Whats even attractive about Christianity anyway that people want to stay in ignorance

[Minimalist]

The temple where Jesus is said to have drove out the money changers was the most elemental example I could make.

Yet, the temple is described by Josephus in great detail. For that matter, though, Josephus - a member of a priestly family never mentions any one ( let alone "jesus" ) disrupting the temple operations in what would have been a short span of time before Josephus' birth. Surely, SOMEONE would have remembered? For that matter, Philo commented extensively on Jewish affairs and he never mentioned anyone breaking up the temple, either. Odd, eh?

The money changers performed an essential service as the half-shekel temple tax could not be paid in foreign coins. Josephus was nothing if not a member of the establishment and the fact that some firebrand assaulted the income stream of the priest class should have been of interest to him.

And yet....he is silent. Odd, eh?

[Voltair]

Faith is unproven ideas you believe.

If that is how faith is defined then how does faith have any value? What makes the Christian faith in God any more valid than the Hindu's faith in their gods, the Greek's faith, the Indian's faith in spiritualism/animism, the druidic faiths, the Chinese faith in their ancestors, and any other religious group? If this is the case how does Christian faith lead anyone closer to the truth? That would simply make it personal taste or desire or what you really want to be true. That does not lead anyone to truth.

If Christianity is to be based on faith and faith is what you said it is then how can you really stand inside of Christianity? How is it more than simply a desire or a belief you have without substantiation? If you can't substantiate it then what still causes you to believe? Is it something you desire or something that you fear or both?

This is a very good point, but there are reasons that I believe in my faith. I have seen God work in my life. He has answered all my prayers. He has worked in my life giving me things I need before I even ask. He is a guide to my life and I will never abandon my guide to follow no one and see my life go into chaos. You may not accept this for yourself but it's enough for me to accept it.

Chipan I am a very recently deconverted Christian. I would like to talk with you more about the idea of God working in your life and I completely understand the idea of being worried about going into chaos.

First of all you mention God answering all of your prayers. I assume by this you mean he either says yes or no. However how do you know that God is answering the prayers rather than things/opportunities in your life presenting themselves etc? How do know it is not by your own hand and others that your prayers were answered instead of by God's? I am not saying that it is impossible that God answered your prayers but rather how do you know that it was him? For example I could pray that God helps me find a job after college and lets say I find one. Was it God at work or was it myself and others doing the necessary research/preparation?

You also mention him giving you things that you need even before you ask. I was wondering if you could perhaps provide a specific example of this as I think it would be easier to talk about.

As far as the life going into chaos I know exactly what you mean. When I was a Christian I thought that my true sole purpose was to serve God and bring others to him. I obviously was not working as hard as I should but was planning on doing something to the best of my ability to seek and save those who I saw as lost. After de-converting I lost that sense of purpose and it was a bit of a crash. It didn't destroy me completely though but I was... a bit dazed. I went through days where I thought I had a better grip on what my purpose was etc and other days where I despaired more. I also was at first a bit angry etc and was all out for trying to aggressively deconvert people. Since then I have calmed down quite a bit but there was a transition period.

Even today, soon to be 8 months into my atheism, I still struggle with that idea at times. I have come to learn/accept the idea that I do not have a defined purpose and that I must make my own. This idea is still a bit fresh and new to me but I am coming to accept it a lot more. I am actually quite at peace in a lot of ways and I don't feel myself spiraling into this chaos. Funny enough I even spoke of how terrible of a person I would be if I was an atheist a couple of months prior to my own deconversion.

If you would like Chipan we could continue this conversation over private messages.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='248725' dateline='1330928569']

And yet....he is silent. Odd, eh?

The argument from silence it not proof of anything one way or the other. At the time Christianity was a minor Jewish sect and was probably under the radar of many notable commentators.

[Minimalist]

If you read all of Josephus....a task I do not recommend...you'll see that he has no hesitation about discussing the various troublemakers who met a just death at the hands of the authorities. Just as an example, Antiquities of the Jews Book XX, Chapter 8

5. Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers.

So he's not above mentioning robbers and imposters but someone who breaks up the temple is ignored? You may wish to try to pass this off as merely an argument from silence but if such a sacrilege happened it would have been big fucking news.

And Philo doesn't know about it, either.

[Zenith]

I have returned. Wow! I didn't think I would.

Anyway, I'm going to skip all the discussion you guys have had until here and just give my answer to the questions of the first post and the topic.

Whats even attractive about Christianity anyway that people want to stay in ignorance

Ignorance can be beautiful. And I believe some / many people prefer to live their life saying to themselves "If I don't think about THAT, then it doesn't exist" (THAT = "what if the Bible was simply the invention of men", "what if there is no caring God out there?", etc.)

Going to church always bored me to death as a child.
The sermons are normally boring and hymns suck.

You've missed the most important things that are being preached in the sermons: how the people gathering there are the elect, the special, God's chosen, how they are righteous and holy and "saint" while the others are wretched, evil, unworthy; how they are superior to the others, how they are the soldiers of God through which God wins the war against Satan, etc. And people enjoy a lot being told that they are superior, the elect, the heroes, etc., which many times goes as "without you actually doing anything, just come to the church". The same way as racist people enjoy being told how intelligent and worthy they are, and how stupid and unworthy the black people are.

Couldn't they play some more exciting music?

Some do.

Also the image of the God that the Bible portrays is that of a bloodthirsty and vain maniac not a loving god.
I can't imagine why you's really want that God to be true.

Wrong. The image of God that Bible portrays is in different ways, depending on the book / place you read. If you haven't noticed, those so joyful about God's grace and mercy and kindness read mostly the nicest parts Jesus says about God and the nice things Jesus does. I don't think there are christians nowadays that read in the church, from the bible, the sadistic parts where God orders the jews to butcher their enemies' pregnant women and children / babies, as they do not read the specific jewish parts of the bible (e.g. where God is portrayed as favoring the Jews, while not caring at all about the others).

I can understand why someone would want to believe in a religion like Norse Paganism where...

People don't chose their religious beliefs like that. I'd also like to believe Norse Paganism, if I knew it'll make me feel happy, but deep inside I know it is not true. So it is quite hard for one to believe a religion just because he likes how it sounds.

If you say "why do christians stay in their churches?", it's indoctrination. And, one of the most awful things about this indoctrination is that one cand hardly recover from it, once he has been indoctrinated - and now, the longer he stays, the stronger the bond becomes.

The environment and the people around have perhaps the strongest effect: one man is much more likely to give up Christianity if he's remained the only theist in the country, but if 95% of the population of the country is religious, for instance, he is 99.99% likely to remain with them. As about the local church, that's just like a disease, where everyone of them is infecting the others (mental bond, influencing each other, keeping an eye for what the others do and say and taking action), so that no one has the chance to get healed.

Also, I believe the age matters: you can expect a 20 years old man to leave christianity, but a 60 years old man who's been for at least 10 years a christian, in 'faith', I don't think he has any chance.

As about my feeling towards them, I don't hate them, and I don't despise them for being what they are. I actually feel sorry for them. They are mere victims, though many of them being aggressors too (e.g. hateful, despising the others), people who have not been educated (or, better said, have been educated in the wrong direction), who have not been taught to think, to use their minds, but perhaps, on the contrary, to believe all they're being said without thinking. I believe we would have been just like them, if we had been given the 'proper' bad education and had lived in the 'proper' environment since we were 2 years old children, and even now lived in that environment.

The Christian heaven would suck anyway though as the religion is completely ascetic in things pleasurable.

Sex and getting drunk and food are not the only pleasant things that one can crave for.

I just don't see what anyone finds appealing about Christianity.

I don't see Christianity appealing.
But, if we're talking about what Christians see appealing about Christianity, I think it's Jesus. While to many others it's Virgin Mary, while still to many others, the Holy Father among us - the Catholic Pope.

P.S. I hope you missed me.

[Undeceived]

If Christianity is to be based on faith and faith is what you said it is then how can you really stand inside of Christianity? How is it more than simply a desire or a belief you have without substantiation? If you can't substantiate it then what still causes you to believe? Is it something you desire or something that you fear or both?

I can't prove scientifically that my sister loves me, but I believe it. Anything within the mind (what makes us human and not animal) is not testable. It is only accessible through secondary observation. If you simply watched humans and had no inside knowledge (being "in the know" as C.S. Lewis described) you would never come to the conclusion that our species had a morality. God (the source of our persona and spirituality) is unprovable in the same way. He is present in our hearts and minds and that is how we know him. To aid us, he sent his son Jesus in the flesh in ways we could observe and record. Nonbelievers in the 1st century refused to believe for different reasons than today. They said Jesus was demon-possessed or a magician or a mere prophet, but never that he never actually existed or died. God set up the Bible to point us to him. The Old Testament outlines the Law and shows our sin. The New Testament shows God's love and sacrifice for us in Jesus, fulfilling the Law and freeing us from the sins we were convicted of in the first half. No Christian believes on wishful thinking, as you suggest. Everything is based on reason, just a different reason than yours. This is intrinsic in humanity--we can't force ourselves to believe in something unless we believe it is true. Jesus' life and resurrection may have less sensory evidence than, say, the reproduction of rabbits, but that doesn't make the events any less probable. It's hard to believe on faith, but real truth is never easy to come by. God designed the world so we would have to seek him. He didn't force himself on us. But inside, consciously or not, we make the decision to accept him as God or to make ourselves our own god.

[Faith No More]

Jesus' life and resurrection may have less sensory evidence than, say, the reproduction of rabbits, but that doesn't make the events any less probable.

No, what makes it less probable is the fact that Jesus does the impossible. A whole host of assumptions have to be made to even be able to entertain any truth in such a story.

[Voltair]

If Christianity is to be based on faith and faith is what you said it is then how can you really stand inside of Christianity? How is it more than simply a desire or a belief you have without substantiation? If you can't substantiate it then what still causes you to believe? Is it something you desire or something that you fear or both?

I can't prove scientifically that my sister loves me, but I believe it. Anything within the mind (what makes us human and not animal) is not testable. It is only accessible through secondary observation. If you simply watched humans and had no inside knowledge (being "in the know" as C.S. Lewis described) you would never come to the conclusion that our species had a morality. God (the source of our persona and spirituality) is unprovable in the same way. He is present in our hearts and minds and that is how we know him. To aid us, he sent his son Jesus in the flesh in ways we could observe and record. Nonbelievers in the 1st century refused to believe for different reasons than today. They said Jesus was demon-possessed or a magician or a mere prophet, but never that he never actually existed or died. God set up the Bible to point us to him. The Old Testament outlines the Law and shows our sin. The New Testament shows God's love and sacrifice for us in Jesus, fulfilling the Law and freeing us from the sins we were convicted of in the first half. No Christian believes on wishful thinking, as you suggest. Everything is based on reason, just a different reason than yours. This is intrinsic in humanity--we can't force ourselves to believe in something unless we believe it is true. Jesus' life and resurrection may have less sensory evidence than, say, the reproduction of rabbits, but that doesn't make the events any less probable. It's hard to believe on faith, but real truth is never easy to come by. God designed the world so we would have to seek him. He didn't force himself on us. But inside, consciously or not, we make the decision to accept him as God or to make ourselves our own god.

There again other people of other faiths can claim that self revelation as well. Does that mean their self revelation is just as relevant as yours? If that were true that would also cause a contradiction with the doctrine of Christianity though.

I agree, we cannot force ourselves to believe in something unless we are actually convinced. That is precisely why I cannot force myself to believe in God/the Bible I am terribly unconvinced that it is true. If this is something I cannot help then what is the point of discussing it? Real truth is hard to come by? Perhaps real truth is rather simple to come by we just don't like how simple it really is sometimes. For example I know I often have looked for complicated/other reasons for the way things are going in my life before. Often the answer is an uncomfortable but simple one, the problem is me.

The issue of the whole God/Jesus/Biblical account isn't because it has slightly less sensory evidence as rabbit reproduction. The problem is you have claims of things that are supernatural with absolutely NO proof of supernatural events/entities in reality. What if you read a book that talked about fairies and magical gnomes? Would you readily accept that fairies and magical gnomes exist even though you have NEVER seen any evidence of this? How exactly is the existence of spiritual forces any different? Just because a lot of society feels like it exists doesn't mean it does.

You mention the biblical account not being made any less probable. How probable do you think it is that any other religious account of supernatural demonstration outside of the Bible is true? I do not know for certain but I assume that you only regard your book as faith as having the real ones. But what makes yours more likely? Why are these other religious groups miracles/gods any less likely than yours?

A lot of the ancients may have believed that the God's lived not too far above the clouds. It did not matter that most people believed in it because it still wasn't true as we have traveled far beyond the clouds and found no such thing.

Saying God is the source of morality because through observation we could never perceive what morality is doesn't prove anything. The moral argument for the existence of God is simply someones speculation as to how we have moral phenomenon. You can structure the argument in a logical format but that does not mean its premises are true. If you argument is based mostly off of scripture then you are basing it off what someone else said not self revelation anyway.

Saying we unconsciously or consciously choose to refuse God is something I think you probably pull from the Bible. If you didn't say that you would have to toss the apostle Paul out on his head due to what he says in Romans and elsewhere. The problem is reality conflicts with what the Apostle says. Of course you may argue that while I may not be dishonest I am "subconsciously being dishonest". Well can I control my subconscious? If I cannot then God would be unjust by punishing me and if I can control it all please tell me how I do that.

I can just as easily say that a Christian subconsciously knows that there are tons of problems with their faith but just chooses to reject them. Of course I do not believe that is true in many cases but my statement can be just as valid as yours on the surface. Prove to me other than because the Bible says so that I am consciously/subconsciously rejecting God based on something wrong. How is acknowledging that God cannot be proven plus acknowledging the many issues with scripture and coming to the conclusion I have "wrong"? God could easily solve these issues by simply revealing himself directly and as was pointed out earlier this would not violate free will.

You mentioned God wants us to seek him but what if we don't find him? The Bible says he who seeks shall find right? Well many people have sought and found quite the opposite of God. That is another strike against it in my mind. You may just say "well you weren't HONESTLY" seeking. Does the only honest seeking is the one that leads to the answer you believe to be true? That is a loaded phrase if that is true. You and I both know with relative certainty that God will not reveal himself directly. You believe so, I am guessing, because somehow that would make faith not valid. I have already shown before how that is an invalid argument so what argument is left? I am relatively certain God won't show because I am relatively certain the Christian God does not exist.

It was good enough for him to demonstrate his power at mount Carmel, Egypt, the Red Sea, the many battles of the Israelites, Jerusalem, roughly 1980 years ago, etc but its not good for him to now? So the ancient people get ABSOLUTE knowledge of his existence and we get a book written by MEN who were supposedly inspired. A book with a questionable history and poor extra-biblical support for many of its claims. I really don't see how it makes any sense whatsoever to give the more superstitious people of the past more proof than the more skeptical people of today. That seems quite foolish but I guess as the Bible says the wisdom of God is foolishness to man? I think the reason it appears foolish isn't because it is so divine that we just can't understand but because it really doesn't make sense.

The reason it probably doesn't make sense is that it was written by men who are not all knowing and who did not see the holes in it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The argument from silence it not proof of anything one way or the other. At the time Christianity was a minor Jewish sect and was probably under the radar of many notable commentators.

If there were no evidence contradicting the biblical narrative I'm fairly certain that this wouldn't escape your mention. If evidence should be present, and it is not, then you have a problem. You can contort yourself any way you like to excuse this, but's that's all your doing, making excuses.

[Undeceived]

You mentioned God wants us to seek him but what if we don't find him? The Bible says he who seeks shall find right? Well many people have sought and found quite the opposite of God. That is another strike against it in my mind. You may just say "well you weren't HONESTLY" seeking. Does the only honest seeking is the one that leads to the answer you believe to be true? That is a loaded phrase if that is true. You and I both know with relative certainty that God will not reveal himself directly. You believe so, I am guessing, because somehow that would make faith not valid. I have already shown before how that is an invalid argument so what argument is left? I am relatively certain God won't show because I am relatively certain the Christian God does not exist.

People who look but haven't found God were either mislead by others (sadly) or looked in the wrong place--themselves. The true God takes a humbling of the mind with the help of the Holy Spirit. In order to find God you need to take off your reason hat and take a leap of faith. We, as humans, look for religions that benefit us personally. Instead, close your eyes and ask Jesus to reveal himself to you. Read the Gospels. The combination of God's help and your application will show you the truth if you wish to find it. There is no single statement I can give you to convince you why all other worldly religions are wrong. You have to find it yourself, but I'll tell you now that it has nothing to do with your natural tendencies. All fake religions are law-oriented, meaning the follower has to earn their way to heaven by doing good works. It is our natural desire to want to earn our way, because then we can take the credit. Christianity is different, for Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." And Romans 6:23 adds, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." Wages are what you earn. But since we have all sinned we can never do enough to reach heaven on our own. Knowing this, God came down in the form of a man. He paid the punishment for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. And that is another difference in Christianity. Not only does it promote relying on another's grace instead of your own strength, it shows how much God is seeking us. We are the lost sheep. He is the shepherd actively pursuing us. Ask a follower of any other religion and they'll say they are concerned with who else joins. The few beliefs that include gathering followers do so for selfish purposes. Mormons think they need to do it to be saved (and get their own planet). The Quran tells Muslims to conquer countries and make followers by force. Christian missionaries evangelize for as many people to know Christ's love as possible.

Logically, either one religion is right or they are all wrong. There is only one truth and naturally people create all kinds of other ‘pseudo-truths’ to win fame and money. Even atheists believe their atheism is the only truth. To say we should dismiss all religions because there are so many to choose from is like saying science has many theories for one phenomenon so they must all be wrong.

Look at the founder of any major religion and examine their motives. Muhammad gained fame and power through war, as well as the right to his followers' wives. Hinduism makes a caste system with priests at the top. Every faith has a selfish motive behind it but Christianity. All but one of the Christian apostles were martyred, and many more lost or feared for their lives. Instead of creating a system where one group of people is more powerful or influential, the Bible calls for a brotherhood of equals who work as the "body of Christ" to spread Jesus' love and news of the resurrection. Philosophically, thinkers have a hard time reasoning how a cruel God could create such beauty in creation and why we still exist in a balance of goodness and sin, as well as how a group of gods could function together to produce an operating world with one moral code. That leaves a single, loving God, and Christians call him Jesus.

It was good enough for him to demonstrate his power at mount Carmel, Egypt, the Red Sea, the many battles of the Israelites, Jerusalem, roughly 1980 years ago, etc but its not good for him to now? So the ancient people get ABSOLUTE knowledge of his existence and we get a book written by MEN who were supposedly inspired. A book with a questionable history and poor extra-biblical support for many of its claims. I really don't see how it makes any sense whatsoever to give the more superstitious people of the past more proof than the more skeptical people of today. That seems quite foolish but I guess as the Bible says the wisdom of God is foolishness to man?

Even with the miraculous signs, many people didn't believe. All spiritual forces were more visible then, including Satan's, making it more difficult to discern between the two. God doesn't currently do obvious miracles because he believes we have enough to go on as it is. He created nature; he doesn't have to fight it to accomplish his will. He also has a new way of communicating-- the Holy Spirit. Before Christ, only prophets spoke out about God. Now God's spirit is in everyone, and we are able to witness to nonbelievers using the words he gives us. We are no longer restricted to learning from prophets and miraculous signs, but from every other Christian on earth. In addition to this, we have a full completed Bible in most every house. Back then that had a few scrolls written by the prophets, and the Torah. Some would argue it is easier to believe now. Whether that's true or not does not matter. What matters is we have enough. God is seeking us. Seek him back, and you'll find the evidence more overwhelming than you ever imagined.

I really don't see how it makes any sense whatsoever to give the more superstitious people of the past more proof than the more skeptical people of today.

And what would you say if you wrote a diary about your flat tire becoming full (because of a pump you don't mention), and people 2000 years from today said, "That doesn't make sense. He must have made it up." Who are we to presume we know better than the people who actually lived in the time of Christ? Are we going to call all the 1st century Christians fooled by something that happened right under their noses? The number of converts must have exploded for a reason, and it couldn't have been because of a long-developed legend.