120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Learner]

My take on the swords was Jesus used these swords to symbolize himself as a rebel because there was no real reason to arrest him and now there is. (I think we covered this somewhere) But I don't argue the point the chaplains blessing the crew...

In actual fact Jesus tells his disciples to take nothing with them.
See Luke 9:3 which is unequivocal.
People who claim the highly ambiguous and enigmatic Luke 22 is proof of Jesus' approval of sword fights need to account for this...

"Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword"

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It is not the same Christianity as the early church where it was forbidden to go to war.

That wasn't difficult for the early church, as it didn't have the power to decide to go to war.

This caused so much problems to the Roman military that many converts in the army were refusing to fight.

Doubtful at best.

https://gatesofnineveh.wordpress.co...roman-army-countering-the-pacifist-narrative/

 

[Keith&Co.]

See Luke 9:3 which is unequivocal.

Luke 22:36 is equally unequivocal. Have a sword. I really don't see how that's ambiguous.

As i said, i believe the hope was that by showing swords they would not need to use their swords.

I have four swords myself. I haven't ever used them.

 

[James Brown]

Had a New Testament professor say that when Jesus said, "Go buy a sword" he was being sarcastic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Had a New Testament professor say that when Jesus said, "Go buy a sword" he was being sarcastic.

Someone needs to tell all the bible-thumping NRA members who swear that that verse says Jesus loves the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Learner]

That wasn't difficult for the early church, as it didn't have the power to decide to go to war.

Not what I was suggesting; I mean forbid Christians;

II. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO MILITARY SERVICE
A. General Historical Perspective (exerpt)

"The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection. Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."5 ........

"The Didaskalia forbids the acceptance of money for the church ‘from soldiers who behave unrighteously or from those who kill men or from executioners or from any (of the) magistrates of the Roman Empire who are polluted in wars and have shed innocent blood without judgment,’ etc."

This caused so much problems to the Roman military that many converts in the army were refusing to fight.

Doubtful at best.

I've only used a few examples from many

ARISTEIDES (HE) ‘They appeal to those who wrong them and make them friendly to themselves; they are eager to do good to their enemies; they are mild and conciliatory.’"18

IRENAEUS (180 A.D.) "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."24


TARAKHOS (304 A.D.) "Tarakhos of Cilicia, on trial because he had left the army, told the governor he had been a soldier, ‘but because I was a Christian, I have now chosen to be a civilian.’" He was martyred in 304 A.D.59


http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

 

[Learner]

So how do we explain this singularly unexplainable thing? Easy, by suggesting a multitude of other similarly unexplainable things. That way, the first unexplainable thing is no longer solitary, which eliminates the problem that it's singular. And since we've now accepted that it was commonplace for animals to talk, it's no longer unexplainable for a serpent to talk. Problem solved.

The discussion was about the interpretation ,this is just another . It may only shift the debate to talking animals rather than the usual talking snakes. (including the jokes)

 

[DBT]

I'd expect an Omniscient/Omnipotent God inspired body of work to be crystal clear in its intent and meaning. As it stands, my 'interpretation' of scripture tells me that this is entirely the work of human minds, and all too human thought.

 

[DBT]

God does not punish people for being open-minded.
In fact the bible itself invites us to study and test all things.

''They entered into the covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and soul; 13 and whoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.'' 2 Chronicles 15:13

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I've only used a few examples from many

ARISTEIDES (HE) ‘They appeal to those who wrong them and make them friendly to themselves; they are eager to do good to their enemies; they are mild and conciliatory.’"18

IRENAEUS (180 A.D.) "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."24


TARAKHOS (304 A.D.) "Tarakhos of Cilicia, on trial because he had left the army, told the governor he had been a soldier, ‘but because I was a Christian, I have now chosen to be a civilian.’" He was martyred in 304 A.D.59


http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

Fair enough, that's what some of the church leaders were saying (although some of Tertullian's early writings, for example, said they were just like any other Roman citizens, up to and including "fighting" - he later changed his stance). In practice, though ...

We know that there were Xians serving in the legions, from stories such as that of the "Thundering" legion, composed of, or mainly of Xians, under Marcus Aurelius in the Marcomanni Wars, and the "Forty Martyrs of Sebaste", said to have been martyred under Licinius - these and other like stories would have had no plausiblility if it had been known that Xians refused service in the legions;
From barracks churches in Meggido and Doura-Europa, the former containing an inscription stating that its mosaic floor was the gift of a centurion, the latter being in a fortress settlement with virtually no civilian population;
From purges in the army such as that under Diocletian - how do you purge Xians from the army if there are no Xians in the army?

The evidence from purges and martyrdoms would also suggest that it wasn't the having to fight that was the cause of those soldiers' problems with the army, but the fact that they were forced to either sacrifice to the state gods or leave the legions (losing their status and pensions). This is in line with what we now of most Roman "persecutions" of Xians; that the problem wasn't their belief in Xianity, but their refusal to honour the state gods.

So yes, in theory, the early Xians were, or were supposed to be, pacifist, but in practice they didn't all live up to that ideal. That's why I say the claim is doubtful or, if you prefer, debatable.

 

[Learner]

We know that there were Xians serving in the legions, from stories such as that of the "Thundering" legion, composed of, or mainly of Xians, under Marcus Aurelius in the Marcomanni Wars, and the "Forty Martyrs of Sebaste", said to have been martyred under Licinius - these and other like stories would have had no plausiblility if it had been known that Xians refused service in the legions;
From barracks churches in Meggido and Doura-Europa, the former containing an inscription stating that its mosaic floor was the gift of a centurion, the latter being in a fortress settlement with virtually no civilian population;
From purges in the army such as that under Diocletian - how do you purge Xians from the army if there are no Xians in the army?

I don't doubt some of the above as I am sure in some places this happened. I would suspect there are two different situations here regarding purges in the army.

First one; where there are no Christians in the army; this would be those already converted not enlisting. No Christians to purge.

The second; is more likely the discription to those already enlisted then becoming Christians within the army, hence by growing number these purges started to be enforced.

The evidence from purges and martyrdoms would also suggest that it wasn't the having to fight that was the cause of those soldiers' problems with the army, but the fact that they were forced to either sacrifice to the state gods or leave the legions (losing their status and pensions). This is in line with what we now of most Roman "persecutions" of Xians; that the problem wasn't their belief in Xianity, but their refusal to honour the state gods. So yes, in theory, the early Xians were, or were supposed to be, pacifist, but in practice they didn't all live up to that ideal. That's why I say the claim is doubtful or, if you prefer, debatable.

I wouldn't doubt completely what you say, at the same time, the refusal to follow orders from Rome for most soldiers that converted into Cristianity, gave up more than their status when they gave up their lives or be imprisoned to be tortured and then be martyred. This does have some merits in their belief of Christ for these particular soldiers.

 

[Learner]

I'd expect an Omniscient/Omnipotent God inspired body of work to be crystal clear in its intent and meaning. As it stands, my 'interpretation' of scripture tells me that this is entirely the work of human minds, and all too human thought.

If the language was exactly as we speak today I'm sure it would be easier. People find it hard and sounding quite harsh today just trying to understand Shakespear in its original form and language style of the day . (apart from poetry in this style) What more of the King James bible of the same era translated from an even earlier language style ?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd expect an Omniscient/Omnipotent God inspired body of work to be crystal clear in its intent and meaning. As it stands, my 'interpretation' of scripture tells me that this is entirely the work of human minds, and all too human thought.

If the language was exactly as we speak today I'm sure it would be easier. People find it hard and sounding quite harsh today just trying to understand Shakespear in its original form and language style of the day . (apart from poetry in this style) What more of the King James bible of the same era translated from an even earlier language style ?

So, why isn't the language exactly as we speak it today? If I were an omnipotent God, I'd find it trivially easy to make a self-updating text where all of the morals and lessons are drawn from the news of the day and contain numerous local pop culture references.

 

[Learner]

So, why isn't the language exactly as we speak it today? If I were an omnipotent God, I'd find it trivially easy to make a self-updating text where all of the morals and lessons are drawn from the news of the day and contain numerous local pop culture references.

I can only guess not being a linguistic expert and say that languages obviously as we know changes throughout time and rellocations of people create new cultures and add new vocabulary within their groups.

God for the first few thousand years "updated" regularly as it were, his laws mainly using prophets. After that (Appearance of Jesus) it was not neccessary any longer especially needing to fully understand the ins and outs of earlier scriptures, the Torah or OT .. at least where Christianity is concerned imo.

 

[DBT]

I'd expect an Omniscient/Omnipotent God inspired body of work to be crystal clear in its intent and meaning. As it stands, my 'interpretation' of scripture tells me that this is entirely the work of human minds, and all too human thought.

If the language was exactly as we speak today I'm sure it would be easier. People find it hard and sounding quite harsh today just trying to understand Shakespear in its original form and language style of the day . (apart from poetry in this style) What more of the King James bible of the same era translated from an even earlier language style ?

It's not so much the translation as the information content. There is nothing in the way of information to be found within the books of the bible that was not available to the the thinkers and writers of their time and place.

In fact the works that make up the bible reflect the evolution of human thought in relation to the nature and attributes of their god, polytheism with its tribal gods turns into monotheism and a universal Deity, a blood thirsty tribal war god who loves the smell of burnt sacrifice morphs into a more sensitive Entity, but still reflects the culture of the time of writing.

Taken overall, this paints a picture of human thoughts and ideas rather than a Divinely Inspired Work.

 

[Learner]

It's not so much the translation as the information content. There is nothing in the way of information to be found within the books of the bible that was not available to the the thinkers and writers of their time and place.

Ok so you did get the gist of the biblical theme according to the writers, God created all things and man.

In fact the works that make up the bible reflect the evolution of human thought in relation to the nature and attributes of their god, polytheism with its tribal gods turns into monotheism and a universal Deity, a blood thirsty tribal war god who loves the smell of burnt sacrifice morphs into a more sensitive Entity, but still reflects the culture of the time of writing.

In fact the works that make up the bible reflect the evolution of human thought in relation to the nature and attributes of their god,

I would sort of use the same words obviously from a different perspective. I also similarly use to the above quote; here I "reverse" the idea as its written ; Monotheism that then turned into polytheism , man worshipping other gods, creating tribal wars.

Taken overall, this paints a picture of human thoughts and ideas rather than a Divinely Inspired Work.

You made of the writings from a logical point of view . How I read in the same manner besides faith should merit me also reading from a logical point of view. Same biblical data painting two different pictures.

I will of course say mine paints the true picture.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I wouldn't doubt completely what you say, at the same time, the refusal to follow orders from Rome for most soldiers that converted into Cristianity, gave up more than their status when they gave up their lives or be imprisoned to be tortured and then be martyred. This does have some merits in their belief of Christ for these particular soldiers.

I'm not going to labour the point, because it's a minor issue, but I will end my part in discussing this minor issue by pointing out that we cannot say with any degree of certainty that this was the case for "most" Xians in the legions. We simply do not have enough information to make that statement.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I would sort of use the same words obviously from a different perspective. I also similarly use to the above quote; here I "reverse" the idea as its written ; Monotheism that then turned into polytheism , man worshipping other gods, creating tribal wars.

Palpable nonsense. Apart from the fact that studying religious development in any ancient society you care to mention shows the opposite (i.e. that polytheism preceded monotheism), serious textual study of the OT reveals the development of Hebrew religion from henotheism (belief in the existence of many gods, with one tribal god holding supremacy) towards monotheism. Archaeology shows the same, with earlier finds indicating a partnership between YHWH and his "wife", Asherah. To suggest that monotheism preceded polytheism and/or henotheism in any society is to go against all the evidence. The order is, invariably, Animism -->> Polytheism -->> Henotheism -->> Monotheism (where applicable).

 

[Learner]

I wouldn't doubt completely what you say, at the same time, the refusal to follow orders from Rome for most soldiers that converted into Cristianity, gave up more than their status when they gave up their lives or be imprisoned to be tortured and then be martyred. This does have some merits in their belief of Christ for these particular soldiers.

I'm not going to labour the point, because it's a minor issue, but I will end my part in discussing this minor issue by pointing out that we cannot say with any degree of certainty that this was the case for "most" Xians in the legions. We simply do not have enough information to make that statement.

No problem I will agree .

 

[Learner]

Palpable nonsense. Apart from the fact that studying religious development in any ancient society you care to mention shows the opposite (i.e. that polytheism preceded monotheism), serious textual study of the OT reveals the development of Hebrew religion from henotheism (belief in the existence of many gods, with one tribal god holding supremacy) towards monotheism. Archaeology shows the same, with earlier finds indicating a partnership between YHWH and his "wife", Asherah. To suggest that monotheism preceded polytheism and/or henotheism in any society is to go against all the evidence. The order is, invariably, Animism -->> Polytheism -->> Henotheism -->> Monotheism (where applicable).

Not really too different in the order above. I alter your demonstration just to fit the line.
Monotheism (starts earlier)-- >>Anmim- Polytheism -->> Henotheism -->> (and back again) ...>>Monotheism

By my laymans understanding admittedly ,I could wonder asking that when people went out to the far reached corners of the world, did they invent their individual gods in their new found territories after? or Did they share the same God and then went out in their seperate ways changing the name and features of their gods originally from the same following?

If each group invented their gods invidually seperate from each other by land or sea this would itself IMO be amazing since the varying gods are quite similar and the worship methodology / blood rituals be alike. Similar to the knowledge of the dragons features depicted in many of the ancient cultures all over the world.