CDZ What Is the Downside to Christianity?

[oldsoul]

Reading the responses it is obvious there is no valid downside to Christianity. People go off on tangents about non-Biblical things people have done, non-Biblical practices, etc, but bottom line is there is nothing negative about a person being a Christian. People who hate God will thus hate Christians. They don't attack any other religion simply because it is the one true faith.

weather-----what does criticism of Christianity have to do with
"non-biblical" things. or even "biblical things"? I have read the bible----both OT and NT. I do not see much about Christianity over the past approximately 1700 years that has
much to do with EITHER. As to "hating Christians"-----who, when and where? "hate "god" ???

What you obviously fail to see is that all of the criticism is not against Christianity as you believe, but actually it is criticism of people who are not following Christianity.

OHHH thanks so much. I did not offer any specific
criticism of "Christianity"-----but whatever YOU imagine
such specific criticisms WOULD BE-----are a result of MY
"failure to see". Try to be a little specific. A simple task-----detail three of my criticisms of Christianity. Later on we
can get into your idiotic sunday school interpretations of Judaism. Lets deal with the "CHRIST KILLER LIBEL" that you and yours have used to justify the lynching of millions. That one IS an INTERESTING part of that which you call your "bible" (specifically the parts Constantine----fuhrer of the FIRST REICH----- threw in)

Since you claim to have read the bible(I have no reason to believe you have not), maybe you can explain where, in the bible, the actions you have cited are condoned. I see that as a relatively simple task. I would even accept three citations.

I have no "dog in this fight", but I cannot help but notice you seem to have a vehement "dislike" (maybe distaste would be a better term), for Christianity that borders on hatred. Instead of addressing the OP, or asking for clarification, you immediately go on the offensive, failing to articulate how your citations are, in any way, connected to Christianity. Maybe they are, I am not well enough educated on the matter to determine that. You claim to be. So, make the connection or retract your statements.

Note: Any attack on me without first making the connections/retractions, will be seen, by me, as an admission of your inability to make such connections and your lack of the humility necessary to admit you were incorrect, and will result in appropriate action on my part.

are you (old soul) addressing me? If so, can you be more specific as the "actions" I have cited being "condoned" in the NT? I have not cited specific "actions" as being "condoned" in the NT. What I HAVE cited is the "Christ killer libel" which is detailed in the NT. Do you wish to dispute that fact? I will state for clarification-----every lynching, pogrom and genocide has at its base a LIBEL
Do you wish to dispute that assertion?

How about you just start here:

What I HAVE cited is the "Christ killer libel" which is detailed in the NT.

Where?

And no I am not disputing your "assertions" I am simply asking you to back your words up. Was I unclear on that?

 

[oldsoul]

by whom? If you wish to assert that Christianity has been misrepresented and misused by the writers of the NT----I might agree. OR---if you wish to assert that Jesus has been
misrepresented by the writers of the NT-----I would DEFINITELY agree with that one (based on what I believe Jesus to have been)

What in the NT is wrong that you think is a negative to Christianity?[/QUOTE

try to fix that query up so that it makes sense. I will try to
answer AS IF it makes sense. And I will make it simple.
The "Christ killer" libel is a giant historical FRAUD, IN DETAIL. It was created as a justification for destroying jews which was a very strong ROMAN ambition. Goebbels could not have done a better job----in fact,
Goebbels and his wife (saint magda d' cyanide) based
their beliefs and writings on it.
Another giant fraud is the "Pauline doctrine" artificially
supported by "JESUS SAID......." It's not your fault---
it's a ROMAN THING. (the romans got the idea from
alexander who was absolutely sure that the whole world
would be a better place if it became MORE GREEK)

That’s the point of the OP. Only distortions of the faith are negative.

Ah so that is the point of the OP.

Not "what is the downside to Christianity'

distortions of THE FAITH (aka DEEN) is called
KUFR. Kufr is an Arabic word based on the
semitic root-------which means "conceal" or "cover" ---
It refers to DENIAL OF THE TRUTH which in Islamic
belief is ISLAM. Belief in the concept of "trinity"
is "kufr" thus -----Christianity is kufr

So says you. Can you cite your sources? I ask because I am currently undergoing a decades long introspection into the faith of my youth, and attempting to reconcile that with the realities of modern life as I see them. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate knowing where you got this information so that I may further study.

 

[irosie91]

weather-----what does criticism of Christianity have to do with
"non-biblical" things. or even "biblical things"? I have read the bible----both OT and NT. I do not see much about Christianity over the past approximately 1700 years that has
much to do with EITHER. As to "hating Christians"-----who, when and where? "hate "god" ???

What you obviously fail to see is that all of the criticism is not against Christianity as you believe, but actually it is criticism of people who are not following Christianity.

OHHH thanks so much. I did not offer any specific
criticism of "Christianity"-----but whatever YOU imagine
such specific criticisms WOULD BE-----are a result of MY
"failure to see". Try to be a little specific. A simple task-----detail three of my criticisms of Christianity. Later on we
can get into your idiotic sunday school interpretations of Judaism. Lets deal with the "CHRIST KILLER LIBEL" that you and yours have used to justify the lynching of millions. That one IS an INTERESTING part of that which you call your "bible" (specifically the parts Constantine----fuhrer of the FIRST REICH----- threw in)

Since you claim to have read the bible(I have no reason to believe you have not), maybe you can explain where, in the bible, the actions you have cited are condoned. I see that as a relatively simple task. I would even accept three citations.

I have no "dog in this fight", but I cannot help but notice you seem to have a vehement "dislike" (maybe distaste would be a better term), for Christianity that borders on hatred. Instead of addressing the OP, or asking for clarification, you immediately go on the offensive, failing to articulate how your citations are, in any way, connected to Christianity. Maybe they are, I am not well enough educated on the matter to determine that. You claim to be. So, make the connection or retract your statements.

Note: Any attack on me without first making the connections/retractions, will be seen, by me, as an admission of your inability to make such connections and your lack of the humility necessary to admit you were incorrect, and will result in appropriate action on my part.

are you (old soul) addressing me? If so, can you be more specific as the "actions" I have cited being "condoned" in the NT? I have not cited specific "actions" as being "condoned" in the NT. What I HAVE cited is the "Christ killer libel" which is detailed in the NT. Do you wish to dispute that fact? I will state for clarification-----every lynching, pogrom and genocide has at its base a LIBEL
Do you wish to dispute that assertion?

How about you just start here:

What I HAVE cited is the "Christ killer libel" which is detailed in the NT.

Where?

And no I am not disputing your "assertions" I am simply asking you to back your words up. Was I unclear on that?

I did not memorize the NT chapter and verse with the NUMBERING system. Every time there is a line suggesting
'the joooos wanted to kill him"----the book reveals a filthy slimey libel for the purpose of encouraging LYNCHING and
pogroms and oppression and genocide Not so hard to understand from an HISTORIC CONTEXT------Constantine (head of nicean council) did enact a code of laws upon jews in "palestina"---for the FIRST REICH----that was later adopted (chapter and verse) by the emperor of the THIRD REICH. More news-----jews did not attend crucifixions as
an ENTERTAINMENT as is suggested in the NT------
crucifixion as an entertainment is a ROMAN custom. In fact
the custom of execution as an entertainment-----persisted in
your world for MILLENNIA------never was so in jewish "palestina" or in Israel/Judea. Do you miss public hangings?

 

[oldsoul]

I have asked the question for years without a reasonable answer from non Christians.
Sure Christianity has been misused for power and control in history. But those events are lies unsupported by Scripture.

Non Christians believe the New Testament is a fabrication. But in order for there to be such an elaborate fabrication that ended up changing the course of human history there must be a motive for that fabrication.

Is the motive of Christianity to take your money? No.

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7


Is the motive of Christianity to control your life? No.
One of the thieves crucified became a believer as he hung on the cross. He did not have to go to church or do anything except believe.

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Luke 23:42-43


Is the motive of Christianity to get you to do something? No.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9


I propose the lack of evidence of any alterer motive except that of simply believing combined with the detailing of significant personal flaws of each author and character of Scripture combined with the fulfillment of prophecies from the ages combined with the historical evidence validates the New Testament.

If I am missing something that brings the validity of the New Testament into question, state so.

If you can be convinced that a guy 2000 years ago walked on water and his mother was a virgin, how hard is it to convince you global warming isn't real? They've always used religion to control the flock. Republicans have just taken it to a new level.

Why must you do that? Can you not help yourself. This WAS a discussion about a particular theology, then YOU had to bring modern politics into it. Shame on you. Not everything is about politics.

 

[Syriusly]

What evidence?

A religious person might say:

1. The Biblical God is real.
   There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
   
   The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
   
   The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
   
   See also: Visualisation of Bible Contradictions (must read), Argument from the Bible, Criticisms of the Bible, Consistency of the Bible, A Compendium of Disbelief, Deconversion: The Bible and A History of God (both must watch), BBC The History of God.
   
   Origins of the Bible: PBS Buried Secrets, CH4 Who wrote the Bible? (a must watch).
   
   “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” – Isaac Asimov
   
   
2. Biblical Jesus was real.
   There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
   
   All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
   
   The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
   
   The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
   
   Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
   
   The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:
   
   “Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” – Ken Ham

Why there is no god

You have at least two misguided faiths then.

And Ken Ham is right. If the assumption is no God, thus a giver of morality, then sky is the limit on what we can do.

So if you didn't believe in God you would be okay with murdering people?

I think the number of people murdered in Godless nations in just the past century is somewhere around 165 million people.
So yes.

Well that does say quite a bit about you- not about anyone else.

See I don't believe in God and I am not out there murdering people.

But you- you would be murdering people. I guess the evil in your heart is just held back by your fear of your god.

I don't believe in any of the other religions but don't feel any desire to spend hours mocking them for their beliefs.

You haters do not realize it, but your efforts to crush only one faith validates that faith as the one true faith.

LOL- I am not the hater who starts entire threads to attack those who do not believe in your fairy in the sky.

I don't give a damn which 'god' you chose to prey to.

I am concerned that if you suddenly lose your faith you will go out and start murdering people.

Because only your faith is holding you back.

Me? I am an atheist- and I have no urges to murder anyone. I don't hate anyone. I am not starting threads attacking the faith of others.

Why are you?

 

[oldsoul]

Do you really think threatening me is going to work? Report away, I haven't broken any rules. You seem to be having quite an emotional breakdown.

Are you capable of explaining your point, or not? If not, I guess there's nothing we can do about it, and I'll leave you to play with your straw-men by yourself.

If you are trying to have a serious discussion (which is the point of the CDZ), there should be no reason why you can't tell us what you're trying to discuss.

6 word question and you blather on and on about it’s meaning.

Your frustration at that 6 word question is obvious. Not because you can’t understand it, but because you can.

Multiple posters have asked the same question- you have refused to answer it every time.

You clearly are unable to answer what the point of your thread is.

2 posters asked.

Many others can read English.

Three posters asked- and you danced like a dervish to avoid answering the questions- just a short sampling of some of us asking

Pogo

I hadn't figured out what the OP's point was but this is a good guess --- apparently he wants to know why the NT is not "valid", whatever that means.

Pogo

If you try actually reading the post ------- it says that I haven't figured out what your point is.

Or to put it another way, you failed to articulate it.

What in the wide world of fuck does "a downside to Christianity" mean?

Pogo

Actually what's obvious is that you can't articulate what your point here is. I asked you twice, others did too, and all you have in response is sophomoric put-downs and then declaring yourself a winner.

theDoctorisin

I will ask, as many others have - what the fuck is your point with this thread?

Are you trying to convince non-believers to become Christians? Are you just whining that not everyone shares your beliefs?

Exactly- thank you- what the fuck is the point of this thread?

theDoctorisin

No, I really don't.

Why won't you explain it? Are you trying to have a serious discussion?

It doesn't appear so.



Syriusly

Can't rebutt the incoherant.

Why are you so afraid to try to explain your OP?

Syriusly

What is the point of the OP?

If you wont' bother to answer the question- then this thread doesn't belong in the CDZ

Syriusly

The title of the thread is 'what is the downside to Christianity'- the question is what does that mean?

In your OP- you don't actually elaborate on that- you just make an argument that there is no motivation for the New Testament to be falsified- which has is a different issue.

Then you bring up the 'validity' of the New Testament at the end.

You are all over the place here- here are the three different concepts you seem to be raising:
1) What is the downside to Christianity?
2) What motivation was there to fabricate the New Testament
3) Validity of the New Testament

The content of your OP does not address the title of your OP.

So again- what is the point of your OP? I see at least three different issues listed.

Dude, in the middle of all that I’m having an hour long email Q&A exchange with a Hollywood Producer. We couldn’t talk or meet because we are both multi tasking. His living is about communication. Like my hobby is writing books. At no time did he have a problem with my English. As was other posters in this thread who discussed the OP. Only you 3 wanted to play The I don’t understand but since this is the only topic in USMB I’ll spend my day hounding him game.

And BTW he likes my ideas. I’ll go to his house Thursday to discuss things in more detail.

At no time did he have a problem with my English. As was other posters in this thread who discussed the OP. Only you 3 wanted to play The I don’t understand

You are actually quite wrong here. I, too, did not, and still don't understand the CONTEXT in which you ask the question. I refrained from asking because that question was already asked, and dodged. I saw no reason to engage in an exercise in beating my head against a wall.
So, please, get to the context in which you ask the question, or simply tell us that you refuse. Either way, I really don't care. You are only making yourself look the fool for continuing to dodge the issue. We have asked for clarification, and you refuse (or are unable) to provide it. Either way, discussing this further without said context is a fool's errand.

 

[oldsoul]

Every time there is a line suggesting
'the joooos wanted to kill him"

How about you just respond in a format that is the generally accepted norm, and dispense with the "da jooos" crap. Even as a non-Jew, I am finding it incredibly insulting and disrespectful.

 

[oldsoul]

What you obviously fail to see is that all of the criticism is not against Christianity as you believe, but actually it is criticism of people who are not following Christianity.

OHHH thanks so much. I did not offer any specific
criticism of "Christianity"-----but whatever YOU imagine
such specific criticisms WOULD BE-----are a result of MY
"failure to see". Try to be a little specific. A simple task-----detail three of my criticisms of Christianity. Later on we
can get into your idiotic sunday school interpretations of Judaism. Lets deal with the "CHRIST KILLER LIBEL" that you and yours have used to justify the lynching of millions. That one IS an INTERESTING part of that which you call your "bible" (specifically the parts Constantine----fuhrer of the FIRST REICH----- threw in)

Since you claim to have read the bible(I have no reason to believe you have not), maybe you can explain where, in the bible, the actions you have cited are condoned. I see that as a relatively simple task. I would even accept three citations.

I have no "dog in this fight", but I cannot help but notice you seem to have a vehement "dislike" (maybe distaste would be a better term), for Christianity that borders on hatred. Instead of addressing the OP, or asking for clarification, you immediately go on the offensive, failing to articulate how your citations are, in any way, connected to Christianity. Maybe they are, I am not well enough educated on the matter to determine that. You claim to be. So, make the connection or retract your statements.

Note: Any attack on me without first making the connections/retractions, will be seen, by me, as an admission of your inability to make such connections and your lack of the humility necessary to admit you were incorrect, and will result in appropriate action on my part.

are you (old soul) addressing me? If so, can you be more specific as the "actions" I have cited being "condoned" in the NT? I have not cited specific "actions" as being "condoned" in the NT. What I HAVE cited is the "Christ killer libel" which is detailed in the NT. Do you wish to dispute that fact? I will state for clarification-----every lynching, pogrom and genocide has at its base a LIBEL
Do you wish to dispute that assertion?

How about you just start here:

What I HAVE cited is the "Christ killer libel" which is detailed in the NT.

Where?

And no I am not disputing your "assertions" I am simply asking you to back your words up. Was I unclear on that?

I did not memorize the NT chapter and verse with the NUMBERING system. Every time there is a line suggesting
'the joooos wanted to kill him"----the book reveals a filthy slimey libel for the purpose of encouraging LYNCHING and
pogroms and oppression and genocide Not so hard to understand from an HISTORIC CONTEXT------Constantine (head of nicean council) did enact a code of laws upon jews in "palestina"---for the FIRST REICH----that was later adopted (chapter and verse) by the emperor of the THIRD REICH. More news-----jews did not attend crucifixions as
an ENTERTAINMENT as is suggested in the NT------
crucifixion as an entertainment is a ROMAN custom. In fact
the custom of execution as an entertainment-----persisted in
your world for MILLENNIA------never was so in jewish "palestina" or in Israel/Judea. Do you miss public hangings?

So, your saying you do not have/remember your sources. Thank you for your honesty.

 

[irosie91]

Every time there is a line suggesting
'the joooos wanted to kill him"

How about you just respond in a format that is the generally accepted norm, and dispense with the "da jooos" crap. Even as a non-Jew, I am finding it incredibly insulting and disrespectful.

It is very difficult to talk to a person who FEIGNS ignorance-----
something like "NO SPEAKA DA ENGLISH" I have been communicating with ALL SORTS of people during my lifetime-----both professionally and pre-professional school time jobs. The best say to know HOW to talk to a person is to understand a bit about that person's background. I have a varied background------having had close friendships with Christians of all flavors----from varied protestant, to quaker to
eastern ortho---to catholic etc-----and people of all different
religions----from Jain to hindu to muslim to Sikh etc etc and people with cognitive disorder with whom I HAD to communicate. I don't know anything about your background------so I will ask----did you ever read the OT or the NT? Did you go to any kind of Christian education thing---like sunday school or catholic school or madrassah?

 

[oldsoul]

Every time there is a line suggesting
'the joooos wanted to kill him"

How about you just respond in a format that is the generally accepted norm, and dispense with the "da jooos" crap. Even as a non-Jew, I am finding it incredibly insulting and disrespectful.

It is very difficult to talk to a person who FEIGNS ignorance-----
something like "NO SPEAKA DA ENGLISH" I have been communicating with ALL SORTS of people during my lifetime-----both professionally and pre-professional school time jobs. The best say to know HOW to talk to a person is to understand a bit about that person's background. I have a varied background------having had close friendships with Christians of all flavors----from varied protestant, to quaker to
eastern ortho---to catholic etc-----and people of all different
religions----from Jain to hindu to muslim to Sikh etc etc and people with cognitive disorder with whom I HAD to communicate. I don't know anything about your background------so I will ask----did you ever read the OT or the NT? Did you go to any kind of Christian education thing---like sunday school or catholic school or madrassah?

It is very difficult to talk to a person who FEIGNS ignorance-----
something like "NO SPEAKA DA ENGLISH" I have been communicating with ALL SORTS of people during my lifetime-----both professionally and pre-professional school time jobs. The best say to know HOW to talk to a person is to understand a bit about that person's background. I have a varied background------having had close friendships with Christians of all flavors----from varied protestant, to quaker to
eastern ortho---to catholic etc-----and people of all different
religions----from Jain to hindu to muslim to Sikh etc etc and people with cognitive disorder with whom I HAD to communicate.

I have no idea how this even attempts to address my post, nor do I have any idea how this is even relevant. However, I will answer your questions:

I don't know anything about your background------so I will ask----did you ever read the OT or the NT?

Yes, I have read most of the OT, and have read the NT more than once.

Did you go to any kind of Christian education thing---like sunday school or catholic school or madrassah?

Yes, I have, unfortunately it seemed, even at the time, to be somewhat incomplete. Also, it was many years ago.