120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lion IRC]

...You ignore all evidence to the contrary in order to make that assertion.

He agrees with me with the same understanding of the evidence mentioned.

I don't ignore it. I want to debate it with DBT.
And that's kind of the point here. DBT is trying to assert there is nothing to debate as if the texts were cast in stone with no other interpretation than DBT's.

 

[Lion IRC]

Learner's opinion is no less 'relevant' than your opinion.

Not 'my opinion' at all - the verses I quoted (including the body of evidence as a whole) say what they say regardless of what I may think or what you or Learner would like to believe. The history and development of thought and belief in relation to the god of the bible is clear to see. That the writers of the books of the bible borrowed and adapted stories and ideas from surrounding cultures is clear to see in the evidence.

No He isn't.

You ignore all evidence to the contrary in order to make that assertion.

I have a different 'opinion' about how He is portrayed. And you can't just CLAIM that your interpretation is the one true dogma - unless you're a fundy. (Are you?)

It's not a matter of opinion, but what the bible itself says.

This, for example, is not my opinion;

"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? "
(Lamentations 3:38)

“The Lord is a man of war,” Exodus 15:3.

"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13

Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey . . . so
shall the Lord of hosts come down to fight for Mount Zion" Isa. 31:4

I dont think these portray God as a war 'god'.
Mars is a war god. Gurzil is a war god. Mixcoatl is a war god. Anhur is a war god.

Do you claim that biblical theists of any variety would accept that Jehovah is a one-dimensional 'God' of war rather than the omnipotent multi-faceted Creator and ruler of ALL things - only one of which is war.

 

[DBT]

I dont think these portray God as a war 'god'.

Obviously they do. They certainly don't describe of God of Love.

“The Lord is a man of war” describes a god of war. ''The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies'' describes not a god of love, peace and harmony, but a god who loves to create division and conflict in order to instigate war.

Mars is a war god. Gurzil is a war god. Mixcoatl is a war god. Anhur is a war god.

So was Yahweh during the period in which the verses were written.

Do you claim that biblical theists of any variety would accept that Jehovah is a one-dimensional 'God' of war rather than the omnipotent multi-faceted Creator and ruler of ALL things - only one of which is war.

Yahweh did not start out as the Creator of All Things...this idea developed over time:
As for war:

Prof. Erhard S. Gerstenberger writes on p.151 of Theologies of the Old Testament:
''Yahweh was not always God in Israel and at every social level. Rather, initially he belongs only to the storm and war gods like Baal, Anath, Hadad, Resheph and Chemosh…His original homeland was the southern regions of present-day Palestine and Jordan. Thus the regional and functional, cultural and social limitations of Yahweh should be beyond all doubt. The elaboration of ideas about Yahweh, e.g. as a guarantor of fertility, personal good fortune, head of a pantheon, creator of the world, judge of the world, etc. is gradual and only fully unfolds in the exilic/post-exilic age, always in connection with social and historical changes.''

''Among the functions of Yahweh called into play by Israel’s needs, the leading place in the earlier times was held by war…Hence, Yahweh is constantly represented as a war-god. He it is who marches at the head of Israel’s armies (Deut. 33:27); his right arm brings victory to Israel’s banners (Exod. 15:6); Israel’s wars are “the wars of Yahweh” himself (Num. 21:14; I Sam. 18:17, 25:28); Israel’s obligation is to “come to the help of Yahweh, to the help of Yahweh against the mighty” (Judg. 5:23); Israel’s enemies are Yahweh’s enemies (Judg. 5:31; I Sam. 30:26); Yawheh is Israel’s sword and shield (Deut. 33:29); yea, he is a “a man of war” (Exod. 15:3) As the leader of a nation of war, Yahweh was credited with the military practices of the day. He shrank not from drastic and cruel measures. Indeed, he lent his name and influence to the perpetration of such deeds of barbarity…Yahweh orders the total extermination of clans and towns, including man, woman, and child (I Sam. 15:3; Josh 6:17 f.).''

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

What did the Canaanites ever do to the Israelites anyway? I mean, apart from occupying the land that the War God Yahweh told his people to clean out all the people from and take for their own, that is?

Of course, archaeology tells us that never happened, just as anthropology tells us Yahweh was a construct of the tribes who worshipped Him, but even in the abstract, conceptual sense, there's just no denying Yahweh was a tribal god of war before He was raised to the level of Creator Of All. Unless you have another agenda wherein you want to present him as a god of peace, of course, but then you have to ignore certain passages, emphasise others and just downright twist the whole meaning of yet others. Which, believe it or not, is a very Christian thing to do, making "scripture" say what you want it to say.

No, I'm not going to quote chapter and verse for this, because I really don't have the time. The OT is just so damn full of stories where Yahweh is the Hebrews'/Israelites' God of War that it would take me way too long to find, copy and paste even just the chapter:verse references for the amount of effort I'm prepared to put into this particular argument. Suffice it to say that they didn't carry him into battle for nothing. Mostly for wiping out everything that had breath, except the virgin girls, as it happens. Or all of the Amalakites, virgins and all, even if it took generations to finish the job.

I'm just glad that the Christians changed the concept of the god of war into the prince of peace, even if it took them a while, and an enlightenment, and the secularisation of the countries Christianity usedto rule with an iron hand, to finally start practicing what they spent so long preaching. It's amazing what a loss of power will do for the pacifism of an ideology ... why, it's almost as if the first, powerless years of Christianity had returned, without the need for them to cry "persecution!" again ... oh, wait, some of them are ... oh, well, can't have evverything ...

But really, come on! Be happy with the fact that the NT takes the god of the OT and removes his bloodthirsty, warmongering traits; you don't have to try to pretend that he was peace-loving all along. You can only piss on our legs for so long before we realise you're lying when you say it's raining.

 

[DBT]

He agrees with me with the same understanding of the evidence mentioned.

I don't ignore it. I want to debate it with DBT.
And that's kind of the point here. DBT is trying to assert there is nothing to debate as if the texts were cast in stone with no other interpretation than DBT's.

I don't have an interpretation. The text tells its own story according to the standard meaning of words, composition and grammar.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This is a problem with Christianity, their God is not the perfect loveburger God they want to believe in. That God is often, stupid, foolish, short tempered and nasty. So the offending verses are allegorized away by the Christians in their debates with atheists. Words no longer mean anything, really, to Christians.

Its a form of rationalization. Special pleading. Intellectual nihilism. None of which make the bad ideas of the supposed revelation go away.

 

[Learner]

You can "pick out sections" in any literature relating to war as being acts of lethal violence where people get killed with the similar suggestion in your above. When the allied forces sent those armies and airforce to bomb Germany for example. I doubt the term; "hateful warmongers" was attached to the leaders when they sent them in to fight the nazi's.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You can "pick out sections" in any literature relating to war as being acts of lethal violence where people get killed with the similar suggestion in your above. When the allied forces sent those armies and airforce to bomb Germany for example. I doubt the term; "hateful warmongers" was attached to the leaders when they sent them in to fight the nazi's.

I agree with this. The OT God seems to be a god of everything and war was just one of those things. Focusing on him as a god of war is like focusing on Aphrodite as a goddess of fruit because there's that story about her and an apple.

The OT God is a king analogy and he was in charge of all the things which kings were in charge of. While waging war is a major part of that, it's a subcategory of what he is.

 

[Lion IRC]

This is a problem with Christianity, their God is not the perfect loveburger God they want to believe in. That God is often, stupid, foolish, short tempered and nasty. So the offending verses are allegorized away by the Christians in their debates with atheists. Words no longer mean anything, really, to Christians.

Its a form of rationalization. Special pleading. Intellectual nihilism. None of which make the bad ideas of the supposed revelation go away.

I don't want to 'special plead' or allegorise God's anger and fury - or His intercession in human wars. Standard Christian theology holds that this anger is righteous and justified.
And I go back to my earlier point that whenever we see violence on God's part it is a response to evil on the part of others.
- punishment of wrong doers
- shock and awe deterrence
- hastening the end of conflict

...The OT God seems to be a god of everything and war was just one of those things. Focusing on him as a god of war is like focusing on Aphrodite as a goddess of fruit because there's that story about her and an apple.

The OT God is a king analogy and he was in charge of all the things which kings were in charge of. While waging war is a major part of that, it's a subcategory of what he is.

Yes He is the God of everything in both the Old Testament and the New.

DBT quotes Erhard S. Gerstenberger but that didn't answer my question

Do you claim that biblical theists of any variety would accept that Jehovah is a one-dimensional 'God' of war rather than the omnipotent multi-faceted Creator and ruler of ALL things - only one of which is war.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Yahweh did not start out as the Creator of All Things...this idea developed over time

Genesis 1:1 wrote :
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In one of his little essay, "Treatise on the Secret Providence of God", John Calvin posits the following situation. God cause all to happen. If a Christian traveller is set upon by thieves, is badly beaten and robbed of all he has, God caused this to happen. Providence, nothing happens except by God's design. But he adds, God is completely blameless despite this. When supposed serious theologians working on the assumption that the Bible is trustworthy revelation come up with crap like this, what can you do but give up on theology since theology leads to total abandonment of reason and logic in the end.

God can cause all moral evil, yet is blameless? Divine command theory.

Arguing with Catholic theologians, especially one Albert Pighius, Calvin wrote two treatises and a book trying to figure this all out. Treatise on the Secret Providence of God" and "Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God" Both are online, his book "The Bondage and Freedom of the Will" is not.

Herein, working with the premise the Bible is trustworthy revelation, Calvin paints himself into many impossible corners. Calvin is not some uneducated hill billy apologist so his opinions have been adopted by millions and argued over for years, often by people who haven't really read him.

Pighius' work against Calvin was little better in many ways and was so damaging to the idea of God and the problem of evil, the RCC suppressed his works as they gave too much ammunition to skeptics.

Really, after trawling extensively through the works of Augustine, Luther, Calvin et al, it's obvious to me that theology has demonstrated the idea of an all powerful, perfectly good God is dead as a door nail.

And Calvin, in the end, resorts to the claim God is incomprehensible, and inscrutable, so logic does not count when used on God and we find these problems.


I may have to break down and buy Calvin's damned book just to see how bad he can get, how damaging the whole situation is. But from what I've seen from his two treatises, I don't expect anything except more of the same nonsense.

 

[bilby]

In one of his little essay, "Treatise on the Secret Providence of God", John Calvin posits the following situation. God cause all to happen. If a Christian traveller is set upon by thieves, is badly beaten and robbed of all he has, God caused this to happen. Providence, nothing happens except by God's design. But he adds, God is completely blameless despite this. When supposed serious theologians working on the assumption that the Bible is trustworthy revelation come up with crap like this, what can you do but give up on theology since theology leads to total abandonment of reason and logic in the end.

God can cause all moral evil, yet is blameless? Divine command theory.

Arguing with Catholic theologians, especially one Albert Pighius, Calvin wrote two treatises and a book trying to figure this all out. Treatise on the Secret Providence of God" and "Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God" Both are online, his book "The Bondage and Freedom of the Will" is not.

Herein, working with the premise the Bible is trustworthy revelation, Calvin paints himself into many impossible corners. Calvin is not some uneducated hill billy apologist so his opinions have been adopted by millions and argued over for years, often by people who haven't really read him.

Pighius' work against Calvin was little better in many ways and was so damaging to the idea of God and the problem of evil, the RCC suppressed his works as they gave too much ammunition to skeptics.

Really, after trawling extensively through the works of Augustine, Luther, Calvin et al, it's obvious to me that theology has demonstrated the idea of an all powerful, perfectly good God is dead as a door nail.

And Calvin, in the end, resorts to the claim God is incomprehensible, and inscrutable, so logic does not count when used on God and we find these problems.


I may have to break down and buy Calvin's damned book just to see how bad he can get, how damaging the whole situation is. But from what I've seen from his two treatises, I don't expect anything except more of the same nonsense.

Yeah, ultimately most theologians seem to reach the same conclusion: God is logically impossible, therefore logic must not apply to God.

The fact that in ALL other discussions, the conclusion from 'X is logically impossible' is 'therefore X cannot exist' seems to elude them.

You can abandon logic; or you can abandon the idea of god(s); or you can not think too hard, and hope that if you don't look, it didn't happen.

But the fact remains that gods as described by all the major religions ever are not possible.

 

[Learner]

In one of his little essay, "Treatise on the Secret Providence of God", John Calvin posits the following situation. God cause all to happen. If a Christian traveller is set upon by thieves, is badly beaten and robbed of all he has, God caused this to happen. Providence, nothing happens except by God's design. But he adds, God is completely blameless despite this. When supposed serious theologians working on the assumption that the Bible is trustworthy revelation come up with crap like this, what can you do but give up on theology since theology leads to total abandonment of reason and logic in the end.

So if Joe Blogs gets introduced into the world by loving parents .They teach him to be a good boy but he gets influenced by the bad attractive things and gets swooped up into the company of evil men that rob other people. Is his parents to blame when he was taught otherwise?

You place a knife on the table. The knife is just an inanimate instrument but you placed it there. Several people could pick it up and use it for what ever use they see fit. If one picks the knife up and robs or stabs anyone , would you be the one blamed for him having this evil intention? People chose not to. For letting him have access to one is what you would be blamed for and not the evil intention.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Both Luther and Calvin, following Augustine, claim that we have no free will. Now the problem is how to square the existence of moral evil in a world God creates where we have no free will. Arminians and Catholics simply deny the Bible says what it clearly does in fact say. Both clearly oppose Pelagius who claims we have free will, and can freely earn our salvation. Islam has verses that indicate we have free will, and verse that clearly deny we have free will.

 

[Learner]

Both Luther and Calvin, following Augustine, claim that we have no free will. Now the problem is how to square the existence of moral evil in a world God creates where we have no free will. Arminians and Catholics simply deny the Bible says what it clearly does in fact say. Both clearly oppose Pelagius who claims we have free will, and can freely earn our salvation. Islam has verses that indicate we have free will, and verse that clearly deny we have free will.

I would agree with many of you who have mentioned on some threads they seem imo like philosophers always arguing with each other. Personally and no direspect to these gentlemen , I think they were perhaps OVER thinking in this regard. I don't know really at the moment.

I will read more on it later.
(doing few things at once).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, taking things to their logical conclusion isn't overthinking them, it's properly thinking about them. The existence of both a tri-omni God and free will leads to certain inevitable consequences which can only be ignored by ignoring the premises the argument is based on.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In one of his little essay, "Treatise on the Secret Providence of God", John Calvin posits the following situation. God cause all to happen. If a Christian traveller is set upon by thieves, is badly beaten and robbed of all he has, God caused this to happen. Providence, nothing happens except by God's design. But he adds, God is completely blameless despite this. When supposed serious theologians working on the assumption that the Bible is trustworthy revelation come up with crap like this, what can you do but give up on theology since theology leads to total abandonment of reason and logic in the end.

So if Joe Blogs gets introduced into the world by loving parents .They teach him to be a good boy but he gets influenced by the bad attractive things and gets swooped up into the company of evil men that rob other people. Is his parents to blame when he was taught otherwise?

Are his parents omniscient? Did they know exactly where their teaching would lead?

. For letting him have access to one is what you would be blamed for and not the evil intention.

Am i omniscient in this scenario of yours? Omnipotent?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also if, while raising the good boy, they also build a drug empire and have pushers on every corner and then send their kid out to play in the streets with wads of cash, then they do bear a great desk of responsibility for what happens since they set up the bad, attractive things he gets corrupted by. They would bear even more responsibility if they had the ability to see the future and knew what would happen and when and choose not to intervene and allow these negative events to happen to their child when they could have prevented it.

 

[DBT]

...Yahweh did not start out as the Creator of All Things...this idea developed over time

Genesis 1:1 wrote :
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Basically;
''The majority of the Old Testament is macho posturing. It is about one deity striving to demonstrate that he is greater than the other gods by bringing about the military defeat of the worshippers of other deities. It is a usurpation of the role of chief god among the pantheon of gods.
Of course, Israelite religion eventually moves from our god is greater than all gods (Exodus 18:11) to “they were no gods, but the work of human hands” (Isaiah 37:19).

But as Biblical scholars all know and as your pastor probably also knows, but won’t tell you, this was later development and that much of the Old Testament indicates throughout her history, Israel thought that the other gods were very real, and YHWH is jealous of them, like a husband is jealous of a very real other man.

Throughout the Biblical text YHWH seeks to demonstrate his superiority of the gods of the nation. YHWH sends plagues to Egypt because “on all of the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (Exodus 12:12). One does not judge things that don’t exist.

The Scripture writer than adds “I am the Lord” (12:12). This is not I am in charge—although that is the implication—but I am YHWH. I am YHWH is repeated over 150 times in the Old Testament as a way of boosting the particular deity who has triumphed.

However, the best piece of evidence of Israel polytheistic roots is probably found in Deuteronomy 32:

When the Most High apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;
the Lord’s (YHWH) own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share (Deut. 32:8-9). (NRSV)

''The word Most High here is not just another word for God, but El Elyon, the name of the chief God in Ugaritic pantheon. According to Canaanite mythology, he has supposedly fathered 70 sons.[1] This is historical background of this passage.

The Most High (El Elyon) is dividing up the peoples of the world among his sons and setting boundaries for each god. YHWH is one of the gods and Israel is his portion.
This text is such a blow to the Bible’s monotheistic pretensions that most Bible translations cover it up with a more palatable translation. The NIV and NASB translates elohim not as it should “gods” but as “sons of Israel.” The NKJV opts for the gender sensitive but still inaccurate “children of Israel.”

This might make theological sense but it does not make syntactic sense. Why would God set boundaries for other peoples according to the number of sons of Israel? This would also implies that there are only twelve nations.

Over time, Israel decides that it is not enough for YHWH to have Jacob as his portion. The other gods are ineffective and they have to go.''

 

[Learner]

Well, taking things to their logical conclusion isn't overthinking them, it's properly thinking about them. The existence of both a tri-omni God and free will leads to certain inevitable consequences which can only be ignored by ignoring the premises the argument is based on.

Fairpoint and not disptuting your post from an enquiring human perspective , outside religion. I was just wondering , that being that these fellows were "believers of God ", that they would create this premise with the belief that they knew the mind of God to make the determination.