A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

I am sure you have read the NT. Can you find anything to support your claim that Christianity is about money? I think the teachings on greed and self-sacrifice are pretty clear.

Yeah, like I said, it's easier to get people to accept the weird concept of tithing if you first pepper your narrative with a bunch of stuff your audience already wants to hear. Stop thinking in these absurd binaries and actually read what I'm saying: you can't say that the church isn't about money, when such a big part of the process is tithing, why the bible says that not tithing is robbing god, and that it curses you to abstain from it. For all this talk of greed and self sacrifice, your religion then turns around and says "also, pay the preachers ten percent of your money, or god will get so pissed at you that he'll curse you."

It's also why so many religious figures who have so-called visions of the afterlife end up having god conveniently tell them to stress the importance of tithing. The bible might be full of one message, but the church is full of money, just waiting for the tithe-demanders and apologists to take it.

Do you think it wrong for me to assess whether someones actions mirror that of the teachings in the NT and then say they were not behaving like a Christian.

If you're assessing someone based on the NT, are you also taking into account how many slaves they own? Because Jesus was totally cool with owning slaves... or is that bad to you anyway?

See, you already decide what does and doesn't count as part of the NT yourself, which leads me to ask: how do you know your interpretation of the bible fits with the author's original intent? And if you can't tell me that, why should I care what your opinion of christianity is?

I could post 10 links on articles criticizing her premise and conclusions by scholars.

Well then isn't it fortunate for us that you didn't bother to do that at all, and instead just asserted that they exist, as though "rebuttals to what you say exist," is itself a rebuttal. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, dude: either put up, or shut up. But given that you definitely hadn't read the book in the time between when I posted the link and now, chances are that you're entirely unaware of its content, and are just assuming it's all wrong on faith, without even knowing what it is you're disagreeing with.

For the sake of argument, for the first 300 years, the Roman Empire did not foster the growth of Christianity. So, the question remains, why does Christianity survive til today when so many other religions cease to exist?

Seriously, why do you think that "just take what I say as true anyway, even after I've been proved wrong," is a cogent statement?

I never got an answer from you as were the ancient Egyptians irrational.

They had an irrational belief, just as you do. That doesn't mean they were entirely irrational from top to bottom: do you think you could do me a favor and stop constructing these ridiculous, snappy strawman binaries and instead address what's actually being said, in future?