120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

[== I alter your demonstration just to fit the line.
Monotheism (starts earlier)-- >>Anmim

But why do you alter it this way? What do you base it on?
Any cave paintings? Anthropological studies? Past life regression?

 

[Learner]

But why do you alter it this way? What do you base it on?
Any cave paintings? Anthropological studies? Past life regression?

Cripes ..you're right I didn't say why.

I am just "assuming" here at the moment with the thought not knowing every aspect. Besides this area of human history, I don't think the current facts of the ancient times is complete yet. Because of the other unexplained civilizations where there artifacts and ruins are all over the world still unknown and yet to be explained in the historic records. Balbek or places like Yonaguni Jima in Japan ,China , North America even and so on. But it does to Christians who believe it coincide with the book of Enoch and some verses in the bible.

So to also say to C_Mucius_Sc in this regard so far as I could muster ,I would agree with you this is not evidence from my side. Not using to explain this area ; It is of course my belief according to the biblical scriptures.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

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.

No. There is no evidence to support a claim of monotheism preceding animism in any society, as far as I am aware. Anywhere you look, the order is as I described it. If the various gods are similar to one another, it's because they grew out of the same animistic concepts of attributing "spirit" to natural phenomena, followed by anthropomorphosis. In other words, what they have most in common is their resemblance to humanity, which is no surprise because they were all invented by humans. As Xenophanes of Colophon, who may or may not have been monotheist, polytheist or pandeist, is quoted by Clement as saying:

"Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed [σιμούς] and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired."

and

"But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have."

So it should come as no surprise that the gods of humans resemble each other in their human attributes, without having to posit an original, monotheistic "über-god" that gave rise to the various pantheons.

 

[Learner]

Good discussion will get back to you , always the door knocks!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

No, I'm asking why the Bible can't just do that naturally. For instance, I read the Bible and get the moral lessons delivered with a bunch of Game of Throne references so that it's easier for me to process and understand them and it makes me more interested and engaged in the lessons being delivered. A woman who likes cooking reads it and the same things are delivered with more of a baking theme. A Star Wars fan reads it and the text has more of a Yoda-esque quality.

That seems a trivial addition for an omnipotent being to add to the book and I think everybody would find it helpful.

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

You expect this in an age where humans selectively and subjectively change the definitions of words to suit themselves?
Really? Seriously?

Is abortion "murder"?
Is Bruce Jenner a "man"?
Does "marriage equality" mean whatever we want it to mean?
Is cheating on your spouse really a "sin"?

The bible is clear enough. God told Adam and Eve not to eat a particular fruit and look what happened.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The bible is clear enough. God told Adam and Eve not to eat a particular fruit and look what happened.

Well, no, He told Adam.
It's not written who told Woman.
And she wasn't 'Eve' until later.
But, hey, at least the writing is clear...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is abortion "murder"?

What word got redefined there?

Is Bruce Jenner a "man"?

How does changing his plumbing redefine the word?

Can you explain or are you just bitching again about things you dislike?

But over all, I'd think that if there was just one God, and we were in regular contact with him, the language would not change. It's this bit where we have to apply old words to new ideas that cause confusion.

It's not even a matter of the language changing, either.

Ask an economist and a chemist to pronounce 'unionized.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey, Learner!
When you talk about things that 'every christain knows' there's this bit of information:

The bible is clear enough. God told Adam and Eve not to eat a particular fruit and look what happened.

A lot of Christains would read that and nod and say that this is their understanding of what happened in Genesis, right?

Except that God gave the instructions to avoid the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil before Eve existed. And before Eve was kicked out of the Garden, she was named Woman.

So, really, any argument about Satan = Snake based on 'that's what everyone knows' is suspect because what 'everyone knows' is often not quite biblical. So, not much of an argument, is it?

 

[Sarpedon]

Also, he told a man who didn't know the difference between right and wrong not to do something.

And thanks Kieth and co for giving me a new addition to my list of sentences with two different heteronyms. "The Unionized chemistry technicians refuse to use the unionized water the management provides."

 

[Learner]

No. There is no evidence to support a claim of monotheism preceding animism in any society, as far as I am aware. Anywhere you look, the order is as I described it. If the various gods are similar to one another, it's because they grew out of the same animistic concepts of attributing "spirit" to natural phenomena, followed by anthropomorphosis. In other words, what they have most in common is their resemblance to humanity, which is no surprise because they were all invented by humans. As Xenophanes of Colophon, who may or may not have been monotheist, polytheist or pandeist, is quoted by Clement as saying:

"Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed [σιμούς] and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired."

The problem is ,this science data you refer from has no idea of the identity of many other civilzations evident all over the planet no one knows about them let alone having sufficient enough knowledge to teach them in schools . How does one make a conclusions of polytheism/monotheism from a further distant past unknown? Let alone the origins of man when there is not even any slightest hint of evidence of the missing link! You'll not find one ever...unless someone fabricates another hoax like lucy.

"But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have."

Well I don't know , maybe they would have done their dipictions similar to the Egyptians but only the other way round. Gods with "animal bodies with human heads!" (saying lightly) Ah its been done by the greeks.

So it should come as no surprise that the gods of humans resemble each other in their human attributes, without having to posit an original, monotheistic "über-god" that gave rise to the various pantheons.

"Or the other way round again" Gods create humans like themselves. Same biblical environmentl/source, different points of view.

Some of the dialogue of Dawkins in an interview with Ben Stien.

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.....etc

.. I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.
Ben Stein: But, but
Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.

(Plausible as long as its not a biblical creator )

 

[Learner]

No, I'm asking why the Bible can't just do that naturally. For instance, I read the Bible and get the moral lessons delivered with a bunch of Game of Throne references so that it's easier for me to process and understand them and it makes me more interested and engaged in the lessons being delivered. A woman who likes cooking reads it and the same things are delivered with more of a baking theme. A Star Wars fan reads it and the text has more of a Yoda-esque quality.

It has already been done! "New bible" versions in current easy to read language style of many international languages. For children too!

That seems a trivial addition for an omnipotent being to add to the book and I think everybody would find it helpful.

From the age of Jesus, is where the "gospels continue on from" granted according to Christians but I'm sure a great majority will find easy to understand "his teachings" (the most important) ,being the most easiest to read and the most easiest to understand even from the KJ version. He made things easier... to be with God.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

The problem is ,this science data you refer from has no idea of the identity of many other civilzations evident all over the planet no one knows about them let alone having sufficient enough knowledge to teach them in schools . How does one make a conclusions of polytheism/monotheism from a further distant past unknown? Let alone the origins of man when there is not even any slightest hint of evidence of the missing link! You'll not find one ever...unless someone fabricates another hoax like lucy.

Ah, I see you don't understand evolution, either. Interesting, though, since we're talking about human societies here and not prehuman ancestors, not particularly relevant to this discussion. I suggest you go to your local library, pick up a book or two about evolution (by somebody who understands it, not somebody who doesn't want to understand it), and try living up to your username. Like, instead of talking about "hoaxes" and "missing links" and other things you may also be clueless about.

"Or the other way round again" Gods create humans like themselves. Same biblical environmentl/source, different points of view.

Some of the dialogue of Dawkins in an interview with Ben Stien.

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.....etc

.. I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.
Ben Stein: But, but
Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.

(Plausible as long as its not a biblical creator )

Speaking of "clueless", you're really going to quote from Expelled? Oh, dear. A film in which Ben Stein demonstrates that he's one of those who doesn't want to understand evolution, and he presents heavily edited interviews which were made under false pretences while lying about the so-called "sacked" academics he presents.

In the heavily-edited Dawkins interview, Dawkins didn't want to pretend he knew something he didn't, but was pressed by Stein for an answer. When Dawkins, not wishing to rule out something he couldn't definitively say was impossible, gave Stein the answer he had been pushing for, Stein jumped on it as a victory: "Ha! Look at this guy; doesn't believe in gods, but he believes in aliens!". Which was not at all what Dawkins said.

Ben Stein is a liar, a creationist shill and a fraud.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/

 

[DBT]

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

What the writers claim about god and creation is refuted by the very things they say about god and creation when it is clear that their thoughts have evolved a fierce tribal god into a universal creator over a period of time. It is not some independent, objective god that is evolving into something entirely different over a period of centuries, but human thought and belief.

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.

Are you saying that Yahweh the war god of the tribe of Israel given dominion by the El, his sire, actually transformed himself into a universal Creator over the time period described in the OT and the NT, and that is the 'true picture?'

 

[Lion IRC]

You expect this in an age where humans selectively and subjectively change the definitions of words to suit themselves?
Really? Seriously?

Is abortion "murder"?
Is Bruce Jenner a "man"?
Does "marriage equality" mean whatever we want it to mean?
Is cheating on your spouse really a "sin"?

The bible is clear enough. God told Adam and Eve not to eat a particular fruit and look what happened.

Is Bruce Jenner a "man"?
What word got redefined there? How does changing his plumbing redefine the word?

Can you explain or are you just bitching again about things you dislike?

Usually it's atheists bitching about the meaning of words.
You can't call atheism is a 'religion'
You can't call bats 'birds'. (see skeptics annotated bible)
Jesus can't have two 'fathers' Joseph and Heli (see skeptics annotated bible)

 

[DBT]

The reason for that is because atheism is not a religion and bats are not birds.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is Bruce Jenner a "man"?
What word got redefined there? How does changing his plumbing redefine the word?

Can you explain or are you just bitching again about things you dislike?

Usually it's atheists bitching about the meaning of words.
You can't call atheism is a 'religion'
You can't call bats 'birds'. (see skeptics annotated bible)
Jesus can't have two 'fathers' Joseph and Heli (see skeptics annotated bible)

So, just bitching. got it.

 

[Learner]

Ah, I see you don't understand evolution, either. Interesting, though, since we're talking about human societies here and not prehuman ancestors, not particularly relevant to this discussion. I suggest you go to your local library, pick up a book or two about evolution (by somebody who understands it, not somebody who doesn't want to understand it), and try living up to your username. Like, instead of talking about "hoaxes" and "missing links" and other things you may also be clueless about.

Ok ..two different discussions. I will take your advice and read a few books.

Speaking of "clueless", you're really going to quote from Expelled? Oh, dear. A film in which Ben Stein demonstrates that he's one of those who doesn't want to understand evolution, and he presents heavily edited interviews which were made under false pretences while lying about the so-called "sacked" academics he presents.

In the heavily-edited Dawkins interview, Dawkins didn't want to pretend he knew something he didn't, but was pressed by Stein for an answer. When Dawkins, not wishing to rule out something he couldn't definitively say was impossible, gave Stein the answer he had been pushing for, Stein jumped on it as a victory: "Ha! Look at this guy; doesn't believe in gods, but he believes in aliens!". Which was not at all what Dawkins said.

Ben Stein is a liar, a creationist shill and a fraud.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/

I was trying to demonstrate there is plausibilty or that there is nothing wrong with the idea of a "creator being" even for Scientists. If Stien is the way that you describe I shan't be reffereing from him in the future for serious discussion. I'm not one for dishonest journalistic agendas which is all about. To be honest I got introduced to the interview by another Christian Steven Anderson who had a video about what some scientists say.


Idiot Scientists -Proffesing themselves to be wise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-6ToEcirE

Worth a peek! (at least for Christians)

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was trying to demonstrate there is plausibilty or that there is nothing wrong with the idea of a "creator being" even for Scientists.

We already know that.
About 90% of all scientists accept evolutionary theory.
About 50% of them find that evolutionary theory fits in with their religious understanding of their god(s).

If Stien is the way that you describe

Well, are you going to look into that? or just avoid mentioning him around here?

Idiot Scientists -Proffesing themselves to be wise

Oh, yeah, that sounds wonderfully open minded and attempting to find common ground between two viewpoints. I'm sure there's no risk, with a title like that, of biased editing or shady script arrangements.

Worth a peek!

Somehow I doubt that.

 

[Learner]

We already know that.
About 90% of all scientists accept evolutionary theory.
About 50% of them find that evolutionary theory fits in with their religious understanding of their god(s).

Didn't know the exact percentage,I believe you.

If Stien is the way that you describe

Well, are you going to look into that? or just avoid mentioning him around here?

Consider it done.

Idiot Scientists -Proffesing themselves to be wise

Oh, yeah, that sounds wonderfully open minded and attempting to find common ground between two viewpoints. I'm sure there's no risk, with a title like that, of biased editing or shady script arrangements.

I was apprehensive to include the video in my previous post because of the title. Yes it is a bit direct in the naming but then just to reply to some posts I just realised this is just the norm here anyway as well as anywhere else with debates ..there is no problem.

Worth a peek!

Somehow I doubt that.

Fine , it is in my opinion.