3 reasons for Christians to start questionng their faith

[Esquilax]

The only difference is, doing so from an atheist perspective is more intellectually honest because we're the only ones not taking the words we're interpreting as binding declarations.

Really man, I wanna see you type it out because I know it's what you think.

"I, (state your name), have a more logical mind because I have an objective opinion."

Nobody has an objective opinion. But don't you think the guy whose belief system isn't tied up in the inerrant, divine perfection of something might be a little better equipped to critically evaluate it? We've all seen the mental gymnastics theists use to justify the bullshit things that pop up in all sorts of religious books.

Nobody has an objective opinion, but any level of objectivity is impossible when you fully believe that the safety of your immortal soul is contingent on obeying the edicts of a book.

[catfish]

Really man, I wanna see you type it out because I know it's what you think.

"I, (state your name), have a more logical mind because I have an objective opinion."

Nobody has an objective opinion. But don't you think the guy whose belief system isn't tied up in the inerrant, divine perfection of something might be a little better equipped to critically evaluate it? We've all seen the mental gymnastics theists use to justify the bullshit things that pop up in all sorts of religious books.

Nobody has an objective opinion, but any level of objectivity is impossible when you fully believe that the safety of your immortal soul is contingent on obeying the edicts of a book.

So then you're strawmanning me as you know I don't consider the Bible inerrant, infallible or divine.

If someone gives a verse from earlier in the Bible that says God ordered genocide and I show you a later verse that says it was a lie, which would you believe and why?

[Ryantology]

If someone gives a verse from earlier in the Bible that says God ordered genocide and I show you a later verse that says it was a lie, which would you believe and why?

Neither. The contradiction will justify the viewpoint that the entire thing is entirely unreliable.

[catfish]

If someone gives a verse from earlier in the Bible that says God ordered genocide and I show you a later verse that says it was a lie, which would you believe and why?

Neither. The contradiction will justify the viewpoint that the entire thing is entirely unreliable.

Yeah? I'd be willing to bet that you go right back to claiming the God of the Bible ordered genocide within a week if not immediately.

[jstrodel]

God doesn't order genocide anywhere in the Bible. Read the story of Sodom and Gommorah. God says for the sake of 5 righteous people, he will not destroy Sodom. God's judgements are aimed at the wickedness of the canaanites, not the color of their skin. Because they are evil people "their destable deeds" not because of their skin color, God destroys them.

The Bible does not sanction genocide. What it does sanction is judgement on wicked people that God personally considers to deserve punishment. This is similar to what the allied nations did in world war 2 when they fought against Hitler and the Japanese and killed many, many civilians, knowing they would kill civilians in a war, or what nations do when they punish criminals.

God is interested in punishing sin, not arbitrarily killing people.

---

Lol Ryantology. Nice image. You inspired me to change my avatar.

[Esquilax]

So then you're strawmanning me as you know I don't consider the Bible inerrant, infallible or divine.

Given that I was talking about theists in general, and you are not all theists, I was hardly talking about you, now was I?

Yeah? I'd be willing to bet that you go right back to claiming the God of the Bible ordered genocide within a week if not immediately.

You bet I would. Because a contradiction doesn't mean that the option you personally dislike is deleted, it means that the bible doesn't order genocide and orders genocide. That's kind of the point of a contradiction, having two mutually exclusive things in it.

---

God doesn't order genocide anywhere in the Bible. Read the story of Sodom and Gommorah. God says for the sake of 5 righteous people, he will not destroy Sodom. God's judgements are aimed at the wickedness of the canaanites, not the color of their skin. Because they are evil people "their destable deeds" not because of their skin color, God destroys them.

I submit to you that murder is no less heinous because it isn't also racist.

The Bible does not sanction genocide. What it does sanction is judgement on wicked people that God personally considers to deserve punishment. This is similar to what the allied nations did in world war 2 when they fought against Hitler and the Japanese and killed many, many civilians, knowing they would kill civilians in a war, or what nations do when they punish criminals.

The difference is that the battle plan against Hitler and the Japanese was never "Wipe them all out, including the women and the children and the civilians that have done nothing wrong." In fact, such a battle plan would be roundly condemned as immoral, but it's okay if god does it?

God is interested in punishing sin, not arbitrarily killing people.

Tell that to the kids he sent bears to kill for teasing a prophet.

[Godscreated]

---

As someone who spent over 25 years practicing the Christian faith, and who has since found greater liberty and personal fulfillment outside of that practice, I would like to encourage all Christians to consider some of the more compelling reasons to question your faith. Here are a few:

#1. Lack of Validity.

Christianity fails to substantiate even the most basic of it’s claims, such as the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. But even more compelling is the fact that the story of Jesus is part of a collection of books filled with scientific impossibilities, contradictions, and bogus history.

Christopher Hitchens once said, “The bible makes magnificent claims, we should require magnificent proof.”

Now, of course, Christians will counter that by saying, “God must leave plenty of room for faith”. There are, however, two fundamental problems with that perspective:

(a) It leaves far too much room for error. If faith is the primary driving force behind a person’s belief, what is to stop them from believing in any number of other religious ideas or practices? Faith without first having good reason is meaningless.

(b) According to the Bible, faith is not the means by which god has inspired his most important followers:

Moses, for example was shown a burning bush, which actually spoke to him and very specifically declared:

"Don't come any closer, take off your sandals because you are in the presence of God. I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

Even at that, Moses still had his doubts, so he was given even more undeniable evidence, as well as the power to demonstrate his god ordained purpose to others. (Exodus Chapter 3)

Also, The Apostle Paul, a man initially portrayed in scripture as a persecutor of Christians, was shown a brilliant light, physically knocked to the ground, and was then given very specific instructions from an audible voice. Further more, he was blinded and then given his sight back. (Acts 9:3-9)

And there are literally dozens upon dozens of other examples of characters in the Bible being inspired to serve god as the result of some supernatural event that was clearly a message from god.

#2. Immorality.

Dr. William Lane Craig, a well known Christian apologist, loves, in his defense of theism, to claim that, without god, there is no objective morality. I happen to disagree with that, and I’ll expand here:

If, by “Objective Morality”, it is the Christian position that morality has a permanently fixed set of unalterable standards, then it my position that such a thing does not exist with or without god.

However, if “Objective Morality” is merely meant to point to the pursuit of accomplishing a logical and beneficial objective, then I would argue that the only sensible standard of morality is that of the preservation, success, and further evolution of human kind. Within that frame work, human decency, the betterment and quality of human life, and environmental, political, and social issues have the very best chance of being effectively resolved and productively furthered.

In contrast, Christianity offers no practical solution for the survival and success of man kind, and instead trivializes human life while promoting completely unstubstantiated claims of an eternal spiritual existence beyond the grave.

Luke 17:33
Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it.

And this same lack of regard for human life and human decency is repeated and illustrated all throughout the Bible.

With that in mind, is it any wonder why Christians throughout history have committed so many terrible atrocities? Once you strip a human being of his regard for human life (especially his own) with promises of eternal and spiritual prosperity, you create a potentially homicidal maniac that will do anything in the name of god.

#3. Heaven’s Hell.

Even If you can look past the counter-productive moral implications, and the lack of any compelling evidence to support the claims of Christianity, you still have to face the terrible reality of what it claims will be the ultimate outcome of it's followers. Observe:

Revalation 5:13
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

Revalation 22:4-5:
No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

The eternal life that a Christian is working toward and hoping for, according to scripture, is one of constant praise, worship, and slavery (Rom 6:22) of an extremely boring and self-centered egomaniac that intends to strip his servants of any kind of meaningful free will or independent interest.

I’m not sure which is the more wishful thinking: that the heaven of the bible exists at all, or that it's actually a place worth going to.

---

I noticed that you said practiced Christianity, you should have tried living it. Practicing Christianity is nothing more than making it another religion. One can practice baseball for a long time, but if you do not get into a game you've never played baseball, same with Christianity. You should have lived in a relationship with Christ, if you had, you probably would not even be on this forum asking Christians who do live in a relationship with Christ to stop. How is it that you can ask a Christian to quit living for Christ when you have not first experienced Christ, that to me is most inappropriate, even condescending. It is also apparent from reading the post that you did not really understand scripture, did you really study scripture or are you googleing others opinions. So, IMO you have no reasons to state any reason, because you are not using reason in your statement.

---

If someone gives a verse from earlier in the Bible that says God ordered genocide and I show you a later verse that says it was a lie, which would you believe and why?

Neither. The contradiction will justify the viewpoint that the entire thing is entirely unreliable.

Didn't you state in another post you've never read the Bible, if so then you have no real opinion on what it says, just hearsay; shame on you for bring in you second hand belief.

[jstrodel]

Esquilax do you think it is possible that if God knew everything, God would be able to judge who deserved punishment and who didn't? In the case of Sodom and Gommorah, God destroyed the entire city because the entire city deserved punishment. What is unreasonable about believing that if God knows everything, God would know who was guilty and who not, and if God knew this, God would be justified in killing them.

There are differences between the invasion of Canaan and WWII, but the difference is that in the case of WWII, the allies killed without having any idea of whether the people being killed were innocent or guilty, where as in the case of the book of Joshua, God knew exactly who was guilty.

What is immoral about God judging a certain person for his sins? Why should God be more merciful with people that do evil, for instance, burning their children, then the allies were during World War 2.

[Godscreated]

Nobody has an objective opinion. But don't you think the guy whose belief system isn't tied up in the inerrant, divine perfection of something might be a little better equipped to critically evaluate it? We've all seen the mental gymnastics theists use to justify the bullshit things that pop up in all sorts of religious books.

Nobody has an objective opinion, but any level of objectivity is impossible when you fully believe that the safety of your immortal soul is contingent on obeying the edicts of a book.

You are another one who spats alot of spittle without ever using the scripture to prove a point, have you ever read the Bible or are you another googler who depends on another's opinion.

[Silver]

You are another one who spats alot of spittle without ever using the scripture to prove a point.

Using scripture does not prove anything, because using the bible to prove that what is in the bible is real is the basest form of circular logic.