120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

Religions are "societal road maps" that tells one how to interact with a specific sub-set of the populace. If you want to interact with Christians in their society you will need to study the christian religion.

But as i'm not a xian, i'm not particularly interested in interacting with xians in xian society. The problem comes in when they try to force me to act as if i'm in a xian society. Of what use is understanding xianity in interacting with xians and members of other faiths and those of no faiths in our common, shared society?

Societies are like groups of people who share the same religious or lack thereof of religious beliefs.

Kind of a sweeping statement. Is that supposed to apply to all forms of society?

Just as our society was founded on Judea-Christian principles derived from the bible ...............

To which society are you referring, here?

Most religions claim one god whether it be the christian "God" that comprises the father, the sun, and the holy ghost or Islamism's "Allah / Mohammad "

One God? The reason the muslims reject Christainity is that the central three gods violate their understanding of monotheism.

When the christian shouts there is only one true god there is a muslim somewhere saying the same thing about Allah.

Which, according to you, are two different societies, right?

So we don't need to prove them for them to teach you how to act socially acceptable in your peer system.

Incorrect. If two different societies have opposing moral values, then they cannot both be right, they cannot be equally socially acceptable for the operation of society.
You at least need to establish which one is superior for the use by the society we live in, else we just excise all religious influences as being a contradictory muddle of useless opinion and outrageous claims without any form of support.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

xian
[Chinese shyahn]

noun
1.
hsien.
Xian
[shee-ahn]
noun, Pinyin.
1.
a city in and the capital of Shaanxi province, in central China: capital of the ancient Chinese Empire.

Yep applies to all forms of soiciety.

The first American society, before there was such a split in sub groups.

They were all escaping religious persecution and unfair laws.

No one asked why muslims reject christianiyt, what did that have to do with my statement??

Who said there were only 2?? I think you made that statement and are trying to attribute it to me .................

Yes they are different societies, surely you would not try to claim the american christian society is the same as the muslim society or the catholic society.

Once again go back and look at my original assertion that religions are societal road maps that tell one how to interact with a specific sub set of the populace.

You act as the whole world is comprised of one society .......................

You must see a flaw in your own thought process ??

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yep applies to all forms of soiciety.

So you really ARE saying that it's only a society if they share their religious beliefs. Thus if there's a schism, say the difference between pre and post millennialism, that would create two distinct societies.

The first American society, before there was such a split in sub groups.

They were all escaping religious persecution and unfair laws.

Except for those groups who emigrated because the laws were not unfair enough to suit them... But a commonality in wanting to leave English Law is not exactly a religious belief that's shared, now, is it?

No one asked why muslims reject christianiyt, what did that have to do with my statement??

You say that most religions only have one god. But christainity has three. This would be why the muslims reject the paganism of christain belief. So either Christainity isn't part of 'most' religions or your statement about 'most' religions is incomplete.

Who said there were only 2?? I think you made that statement and are trying to attribute it to me .................

I didn't say 'only' two. Are you having problems seeing the screen? I was saying that your definition makes muslim and Christain to be two discrete societies. Even if they share a government and have the same laws and rights and watch the same TV shows... So I think you definition of 'society' isn't terribly useful or accurate.

Yes they are different societies, surely you would not try to claim the american christian society is the same as the muslim society or the catholic society.

Actually, I would say that the same group of people voting for our next president belong to one society, yes. The military recruits from those groups, the taxes of those groups are collected together, they use a common form of money... Your definition of 'society' is limited and unreal. And odd that you don't consider there to be any American muslims or American catholics....

Once again go back and look at my original assertion that religions are societal road maps that tell one how to interact with a specific sub set of the populace.

But rereading your assertion doesn't help me with my actual question.

You act as the whole world is comprised of one society .......................

Who the hell taught you grammar????????????????????????????????

You must see a flaw in your own thought process ??

I think you're using 'society' in a unique way. And ignoring all the things these difference religious groups do or have in common. Thus you're acting as if there is no overlap in society, and religious borders are inviolate.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

When I made the statement about one true God, I am not sure if you just have comprehension problems or if I failed to properly state my point.

In religions God represent figure heads, they both set rules and punishment's / rewards.

God's also are a mental pacifier, they give an individual something to believe in when they hit a point in which they themselves can do no more.

When one has no hope then life is miserable and one tends to wither away.

Gods give that "greater than ones self" pathway for those who believe in religion / God.

When a Christina claims there is on "true God" they are talking about the trinity.

When a Muslim claims there is one "true God" they are talking about Allah.

From each one's perspective there is only one "true God", while not the same entity, the purpose concept is the same.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

so·ci·e·ty
səˈsīədē/
noun
noun: society

1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the population; More
civilization, humankind, mankind, humanity
"a danger to society"
the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.
plural noun: societies
"the high incidence of violence in American society"
synonyms: culture, community, civilization, nation, population
"an industrial society"
a specified section of a community.
"no one in polite society uttered the word"
the aggregate of people who are fashionable, wealthy, and influential, regarded as forming a distinct group in a community.
noun: high society; plural noun: high societies
"a society wedding"
synonyms: high society, polite society, the upper classes, the elite, the smart set, the beautiful people, the beau monde, the haut monde; More
informalthe upper crust, the top drawer
"Sir Paul will help you enter society"
a plant or animal community.
2.
an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.
"the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals"
synonyms: association, club, group, circle, fellowship, guild, lodge, fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, sorority, league, union, alliance
"a local history society"

 

[Keith&Co.]

When I made the statement about one true God, I am not sure if you just have comprehension problems or if I failed to properly state my point.

Let's try going with the fact that I don't share your starting assumptions, see where that takes us.

In religions God represent figure heads, they both set rules and punishment's / rewards.

No. They don't set anything. People claiming to speak for the gods set up rules and promise rewards and punishments.

God's

Where did you learn grammar?

also are a mental pacifier, they give an individual something to believe in when they hit a point in which they themselves can do no more.

The same can be said for many activist organizations. But if I don't feel a need for a pacifier, whether of divine origin or merely the choice not to eat the flesh of a fellow creature, that lack does not divorce me from society.

When one has no hope then life is miserable and one tends to wither away.

Okay. So you're saying if one has hope, they don't need a god?

Gods give that "greater than ones self" pathway for those who believe in religion / God.

All this has little to do with the questions you never got around to asking.
Nor does it help define what you mean to indicate by separating American Christain from American Catholic or American Muslim societies.

When a Christina claims there is on "true God" they are talking about the trinity.

Yes. And many view the triple god as similar to the triple goddess, and pagan in nature, a failure of the claim to be monotheist.

When a Muslim claims there is one "true God" they are talking about Allah.

Yes, they are. And they can count from one to three and determine which is the monotheistic religion.

From each one's perspective there is only one "true God", while not the same entity, the purpose concept is the same.

But one of those perspectives is in desperate denial, claiming 1+1+1=1.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Once again above your conceptual assessment of one God, the father, the son and the holly ghost.

For simple people like you, who have problems with conceptuality of the trinity, I generally tell people it would be akin to Sybil or any other well known multiple personlality.

Once again you are trying to put physical traits to a conceptuality of God.

The point of being only a figure head seems to be way above your pay grade.

While you keep making allusions to Allah being any more realistic than the Christian God seems to be a childish stumbling block your mind which appears incapable of comprehending.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

By the way, grammer nazis have no argument and use ad hominems to appear to make them look more intelligent.

 

[Atheos]

Seems to me like Keith has made raised some good points that need to be addressed rather than resorting to ad hominem and suggesting that he's too stupid to understand the concept of what a figure head is. Keith seems pretty sharp from what I've seen over several years of watching him post. Your 9th post is little more than an ad hominem and your 10th post is little more than casting judgment on those who commit ad hominem. Sounding a bit hypocritical at this point.

Nonetheless, you still haven't actually asked the aforementioned "couple of questions" you promised in your initial post in this thread. You have made some assertions which have been challenged. I'd be interested in hearing the questions and seeing how you defend your assertions against those who have challenged them so far.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Once again above your conceptual assessment of one God, the father, the son and the holly ghost.

For simple people like you, who have problems with conceptuality of the trinity, I generally tell people it would be akin to Sybil or any other well known multiple personlality.

Did I say that I have a problem with the concept? I'm fine with the triple god and the triple goddess concepts. The Virgin/Mother/Crone is a great analogy for the father/son/ghost. 'Sybil' is not such a good analogy, because her multiple personalities are more of a mental illness of a single person. You don't really want to imply that your preferred deity is suffering from a human malady, do you?

Once again you are trying to put physical traits to a conceptuality of God.

I have no idea what this claim is in response to and cannot reply to it.

The point of being only a figure head seems to be way above your pay grade.

Not at all. The gods are not real, that's fine. But you confuse figureheads, which are placeholders, with statements of the gods actually performing tasks, which is counter to your premise.

While you keep making allusions to Allah being any more realistic than the Christian God seems to be a childish stumbling block your mind which appears incapable of comprehending.

Have I said that Allah is more real than Jehovah? Quite insupportable. You misread, possibly intentionally.

I only state that the worship of Allah has a better claim to being a monotheist religion. Whether or not he is real or the Christain troika is real, that's a separate issue.

 

[Keith&Co.]

By the way, grammer nazis have no argument and use ad hominems to appear to make them look more intelligent.

Please identify any ad hominem argument used in my posts, if you can?

And, no, grammar exists, words have meaning, if you're intending to convey an idea, the idea you're intending must be identifiable. When you capitalize 'god' that means something different than gods in general. An apostrophe in 'God's' means something different than attempting to make a plural. If you cannot use the language to convey just what the fuck it is you're trying to say, then there's no communication.

Do you want us to use telepathy to guess what it is you're TRYING to say, and rewrite your posts to match our expectations and reply to those? We could, but it'll take a lot of time spent with accusations and counter-accusations of 'I never said that' and 'you certainly appeared to said that, you did.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, DrDoomNGloom, do you think the holly ghost is the ghost of the man who was hung on the Yule Log before they cut it down, or do you use holly for mistletoe in a Xmas decoration?

 

[dystopian]

The first American society, before there was such a split in sub groups.

They were all escaping religious persecution and unfair laws.

Actually this is simply not true. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite. It's remarkable how much cultural value Americans ascribe to the pilgrims, while knowing so very little about them. Most Americans don't seem to know that fully half of the pilgrims spent years living in the Dutch Republic where they not only had all the religious freedom they could want, they were even *given* land to farm. We know from their personal correspondence that those of them that settled in the Dutch republic weren't concerned with not having enough freedom... they were concerned with having *too* much. They feared that the Republic's freedoms were corrupting their youth, and were worried that their youth were becoming more Dutch than English.

But of course, actual history is rarely a good basis to build a national myth on. The idea of America as the land of freedom, with bold pioneers fleeing persecution in the old world is a powerful idea... but an inaccurate one.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Almost right, but try researching before posting .......... sure that wasn't a group that went to Holland??

http://www.crosswalk.com/special-coverage/thanksgiving/why-the-pilgrims-really-came-to-america.html

Why the Pilgrims Really Came to America

Angie Mosteller CelebratingHolidays.com
2013 21 Nov

Why the Pilgrims Really Came to America

To better understand why the Pilgrims left England to come to America, it may be helpful to briefly review the religious landscape of the time. In 1534, England broke ties with the Roman Catholic Church. Despite the fact that the separation was tied to Henry VIII’s political and marital issues, Protestant Reformers saw this as an opportunity to bring true reform to the church in England. In time, these reformers came to be called Puritans (mainly because they wanted to “purify” the Church of England of Catholic traditions that they did not believe to be biblical).

However, after many years of struggling for change, some Puritans felt that little progress had been made toward true reform; they decided it was time to separate from the Church of England and start anew. Thus began the distinction between the Puritans and the Separatists. Though the groups shared theological beliefs and values, the former chose to remain part of the Church of England, while the latter chose to separate. The Pilgrims were part of the Separatist group.

Unfortunately, at this time in England, the Church and State were intimately tied, and Separatists were considered treasonous; they lived in danger of both persecution and imprisonment. For this reason, a small group of Separatists from the village of Scrooby (in north Nottinghamshire) determined that it was time to leave England. So, in 1609, these Separatists sailed to Holland (not America).

For more than a decade, they enjoyed religious freedom in Holland and gathered openly for church under the leadership of Pastor John Robinson. So why not stay in Holland? They had found the religious freedom for which they came. The answers may surprise you.

First and foremost, these Pilgrims, as they would come to be called, had a deep concern for the well-being of their children. Life in Holland had proved to be difficult. The only work available to immigrants was poorly paid, and despite their hard labor, they struggled constantly with poverty. Work was taking a toll on both parents and children -- causing them to age before their time. Furthermore, some of the children were assimilating into Dutch culture and abandoning their parents’ values. William Bradford (a passenger on the Mayflower and governor of the Plymouth Plantation) explained:

“Of all the sorrows most heavy to be borne (in Holland), was that many of the children, influenced by these conditions, and the great licentiousness of the young people of the country, and the many temptations of the city, were led by evil example into dangerous courses, getting the reins off their necks and leaving their parents. Some became soldiers, others embarked upon voyages by sea and others upon worse courses tending to dissoluteness and the danger of their souls, to the great grief of the parents and the dishonour of God. So they saw their posterity would be in danger to degenerate and become corrupt.”1

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Keith&Co.]

“Of all the sorrows most heavy to be borne (in Holland), was that many of the children, influenced by these conditions, and the great licentiousness of the young people of the country, and the many temptations of the city, were led by evil example into dangerous courses, getting the reins off their necks and leaving their parents. Some became soldiers, others embarked upon voyages by sea and others upon worse courses tending to dissoluteness and the danger of their souls, to the great grief of the parents and the dishonour of God. So they saw their posterity would be in danger to degenerate and become corrupt.”1

So....the pilgrims came to America seeking 'not' freedom from religious persecution. Isn't that what he said?
What, exactly, were you trying to correct with this?

 

[dystopian]

Almost right, but try researching before posting .......... sure that wasn't a group that went to Holland??

Ah yes, misplaced arrogance. I actually DID research it, thanks. The Plymouth pilgrims split into two groups, one that stayed in England, and one that went to the city of Leidein in the Dutch republic where they lived for some years, learning many of the skills that would eventually guarantee their survival in the new world. The article you linked says exactly the same thing I said: namely that they left because they in fact had 'too much' freedom (as always when conservative groups clash with the freedoms of a more liberal society, they describe it in terms of morality rather than freedom). They weren't religiously persecuted (as the common American myth of its founding goes). Certainly, economic hardship was part of the reason they left, but their correspondence seems to place the focus on the "corrupting" (read: free) influence of Dutch freedoms and culture. Indeed, the economic hardship among the pilgrims in Leiden was hardly universal; Some of them were quite succesfull working at the University (like Brewster) or in the thriving industry of the city. One also has to question the extent of the economic hardship that did exist; after all, their *children* seemed to be doing just fine because they were actually integrating which their parents refused to do.

So the point was that you were wrong; as so many Americans are; to claim something like how all the American settlers fled persecution (particularly of the religious variety); which clearly isn't the case with the most famous settlers in early American history; and no doubt not the case with many (or even most) that came after. The traditional christian myth of how the US came to be is simply wrong.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Flashback: the Pilgrims who set sail on the Mayflower to escape religious persecution
Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, has said religious people are fleeing the country like the Pilgrim Fathers aboard the Mayflower because they are being denied the freedom to live in accordance with their beliefs.
Chief Rabbi: Equality laws leading to new Mayflower exodus
The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks Photo: PA

7:00AM BST 01 Jul 2011

In 1620, a group of English separatists, who became known as the Pilgrims, set sail for America to escape religious persecution amid the volatile religious and political climate. under James I.

Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, their rejection of the Church of England was declared unlawful leading many members of their East Midlands congregation to flee to Holland.

However, concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group set out to create a new colony in North America and chartered the Mayflower, a cargo ship, for the purpose. They departed from a site near Mayflower Steps in Plymouth, Devon in September 1620.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...ayflower-to-escape-religious-persecution.html


once again religious persecution started the whole ball rolling.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Plymouth
City in England
Plymouth is a city on the south coast of Devon, England, about 37 miles south-west of Exeter and 190 miles west-south-west of London, between the mouths of the rivers Plym to the east and Tamar to the west where they join Plymouth Sound. Wikipedia

 

[Keith&Co.]

once again religious persecution started the whole ball rolling.

But as your quotes keep showing, they left England for Holland, where THEY HAD RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

So the further shift from Holland, back to England, thence to the New World was NOT primarily motivated by a desire for religious freedom.

If the labor pool demands weekends, and you give them weekends, and they demand tea in the breakroom, and don't get it, so they all quit and join Starbucks, they did not Join Starbucks for the reason that they wanted weekends off.

How is this so complicated for you? Do you not follow the concept or is it that you're wedded to the conclusion so simply MUST support that conclusion, right or wrong?

 

[skepticalbip]

once again religious persecution started the whole ball rolling.

Religious persecution against their sect in England caused them to move to Holland. Religious freedom in Holland was too much for them - the idea of a government allowing such "sin" of not believing as they did was intolerable. They migrated to the Americas so they were free to persecute anyone who didn't live by their religious beliefs. It wasn't so much religious persecution that drove them but who was doing the persecution. They wanted to be the ones setting the religious regulations and doing the persecution.

ETA:
Hell, my state still has remnants of the religious laws they instituted - alcohol can not be sold on Sunday. Thankfully, this is one of the few "blue laws" remaining on the books.