of other belief systems does not disprove the Christ belief. Whatever alternative beliefs there are, let those beliefs be presented and we can consider their credibility and if they might contradict the Christ belief. But just the existence of these other beliefs by itself does not disprove any reason I'm giving for believing in Christ.

If there's anything in those beliefs that disproves my reasons, then you need to present those alternative beliefs, or have such a believer present those alternate beliefs. Just the fact that alternate beliefs exist does not in itself invalidate the reasons I've given. You have to do more than just point out the existence of these alternate beliefs in order to disprove the Christ belief. What are those alternate beliefs and how do they refute or undermine the Christ belief?

The Christ believer is not proved wrong just because he might not be aware of those alternate beliefs. Of course every reasonable person who believes something should be willing to consider alternate beliefs that someone wants to present for consideration. It's probably even good for a believer to do an "affirmative action" search for alternate beliefs out there that are floating around, to become more aware of alternate beliefs; but people can still have a true belief even if they don't do such a search; or, not doing such a search does not mean their belief is false or invalid or refuted.

A thinking rational truth-seeker has a certain "moral" obligation, as it were, to consider alternate belief systems and not try to avoid them. But many people devote their lives to other activities than truth-seeking or philosophising or debating, and they might have a genuine belief that is true and still not engage in considering all the alternatives to their belief. This does not falsify or invalidate their belief. Their belief is still true or false based on the objective merits or logic of the belief itself, not on whether they personally engage in vigorous truth-seeking or philosophising.

There is no logical flaw in believing this, based on the evidence he provided, even though at the same time there is doubt, or uncertainty.

If there's doubt or uncertainty, then it's not evidence.

Yes it is evidence. We can have evidence for our reasonable belief and yet still have doubt or uncertainty about the truth. So, we don't know for sure, and we know our belief might be incorrect, but we still maintain the belief based on good evidence. That evidence does not have to eliminate all doubt in order for it to be "evidence" and a basis for reasonable belief.

There are a million examples of this. I'll cite Will Durant again, who presents many historical facts, and yet it's clear that he understands there is some doubt about much of it, maybe even most. He said: "History is mostly guessing, the rest is prejudice."

E.g., he says that the oldest profession is not prostitution, but midwifery. How does he know a thing like that? with certainty? I'm sure he has good reasons, and I believe him. But of course this is only a good guess. And there are a million -- a billion -- other guesses that make up our knowledge of history, and perhaps most science generally.

I'm saying that belief in Christ is a reasonable belief based on evidence, the power shown by the miracle acts recorded in the gospels. It's not certainty, just reasonable, and hopefully true.

Agnosticism would have to say that islam is as likely as Christianity.

No, it only has to say we don't know.

So, agnosticism is NOT like Pascal's Wager, which offers a conclusion.

No, agnosticism can also offer a conclusion or a reasonable belief based on evidence. The agnostic can say "I don't know for sure what the truth is, but I believe A B or C rather than X Y or Z, because there are better reasons or better evidence to support A B or C over X Y or Z.

An agnostic is not prevented from ever drawing a conclusion just because he admits not knowing for sure.

But if believer #1 presents his belief and suggests that it's the truth, i.e., likely the truth, though there's doubt, . . .

If he has doubt, he's not a believer.

Yes he is a believer though he still has doubt. His belief is a good guess, just like Will Durant's history is mostly guessing. It's good to hold reasonable beliefs and still retain some doubt. In some cases, if the evidence is overwhelming, it approaches certainty, and the doubt may be near zero.

We don't need the "Wager" -- forget it. I don't need it, haven't needed it, you don't need it. Nobody needs it, so why are we talking about it?

Because you don't know what it is, what it says, what its flaw is, and yet defended it.

Others brought it up, thinking it was similar to what I was saying, and made a religion out of condemning it.

I only defend the idea that one can have a reasonable belief and also have doubt. One can admit that their belief might be wrong, but still adopt that belief for good reason, or have a rational basis for the belief, even though admitting uncertainty. Pascal said something similar to this, and this much is defendable. The rest of what you claim he said is of no interest. There's no point in quibbling over what Pascal really said. There are pointless disputes like this about any philosopher. All of them are interpreted in opposite ways by different ideologues.

It's better to argue the ideas per se rather than nitpick over what this or that philosopher said or didn't say.

Also, in some cases it's better to adopt a belief that turns out to be incorrect, than to adopt no belief at all. It is adopted because it is the most reasonable belief at the time, but later it's found to have error in it. By believing it and remaining open to other possibilities, one actually learns more and gains more understanding about the matter than is gained by dismissing all beliefs as wrong.

But in each case, the wager will tell me that i'm a virtuous man, and i've won.

Again, it has nothing to do with "virtuous" anything.

Wrong, again.

The "wager" is irrelevant. Belief in Christ is not about virtue. There are examples of "faith" or "belief" in the New Testament, and it clearly is not about virtue or courage or steadfastness or dedication or bravery or compassion or other meritorious or righteous qualities. The virtues are mentioned, but "faith" is mentioned far more, and it is defined by the examples. Here is one example of many:

A woman suffering hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak. She said to herself, "If only I can touch his cloak, I shall be cured." Jesus turned around and saw her, and said "Courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you." And from that hour the woman was cured.
Mt. 9:20-22

There was nothing "virtuous" about what this woman did. The phrase "Your faith has saved you" occurs in another situation where it was not a case of healing a bodily affliction. So "save" here also means something beyond just healing from a body affliction, though healing is also one meaning of the Greek word.

(Any Aramaic scholars may enlighten us as to what Aramaic word Jesus may have used and whether there is also an Aramaic word which means "save" in this two-fold sense as the Greek word here.)

So, believing in Christ to be healed or saved is not about being virtuous. I am disagreeing with the "Reasons to Reject Christianity" from the standpoint that "Christianity" is basically about belief in Christ, as shown in this example, or about pistis (faith) and pisteuo (believe) as we see it defined by this and other examples. I'm not dealing with other versions of "Christianity" or religion etc., which make "virtuous" or "virtue" a basic element. Virtue is an earlier Greek (and Jewish? and Hindu? and Chinese? etc.) concept which is not basic to Christ. I take "Christianity" to refer to whatever new was added by Christ, not a rehashing of previous teaching.

Yes, it does. It's a zero-sum game. You win, lose or it doesn't matter.

For Pascal's Wager, he assumes we can make one choice and that there are four consequences, depending on one condition.

The condition is that there may be a god. If there's no god, there are no souls, no afterlife, nothing we do can alter our fate.

if there is a god, though, there is a personal afterlife. So this ignores the possibilities of any religion which does not include a personal afterlife, that you will remain 'you' in the afterlife.

It's a given, also, that if there is a god, there IS a Heaven. So this ignores any religion that may have a different afterlife plan. No reincarnation, no loss of self to join with God, no advancement along a path.

And if there is a god, there IS a Hell. So this discounts your agnosticism towards Hell. Or any other religion that only has happy endings.

Plus, the Wager assumes that we can personally choose to take actions that will affect our disposition in this afterlife. So it discounts any sort of predestination religions.

It concludes that there is only one way to win, to get to Heaven, and that is to adopt belief in God. And the only way to lose, to go to Hell, is not to live a life of godly belief.

It is nothing like agnosticism. Not even your heavily weighted pretense of agnosticism.

I see nothing in the above needing any response.

Except that I acknowledge the uncertainty of my belief, i.e., that it might be wrong, and that evidence and reasoning and logic has to prevail. And I understand that Pascal also said something about the possibility of being wrong, because of uncertainty, but that it is good to believe anyway, because one can hold a true belief, or be right in their believing, while still being uncertain. So the uncertainty need not prevent one from believing.

One can believe for good reasons while still being uncertain, or admitting to not having definite knowledge or proof beyond any doubt. Pascal did say something similar to this, and so there is a similarity between his argument and mine. So in this he had a good point, even if he also committed logical errors. These do not negate his legitimate point that one can adopt a reasonable or true belief while at the same time taking an agnostic position, or admitting that it is belief rather than definite knowledge which can be proved with certainty.

One can believe in Christ without dogmatically insisting that there are no other beliefs or that the Christian belief is absolutely proved or that the Bible or the Pope or the Church or other symbols have to be infallible. In other words, one can believe in Christ based on evidence and reason rather than on dogmatism or prejudice or superstition or religious indoctrination or emotion etc.

This is not changed by the fact that there may be many Christians who are dogmatists or emotionalists or superstitionists or doctrinarians etc. Or that there may be logical flaws in much of the theology, such as Pascal's flaws. Any such flaws or defects do not invalidate the basic essentials or core of the belief in Christ based on his power demonstrated in the miracle acts he performed, which one can reasonably believe based on the evidence rather than on superstition or flaws in logic or dogmatism or prejudice or other defective thinking.

 

[DBT]

If new evidence comes to light, a faith based belief may prove to be right, but it's just a matter of epistemic luck as far as the believer is concerned.

The belief could as easily have been proven wrong.

So the question: what the motivation that drives someone to convince themselves that something is true when there is nothing to indicate that it is true?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm saying that belief in Christ is a reasonable belief based on evidence, the power shown by the miracle acts recorded in the gospels.

So...you are using the miracles for theological certainty, not phenomological evidence.
Got it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

My only point about "any other religion" is that the mere existence of other belief systems does not disprove the Christ belief. Whatever alternative beliefs there are, let those beliefs be presented and we can consider their credibility and if they might contradict the Christ belief. But just the existence of these other beliefs by itself does not disprove any reason I'm giving for believing in Christ.

Not, but your entire argument is based on the 'magic bullet' of Jesus' miracles being unique.
The problem is, you were apparently unaware of Joseph Smith's miracles at the time you claimed Jesus' were the best evidenced.

So the existence of other miracle stories does make Jesus' less than unique.
And your ignorance does make your claim of unique-nessity less credible.

You apparently don't know shit about any religion other than the one you've settled on, so why would anyone believe your estimation of the ONLY RELIGION YOU KNOW ABOUT being unique?

WE don't have to present these other religions or miracles to convince you you're wrong.
But if you're not capable of actually dealing with them, there's no need to think you're right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We don't need the "Wager" -- forget it. I don't need it, haven't needed it, you don't need it. Nobody needs it, so why are we talking about it?

Because you don't know what it is, what it says, what its flaw is, and yet defended it.

Others brought it up, thinking it was similar to what I was saying, and made a religion out of condemning it.

I only defend the idea that one can have a reasonable belief and also have doubt.

Sooooo, 'defend' is another word you don't understand or are incapable of using properly. You did defend the Wager, while you had no idea what the Wager actually said.

But then, if you don't know what the Wager says, then there's no reason to believe you when you say that your argument is not the same as the Wager.
Just like every time you talk dismissively about other religions, other demigods, the actual history of your own religion, or anything else you don't know bupkes about, you haven't done the homework necessary to make your statement credible.

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat's latest post is self-titled "Belief in Christ is based in reason and evidence, not superstition or prejudice or flawed logic."

Which is interesting to me, because as yet no evidence has been presented beyond anonymous tales making claims about extraordinary events the writers never claim to have witnessed (and never claim to have talked to witnesses), and which evidently grew more fantastic with each retelling. Evidence of that caliber is not evidence. Lifting it out of the context of literally millions of other claims of fantastic events that permeated mythology for thousands of years and arguing that it's the only one that's actually true is special pleading, a form of flawed logic.

Superstition is a vaguely defined term that includes any number of beliefs that attribute favorable or unfavorable outcomes to unseen spirits who influence our world. It is not necessary to knock on wood when observing that some unfortunate possibility hasn't occurred, yet otherwise rational people do so even today for the same reasons others feel inclined to pray for a safe trip in spite of a lifetime's observations that safe trips are had with exactly the same probabilities whether prayers were uttered or not. The evidence suggests that superstitions permeate many religious traditions today and Christianity is a prime example. Christians generally feel the number 666 is bad mojo. Many wear amulets of the cross around their necks, or small statuettes of the virgin Mary or Jesus on the dashboard of their cars feeling these things protect them from evil. The entire myth of salvation is based around the premise that by performing certain ceremonial acts or uttering an oath of belief in Jesus one can escape a fate of extreme agony. That's superstition on steroids.

Prejudice is a vaguely defined term as well, but in this context it is being used in the sense that nearly every devotee of any given religion has in common with devotees of other religions that they believe theirs to be uniquely true while others are either less true (heretical) or downright false (Shiva is not a real god). Conduct experiments such as Elijah's alleged "Fire from heaven alter-ignition" test, where it can be demonstrated that a god with extraordinary powers can be interacted with and predictably responds and we've got something that is worth consideration. Otherwise we've got nothing but testimonies from satisfied customers, the same thing you'd see on a Sham-wow commercial.

Lumpenproletariat, every argument you have presented thus far has been guilty of special pleading (Jesus is the only one of the many stories that is true), circular reasoning (the stories are evidence that the stories are true), red herring arguments (Discounting the testimony of Justin Martyr that the Jesus myth was so similar to the myths of the "Sons of Jupiter" that the similarities were striking by arguing that Jupiter wasn't an actual human being - WTF), goalpost shifting, unsound syllogism (such as arguing that truth is established via batting average), argument by ignorance (not knowing that Joseph Smiths miracles were much better attested than Jesus's), unsound premise (arguing that the stories claims that the events they cover happened in recent history is a significant criterion in historical criticism) and possibly many other forms of flawed logic that escape my memory just now.

In short you have presented neither reason nor evidence. You have presented superstitions, prejudice and flawed logic. The shoe fits.

 

[Atheos]

While we're waiting I'd like to address another point of inconsistency I've observed over many years with those who happen to believe in the Jesus myth. I don't know if this spreads across to Muslim, Hindu or other world religions, but I've seen a lot of it in Christianity and Lumpenproletariat's posting history in this thread is a prime example.

Christians often argue that their god / Jesus is a well-evidenced truth. Yet when pressed with the task of producing the evidence they find themselves quickly backed into a corner with nothing but ancient anonymous stories of unknown origin as their only asset. The fact that so many millions of people believe fervently that these stories are true embolden the believers, but millions of believers do not a truth make. Millions of believers only make it easier to accept an untruth. No matter how widespread a belief is it can (and often is) still wrong. There was a time when it was universally believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

The simple fact of the matter is that if there was a god with unlimited power and knowledge at his disposal, and it wanted people to believe it existed, it would require absolutely no effort on the part of that god to interact in a real and tangible way with every individual on this planet every day. I know my wife and my dogs exist because they are a part of my everyday life. A god like this wouldn't have to skitter off into some dark corner letting people drift aimlessly, unimpressed by the ancient and anonymous documents that form the only vestiges of evidence of any interaction this god has had with this planet in thousands of years. So why doesn't this god interact in this manner?

The free will defense is often thrown up at this point by way of rationalization. "God doesn't work like this because it would interfere with our free will."

Yet the bible is fraught with examples of god interacting with people who still exercised their free will. Hell, the genesis creation myth has god walking daily in the garden with Adam and Eve and they still exercised their free will. The entire nation of Israel supposedly saw god wreak havoc on the Egyptian empire with those 10 plagues, saw god part the waters so they could walk through on dry ground, heard the booming voice of god coming down from the mountain warning nobody but Moses to approach, yet within 40 days they were building golden calves and ... exercising free will. This is truly a rationalization that completely ignores the very sources upon which the rationalization is built.

If an all-powerful god existed who had himself sacrificed to himself so he could get over his codependent issues over how we behave, and if that god wanted us to actually be confident that this ridiculous turn of events occurred, then that god could have ensured that adequate artifacts in the historical record would forever mark the event in a manner that would be impossible for humans do replicate. Something simple, like a self-levitating playback device that cannot be approached because of an impenetrable 100 foot force field, yet constantly replays the scenes of him being scourged, crucified, placed in a tomb and triumphantly resurrecting after 3 days and nights (or was it only 1 day and 2 nights?)

Yet this is all we have. Anonymous stories written during extremely superstitious and ignorant times by unknown people who never claim to have seen any of the stuff they're writing about. Stories that could easily have been authored by ordinary human beings. Stories that sound exactly like older stories that were, in fact, authored by ordinary human beings. Sure is a pitiful legacy for a god with such limitless power.

This would be the perfect set-up if the whole thing were authored by human beings for nefarious purposes of gaining wealth, power and influence by deceiving vast throngs of people into believing them.

So the tactic is simple: Get as many gullible people to believe as you can by telling them these ridiculous stories, then attempt to convince the skeptical that the stories must be true because so many people believe them. Christianity in a nutshell. Lumpenproletariat's entire case in a nutshell.

 

[James Brown]

Yes. A loving mother will snatch her toddler out of a busy street, despite that being a violation of the child's free will.

Yet God can't be bothered to do the same?

 

[funinspace]

While we're waiting I'd like to address another point of inconsistency I've observed over many years with those who happen to believe in the Jesus myth. I don't know if this spreads across to Muslim, Hindu or other world religions, but I've seen a lot of it in Christianity and Lumpenproletariat's posting history in this thread is a prime example.

Christians often argue that their god / Jesus is a well-evidenced truth. Yet when pressed with the task of producing the evidence they find themselves quickly backed into a corner with nothing but ancient anonymous stories of unknown origin as their only asset. The fact that so many millions of people believe fervently that these stories are true embolden the believers, but millions of believers do not a truth make. Millions of believers only make it easier to accept an untruth. No matter how widespread a belief is it can (and often is) still wrong. There was a time when it was universally believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

The simple fact of the matter is that if there was a god with unlimited power and knowledge at his disposal, and it wanted people to believe it existed, it would require absolutely no effort on the part of that god to interact in a real and tangible way with every individual on this planet every day. I know my wife and my dogs exist because they are a part of my everyday life. A god like this wouldn't have to skitter off into some dark corner letting people drift aimlessly, unimpressed by the ancient and anonymous documents that form the only vestiges of evidence of any interaction this god has had with this planet in thousands of years. So why doesn't this god interact in this manner?

The free will defense is often thrown up at this point by way of rationalization. "God doesn't work like this because it would interfere with our free will."

Yet the bible is fraught with examples of god interacting with people who still exercised their free will. Hell, the genesis creation myth has god walking daily in the garden with Adam and Eve and they still exercised their free will. The entire nation of Israel supposedly saw god wreak havoc on the Egyptian empire with those 10 plagues, saw god part the waters so they could walk through on dry ground, heard the booming voice of god coming down from the mountain warning nobody but Moses to approach, yet within 40 days they were building golden calves and ... exercising free will. This is truly a rationalization that completely ignores the very sources upon which the rationalization is built.

Yep, the Exodus, dozen or so amazing events that could not be parlor tricks, is interesting. Of course this is the juncture at which the Yahweh, the I AM WHO I AM, character shifts from being just a side show, only appearing to a few within the stories, to being the main event. Before this, Yahweh seems to glide in and out of interactions with key families, with hints that more is known by at least some people. With the Exodus, Yahweh purportedly makes its presence in your face clear. And of course as the story goes, Moses got to pen the 1st five books. Yet, when Moses goes off to the mountain top for 40 days, the people get nervous and decide to ignore their brand new 10 Commandments, which arrived with thunder and lightning, trumpets and got to see the mountain in smoke. Now after 10 plagues, a parted sea, pillars of fire and smoke to lead them, and manna laying around for them to feed them, and topping it off with a fiery speech on how to behave, they become a bunch of brats in less than 2 months. That is a very strange narrative IMPOV. I think this tale is more about the foibles of people, and excuses as to why things never quite turn out peachy, even with being protected by the great I AM.

I’m not sure if Lumpenproletariat has used the free will defense or not… Lumpenproletariat has agreed that such grandiose events are largely fictional, though he evidently thinks a guy names Moses probably existed for whatever that is worth. The few “Christians” that have dumped as much Bible baggage as Lumpenproletariat that I know, have also typically dumped even taking Jesus as part of the god-head. Yeah, that technically would make them deists, but they seem content to keep the “Christian” label/grouping for whatever reason. Of course even more Christians have already dumped the obscene doctrine of eternal torment well before rejecting things like the birth narrative et.al. No wonder there are thousands of Christian sects…

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think this tale is more about the foibles of people, and excuses as to why things never quite turn out peachy, even with being protected by the great I AM.

This tale? The whole of the OT is reminding people that God sets everything up nice, then the meshuggahs fuck it up. Setting up a religion that does its level best not to draw God's attention.
God says not to seethe a kid in mom's milk, we'll separate ALL meat from ALL dairy, so we never come close to pissing God off, stuff like that.

 

[jonJ]

The free will defense is often thrown up at this point by way of rationalization. "God doesn't work like this because it would interfere with our free will."

To which the best response is: "Free will decisions require correct information. If your God is withholding information, he is preventing free will decisions, not facilitating them."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The possibility of eternal life and eternal torment

The very same source material that you believe tells you ''Christ offers us a way to escape annihilation at death,'' tells you about eternal damnation. You accept one but reject the other because it doesn't suit the image of Godly compassion.

I hope there's no eternal torturing or infliction of pain. But if there is -- well, then what I hope for is not the case. The possibility that there might be such a thing as eternal torment in Hell is no argument for not believing, or no reason to reject Christianity. If anything, it is even further reason to believe, and to promote the "good news" of the escape from the torture.

The reason to believe in the possibility of eternal life is the life-giving power Christ showed. If this power is great enough, it leads logically to the possibility of eternal life, or overcoming of death. So this is a basis for believing in eternal life, as a reasonable possibility. However, the possibility of eternal torment or eternal pain doesn't seem to follow as a necessity. But if it is the case, then we can't change it by condemning it or saying it's wrong.

It's a reasonable possibility that the hell fire and damnation theme is simply borrowed from the culture that predates Jesus and was not really taught by him. I hope that's the case. Isn't that a reasonable hope?

There is nothing about the hell fire and damnation idea that leads to the conclusion that one ought not believe in Christ. The worst problem here would be that he taught hell fire and damnation and yet the truth is that there is no such thing. But we don't know whether there is any such thing as hell and damnation. So the only conclusion is that we don't know.

You can't just say such a thing would be awful, and therefore one should not believe it. Even if it's awful, it does not follow that it can't be true. All you can do is hope it's not so.

Nor is it Christ who offers salvation, but the authors of the text who include in their narrative both the carrot, the promise of salvation, and the stick: eternal damnation for disbelievers.

Hopefully their narrative, or depiction of Christ, is accurate, showing his power and quoting him saying "Your faith has saved you," in which case he is offering salvation. The authors who include this promise of salvation must have got this idea from somewhere. Also, Paul and the writer of the John Gospel interpret him as offering salvation.

Where did the word or idea of "gospel" or "good news" come from? i.e., "euangelion"? Where did this come from and what does it refer to? Obviously Christ offered healing, but if that's all he offered, i.e., just a cure from leprosy or blindness etc., then the only ones needing "salvation" were those with bodily afflictions. If this is all he offered, then the "good news" is only for those with bodily afflictions. It's reasonable to interpret him as offering more than only this, or that he was offering something beyond this, which the healings point to, as a sign.

So it's not only the authors who proclaim salvation. If Christ did not proclaim it first, then you have to explain where the authors got this idea, i.e., why they made Christ the source of salvation. And this explanation is required regardless whether Christ also threatened hell fire and damnation as the alternative.

There's nothing unreasonable about hoping for the salvation or eternal life, while leaving open the question of hell fire and eternal torture, or even hoping this part is not the case. But what is unreasonable is saying, "It can't be so because I don't want it to be so." Also, "It must be so because I want it to be so."

What is reasonable is: "Eternal life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Christ's power, and I hope it's so."

 

[Keith&Co.]

I hope there's no eternal torturing or infliction of pain. But if there is -- well, then what I hope for is not the case. The possibility that there might be such a thing as eternal torment in Hell is no argument for not believing, or no reason to reject Christianity.

Sure it is...According to you.
You said that the way to pick a religion was to START with one that's believable. Infinite torture for finite crimes is not a believable premise. You, for some reason, want to cherry pick through Christain doctrine to find (or create) a religion that has the possibility of eternal reward without eternal torture. Unfortunately, i know too much about Christainity to pretend that this is a Christain teaching.

If anything, it is even further reason to believe, and to promote the "good news" of the escape from the torture.

But by that logic, you'd have to believe and promote every religion that has the possibility of a negative afterlife resolution program. Not just Christainity.

The reason to believe in the possibility of eternal life is the life-giving power Christ showed.

Even if he did exist, and even if the tales of his power were credible, how do you make the jump from healing bodies to giving eternal sanctuary for a soul? Would you say that someone who makes great sand castles is qualified to build a skyscraper in downtown NYC?

If this power is great enough, it leads logically to the possibility of eternal life, or overcoming of death.

No, it does not. Even if you accept that this power is real, you've got to add a belief in souls that persist after death, and a belief that there are rules to their disposition, and eliminate the non-Heaven afterlife models (ghosts, reincarnation, etc.) before you have a logical chain.
You haven't established that connection.

So this is a basis for believing in eternal life, as a reasonable possibility.

No, it's a desperate, emotional hope. Not reasoning.

However, the possibility of eternal torment or eternal pain doesn't seem to follow as a necessity.

Only by ignoring parts of your sourcebook

It's a reasonable possibility that the hell fire and damnation theme is simply borrowed from the culture that predates Jesus and was not really taught by him. I hope that's the case. Isn't that a reasonable hope?

You keep using 'reasonable' as if you had used reason to get to your conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is nothing about the hell fire and damnation idea that leads to the conclusion that one ought not believe in Christ.

Except IAW your statement that we start with a 'believable' religion, then learn about it from a member.

The worst problem here would be that he taught hell fire and damnation and yet the truth is that there is no such thing. But we don't know whether there is any such thing as hell and damnation. So the only conclusion is that we don't know.

Then why isn't that the conclusion for Heaven and Salvation?
What tells you we need or could even have a use for salvation?
What shows to you that we have an afterlife?
What is 'logical' about Heaven?

You can't just say such a thing would be awful, and therefore one should not believe it.

Sure, we can. If there's no evidence for it at all, except fairy tales told to frighten people into believing and obeying, then it's just a rotten fairy tale.

Even if it's awful, it does not follow that it can't be true. All you can do is hope it's not so.

Actually, we can do more. As with everything that mankind claims, the skeptic can ask, "Why should i believe that is true?"
And so far, nothing you've offered is better than the woman at the New Age Bookstore who told me every month about her latest vision quest with Coyote.

So it's not only the authors who proclaim salvation.

Yes, it is only the authors that offer Jesus as the path to salvation. There's no other reasonable evidence he ever said anything.

If Christ did not proclaim it first, then you have to explain where the authors got this idea, i.e., why they made Christ the source of salvation. And this explanation is required regardless whether Christ also threatened hell fire and damnation as the alternative.

No, we don't have to explain exactly where the gospels came from. We only have to ask, 'Why should we believe this to be true?' Your method, where you assume it's true, THEN evaluate whether it could be true, is intellectually dishonest, and not a reason we should believe it to be true.

There's nothing unreasonable about hoping for the salvation or eternal life, ... What is reasonable is: "Eternal life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Christ's power, and I hope it's so."

EVEN IF we accept Jesus as having power over physical health, that's not resonable evidence that souls exist, that they persist post mortem, that they face an afterlife, or that the afterlife is something our actions can change.
Your willingness to pretend this is a logical progression without the necessary steps in the middle IS you saying "It must be so because I want it to be so."

 

[Juma]

What is reasonable is: "Eternal life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Christ's power, and I hope it's so."

There is no evidens of "christs power". Only hearsay.
Not even that: only hearsay of hearsay...

 

[none]

What is reasonable is: "Eternal life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Christ's power, and I hope it's so."

There is no evidens of "christs power". Only hearsay.
Not even that: only hearsay of hearsay...

i don't think there is evidence that anyone was actually interviewed to justify the idea that the Bible is based on hearsay or first, second, third, or more hand accounts

 

[Juma]

There is no evidens of "christs power". Only hearsay.
Not even that: only hearsay of hearsay...

i don't think there is evidence that anyone was actually interviewed to justify the idea that the Bible is based on hearsay or first, second, third, or more hand accounts

What is your point?