Why aren't you a Christian?

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Good questions.

I am not a Muslim/Sikh because the Quran doesn't not match the historical information we have regarding Jesus of Nazareth. The Quran teaches that Jesus was nailed to a cross and crucified. History says he was.

The Gospels said he was. The Romans didn't record it and contemporary historians didn't notice it. The Gospels are not unbiased.

Great point, you are absolutely correct.

I am not a Hindu or Atheist because of the compelling amount of reliable information regarding Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

Plenty of historians opine that Yeshua, the founder of Christianity, was a real person, based entirely on textual considerations internal to the Gospels and I'm inclined to agree that probability leans slightly that way. Your 'historians' shrink down to 'Christian apologists' when it comes to the resurrection. The oldest copy of the earliest Gospel (Mark) doesn't even describe a resurrection.

I truthfully haven't read a broad enough spectrum of NT scholars writings yet to be able to comment one way or another on your "historians shrink down to Christian apologists" comment. That very well may be.

Also you are 100% correct about the earliest copy of Mark not recording the resurrection. However, if that really was the end of the story that would be the end of the Jesus movement.

Jesus was not the first Jew who thought he was the Messiah and who had a movement. But the fact is a first century Jews understanding of the Messiah was that the Messiah would rise to a glorious military victory in which Jews would no longer be subjugated by foreign authority and the Jewish theocracy would be reinstated.

If you were a first century Jew following a person you believed to be the Messiah, and instead of being a victorious warrior king he is arrested, beaten near to death, had the skin ripped off of his back with whippings, had his beard torn out of his face, mocked, spit on, stripped naked and crucified.....you would not conclude that the man you have been following was the Messiah.

It would literally take a miracle for a first century Jew to believe that Jesus really was the Messiah after seeing him crucified.

In the Jewish mind death on a tree literally meant that God had cursed you (it's in the Hebrew Bible).

If the resurrection would not have taken place, there would be no Christian movement.

Jacob Kremer, a New Testament critic who has specialized in the study of the resurrection say, "By far most scholar hold firmly to the reliability fo the biblical statements about the empty tomb."

I don't gather why they should,

Should what? I didn't follow here...

the biblical account is the one in question, and there are no corroborating outside sources. Even if true, the conclusion one should reasonably reach on hearing a tomb is empty is that the body is missing, not that there was a miraculous resurrection.

I 100% agree with you. No one would conclude that a resurrection had occur. Especially not a first century Jew.

Jews believe in a resurrection at the end of the world. The righteous to eternal life, the unrighteous to eternal damnation.

They would have no concept of someone being resurrected without of the end of the world occurring.

It would take something jarring and radical like Jesus actual resurrection for this to be the story that the disciples ended up telling.

Side note: In Christian theology resurrection means that you have risen from the grave to a glorified body never to die again. Revivification means that you have been resuscitated but will still die again.

Gary Habermas did a survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975 and found that 75 percent of scholars accepted the historicity of the discovery of Jesus empty tomb.

Wouldn't you think that aligns very closely with the number of scholars who already believed in the empty tomb?

Truthfully I don't know. It's very possible. I do know that just because you are a NT scholar does not mean that you actually believe it. John Shelby Spong for example.

Even Jewish scholars such as Pinchas Lapide and Geza Veres have declared themselves convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus' tomb was found empty.

What evidence? The only evidence is that the Gospels said so. The Gospels ARE the claim that the tomb was empty.

Yup, you are right. But here we are not saying "it's true because it's in the Bible." Rather these gospel texts are evaluated like any other historical document. It is assumed that there are errors and we must use techniques to analyze the documents to determine what may be fact and what may be fiction. Some signs that increase the probability that a recorded incident may be historical are:

1. historical fit: the incident fits in with known historical facts of the time and place

2. independent , early sources.

3. embarrassment

4. dissimiliarity: the incident is unlike earlier jewish ideas and/or unlike later christian ideas

5. Coherence: the incident fits in with facts already established about Jesus

The gospels actually do quite well under these test which is why a lot of scholars believe they are in fact historical.

How do you find something THIS sketchy so convincing?

Because of how early the sources are. Paul's writings circulated before the gospels were written and there is a section of his letter to the church in corinth that goes.

1 Corinthians 15:3–5 (ESV) — 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

NT scholars believe that this is an oral tradition that can be tracked back as early as 5 years after the death of Jesus.

Also the Passion story in Mark (the story of his crucification) is believed to be an oral tradition that can be tracked back as early as 7 years after the death of Jesus.

Then we have the NT author Luke recording Pauls sermon in Antioch where he essentially says the same things.

Acts 13:28–31 (ESV) — 28 And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.

According to Professor Sherwin-White, "The confirmation of historicity in Acts is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 189

Jeff, you make it sound like you tried to be as objective as possible, waited until you had done years of study, and then picked the religion you regarded as most historically accurate.

You are right, that is not how things happened chronologically.

It was (I am going to sound looney but bear with me) when I experienced the Holy Spirit that I gave my life to Christ. I began the book of Romans an unbeliever, I felt like God was really speaking to me through it, by the time I finished it I had asked God to take my broken life and redeem it.

Since that experience I have continued to study on a quest to determine truth.

Here's what I think: you were raised to believe and you are biased in favor of continuing to believe.

We are all biased in our beliefs, it is not possible to be completely un-biased. You would have had to have been raised in a vacuum.

That being said, I did reject the religion all the way up until 3 years ago. That's when I started searching.

You accept what supports your beliefs and reject what does not.

Yes and no.

I've had to do a lot of soul searching on this journey. I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist. I was actually a fourth or fifth generous Adventist. When I started wanting to look into whether or not this Jesus stuff had any merit (I initially was searching in order to disprove it) I came to the realization that I had actually been raised in a cult and my entire family is stuck in it too (SDA's [depending on the church, it's a mixed bag] are a cult....like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses).

Because of what I found in the Bible my wife and I have left the family religion and joined a non-denominational church that teaches the Bible....(SDA's believe in the Bible and a prophet like Mormons and JW's)

I have made life/family altering decisions in the past based on what my studies have found and will continue to do so in the future.....there's a lot of "friends" that have just stopped talking with us because we've left the SDA church.

I do not believe that if you had found that only 45% of scholars accepted the empty tomb story, you would have thrown up your hands and called it quits with Christianity.

You are correct. At this point the only way I would give up Christianity is if I had been completely convinced that Jesus had never existed.....which Stimbo is actively trying to do lol....I will check out that site when I get some time Stimbo!

You'll seem more reasonable if you avoid being disengenuous about your reasons for believing. I think your heart is in the right place, but you need to be straightforward with us if you really want a productive discussion.

I am trying my best to be as open as possible with you guys. One of the things I respect most about agnostics/atheists is that they don't put up with crap......although I would assume that there are some reading this right now that feel I am in fact full of crap, which is fine.

Thank you Mister Agenda for your honest thoughts and reasons regarding your current worldview. I appreciate you.

---

I meant to mention that the admin in question, Ken Humphreys, is also the owner and author of the parent site, JesusNeverExisted.com and optional but recommended book thereof. Of late he's been bitten by the Spielberg bug; several of his videos can be found around here, with more in the pipeline.

Here's the video of the debate, subject: "The Resurrection: Historical Fact or Religious Invention?"





So, might we expect you to pop in sometime? There's always a fresh brew in the pot. Tell 'em I sent you.

Hey Stimbo, I will absolutely check out the website and watch the debate (I actually really enjoy watching debates). However, since I am investing some time into this, will you also humor me and check out my blog?

It's http://www.morethanmorality.blogspot.com

There aren't a lot of citations to my writings, it's mostly scripture which probably won't hold much weight with you....but give a few articles a read over =D

[Mystic]

I will post a variety of reasons, although they all factor in, none of them are reasons in themselves as to why I'm not Christian.

1) The trinity.

It seems if they are all distinct, then they are three gods, each being worthy of worship. And it seems this was the want to worship Jesus and God at the same time, but they wanted to blind people to this fact with sophistry.

So they say the father and son and holy spirit are all one god.

But if this is true, then it means the father and the son are the same. And it would mean that God is both the father of himself and the son of himself.

This is of course non sense. If God is appearing in three persons, then he is appearing as son of himself and father of himself which makes no sense either.

At any rate, I don't buy into trinity, and I would say Christianity worships Jesus as well as the father, which makes two gods already, which makes them not monotheistic.

Further to this, is that the father is said to be greater then Jesus, which means they are not identical.

2) Love of world and the things in the world

It's not only forbidden to love the world and the things in the world, it is said such people are devoid of the love of God. But look at reality, lovers of Jesus or Yahweh love the world and the things in the world. In fact, here in the west, I know people are in love with the world and the things in the world, materialistic to sinful things in eyes of Yahweh, yet they love God and Jesus.

It just seems not be a real description of reality.

Aside from that, what does the world mean? People know we should love much of the world, so what is meant only specific vain things in the world, which is to me, avoiding the words, and making a new sentence out of it.

Rather it seems the people whom were total ascetics were more on par with this verse, but even they can't help but love many of the good things in the world.

Therefore if you look at interpretation, they basically say "no it's ok to love the world and what's in the world, but really you shoudn't...etc..." and have their on specificness while the verse is vast.

3) Believers - and contradictory promises.

Believers can disobey God, for example, they can be materialistic, yet they are promised to hell on one hand, and paradise on the other if they do.

I take it you are aware of the verses that condemn those whom don't obey God and his commandments, and you are aware of the verses that promise all those whom believe salvation.

It's contradictory in my view.

4) all sorts of contradictions of the bible I've read ab6out online but haven't heard both sides on the issue, but rather seem to me be errors yet.

This a factor. I haven't heard all defense for them, but some of them really feel indefensible.

5) A God that punishes people for not believing in a religion and tortures them, doesn't seem to be an ultimately great being.

6) Believers can be worse people then disbelievers and vice versa. Disbelievers can be better people then believers and vice versa.

It seems rather unjust that all disbelievers will be condemned and all believers will be saved.

7) No matter what Christians say, I know my family very well, and I know they are good people. Nothing will convince me that they are bad people deserving to be in hell or far away from God. Sorry...but I know them to be really good people.

8) I believe in mercy of all by principle we should love for others what we love for ourselves, and God's love is suppose to be higher then ours, so I don't think hell in light of that stands to reason.

9) The Bible feels very boring and feels like bad literature, and I wouldn't attribute to brilliant minds, let alone the greatest mind in the universe.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm not a Christian for so so so many reasons. To honestly convert me you'd have to first convince me that god was real, a fairly monumental task. To do that god would have to reveal himself in some meaningful way, maybe a morning forecast broadcast from the heavens. Considering that the all powerful god, who desires worship doesn't bother to make himself known, when it would be so easy, it doesn't seem likely that his logically impaired followers on earth would be, able to do so.

However that would just be the start of the process. Most people who believe in God don't believe in Christianity, nor does the existence of a god imply anything other than that a god exists. So then you'd have to convince me of all of the numerous incredible claims made by Christianity. Reincarnation, angels, miracles, virgin births. I mean prove any of that. However that's not the point, you'd have to prove ALL of it. Otherwise I could just as easily chose Islam, Zoroastrianism etc. Any of them have equal basis as Christianity. Which is to say, none at all.

[Cato]

To the OP:

Watch this short clip and use the following guide:

fighter = human
legbreaker = christian
loanshark = priest, pastor, reverend, deacon, pope, etc.

Turn up the volume and allow the last line to resonate deep in your soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3I3A4_36yQ

[KichigaiNeko]

Hey guys, this is a sincere question.

I like to look into concerns that people raise regarding Christianity.

Also, if there were any compelling reasons that prompted you to transition into atheism from Christianity I would be very interested to hear those as well.

Ummm because I'm not insane and I rather like thinking for myself?

Compelling?? Hardly...... I was born this way ....What has kept me FROM religion?? How stupid and backward it and it's proponents are

[Reforged]

I can sum up all of this thread in five simple words;
Proof, you ain't got it.

[Dumac Dwarfking]

I can sum up all of this thread in five simple words;
Proof, you ain't got it.

Well... four words and a colloquialism...

[Tino]

I was born catholic. Here are the key things I can recall that convinced me it was all delusion:

1. Answers to questions in religious ed classes made no sense or were circular in nature

2. Felt no different before/after confession

3. Felt nothing from communion or mass

4. Observed church members speaking disrespectfully of priests behind their backs. Realized that church membership demands very little of its members, yet the members felt free to mock the only people (priests) who had made a real commitment to it.

5. Observed that prayer had no effect.

6. Observed pain that church doctrine brought to my mother when dealing with divorce/re-marriage

Stopped participating at age 15 or so.

[Reasonable_Jeff]

I've been reading through the thread and just wanted to express appreciation for you guys being open in regards to your reasons for atheism/agnosticism.

Mystic Knight I found your reasons particularly interesting...I've been meaning to make my way over to the Islam section of this forum...in real life I've never actually had in depth discussions with a Muslim. I am very interested to begin =D

[Reforged]

I can sum up all of this thread in five simple words;
Proof, you ain't got it.

Well... four words and a colloquialism...

Ah, my old nemesis. The grammar nazi.
I will put comas in place of full stops and full stops in place of speech marks.
I will type horrific mistakes such as "I iz" instead of "I am".
I will hunt you down and shout grammatically incorrect sentences at you till your fucking head explodes.
By the time I'm done fucking with you you will be regarded as the very definition of a "reverse Mick Jagger".

... no offence. :-)