120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[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.

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 ", they created this premise with the belief that they knew the mind of God.

I think it was less that they felt that they knew the mind of God, but rather that they were attempting to understand the mind of God and fit the concept of God into a logical framework. If they believed in a tri-Omni God, then that belief results in certain consequences when that god interacts with the world. Rather than handwave those consequences away, they took them to the conclusions that they necessarily must reach. That created such things as the Calvinist belief that salvation is predetermined and there's really nothing anyone can do about it one way or another because God had already taken all the things we're all going to do into account before making his predetermination.

Some theists are satisfied with the answer "It's a mystery and we can't know the mind of God" and others are not. For those who are not, they are forced to take the next step and take what they know (or think they know) and see what they can piece together about it.

 

[Learner]

I think it was less that they felt that they knew the mind of God, but rather that they were attempting to understand the mind of God and fit the concept of God into a logical framework. If they believed in a tri-Omni God, then that belief results in certain consequences when that god interacts with the world. Rather than handwave those consequences away, they took them to the conclusions that they necessarily must reach. That created such things as the Calvinist belief that salvation is predetermined and there's really nothing anyone can do about it one way or another because God had already taken all the things we're all going to do into account before making his predetermination.

This is a good discription and better explanation of the "character" of Calvin . I think you're right in this regard. Regarding "freewill"The thought of predetermined destiny for individuals contradicts the need for Jesus as is the understanding of Christianity as I know it. Unless Calvin believes all sins and sins yet to come are paid for by Jesus or am I seeing it wrong (Calvins ideas)? I do have to brush up on Calvin to be honest.

Some theists are satisfied with the answer "It's a mystery and we can't know the mind of God" and others are not. For those who are not, they are forced to take the next step and take what they know (or think they know) and see what they can piece together about it.

No disagreement here , I did as an agnostic.

 

[Learner]

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

Yes.. where they would lead ..if they keep yelling "don't get into trouble of else you get....".

Am i omniscient in this scenario of yours? Omnipotent?

Maybe either way you'll get blamed for something.

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.

Responsibility yes indeed , like God is blamed for everything too. You could be fairly strict parents as God became even more strict after every promise broken by man. You could imo intervene in every aspect of the childs life to the point the child is smothered and starts to reject you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes.. where they would lead ..if they keep yelling "don't get into trouble of else you get....".

Well, if I'm omniscient, and I know the consequences of what I teach and what I don't teach the kid, then, yes, however he turns out is the direct result of my teaching.
So I'd be to blame.

Am i omniscient in this scenario of yours? Omnipotent?

Maybe either way you'll get blamed for something.

Well, that's what I'm asking. You're defending a tri-Omni god based on comparing him to non-Omni parents.
But now you're saying that no matter what, I'll get blamed? Okay. Then I'm to blame.
And if I'm to blame, then god's to blame, too. Because that's the analogy you're offering, here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is a good discription and better explanation of the "character" of Calvin . I think you're right in this regard. Regarding "freewill"The thought of predetermined destiny for individuals contradicts the need for Jesus as is the understanding of Christianity as I know it. Unless Calvin believes all sins and sins yet to come are paid for by Jesus or am I seeing it wrong (Calvins ideas)? I do have to brush up on Calvin to be honest.

Right. That's actually the entire point that people are making. The Christian philosophy contains two incompatible premises. Either God is not tri-Omni or there is no need for Jesus. If God is omniscient, he knew at the moment of creation exactly which ones of us would make it into Heaven and which ones wouldn't and nobody can alter that either way because all of the actions we're going to take and all of the decisions we're going to make were included in his original determination. If he did not know that and we have the freewill to make choices which lead to outcomes that he was previously unaware of, then he is not omniscient. He may be really, really smart, but there is a finite limit to what he can know and he is not an omniscient being.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Responsibility yes indeed , like God is blamed for everything too. You could be fairly strict parents as God became even more strict after every promise broken by man. You could imo intervene in every aspect of the childs life to the point the child is smothered and starts to reject you.

Well, that's taking the point to an illogical extreme.

Say that you have a device which allows you to see the future. While using this device, you see that when your son goes out with his friends tonight, he is going to get into a bar fight over some stupid issue. He will lose this fight but that loss will lead him to learning a valuable lesson about mature and responsible behaviour and despite the momentary pain of the beating, his life will be improved as a result of learning this lesson. Would you intervene in this situation and stop him from getting into this fight? I personally would not and would let the situation play out as I've seen it since the pros outweigh the cons.

Alternatively, you use this device and see that when your son goes out with his friends tonight, he is going to get into a bar fight over some stupid issue and the guy whom he's fighting with is going to pull out a knife and stab your son in the throat, killing him. Would you intervene in that situation? I most certainly would.

The fact that I would use my future-seeing powers to intervene in a situation to prevent my son's death does not therefore mean that I would also be intervening to have him avoid negative experiences altogether, since I know that those experiences are a necessary part of life. There is a point, however, where the pros of intervention outweigh the cons and I would act in those situations. I don't need to smother my child and stop him from getting every paper cut in order to feel OK about stopping him from losing his legs in a car accident.

It's the same with God. He can stop people from raping and murdering children while figuring that it's their own damn business if they want to vote for Donald Trump (or the other way around, depending on which you feel is the worse crime). He can draw a line of where actions are unacceptable and leave us be if we're on one side of the line and stick his nose into our lives if we're on the other side of it.

 

[Learner]

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).

In part this is true but this polytheist acceptance was more in relation to when they reached Palestine then settled with other people such as the Samaritans It is well known to Christians the Israelites adopted the canaanite and pheonician deities. It says so in the bible different from how you are describing.

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.

Parents can be jealous when their children pay more attention to other parents with their continuely saying "how their friends parents are cool and have a swimming pool and Mecedes spending more time at their friends homes".
I don't see anything contradicting with jealous God . Times of war have songs and poetry. The greatest warrior is God. This is glorification after being victorious!

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)

There is a problem here and with some of the newer versions. Both the King James and the Septuagint regarded as being closer to the original text written by Greek Jews of the time. It is clearly seen here that there is only one God and his angels, where as, 'people' are in the King James version and not the other (lesser) gods.

For Christians it is wise to study any verses making no utter sense or having contradictions to check the Septuagint for some of the issues at least. It is confusing but there is no doubt to Christians researching deeply believe that the Pharisees have been at play here at the beginning to discredit Christianity. Example of "biased editing" excluding the Maccabees (Descended from the priesthood) from the Torah.

Septuagint
Deut:32:8

When the Most High divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he set the bounds of the nations
according to the number of the angels of God.

32:9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord,
Israel was the line of his inheritance.

King James
Deut:32:8
8When the most High divided to the nations
their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam,
he set the bounds of the people according to
the number of the children of Israel.

9For the LORD'S portion is his people;
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance

This also applies to the rest of your post.

The debunking is flawed!

 

[Learner]

Maybe either way you'll get blamed for something. Well, that's what I'm asking. You're defending a tri-Omni god based on comparing him to non-Omni parents.
But now you're saying that no matter what, I'll get blamed? Okay. Then I'm to blame.
And if I'm to blame, then god's to blame, too. Because that's the analogy you're offering, here.

Ah ok.. I have no analogy to compare with tri-omni God in this respect.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ah ok.. I have no analogy to compare with tri-omni God in this respect.

A few years back, it was kind of like a game.
People would complain about some acts ascribed to one of the gods, the apologists would compare god to a father or mother, the critics would carry that to the logical conclusion ("Yes, and if I threw disobedient children into the boiler, they'd consider me an evil dad!"), then the apologists would insist 'You cannot compare god to a parent!'

Like a game of keep-away. I always wondered how they would score that...

 

[Learner]

I think I may have done that here once or twice ..I hope not to again.

 

[DBT]

In part this is true but this polytheist acceptance was more in relation to when they reached Palestine then settled with other people such as the Samaritans It is well known to Christians the Israelites adopted the canaanite and pheonician deities. It says so in the bible different from how you are describing.

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.

Parents can be jealous when their children pay more attention to other parents with their continuely saying "how their friends parents are cool and have a swimming pool and Mecedes spending more time at their friends homes".
I don't see anything contradicting with jealous God . Times of war have songs and poetry. The greatest warrior is God. This is glorification after being victorious!

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)

There is a problem here and with some of the newer versions. Both the King James and the Septuagint regarded as being closer to the original text written by Greek Jews of the time. It is clearly seen here that there is only one God and his angels, where as, 'people' are in the King James version and not the other (lesser) gods.

For Christians it is wise to study any verses making no utter sense or having contradictions to check the Septuagint for some of the issues at least. It is confusing but there is no doubt to Christians researching deeply believe that the Pharisees have been at play here at the beginning to discredit Christianity. Example of "biased editing" excluding the Maccabees (Descended from the priesthood) from the Torah.

Septuagint
Deut:32:8

When the Most High divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he set the bounds of the nations
according to the number of the angels of God.

32:9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord,
Israel was the line of his inheritance.

King James
Deut:32:8
8When the most High divided to the nations
their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam,
he set the bounds of the people according to
the number of the children of Israel.

9For the LORD'S portion is his people;
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance

This also applies to the rest of your post.

The debunking is flawed!

That the ancients believed that many gods existed is quite clear. That the Israelite's believed that their god was one of many in the early stages of their history is quite clear, as is the evolution of their tribal god into a universal creator over time.

That is made clear in the overall portrayal of Yahweh as a war god in early OT times, which by new testament times was morphed into the God of Jesus, a 'God of Love'

It's not only the quoted verses relating to a war god, or the son of El, but the overall picture of an evolving god. Not that 'god' evolved, but the beliefs of his believers evolved and changed.

 

[funinspace]

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.

Parents can be jealous when their children pay more attention to other parents with their continuely saying "how their friends parents are cool and have a swimming pool and Mecedes spending more time at their friends homes".
I don't see anything contradicting with jealous God . Times of war have songs and poetry. The greatest warrior is God. This is glorification after being victorious!

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)

There is a problem here and with some of the newer versions. Both the King James and the Septuagint regarded as being closer to the original text written by Greek Jews of the time. It is clearly seen here that there is only one God and his angels, where as, 'people' are in the King James version and not the other (lesser) gods.

For Christians it is wise to study any verses making no utter sense or having contradictions to check the Septuagint for some of the issues at least. It is confusing but there is no doubt to Christians researching deeply believe that the Pharisees have been at play here at the beginning to discredit Christianity. Example of "biased editing" excluding the Maccabees (Descended from the priesthood) from the Torah.

Septuagint
Deut:32:8

When the Most High divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he set the bounds of the nations
according to the number of the angels of God.

32:9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord,
Israel was the line of his inheritance.

King James
Deut:32:8
8When the most High divided to the nations
their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam,
he set the bounds of the people according to
the number of the children of Israel.

9For the LORD'S portion is his people;
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance

I think at best one could posit that Deut 32:8 is highly debated. However, I would like to first remove the King James version from the discusion as it is most certianly the worst of the worst tranlations on most all accounts unless one is a fringe fundamentalist. Also, the KJV adds nothing to the discussion as, it would be more reasonable to disucss the Septuagint (LXX), the Masoretic Text (MT), and Qumran manuscripts. It would also be inaccurate to reference the LXX monolithically.

The LXX most certainly doesn’t singularly support the translation of “number of the angels of God”. The below PDF is a quite detailed analysis of these verses. I quoted the summarizing points, but the footnotes show why this theologian argues that the LXX more likely supports “sons of God” translation. One other interesting point that is brought up in the PDF, is that when Deuteronomy was written “Israel” did not exist, so it is a rather odd choice of words. Anyway, I’ll have to read the full document later as it is interesting.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

Controversy over the text of this verse concerns the last phrase, “according to the number of the sons of Israel,” which reflects the reading of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (hereafter, MT), l) <untranslated language>. The MT reading is also reflected in several later revisions of the Septuagint (hereafter, LXX): a manuscript of Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex X), and Theodotion.2 Most witnesses to the LXX in verse 8, however, read < untranslated language >, which is interpretive.3 Several also read <untranslated language>.4 Both of these Greek renderings presuppose a Hebrew text of either Myhl) <untranslated language> or < untranslated language> ynb. These Hebrew phrases underlying < untranslated language > and < untranslated language > are attested in two manuscripts from Qumran,5 and by one (conflated) manuscript of Aquila.6

<snip>
Conclusion

The chief purpose of this article was to respond to the concern that accepting the LXX and Qumran evidence for the "sons of God" reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 requires seeing Israelite religion as polytheistic. In an effort to demonstrate that this conclusion is unfounded, two assertions were offered and defended: (1) the textual evidence favors the "sons of God" reading, particularly when common misunderstandings of text-critical history and methodology utilized to favor MT are corrected; and (2) the concept of the divine council, common to ancient semitic religion, is contained in the Hebrew Bible and constitutes the theological backdrop for Deuteronomy 32:8-9. In light of the evidence, there exists no textual or theological justification for preferring the MT reading. Deuteronomy 32:8 should read "sons of God," not "sons of Israel."

About the author referenced in the PDF above:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...nt-in-the-Transmission-of-the-Scriptures.aspx

Michael S. Heiser earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Language at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He does translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, among them Biblical Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ugaritic, cuneiform, and has also studied Akkadian and Sumerian. He is the Academic Editor of Logos Bible Software.

 

[Learner]

Good reply funinspace (likewise DBT) ,

Will go through those writings with interest. I remember Heisers problem with Sitchins annunaki Summerian translation, erm ..I...er..almost believed it plausible once.
Will respond.

 

[Lion IRC]

....The Christian philosophy contains two incompatible premises. Either God is not tri-Omni or there is no need for Jesus.

Why is (your idea of) omniscience incompatible with the existence of Jesus?
Jesus' existence isn't contingent or dependent on some perceived 'need' for Him to exist.
This is a strange idea you have that somehow Jesus shouldn't exist unless there is a 'need'.
Do you need to exist?

....If God is omniscient, he knew at the moment of creation exactly which ones of us would make it into Heaven and which ones wouldn't

I think omniscience means the ability to know not the compulsion to know.
Omniscience is just a sub-set of omnipotence - the ability to do whatever He wants.
And one thing God can do is create beings with true free will.
Do you think God could enjoy watching a movie wilfully ignorant of how it ends because He doesn't like spoilers?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why is (your idea of) omniscience incompatible with the existence of Jesus?
Jesus' existence isn't contingent or dependent on some perceived 'need' for Him to exist.
This is a strange idea you have that somehow Jesus shouldn't exist unless there is a 'need'.
Do you need to exist?

....If God is omniscient, he knew at the moment of creation exactly which ones of us would make it into Heaven and which ones wouldn't

I think omniscience means the ability to know not the compulsion to know.
Omniscience is just a sub-set of omnipotence - the ability to do whatever He wants.
And one thing God can do is create beings with true free will.
Do you think God could enjoy watching a movie wilfully ignorant of how it ends because He doesn't like spoilers?

No, omniscience means that he knows everything - full stop. It doesn't mean that he has the potential to know everything, it means he actually knows it. His knowledge is infinite, not some subset of infinite that he can increase towards infinity.

If you're talking about a god who doesn't know everything, then you're just solving the incompatibility by removing omniscience and turning the tri-Omni god into a bi-Omni god. That's no different than solving the issue by saying that we don't have any free will - it's dealing with the incompatibility by removing one of the premises which makes them incompatible.

An omniscient being knows all the spoilers for everything that is and everything that ever will be. That's what omniscience is.

Edit - Oh, and yes, omnipotence and omniscience are logically incompatible too, but that's a whole separate discussion.

 

[Lion IRC]

...I do have to brush up on Calvin to be honest.

Calvin's doctrine of predestination/soteriology and God's foreknowledge collapses, in my opinion, when you realise that election is meaningless if not one single Calvinist can tell you whether or not they are one of the elect. They don't know!

It's like saying God knows who are the elect and who are the damned but He is keeping it a secret because......?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...I do have to brush up on Calvin to be honest.

Calvin's doctrine of predestination/soteriology and God's foreknowledge collapses, in my opinion, when you realise that election is meaningless if not one single Calvinist can tell you whether or not they are one of the elect. They don't know!

It's like saying God knows who are the elect and who are the damned but He is keeping it a secret because......?

Because the concept of God makes absolutely no sense on so many levels that you run into nonsense statements about him on a regular basis?

I'm assuming that my answer to your question is different than your answer to your question.

 

[Learner]

Calvin's doctrine of predestination/soteriology and God's foreknowledge collapses, in my opinion, when you realise that election is meaningless if not one single Calvinist can tell you whether or not they are one of the elect. They don't know!

It's like saying God knows who are the elect and who are the damned but He is keeping it a secret because......?

Thats ok Lion , I'm of the same notion as with you. I was curious as to how much influence he had for Christians around him or Christians today for that matter.

 

[funinspace]

Good reply funinspace (likewise DBT) ,

Will go through those writings with interest. I remember Heisers problem with Sitchins annunaki Summerian translation, erm ..I...er..almost believed it plausible once.
Will respond.

LOL...Heisner has intersected with Stichin's writings...what a crack up. I read the 12th Planet, as I accidentally picked it up as what I thought was some oddball SciFi book, in a used book store when I traveled for work too much back in the 90's. Wow, was it odd....

 

[Lion IRC]

...No, omniscience means that he knows everything - full stop.

Nope. God Himself has spontaneous free will.

... It doesn't mean that he has the potential to know everything, it means he actually knows it.

That's your opinion. I don't agree.
I think God can of His own free will do something completely novel - never done or thought of before.
Who other than an omnipotent being, with nothing to fear, can afford to not worry about what might happen next?

...His knowledge is infinite, not some subset of infinite that he can increase towards infinity.

There is no compulsion on God to 'know' in the present moment, everything about the past and the future. Anything He wants to know He can instantly know at will. So why must He know in advance whether I will freely choose to obey Him? God can observe my free actions as they happen.

...
If you're talking about a god who doesn't know everything, then you're just solving the incompatibility by removing omniscience and turning the tri-Omni god into a bi-Omni god.

Nope. It's the exact opposite. I'm arguing for an even MORE powerful maximally great being than the one you posit.
Your idea of God compels Him to act a certain way.
Your idea of God 'programs' Him into something like computer program which cannot ever go off script by doing something spontaneous, unprogrammed or unforeseen.
My God is totally free and unlimited to do something He had never thought of before.
My God could write a completely new symphony.
Your 'god' couldn't because your 'god' has already thought of it and so cannot 'create' it.

...An omniscient being knows all the spoilers for everything that is and everything that ever will be. That's what omniscience is.

Nope. You can keep asserting your opinion and I will keep asserting mine over and over if you like.

... Edit - Oh, and yes, omnipotence and omniscience are logically incompatible too, but that's a whole separate discussion.

You cannot know everything unless you are omnipotent.
If we both get asked a trivia question and I can answer it faster than you which one of us has the better ability to answer trivia questions?

Your theory of knowledge seems a little shallow and one-dimensional because it simply asserts that God 'knows' stuff.
I think you need to consider how knowledge is used.
When and if God wants to access information He is ABLE to do so.