120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[atrib]

Which leads to the question: What brought these "Earliest Christians" together on this one Jesus Christ figure? Why did they all claim him as their hero legend, considering that they were so different from each other, and even antagonistic? What was it about this Jesus figure that they all claimed him, even though these believers were in basic conflict toward each other?

Best answer: He must have really been a miracle-worker, as the gospel accounts describe, and it was this that convinced so many disparate groups that he was a superhuman figure of some kind. And each group then proceeded to explain his superhuman nature in its own way, and they squabbled with each other over what was the correct interpretation of him, even excommunicating each other, as it were.

Nonsense.

Why did millions of Indians claim that Hanuman, the monkey god of Ramayana fame, could fly and lift tall mountains? Based on your logic, Hanumana really could fly and lift tall mountains, and it was his superhuman abilities that made many disparate groups of people believe in him.

This, of course, is nonsense. It is much more reasonable to assume that people made up the stories regarding Hanumana's supernatural acts, just as people made up the stories regarding Jesus' supernatural acts.

Consider this story:

A corpse reanimated itself, rose up from the grave, hung out for a little bit, then flew up through the sky and into outer space somewhere outside the natural universe, presumably to be united with the supernatural creature that had created it.

Possible explanations for this story include:
1. Somebody made it up.
2. These events really happened.

There is no evidence to support Explanation 2. All we have is a story authored by an anonymous person many decades and many hundreds of miles removed from said events. The person may have heard a story on the street, or he may have made it up. To believe that the events actually happened is stupid. To keep insisting that the story is probably true speaks to the corrupting influence your religion has had on your mind. You are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy, and you will resort to repeated lies to support your insane idea.

I know you will not respond to this post, and you will not touch Jesus' resurrection story with a 10-foot pole. That's all right. I will keep pointing out the absurdity of your position as many times as you repeat your lies.

 

[skepticalbip]

He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

Seriously, you need to watch The Life of Brian.

How could people believe in miracles? Because they wanted to.

"They have brought forth juniper berries! It's a miracle!"

Nothing changes; except, perhaps, our ability to distinguish comedy from reality.

Certainly the juniper berries are a miracle but the question is should we follow the gourd or the sandal.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It doesn't matter what the Messiah is "supposed to be." What matters is what Christ is, or what he did, the power he demonstrated, i.e., the miracle acts, whether they are real, and if there's a way to connect to that power.

Wow.
What an incredibly poor Christain apologist you make.

Yes, the prophecies of the messiah matter. That's how we're supposed to be able to tell the actual messiah from false messiahs.
If Jesus did, in fact, have miracle power, but did not qualify for the messiah, that means (at least by Christain theology) that his power came from The Devil.
Which means that connecting to that power would result in dooming you to Hell and eternal torture.
Because Jesus was, therefore, not the Christ.

You really can't just pick and choose the bits you like to form your theology and think to be held any more credible than one of those Constitution interpreters who ignore the amendments and SCOTUS case law. It doesn't work.
Or, like historical analysis, it doesn't work the way you seem to think it must.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

People believe miracle stories when there is evidence -- as in the Jesus case -- or when there is a normal myth-building process.

Which leads to the question: What brought these "Earliest Christians" together on this one Jesus Christ figure? Why did they all claim him as their hero legend, considering that they were so different from each other, and even antagonistic? What was it about this Jesus figure that they all claimed him, even though these believers were in basic conflict toward each other?

Best answer: He must have really been a miracle-worker, as the gospel accounts describe, and it was this that convinced so many disparate groups that he was a superhuman figure of some kind. And each group then proceeded to explain his superhuman nature in its own way, and they squabbled with each other over what was the correct interpretation of him, even excommunicating each other, as it were.

Nonsense.

Why did millions of Indians claim that Hanuman, the monkey god of Ramayana fame, could fly and lift tall mountains?

Because these stories emerged over a period of more than 1000 years of storytelling, in which time span it's typical for myths of all kinds to develop.

Also because there's no way to determine when or where this character lived, and it's typical for legends to emerge about figures who never really existed, or whose origin cannot be determined if they really existed.

It's easy to explain the development of stories of such fictional characters over many centuries, or the mythologizing of real characters who then become changed over many centuries of storytelling.

Someone could have invented this fictional character which later became adopted into the pantheon over many centuries, gradually, as more and more devotees became attracted to the story.

Or there could have been a real figure, human or animal, who/which was unusual in some way, and which attracted some attention originally and became mythologized and changed over 1000 or 2000 years of legend-building.

Based on your logic, Hanumana really could fly and lift tall mountains, . . .

No, for that to be credible he would have to have been a real historical figure at a particular place and time which you can identify, and for which there is a written source about him which appeared less than 100 years after his historical existence.

So, when did this character live, and where, and what is the written source we have that tells us about him? If you don't know this, and his origin is unknown or is legendary over many centuries of storytelling, then we cannot reasonably believe these stories about him.

It is ludicrous that you offer such an idiotic example for comparison.

. . . and it was his superhuman abilities that made many disparate groups of people believe in him.

No, to "believe in him" there had to be some evidence, from reports near to the time that this character lived. People believe when there is such evidence, or also when there is tradition that goes back for many centuries, in which case they accept it as pious tradition, and give it some respect they do not give to a quick fly-by-night miracle story or hero legend.

It is remarkable that you cannot give a better example than this. If you had any serious analogy to the Jesus case, you would offer one where there is some evidence, like written documents dated near to the time of the reported miracle events. Why is it that you repeatedly cannot do this, but can only come up with legends that evolved over many centuries and thus can be easily explained as caused by mythologizing or normal legend-building of which there are thousands of examples?

This, of course, is nonsense. It is much more reasonable to assume that people made up the stories regarding Hanumana's supernatural acts, . . .

Because, like most of your other examples, they are easily recognized as a product of typical mythologizing, which happens as a slow process spread over many centuries.

. . . just as people made up the stories regarding Jesus' supernatural acts.

No, because these stories appear in multiple sources within 30-70 years of the reported events, which can be dated to a particular time period and location. Unlike the examples you keep giving in a vain attempt to pretend that there are other cases for which there is the same degree of credibility which have in the Jesus example.

With all these other poor examples you keep giving we can explain why we know they are fiction and how they developed, whereas in the case of the Jesus miracle stories you can give no explanation how we know they are fiction, other than that of falling back on your dogmatic premise that no such acts can ever happen.

Why is it that of all the reported miracle events, it's only in the case of the Jesus miracle stories that your only argument is your dogmatic premise that such events can never happen? Why is that for all the other reported miracle events, we can point to the long time period of legend-building and other factors which make it obvious how the fictional stories could have emerged? and yet we cannot explain the Jesus miracle stories this way?

Can't you come up with at least one other example of a miracle legend which defies the normal mythologizing process, just as the Jesus example does? Why can't you find one other example?

 

[bilby]

All other myths have the same credibility as the Jesus story - ZERO.

All of the problems you can find with other myths are also problems for the Jesus myth. All stories that are not backed by physical evidence (such as archeology) or confirmed by multiple independent accounts, are bullshit until proven otherwise; If the stories are miraculous in nature (ie they involve things that we normally consider impossible), then they are bullshit REGARDLESS of the number and variety of accounts, in the absence of physical evidence.

ANYTHING can be fiction, fabrication or imagination. If it is to be believed, it therefore MUST be conversant with natural law (ie NOT miraculous or magical); AND supported by either physical evidence, or multiple independent accounts.

If there is a single historical document that says Herod increased taxes in Judea, then this is believable because A) Rulers raising taxes is a common event not in conflict with natural law, so this kind of thing is to be expected; B) Herod and Judea are both known from independent sources to exist, and Herod is known from those sources to have been in a position to raise such taxes, in that jurisdiction; and C) There are physical records of taxes being raised, which are consistent with the claim being made.

If there is a single historical document - or even a large collection of such documents, each with similar or unknown provenance - that says a man called Jesus walked on storm-tossed waters; turned water into wine; and/or rose from the dead, then this is NOT believable because A) These things are contrary to natural law, so they are extraordinary claims, and require extraordinary evidence to be believed; B) There is no other evidence from contemporary sources that any of these things occurred, despite the Romans having kept comprehensive records and accounts, many of which survive to this day, but which make no mention of events that surely would have been hard to simply ignore; and C) There are no legitimate physical traces of any of the things claimed, even for those events which should have left physical evidence. What physical evidence has been presented has all turned out to be forgeries, mostly from the middle ages and early modern period.

Note that it makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL how quickly after the events described a claim is recorded; It makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL how other legends and myths came to be; and it makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL how popular the belief in the described events might be.

The evidence for Jesus as an historical person is weak; But historically, people existed in first century Judea, so the claim that a man born in Nazareth to a carpenter's family lived in the region at that time is vaguely believable because despite the very sketchy evidence, it is an unremarkable claim.

The evidence requirement for a sane person to believe that a miracle was performed (much less several miracles) is far higher. It is not met in the case of a single mythological figure - including Jesus.

And that's all there is to say. Either there is COMPELLING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for a miracle, or sane people discard it as fiction, imagination, or misunderstanding.

So no more walls of text. Put up COMPELLING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for a miracle, or shut up.

 

[beero1000]

Put it this way - forget 'historical record', forget '30-70 years after the event', forget existence of a historical figure, forget all of that.

If TODAY, a group of people came forward and claimed that they had seen a person perform a miracle (e.g. walk on water), would you believe them? Say the claimed miracle worker is real, but missing or dead, and there are only the eyewitness accounts so there can be no real verification or replication. Would them claiming, in addition, that this person died and was resurrected make you more or less likely to believe them?

Now consider that in any reasonable world, these modern accounts would be much, much more convincing than unverifiable, unexaminable 2000 year old accounts written by scientifically illiterate men decades after the fact. Can you honestly say that unreservedly believing them as fact is a reasonable position?

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat will no doubt now appeal to the argument that we're simply taking a dogmatic position that miracles don't happen and therefore refusing to believe these stories.

The reality is that we are skeptical for the same reason we'd be skeptical if someone claimed that 150 years ago there was a day when the sun rose in the west and set in the east. The impossibility of such an occurrence combined with the complete lack of contemporary notice of such a remarkable event is more than enough for us to sensibly discount the claim. The miracle claims of Jesus are every bit as impossible, and the contemporary notice every bit as non-existent.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The Roswell incident is a modern example of how myths get developed into a subject that takes on a life of its own, which then draws adherents into its fold.

I'm going to assume everyone's familiar with the story.

Here's how it's eerily similar to Jesus.

1. Some event happened, which people thought was very out of the normal.
2. Then the story died down and went away.
3. About 30-35 years later, after being largely forgotten, a person wrote a book about it.
4. Then several other people wrote books about it, each with the same basic tale, but with different details (think of Jesus' last words on the cross)
5. The combination of 3-4 books began attracting attention to the point where it became a full blown phenomenon on which much of American UFO belief is based.
6. It spawned stories surrounding it and what happened after, many of which conflict:
a. The saucer was taken to Ohio
b. The saucer was taken to Texas
c. Different parts of the saucer were taken to different parts of the country
7. At first there were no alien bodies:
a. Then there were bodies but they were all dead
b. No, some of the bodies were dead, but one was alive, but died soon thereafter
c. There were some dead bodies, but one was walking around and communicated with the people on the ground before being taken away by the authorities
7(c)(1). This alien lived for some time afterward
7(c)(2). This alien is still alive and being held in some secret government location--Area 51 is the consensus residence for this alien

There's even more parallels, but that should suffice. The point is that the Roswell story happened, went away after plausible explanation, and then came back with a fury after several decades and now many people believe in it despite the fact that it's been quite adequately explained and its primary sources thoroughly debunked.
Why? Because like Fox Mulder, people want to believe it happened and are willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary.

But Roswell is far more believable than Jesus because the U.S. Army actually did report it had found a crashed UFO before recanting and admitting to a disappointed public that it was just a high altitude weather balloon. All it took was one overly enthusiastic person to say something to the wrong person in a position of authority, who, before verifying, sent the message out to the public and boom, aliens.

Would an oppressed, illiterate, group of people completely bereft of any scientific knowledge want to believe in an entity that would take revenge on their enemies and provide them with paradise in a time when gods abounded and they felt dispossessed by every other religion around them? Of course. Therefore, Jesus.

 

[Atheos]

I agree that stories about aliens, alien encounters, abductions, etc., form a strong parallel with religious myths. But you don't have to get out of religion in order to show tremendous parallels with the Jesus myth. Lumpenproletariat has engaged in little else besides red-herring sharpshooter fallacies in his attempts to extricate his favorite fairy tale from the thousands of others mankind has invented in the name of religion over the years. His has a few features that distinguish it from others, but others have unique features that distinguish them from it.

We've beat the Joseph Smith horse nearly to death in this thread and Lumpenproletariat has used all sorts of meaningless differences between the two examples to bolster his claims, even going so far as to argue that testimony from direct eyewitnesses is not as good as uncorroborated testimony of anonymous people who may have possibly encountered eyewitnesses at some point before fabricating their tales. It's actually a riot the contortions the typical apologist will go through in an effort to beg for preferential treatment of his one favorite play pretty.

If you follow Lumpenproletariat's arguments you arrive at the conclusion that people will make up tales about things they saw within hours or days of the alleged events, and people will make up stories about things that happened at least 100 years earlier, but nobody would make up stories about things that happened between 30 and 70 years earlier. There is evidently some sort of barrier that makes it impossible for people to make up stories about things that happened in that magical Goldilocks zone of TRUTH. And it just so happens that this is the exact zone in which the stories of Jesus the Magic Jew begin to appear. Texas Sharpshooter anybody?

But since you mentioned the Roswell stuff that did, indeed, start getting pimped about 30 years after the initial finding of some debris from a weather balloon, we should clarify that nobody can make up religious stories about someone who lived 30-70 years ago. Over 100 years or immediately, but never 30-70 years removed. That's just something that is impossible.

Lumpenproletariat's arguments are blindingly wrong at just about every level it is possible to be. The only thing he has going for him is that billions of people worldwide have been duped into believing the Jesus myth, believing it for the very same reasons that the first dupees believed it: Someone convincing told them it was true.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you follow Lumpenproletariat's arguments you arrive at the conclusion that people will make up tales about things they saw within hours or days of the alleged events, and people will make up stories about things that happened at least 100 years earlier, but nobody would make up stories about things that happened between 30 and 70 years earlier.

And somehow, tales made up hours after won't last 30 to 70 years to be written down. How does that happen? Shelf life? A best-buy date?
Someone won't write down oral testimony if it was made up 30-70 years before, but WILL write down direct unadulterated testimony... Without telling us who told them or how they knew it wasn' tmade-up-shit.

 

[funinspace]

If you follow Lumpenproletariat's arguments you arrive at the conclusion that people will make up tales about things they saw within hours or days of the alleged events, and people will make up stories about things that happened at least 100 years earlier, but nobody would make up stories about things that happened between 30 and 70 years earlier.

And somehow, tales made up hours after won't last 30 to 70 years to be written down. How does that happen? Shelf life? A best-buy date?
Someone won't write down oral testimony if it was made up 30-70 years before, but WILL write down direct unadulterated testimony... Without telling us who told them or how they knew it wasn' tmade-up-shit.

I'm pretty sure this time frame specificity is clearly listed in the MHORC.

PS: I'm still waiting for Lumpy to provide a reference to a mainstream Christian theologian who provides an argument that the GMark Jesus miracle stories "clearly" originate mostly from "uninterested bystanders".

 

[Keith&Co.]

PS: I'm still waiting for

I hope you're in a comfortable place...

 

[funinspace]

PS: I'm still waiting for

I hope you're in a comfortable place...

Thanks, I'm pretty comfy Anywho, my PS query is pretty easy compared to the effort to generate a word salad WALL...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Did Jesus meet the officially-established criteria for the "Messiah"? Or was he "that old Serpent THE DEVIL AND SATAN" in disguise?

It doesn't matter what the Messiah is "supposed to be." What matters is what Christ is, or what he did, the power he demonstrated, i.e., the miracle acts, whether they are real, and if there's a way to connect to that power.

Wow.

What an incredibly poor Christian apologist you make.

OK, if I apply for that job sometime I'll scratch your name off my list of references. (Why do you keep misspelling the word "Christian"? I'll stop correcting it from this point. You are aware that you keep doing this?)

Yes, the prophecies of the messiah matter.

Many things matter, but some matter more than others. And whether Christ, the historical Jesus person, really had/has power matters more than this or that "messiah" prophecy.

That's how we're supposed to be able to tell the actual messiah from false messiahs.

If distinguishing the "actual messiah" from "false messiahs" is something people are "supposed to be" concerned about, then go ahead and launch your crusade to help people distinguish them, and preach the prophecies and so on, if you think they're vitally important to everyone.

That historical Christ person 2000 years ago healed people who believed him, and there's no indication that those believers got bogged down in distinguishing "false messiahs" from "true messiahs" -- rather, they believed, then he healed them and said, "Your faith has saved you" or similar words. They genuinely believed but did not sort out all the hundreds of "messiah" theories.

So if they could believe and be saved/healed without doing the "false messiah" vs. "actual messiah" exercises, I'm assuming we also can do the same. Some of them were not even Jewish and possibly had no notions about such "messiah" prophecies.

Your rhetoric about what "we're supposed to" believe or use for screening the real "messiah" from the phony one is so silly that the only real response to it is ridicule.

If Jesus did, in fact, have miracle power, but did not qualify for the messiah, that means (at least by Christain theology) that his power came from The Devil.

So do you have a test for proving whether he does "qualify for the messiah"? How about: you cut the prophecy text out of Isaiah, with scissors, then place the paper against one of those famous portrait pictures of Jesus, and if his skin burns in the picture, that proves he's really The Devil (especially if it emits a nasty hissing sound like in the movies when a vampire is splashed with holy water). Let us know after you've done your test to determine if he qualifies.

Your words "by Christian theology" and "the prophecies of the messiah matter" and especially "how we're supposed to be able to tell the actual messiah from false messiahs" seem to be imposing your "messiah" requirement onto all true believers, and seem to demand a kind of submission to this as a creed or litmus test without which one is a phony or counterfeit believer of some kind.

But the most famous of the Christian doctrinal statements, the Nicene Creed, says nothing at all about the Jewish "Messiah" prophecies or anything from the Hebrew Scriptures, except the phrase "who spake by the prophets" (not in the 325 version but added in the 381 version). Nothing about a "Messiah" or about prophecies pointing to Jesus Christ.

Of course there are other doctrinal statements which do mention such prophecies, and others also which omit anything about it. The thousands of versions of Christ belief take so many forms that there is no one which any believer totally conforms to. Though it's reasonable to make "belief in Christ" some kind of general condition common to all of them. But beyond this there's likely not a single point that they all agree on.

Which means that connecting to that power would result in dooming you to Hell and eternal torture.

But we're in luck. Given your expertise in the science of "messiah" authentication, we'll appoint you to administer your proven "messiah" certification procedure to determine if those miracle healing acts he did are legitimate. So let us know when you've completed your test, so the whole world can finally know the Truth about his legitimacy. Aren't we fortunate that one so brilliant as yourself has finally appeared who can give us this valuable guidance!

Because Jesus was, therefore, not the Christ.

But you'll settle it for us beyond all doubt once you've completed your procedure. -- Especially if he yells "Ouch!" when you press the prophecy words against his forehead -- that will be the smoking gun.

You really can't just pick and choose the bits you like to form your theology . . .

But you're the expert on theology-forming and will choose all the bits for us.

. . . and think to be held any more credible than one of those Constitution interpreters who ignore the amendments and SCOTUS case law.

You're by far the most credible. No one should be allowed to interpret anything or ignore anything without first submitting it to you for approval.

It doesn't work. Or, like historical analysis, it doesn't work the way you seem to think it must.

You'll decide for us what works and what doesn't work, and what can be analyzed and what cannot be.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why do you keep misspelling the word "Christian"? I'll stop correcting it from this point. You are aware that you keep doing this?

Yes, I'm aware. It's a habit i got into when a particular christain apologist insisted on spelling it 'athiest' and also insisted that spelling doesn't matter as long as the ideas get across.

Many things matter, but some matter more than others. And whether Christ, the historical Jesus person, really had/has power matters more than this or that "messiah" prophecy.

No, Lumpy.
Your entire purpose in flogging the Jesus miracles is to connect the dots between you, Jesus and an afterlife in Heaven. If, however, Jesus is not the messiah, then those dots do not connect.
You already throw out a lot of the Books where it tells you what you need to do to get into Heaven, thinking all you need to do is follow the Christ... But if he's not the Christ, your efforts are wasted and you're not going to the afterlife you seek.

If distinguishing the "actual messiah" from "false messiahs" is something people are "supposed to be" concerned about, then go ahead and launch your crusade to help people distinguish them, and preach the prophecies and so on, if you think they're vitally important to everyone.

Way to completely miss the point, Lumpy.

That historical Christ Jesus person

FIFY.

and there's no indication that those believers got bogged down in distinguishing "false messiahs" from "true messiahs" --

Um, that's the entire reason there ARE prophecies to foretell the messiah, Lumpy. And they also warn the faithful to be careful about false messiahs.

Really, you ought to read the book a bit more slowly. Maybe take notes?

So if they could believe and be saved/healed without doing the "false messiah" vs. "actual messiah" exercises,

How do you know they were saved, Lumpy?
How do you know where these people's souls went after they dedicated them to this Jesus person?

I'm assuming we also can do the same.

You're HOPING that's how things work out.
Despite the fact that the facts have been made available to you...

Your rhetoric about what "we're supposed to" believe or use for screening the real "messiah" from the phony one is so silly that the only real response to it is ridicule.

Okay. It's just so unusual for me, as an atheist, to find a theist who doesn't know fucking squat about the book he's willing to wager his soul on.
Not a problem for me, as I don't seem to have one.
But if all this is important to YOU, i'd think you wanted to get it right the first time, huh?

So do you have a test for proving whether he does "qualify for the messiah"?

Yes.
And they've been mentioned in this thread a time or two.

You should be coming across them one of these days as you play catch-up to the conversation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But we're in luck. Given your expertise in the science of "messiah" authentication, we'll appoint you to administer your proven "messiah" certification procedure to determine if those miracle healing acts he did are legitimate.

Is this supposed to be the ridicule you promised?

I really could give a fuck if you worship Jesus, Cthulhu, Corn Woman or Thor, Lumpy.
But if you're going to pretend to play in one particular sandbox, you should at least demonstrate that you understand the rules that apply to that sandbox. Otherwise you look like a drooling idiot.
Or, like you're having a childish little tantrum.

It's not ME that came up with the rules for determining the messiah. So heaping abuse upon me for the fact such rules exist is not having much of an affect on my self-image or my understanding of the problems in picking Jesus as the Christ.
To me, it's exactly the same as arguing over whether Kirk had the authority to brief McCoy on the Genesis project or why Palpatine took so long to dissolve the Senate after he took power.

But if you're going to do it, do it right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But the most famous of the Christian doctrinal statements, the Nicene Creed, says nothing at all about the Jewish "Messiah" prophecies or anything from the Hebrew Scriptures, except the phrase "who spake by the prophets" (not in the 325 version but added in the 381 version). Nothing about a "Messiah" or about prophecies pointing to Jesus Christ.

Of course, one of the problems facing Constantine, when he tried to establish just what it meant to be a Christain, what the Christain faith actually WAS, included dealing with those Christains who were sure that it was John the Baptist who was the messiah, while Jesus was merely a prophet.
So the Council of Nicaea was not QUITE as free from this concern as you would like to assume.

And, can someone back me up on this? Didn't we bring this very topic up once already in this thread? A year or two ago?
This is why we can't have Nicaea things, i guess.

 

[Atheos]

This is why we can't have Nicaea things, i guess.

It's a Constantine problem.

 

[bilby]

This is why we can't have Nicaea things, i guess.

It's a Constantine problem.

I see no prophet in continuing this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's a Constantine problem.

I see no prophet in continuing this.

I will refrain from comment, on the advice of council.