120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

No, the way to "get to Heaven" is to believe in Christ.

As a requirement, what does that say about the nature and character of this God?

It says nothing about the "nature and character" of God that matters. If we can "get to Heaven" through Christ's power, that's all that matters, regardless whether "God" has an A or a B or a C nature or an x or a y or a z character.

 

[Atheos]

On the contrary. It says a great deal about the nature and character of a god who would engender a situation where individuals are created with souls capable of knowing torment who can be consigned to inescapable and incessant torment for eternity without possibility of relief, even if that only relief is oblivion.

It says a great deal about such a god if the only means of escaping that unending torment is to have the good taste to pick the right ridiculous story to believe and kiss that god's ass for all eternity, stroking its ego and praising its name. That tells me this god has some serious character issues.

It says a great deal about such a god if it had to play some sort of bizarre self-flagellating drama out, wherein it portrayed the part of a male human being for 30 years just so it could have itself sacrificed to itself, a blood sacrifice no less. It says a great deal about such a god if the only reason this absurd tale played out in the first place is because it just couldn't get over its own codependent issues about the fact that human beings it created specifically so they could act as free moral agents actually did act as free moral agents. If it were true that the souls it injected into these free moral agents, once created, could never know the release of oblivion, and that the vast majority of these souls would be tortured relentlessly for eternity, the very act of creating these free moral agents would itself be the single most monstrous and evil act imaginable. If this god created these souls anyway, knowing the vast majority would be destined for eternal damnation - scratch that - if this god created even one soul with that certain knowledge - then this god would be nothing less than an absolute monster, a self-centered prick who cares nothing about the infinite amount of suffering it engendered for no other purpose than so it wouldn't have to be alone.

There is very little about the christian god that isn't absolutely absurd when rational people aren't afraid to think about it. And even that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the question of how one would even know if this god really was being generous or if he had some other nefarious plan to torture those who were gullible enough to believe this absurd story.

 

[DBT]

As a requirement, what does that say about the nature and character of this God?

It says nothing about the "nature and character" of God that matters. If we can "get to Heaven" through Christ's power, that's all that matters, regardless whether "God" has an A or a B or a C nature or an x or a y or a z character.

No, compare it to the character of a parent who requires their children to believe something that cannot be proven, to accept the belief on faith, and if a child cannot meet this demand, the parent throws them into the cellar and tortures them for as long as they live.

What does this say about the nature and character of the parent?

 

[Atheos]

It says nothing about the "nature and character" of God that matters. If we can "get to Heaven" through Christ's power, that's all that matters, regardless whether "God" has an A or a B or a C nature or an x or a y or a z character.

No, compare it to the character of a parent who requires their children to believe something that cannot be proven, to accept the belief on faith, and if a child cannot meet this demand, the parent throws them into the cellar and tortures them for as long as they live.

What does this say about the nature and character of the parent?

That's a close analogy but the problem with it is that the thing could be proven if the parent were only willing to allow the kid access to the adequate, testable and reliable information necessary to make an informed choice, not one based on mere blind acceptance of anonymous and unsubstantiated testimony from people the kid has never even met. "Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess" is the threat written in the christian scriptures, so before us blackhearted infidels are sent to eternal damnation we're ostensibly going to be finally given the evidence that would have convinced us all along. And we're going to sing like canaries then, stoking the egos of those who were wise enough to buy in when it just looked like a big scam.

But like every scam that has ever been perpetrated by one human on another this, too, is a "limited time offer." No takebacks if you don't act right now while you don't have all the facts. Christianity is based on the same model as door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman tactics are.

 

[Barbarian]

As a requirement, what does that say about the nature and character of this God?

It says nothing about the "nature and character" of God that matters. If we can "get to Heaven" through Christ's power, that's all that matters, regardless whether "God" has an A or a B or a C nature or an x or a y or a z character.

Ah, the sound of Christian desperation. "You've seen nothing yet. I'll suck the cloaca of Lord Cthulhu Himself if it means I get to live forever in some acceptably comfortable state".

But even apart from that, it says a lot. It says that this god is human-invented. All the requirements allegedly posed by this god reek of compensation of psychological trauma, such as cannot be inflicted on an omnipotent, omnicreator being but that can be inflicted on primitive humans living in the hell that is other primitive humans and a barely understood universe. It cranks up to about 105% the probability of this god having been invented by humans haunted by their powerlessness.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As a requirement, what does that say about the nature and character of this God?

It says nothing about the "nature and character" of God that matters. If we can "get to Heaven" through Christ's power, that's all that matters, regardless whether "God" has an A or a B or a C nature or an x or a y or a z character.

I've got three kids. We paid for college for all three of them so they won't start life with a huge debt on their shoulders.
But what if i only sent one kid to college, the one who believes my story about killing a bear at scout camp 35 years ago? With nothing but a spatula and a bucket of bacon? There's no newspaper clippings about it. They don't know anyone who was there when i did it. I tell the story the exact way every single time, as if it was practiced, not remembered, though there are details i can't seem to remember like what year, or which scout troop i was there with... Anyway, if the choices are to profess belief in this crazy story, and get to college or else i do nothing to help them, so they borrow or they join the military, and you are saying that says nothing at all about my character?

That's a desperate case of blindness, there, Lumpy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If we can "get to Heaven" through Christ's power, that's all that matters, regardless whether "God" has an A or a B or a C nature or an x or a y or a z character.

Okay, so you're afraid of Hell. So afraid that you'll kiss the butt of anyone you think'll save you from Hell and grant eternal life.
That's fine.
But i can't bring myself to congratulate, emulate or respect the character of your God, because i find him reprehensible. Even the threat of Hell can't make me pretend 'That's a good thing you did there, Anthony." I have an excess of integrity.

So there's another reason to reject Christainity: My moral code is too good for it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So i spent a lot of the day thinking about this.
CAN i worship God simply for the hope of salvation? Ignore the genocides, the slaughter, the pointless rules?
And how can i decide?

Well, i took a look at the Lord's Prayer. I can't sign on with this.
I mean, really:

Our Father in heaven,

I can't argue with God being in Heaven. He made it, he can live there. But 'Father?' My dad, i've known him for 52 years. I know he exists, no doubt in my mind. And when Dad laid down the rules, it was directly to me. He didn't just disappear and hope that other children would tell me what he wanted. It's not like i had to depend on an older brother saying 'Dad's character doesn't matter. You just have to do your chores."

hallowed be your name.

Nimoy and Pratchett come to mind with names i revere. But that's because of things they've actually done. Results they've actually achieved, not things attributed to them for no good reason.

Your kingdom come,

Sure, fine, whatever. Although, i'd be happier if the promise was that all of 'Father's' children got to go to his Kingdom. Not just the chosen ones. I do know parents that have played favorites. None that put one kid through college and the other ten in the furnace, but the same sort of thing. When i was a believer, i felt that a true christain could not enjoy Heaven as long as one person was in Hell. Even if that person was Hitler. Or Vlad the Impaler. Anita Bryant....

your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.

No. A lot of the things that the Books says God has willed, i take exception to. I'd have stopped it if i could. I can't say it's a good thing to stop teasing children with she bears. I can't say i enjoy the idea of drowning every man woman child toddler baby fetus and blastocyst on the planet, save eight, one of them a sloppy drunk. His 'will' appears to be that most of 'Father's' children are going to burn in eternal torment. I oppose his will and cannot condone most of it.

Give us this day our daily bread,

Give a man a loaf, he'll loaf. Teach him to bake bread, he doesn't need you any more. I'd prefer that any gods that may exist just leave us the hell alone. Which for the most part, it seems that he's done. At no point has my daily bread come from mysterious sources. The supernatural doesn't seem to have been involved at all.

and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

I like that part. So many apologists say i should be thanking God for the very fact that i exist. But Jesus said that we should tell god we don't owe him shit.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Since i consider the god described in the Books as a heart-hardening asshat, he's the evil i want to be delivered from. I can agree with the sentiment, but i doubt i could keep a straight face while asking this skybuddy for the favor....

 

[James Brown]

A certain mustachioed man (ahem) approaches a young man and says, "You belong to a race that I abhor, for lots of reasons which you are too ignorant to understand. However, I am kind. So if you'll serve in my army in order to defeat the forces that are bent on preventing my quest for world domination and racial purity, then I won't arrest you, deport you to a holding camp, and work you into an early mass grave. So . . . do we have a deal?"

What does such a deal say about the character of the man in the mustache?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What does such a deal say about the character of the man in the mustache?

Nothing important, Lumpy argues, as long as you avoid the mass grave.
Further, if the young man ends up in a mass grave in a holding camp, it's the young man's fault, not the mustachioed man, because TMM fully explained the consequences of rejecting his offer, just like Moses and Pharaoh.

 

[atrib]

As a requirement, what does that say about the nature and character of this God?

It says nothing about the "nature and character" of God that matters. If we can "get to Heaven" through Christ's power, that's all that matters, regardless whether "God" has an A or a B or a C nature or an x or a y or a z character.

I disagree. The Bible alleges that Biblegod deliberately and with full knowledge condemns many billions of undying human souls he created to an eternity of unimaginable pain and torture in Hell, for the simple transgression of not believing in his existence. This speaks volumes of the nature of this god you claim to worship.

Second, the fact the you are ok with this arrangement (infinite torture for a finite human transgression) because you believe you are not of these condemned souls speaks volumes about your character and your humanity (or lack thereof).

 

[Atheos]

Another related thing to consider when following the thought experiments about the christian god's "character" is that most Christians would agree that there was at least some point at which god was all alone in all of existence. Otherwise it would be impossible to argue that god created everything (and everyone) else. At that time nobody had ever experienced starvation, disease, handicap, freezing, suffocation or predation. Nobody had ever been abused by someone else more powerful than themselves.

This god would have to purposefully conceive of all these methods by which suffering could be experienced as well as thousands of others I didn't bother enumerating. He would then purposefully design bodies capable of experiencing each of them. Since this god is ostensibly self-sustaining and doesn't require depleteable external sources of energy such as oxygen, nutrition acquired by killing and eating other forms of life, etc., this entire arrangement would have been crafted from scratch, producing an environment in which it was possible to suffocate or starve someone with the result that they experienced insane amounts of suffering. Such a simple design choice as making it so that all life forms absorbed all the energy they needed from ambient radiation would have eliminated an incredible amount of the gratuitous suffering that occurs throughout 3rd world countries every day where countless children endure starvation as a way of life.

Just that simple thought alone is enough to demonstrate that this christian god has shown his hand. He prefers to see a lot of suffering. As long as he's omniscient he'll forever be aware of the exquisite pleasure he gets from every tortured soul suffering an eternal hell without possibility of parole. And he'll have an equally endless supply of ass-kissing Christians singing the praises of what a swell guy he is lest he smite them as well.

 

[James Brown]

It says nothing about the "nature and character" of God that matters. If we can "get to Heaven" through Christ's power, that's all that matters, regardless whether "God" has an A or a B or a C nature or an x or a y or a z character.

I disagree. The Bible alleges that Biblegod deliberately and with full knowledge condemns many billions of undying human souls he created to an eternity of unimaginable pain and torture in Hell, for the simple transgression of not believing in his existence. This speaks volumes of the nature of this god you claim to worship.

Second, the fact the you are ok with this arrangement (infinite torture for a finite human transgression) because you believe you are not of these condemned souls speaks volumes about your character and your humanity (or lack thereof).

When I was a Christian, this fact was supposed to spur me to evangelism. How can I blithely go about my day when millions are going to Hell? One tool that our teachers used to motivate us to evangelize was some variation of "A Young Man's Letter From Hell." In essence, a lost person in Hell contacts his believing friend still alive and accuses, "Why didn't you tell me this was going to happen when we were together?" What excuse could the believer possibly give in explanation? "Because I didn't want you to think I was weird?"

Recently, I read a liberal Christian write about this witnessing method, and I found it to be quite illuminating:

The logic here is that I can incur guilt by failing to tell others how to be saved. Specifically, I incur the guilt of their suffering in Hell. I become complicit in the suffering of the damned.

That only makes sense if the eternal suffering of the damned is evil and unjust. One cannot incur guilt by being complicit in something that is good and just and desirable. The argument here, in other words, is that “Zack” and I, as Christians, have a duty to prevent God from doing evil to people like “Josh.”

Again, the emotional weight of this dramatic appeal tends to overshadow that logic, but the seed of that idea remains tucked away inside all such guilt-based appeals for evangelism. They all depend on — and thus, at some level, teach — the idea that any God who sentenced “Josh” et. al. to eternal, conscious torture would be an unjust, evil God. This is why many of the Christians who are saturated in these guilt-based appeals for evangelism eventually come to reject this idea of a cruelly unjust God — either by rejecting belief in God entirely or by learning to separate their idea of God from this sadistic folklore of Hell.

This is also why many of the Christians who are saturated in these guilt-based appeals for evangelism eventually come to embrace this idea of a cruelly unjust God. Thus, Calvinism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

all these methods by which suffering could be experienced as well as thousands of others I didn't bother enumerating.

No, no. Go ahead.





....slowly....

 

[funinspace]

Recently, I read a liberal Christian write about this witnessing method, and I found it to be quite illuminating:

The logic here is that I can incur guilt by failing to tell others how to be saved. Specifically, I incur the guilt of their suffering in Hell. I become complicit in the suffering of the damned.

That only makes sense if the eternal suffering of the damned is evil and unjust. One cannot incur guilt by being complicit in something that is good and just and desirable. The argument here, in other words, is that “Zack” and I, as Christians, have a duty to prevent God from doing evil to people like “Josh.”

Again, the emotional weight of this dramatic appeal tends to overshadow that logic, but the seed of that idea remains tucked away inside all such guilt-based appeals for evangelism. They all depend on — and thus, at some level, teach — the idea that any God who sentenced “Josh” et. al. to eternal, conscious torture would be an unjust, evil God. This is why many of the Christians who are saturated in these guilt-based appeals for evangelism eventually come to reject this idea of a cruelly unjust God — either by rejecting belief in God entirely or by learning to separate their idea of God from this sadistic folklore of Hell.

This is also why many of the Christians who are saturated in these guilt-based appeals for evangelism eventually come to embrace this idea of a cruelly unjust God. Thus, Calvinism.

I didn't know Calvinism is on a big upswing... Anywho, I think the solution for most moderate/liberal Christians to the whole eternal torment for the masses, is a re-write of the theology. One can find polls where 65-70% of Christians think hell is real. However, the problem becomes just what does each person think in detail about who ends up in, and what is this thing called "hell".

There are so many varieties of views. But I think one thing is clear, the large majority of Christians no longer believer in the notion of eternal torment of the masses. They might believe in a Hell that is only for the truly bad/evil; or a Hell that is just a true death (aka separation from God)

Here is a reference to some polling that asks better questions:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/colu...istians-really-believe-what-weve-preached.ece

And as it turns out, polls show we really don’t believe it. Not most of us, anyway. One recent survey found that 70 percent of Americans agree with the statement: “Many religions can lead to eternal life.”

Even 57 percent of evangelical Christians agreed with that statement.

Other polls confirm it. In a religion survey conducted by Baylor University, only 27 percent of Protestants said their faith was the only path to salvation.

So one can deduce from the above answers to these questions, that certainly no more than 30% of Christians even believe in the notion of eternal torment of the masses.

 

[James Brown]

So one can deduce from the above answers to these questions, that certainly no more than 30% of Christians even believe in the notion of eternal torment of the masses.

I'm comforted by the decrease of that percentage.

 

[Atheos]

I just think it's funny that the "TRUTH" of Christianity, founded upon an unchanging and eternal god is subject to popular vote as the Zeitgeist keeps moving.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If we believe in Christ we go to Heaven. It's not perfect, but it's our best shot.

How is a "belief" judged? Is it by 1) whether it's true or false / correct or incorrect, or 2) by whether it might be "harmful" in some way?

It is judged by both, obviously.

Wrong, it is judged by whether it is true, regardless if anything harmful might result from it.

If it is true and harmless, no one is going to care much, and some might join.

If it is true, it should be believed.

If it is not true, and harmless, no one is going to care much if they even notice.

If it is not true, it should be rejected, or not believed.

If it is true and not harmless, it would be best to believe it but not act on it.

The question is whether BELIEVING IT IS HARMFUL, i.e., would lead to a harmful result. And the answer is that it should be believed REGARDLESS whether this belief would lead to a harmful result.

If it is NOT true and NOT harmless, it needs to be stamped out.

For all the above the correct answer is that a belief has to be judged only on whether it is true. If a particular belief is true, you cannot judge it to be wrong because you think it would lead to some bad consequence. Whether it might lead to a harmful result is irrelevant. One might try to prevent the bad results, but not by suppressing that belief. You don't disprove the belief or argue against it by claiming it would lead to some bad result. Suppressing a true belief is always wrong, even if this belief would lead to a bad result.

And thus, even if you can show that some Christians did something bad, and even if this was caused by their belief, it does not disprove their Christian belief.

Just as evolution is not disproved by the fact that eugenicide was committed as a result of the eugenicist's belief in evolution, i.e., that evolution theory was a premise for performing the eugenics act.

Even if evolution theory should lead to net harmful consequences for society, it is still wrong to suppress it if it is the truth. "Truth" is not defined as that which must lead to good consequences. It should be believed no matter what consequences it would lead to.

Claiming that certain "Christians" or believers in Christ are bad people and did something wrong is NO "REASON to reject Christianity."

Interestingly, one of the reasons I find Christianity and the very veracity of a Jesus or god not believable is that it appears to do nothing to improve its followers.

But it does "improve" the believers, because they gain eternal life.

All you can say is that eternal life is a silly thing to want, or it's simply impossible and thus delusional, and so Christ should be rejected for offering such a thing. So you didn't "find" Christianity or Jesus not believable, in the sense of making some observation of "its followers" and seeing no apparent improvement in them.

And even if you did see some improvement in them, that wouldn't make Christianity or Jesus more believable. If someone converts to the cult of the Great White Pumpkin and has an improvement as a result, that would not make the Great White Pumpkin more believable.

So it would make sense to reject the Christ belief as false or delusional, assuming eternal life is impossible, but not because it doesn't "improve" people. Suppose Christ belief did make the believers better people, but at the same time does this by making a false promise of heaven to them, which somehow inspires them to become better. Would that change it into a true belief? No. It would still be just as false and delusional.

One's belief is not made true just because it might manipulate people into becoming better in some way.

So it makes no sense to condemn Christianity on the basis that it does not "improve" people. If what it teaches is false, then it has to be condemned regardless whether it improves anyone. But if it's true, then it should be believed and not condemned, regardless of any good or bad consequences from the belief.

One would think that a god bent on improving its children would be able to have some effect on them if they are believers.

No, not if "improving its children" isn't the purpose of that "god."

Does "improving" people have to be the purpose of everything? What is wrong with a belief system that only claims to offer eternal life to the believers?

But here you are arguing that believers are no more or less able to avoid harm than non-believers.

But they gain eternal life. So they are made better off. And the only question is whether it's true, not whether they were made morally superior or better citizens. Why should being made morally superior or better social animals be all that is important? Can't there be something more important in life than being made into a more productive citizen or a morally superior person?

So what’s the point in belief? Nothing.

Only if you claim that gaining a morally or socially superior status is all that matters or is the only "point" to anything.

True belief is actually a good in itself, whether it produces some social benefit or not. Suppose a scientist discovers something that has absolutely no social value, or no economic benefit. Still, isn't the increased knowledge a good thing in itself?

So the only real question is whether the belief is true, not whether it leads to "improving" someone or making them morally superior.

What’s the point in the rituals, the bible, the concepts?

Some people do want rituals, for symbolism, and maybe that's the only good of them. But one can believe in Christ without practicing rituals. There is no harm in the rituals for people who want them.

As to the Bible, it's for information, and any "concepts" are good if they're true, or helpful in truthseeking.

And one can make the Bible into a symbol, for its own sake, and also develop theologies which might contain some symbols that satisfy someone, or might even contain some truth. So there may be a "point" of some kind, but the most important "point" of all is to gain eternal life, and this overshadows all the other "points."

And if there is no eternal life, because it's delusional, then any other "point" is false or fraudulent, if a promise of Heaven or eternal life is part of it.

So the only question is whether it's true, not whether there is any other "point" or any "improving" of someone.

You seem to be saying, “zero point. People will be people and make the same bad judgments whether they believe or not. . . .

There are plenty of ways to try to get people to make good judgments. But not everything in life has to have this as its purpose. When you enjoy a good pizza, or when you listen to beautiful music, or when you enjoy a ball game, is the purpose of that activity to induce you to make better judgments? or avoid bad judgments? NO.

So some things people do are not done in order to inspire them to make better judgments. So, why should Christ belief have that as its purpose? Why can't Christ belief be true even though it doesn't change one's judgments or decisions?

Does believing in evolution necessarily lead to one making better judgments? Why should it have to? Isn't evolution true even if it does not change one's judgments or behavior? or even if it leads one to worse behavior?

Isn't the basic point of knowledge or learning or believing to put us in contact with the truth, regardless where that truth may lead us? whether to a good or bad decision? or to a good or bad result?

. . . Being Christian does not affect your behavior.”

Does everything that matters in life have to affect your behavior? Does everything important we do or think have to be something that leads to better behavior or better decisions?

In some cases an increased knowledge might lead us to some better future decisions, but not necessarily, and not always.

Why isn't it reasonable to hope for something as a possibility regardless whether this hoping improves your life or makes you a better person?

It is illogical to say: Your belief is untrue because it didn't cause you to behave differently. Why does everything you learn have to change your behavior? Do you have to prove that each item you learned made you behave better? and if not, then it really was not true what you learned? Really? That makes it false, that you can't identify an improvement in your behavior that resulted from what you learned?

Why? Why can't it be true what you learned, even if it didn't change your behavior? in fact, even if it changed your behavior for the worse!?

So, yeah, noticing that Christianity has no power to improve people actually is a reason to reject it as being not even true.

But no one has noticed such a thing. The believers gain eternal life, which IS an improvement. Just because you scoff at this doesn't mean that you are "noticing that Christianity has no power . . . " etc. Your contempt for their belief does not constitute "noticing that Christianity has no power . . . " etc. You do NOT notice this.

Probably what you're trying to say is that you find Christianity does not seem to make the believers morally superior, or morally equal to you, in their observable behavior, and you could be right. But maybe this is not the point of Christ belief.


And now for something completely different

I do want to bash Christianity -- because it is currently killing children.

No more than the certified MD who uses standard medical procedure and the child dies anyway. That doctor is "killing" children?

What? No. Much more than an MD who is trying but fails.

But that's what the alternative treatment is. It is also an effort which you condemn only because it fails. If it succeeded, you would not condemn it. Sometimes alternative treatments DO succeed rather than fail, i.e., the result that follows is a good result.

These people are rejecting and avoiding efforts to try.

Only efforts they believe will fail or even make the outcome worse. And sometimes the medical treatment or drug does lead to a worse result. This belief of theirs is not always false.

Standard medical treatments are routinely rejected every day. And usually no bad results follow. Every time you refuse to take a drug your doctor prescribed, you're rejecting a standard medical treatment. And obviously there are many cases where this was a good decision, and there are many cases where following the standard procedure made patients worse off rather than better off.

How can you consider that equal to trying but not succeeding?

Because in both cases the outcome is the same, the failure, and this is the only reason you ever condemn someone who refused standard medical treatment. If no bad result follows, then you don't condemn their decision. You condemn it only as a form of Monday-morning quarterbacking where you wait until after the result happens before condemning the decision.

Of course in a very few cases you could prove with evidence that the standard medical treatment would work, with high probability. But usually you cannot, and it is a judgment call whether to do this treatment or that. And a main reason the standard treatment is rejected is that it is so much more costly, in which case sometimes it's better not to try, despite the slightly higher percentage of a successful outcome.

But your dogmatic premise is that the standard medical treatment must ALWAYS be done no matter what, and if it's not and the patient dies, then the decision-maker is guilty of murder (if they were Christian or tried praying or meditating or other alternative).

That’s the very problem with Christianity, it instructs its followers to do stupid dangerous things on purpose.

It is no more stupid or dangerous than when the standard medical procedure is tried but fails. That failure by the doctor does not mean he was stupid or dangerous, and neither does the bad result, such as the death of the patient, mean that the decision not to treat the patient was stupid or dangerous.

Everyone is trying to save the patient. The patient, or his/her parents, are also trying to get the best result, not only the doctor. Sometimes their effort succeeds and sometimes it fails. Just because it fails does not mean they were stupid or dangerous, whether the standard treatment is what failed or the alternative treatment.

It is not true that everytime an alternative treatment is followed and fails that the decision was dangerous and stupid, while everytime the standard medical procedure is followed and fails it's just fine. You cannot wait until after the result is in and then make the judgment that it was dangerous and stupid, because the result turned out bad, and yet that's the only way you're making this moral condemnation of something that turned out not to succeed.

It’s not a passive thing here, it’s actively trying to prevent standard medical procedures.

No, it's wanting what's best for the patient and believing that the standard treatment will not work or will make it worse; or also that the standard treatment is too expensive.

Perhaps you are disturbed that in virtually all the other cases of miracle stories, prior to the invention of printing, the time difference between the actual alleged events and the reports of them is more than 100 years, and often several centuries, as in the case of Gautama.

There's one alleged miracle worker, the emperor Vespasian, for whom the miracle reports are contemporary. However, in this case the one being mythologized is someone who was deified and was famous BEFORE the reported miracle event(s) happened.

So in the very few cases where the event is close to the reports of it, the one reportedly doing the acts is already famous or has a long reputation going back over several decades and the miracle stories are added onto an already colorful career.

But in one case only this pattern is broken. The Christ miracles are reported only a few decades later, in documents (and we don't know how much earlier in oral reports), and the one being mythologized is an unknown (unless you rely on a few gospel reports which say his fame spread widely in the region, in which case you're relying on reports which give these miracle events as the reason for his fame).

So Jesus is the ONLY reputed case of a miracle worker who had no previous reputation to which miracle stories could be added and the written accounts of whom appear within only a few decades after the events.

You cannot deny the uniqueness of this one case. Can you explain it? Doesn't there have to be an explanation for this?

This is kind of cute. Let’s draw the line at what is believable, say, oh, where shall we draw the line? Oh! I know! Let’s draw it where it includes my miracle worker and not yours!

Give us your alternative example. YOU draw the line and identify your best example of a reputed miracle-worker for comparison.

See? Now look, my miracle worker passes my test, isn’t that magical!?

But who is YOUR miracle-worker alternative, and what is YOUR test?

What is wrong with a test that says there should be some source or document from the time that reports the event? and that there should be more than only one source?

Isn't virtually all history information derived from documents reporting the events? And don't we want some documents close to the time that the events happened? And isn't it better if there are more documents than only one? or two?

How are these only "MY" test or "MY" standards? You don't apply these standards? What is your information from history based on if not documents or reports near to the period when the events happened? And you don't prefer extra sources for unusual events like miracle acts? Why isn't this a good test, or standard?

We’ll say 4 and 6 decades is okay and 10 decades is not.

The closer the documents/reports are to the time of the events, the more credible they are as evidence for the events. Right? No? Why not?

Just for comparison, can't you admit that a miracle story like those of Apollonius, based on only one document from 120+ years later is less credible than those of Jesus which are reported 3 or 4 or 5 decades later in 4 separate documents? Isn't that a greater quantity of evidence for the Jesus miracles than the single source for the Apollonius legend which was written more than a century later? Isn't that a significant difference in credibility?

LOL. No, let’s draw the line at “no one who met him or witnessed his miracles wrote anything at the time of meeting him or witnessing miracles.”

I.e., no such witness wrote anything that has survived.

But based on that requirement, most historical facts would have to be eliminated from the record. Most of the events we know of are not in documents written by someone who witnessed those events. Why should we impose a standard that would eliminate most of what is now accepted as recognized historical fact?

Let’s draw the line at “zombies rose from their graves and no one was moved to make a note of that.”

That has nothing to do with whether Christ had power. That story can easily be rejected as dissimilar to all the other events in the accounts and as coming from only one source. Not every Christian believes that story literally. It's true that literalists still believe it, but they are very reluctant to talk about it. Even many who accept it nominally do not really take it seriously. When they're asked about it they try to find a way to change the subject.

You like to raise it for fun, because it's easy to laugh at it, but it is not to be taken seriously -- it is irrelevant to our topic, except that you can beat the literalists ove the head with it, if that gives you pleasure.

. . . in virtually all the other cases of miracle stories, prior to the invention of printing, the time difference between the actual alleged events and the reports of them is more than 100 years, and often several centuries, as in the case of Gautama.

There's one alleged miracle worker, the emperor Vespasian, for whom the miracle reports are contemporary. However, in this case the one being mythologized is someone who was deified and was famous BEFORE the reported miracle event(s) happened.

So in the very few cases where the event is close to the reports of it, the one reportedly doing the acts is already famous or has a long reputation going back over several decades and the miracle stories are added onto an already colorful career.

But in one case only this pattern is broken. The Christ miracles . . .

The only “pattern” that is broken is the one you devised to be a pattern. It’s not a pattern.

Yes it is a pattern. It is a common recurrence with miracle stories that the reported miracle event is separated by many decades or even centuries from the sources or the documents that report them. But there is the rare exception for someone who is extremely powerful or famous at the time, and due to their long career or widespread reputation they might have become mythologized even before their death.

Even for Vespasian the time gap between the reports and the event(s) is 60 years or so. But that is so much closer than the miracles of Horus or Osiris or Apollo or Asclepius, so it is different than those cases, and more credible. But we can easily dismiss it and explain it as a result of his widespread fame. A celebrity might in some cases become mythologized even during his life. Probably there was this claim that Vespasian cured someone, and it got reported by two historians, which makes it more believable.

There's also examples of faith-healers who had a widespread reputation, probably due to their charisma, and even during their life, after a long career, some miracle stories emerge that get reported or written and preserved. But this happens only after a long established career. And this doesn't rule out the possibility that such a faith-healer actually did have some power, probably psychological, to cause some apparent healing, or faster recovery of a patient. So he might have had a limited power to cause some healing.

So there is a pattern of the reports being separated by a long period from the actual events, and yet there are cases where this pattern might be broken, but still the established reputation of the alleged miracle-worker is necessary in order for the mythologizing to begin.

Vespasian is your best bet as a god because he was deified in his life! Why do you reject that break in the pattern?

By comparison to the miracles of the gods, like Horus or Apollo, or the miracles of Krishna, or of Gautama, Vespasian is clearly different, because the time span between the actual reputed events and the written reports, or the sources, is much less. Isn't there a difference between 1000 years and only 60 years?

So I think it's reasonable to find an explanation why Vespasian became a reputed miracle-worker so much sooner or closer to his life than the earlier pagan gods or deities, who are so far back in time, many centuries, that it's questionable that they were even real persons at all. (They might have originated as normal humans who had some power or influence or popularity and so became mythologized into legends.)

Huh? It’s a MUCH better source!

Better than what? We have both Tacitus and Suetonius who mention the alleged miracle(s) of Vespasian. Some 60 years later. The sources for the pagan myths might be just as credible except that they are so many centuries after the reputed events, and so they can't be taken seriously. Also, Vespasian is a particular person at a particular time and place, whereas the pagan gods are not clearly identified as to place and time.

Seriously, you have to admit that devising a “pattern” such that only your deity breaks it results in a pretty contorted “pattern” that is not particularly robust.

Not rrrobusst enough? OK, maybe I'll concede that point to you: Your patterns are more "robust" than mine.

Instead of defending myself against this vicious attack on my robustness, I'll just ask you to offer an example of a miracle-worker for whom you think the credibility, based on evidence and reasoning, is comparable to the case of the Christ person in the gospel accounts.

When we look at particular cases and make the comparison, we have a significant body of evidence for the Christ miracles which is far beyond that of any other example of a reputed miracle-worker in history.

The worst difficulty here is that in modern times you can bring up more sources as evidence, because of the widespread publishing and modern media outlets. And this makes it more difficult to measure the quanitity of the evidence and make comparison to the ancient examples when there was so little publishing by comparison. But except for this difficulty, and making allowance for this difference, it's quite clear that we have much greater evidence for the NT Christ example than for any other reputed miracle-worker.

This should prove to be the case no matter what your standard or test or pattern for judging and comparing the many different reported cases.

Probably a reason there are so few references is that Jesus was active publicly for less than 3 years, very likely even less than one year. Virtually all "famous" characters in history had to be doing something for a much longer time than this in order to gain a mention in mainline history documents.

LOL, and being the son of god did not provide him with any means to make his message more uniform, uncorruptable, durable and widespread.

We have to judge on the basis of what we actually have, or what sources actually exist, or what actually happened based on the existing evidence, not on what SHOULD exist or what SHOULD have happened.

Whether it's "god" or "the son of god" or whatever entity behind it, we can't demand that he SHOULD have done something different or that he should have had some better means to present his message or that his message should have been more uniform or durable and so on. We have no basis for making these judgments.

In a perfect universe where everything is done according to our demand, the Truth or the Salvation offered to us should be automatic and complete and Absolutely Infinite and Eternal without any doubt or flaw, with no condition attached to it or requirement of any kind upon us humans. No requirement that we acknowledge the "god" offering it to us or pay any attention to it in any way, or asking or hoping or praying for it or giving it any thought whatsoever. And there should be absolutely no suffering of any kind, from the very beginning -- even the concept of suffering should be non-existent.

So we know at the outset that something about it is not perfect or totally the way it "should" be, and so if we see a hope for eternal life, or salvation, escape from annihilation, we have to consider that possibility along with whatever conditions or limits or shortfalls that come with it. Inevitably there must be something in it that "should" not be, some imperfection in the way it is presented to us, because if there were none, we wouldn't have any need in the first place for any salvation.

No matter what, we can always demand -- "but why not this instead?" or "shouldn't it have been done this way, or that?" or "why not . . . " etc.

So any "Why not this?" argument is just a way of saying that there absolutely cannot be any answer whatever, or any salvation, or escape from annihilation, or any hope for something beyond.

Such a pity your god is no stronger than a man.

But Jesus Christ WAS stronger than a man. Just because there's a limited "means to make his message more uniform, uncorruptable, durable and widespread" etc., doesn't change the fact that he had super-human power. You can always demand more.

Again, you can just demand that he SAVE everyone automatically, without any condition of any kind. And it should happen IMMEDIATELY, for us all, total salvation, absolute total end to any suffering or deprivation of any kind, with every human wish fulfilled immediately, right now, no excuses!

And to anything less than this you can always complain: "Such a pity your god is no stronger" than this!

So surprising, too. You'd think a god would be better at this. Really. You'd really think a believable god would be better at this . . . If there were an actual god behind it. Not just men.

But the phrase "If there were an actual god behind it" is meaningless. How do you judge what "an actual god" would do or would be? You cannot pontificate why this or that suggested "god" falls short by comparing him to what "an actual god" would do, when your term "an actual god" makes no sense, and you cannot say what "an actual god" would be or would do.

It's better to think in terms of what IS, or what truth we actually have to work with. We have the reputed Christ miracle acts, demonstrating power. Did this power really exist, or does it exist? Was there some other entity that had more power? Who? Which one? What is the evidence? What are the sources? Is there a website that gives the information?

What are the written accounts about this power source alternative to the Christ power source? What were the acts of power that occurred? Someone saw some "gold plates"? They had a "vision"? Someone rose from the dead? Where? What is the information about it? Some inscribed pictures on a temple wall? How do they know the meaning of the pictures? Was someone present? Did someone see something?

In the case of Christ, we have answers and documentation near to the actual events, i.e., actual written accounts we can read, which describe what happened. For all the others we have vague meaningless claims about "parallels" to Christ and a few pictures on walls that someone claims to know the meaning of, and a few statues of ancient "deities" no one knows the origin of. And maybe some "gold plates" that sit there for people to gaze upon.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If we believe in Christ we go to Heaven. It's not perfect, but it's our best shot.

So, you spend a huge page of text insisting that we should not believe or disbelieve based on the consequences of a belief....but then your title says the opposite. Believe in Christ for the chance to get to heaven...a gambler's stance.
Not 'believe because there's decent evidence,' but 'believe because of the consequences.'

If you can't even get your own story straight, how can you possibly convince others?

 

[Keith&Co.]

In the case of Christ, we have answers and documentation near to the actual events,

Why do you even pretend to be evaluating evidence, Lumpy? You can't refer to an event as an 'actual event' if you're trying to prove that it was an actual event. If we're trying to decide if 'the documentation' can be trusted as an historical account, you give away your bias when you automatically assume that it reall happened and that you can be sure when the event happened, and when the accounts were written.
Most scholars give a range of years where the accounts might have been written, and you're clearly no scholar.

For all the others we have vague meaningless claims about "parallels" to Christ and a few pictures on walls that someone claims to know the meaning of, and a few statues of ancient "deities" no one knows the origin of. And maybe some "gold plates" that sit there for people to gaze upon.

What a bogus load of horse shit. You can't honestly lump the specific and detailed documentation for Joseph Smith's miracles in with 'vague and meaningless claims' or 'pictures on walls.' Well, YOU can. The rest of us, i guess, have too much integrity to be Christains of your flavor.