CDZ What Is the Downside to Christianity?

[Faun]

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.

The downside could be that it’s a false religion established by the devil, designed to separate Jews from G-d. To lure future hell dwellers down the path to eternal damnation with the temptation of a false prophet whose goal was to fool the righteous and the desperate into believing he was G-d.

It could be. But in order for that to be true you’d have to show the malice of the devil in creating Christianity. I eat bacon and lobster and do yard work on the Sabbath. I don’t think that’s going to separate me from God.

If you read the NT with discernment----you will find that
Jesus did not eat bacon or do yard work on Sabbath nor
did he advocate doing so. The "devil" did not create
Christianity------the romans did

Not exactly. There was a Sabbath where his disciples worked by plucking corn. He proclaimed himself the lord of the Sabbath, so it was ok.

Luke 6 (KJV)

6 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

 

[irosie91]

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.

The downside could be that it’s a false religion established by the devil, designed to separate Jews from G-d. To lure future hell dwellers down the path to eternal damnation with the temptation of a false prophet whose goal was to fool the righteous and the desperate into believing he was G-d.

It could be. But in order for that to be true you’d have to show the malice of the devil in creating Christianity. I eat bacon and lobster and do yard work on the Sabbath. I don’t think that’s going to separate me from God.

If you read the NT with discernment----you will find that
Jesus did not eat bacon or do yard work on Sabbath nor
did he advocate doing so. The "devil" did not create
Christianity------the romans did

Not exactly. There was a Sabbath where his disciples worked by plucking corn. He proclaimed himself the lord of the Sabbath, so it was ok.

Luke 6 (KJV)

6 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

it was kernels of WHEAT. Picking stuff that grows and eating on the spot is bad form for the very religious-----not a
capital crime. The answer Jesus gave is consistent with his
status as a PHARISEE------believe it or not. One need not drop dead of hunger for a minor issue. The allusion to Kind David is kinda like Talmudic logic. I doubt the quotation----it seems really badly translated to me. "LORD" ?
can you give it to me in Aramaic.

 

[Faun]

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.

The downside could be that it’s a false religion established by the devil, designed to separate Jews from G-d. To lure future hell dwellers down the path to eternal damnation with the temptation of a false prophet whose goal was to fool the righteous and the desperate into believing he was G-d.

It could be. But in order for that to be true you’d have to show the malice of the devil in creating Christianity. I eat bacon and lobster and do yard work on the Sabbath. I don’t think that’s going to separate me from God.

If you read the NT with discernment----you will find that
Jesus did not eat bacon or do yard work on Sabbath nor
did he advocate doing so. The "devil" did not create
Christianity------the romans did

Not exactly. There was a Sabbath where his disciples worked by plucking corn. He proclaimed himself the lord of the Sabbath, so it was ok.

Luke 6 (KJV)

6 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

it was kernels of WHEAT. Picking stuff that grows and eating on the spot is bad form for the very religious-----not a
capital crime. The answer Jesus gave is consistent with his
status as a PHARISEE------believe it or not. One need not drop dead of hunger for a minor issue. The allusion to Kind David is kinda like Talmudic logic. I doubt the quotation----it seems really badly translated to me. "LORD" ?
can you give it to me in Aramaic.

I just copied the text from Luke. I believe it was in Matthew, probably recalling the same event, who said it was wheat. Just another one of the many inconsistencies in the New Testament.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What Is the Downside to Christianity?

Every theology has two dimensions -- the sociology and the catechism. The downside to Christianity is the same as the downside to every theology: the dogma, the catechism. Dogma is the downside as a result of at least two of its consequences/implications:

• Dogma asks one to accept a variety of things for which there is no rational basis for condoning. It's probable everything came from something/"someone" or some things/one(s), but that that something(s)/-one(s) is God as depicted in the Bible, Torah or Quran is far from certain.
• Dogma inspires the absurd notion that merely believing in the verity of the dogmatic pronouncements of a theology -- while otherwise and at one's discretion being consistently or periodically reprobate, felonious, and/or misdemeanant -- is all that's needed to save one's immortal soul, or to send one to Heaven to be accompanied by some quantity of virgins, or whatever. "You can be as bad as you wanna be, so long as you believe in me." ??? I'm sorry, but there's no way any god having whatever greater intellect than we and expecting his/her adherents to not destroy themselves set that low the bar for one's Earthly comportment.

 

[Syriusly]

The downside could be that it’s a false religion established by the devil, designed to separate Jews from G-d. To lure future hell dwellers down the path to eternal damnation with the temptation of a false prophet whose goal was to fool the righteous and the desperate into believing he was G-d.

It could be. But in order for that to be true you’d have to show the malice of the devil in creating Christianity. I eat bacon and lobster and do yard work on the Sabbath. I don’t think that’s going to separate me from God.

If you read the NT with discernment----you will find that
Jesus did not eat bacon or do yard work on Sabbath nor
did he advocate doing so. The "devil" did not create
Christianity------the romans did

Not exactly. There was a Sabbath where his disciples worked by plucking corn. He proclaimed himself the lord of the Sabbath, so it was ok.

Luke 6 (KJV)

6 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

it was kernels of WHEAT. Picking stuff that grows and eating on the spot is bad form for the very religious-----not a
capital crime. The answer Jesus gave is consistent with his
status as a PHARISEE------believe it or not. One need not drop dead of hunger for a minor issue. The allusion to Kind David is kinda like Talmudic logic. I doubt the quotation----it seems really badly translated to me. "LORD" ?
can you give it to me in Aramaic.

I just copied the text from Luke. I believe it was in Matthew, probably recalling the same event, who said it was wheat. Just another one of the many inconsistencies in the New Testament.

Corn was another term for wheat in archaic English

 

[irosie91]

It could be. But in order for that to be true you’d have to show the malice of the devil in creating Christianity. I eat bacon and lobster and do yard work on the Sabbath. I don’t think that’s going to separate me from God.

If you read the NT with discernment----you will find that
Jesus did not eat bacon or do yard work on Sabbath nor
did he advocate doing so. The "devil" did not create
Christianity------the romans did

Not exactly. There was a Sabbath where his disciples worked by plucking corn. He proclaimed himself the lord of the Sabbath, so it was ok.

Luke 6 (KJV)

6 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

it was kernels of WHEAT. Picking stuff that grows and eating on the spot is bad form for the very religious-----not a
capital crime. The answer Jesus gave is consistent with his
status as a PHARISEE------believe it or not. One need not drop dead of hunger for a minor issue. The allusion to Kind David is kinda like Talmudic logic. I doubt the quotation----it seems really badly translated to me. "LORD" ?
can you give it to me in Aramaic.

I just copied the text from Luke. I believe it was in Matthew, probably recalling the same event, who said it was wheat. Just another one of the many inconsistencies in the New Testament.

Corn was another term for wheat in archaic English

yes----but not in Aramaic. Wheat when picked and eaten raw----is HULLED by rubbing it between ones hands----a casual snack. ------the act on saturday is not exactly polite but not a BIG DEAL. It is not considered theft. Another manipulation of raw wheat is TOASTING it on an opened fire-------if they had done that-----it would have been REALLY impolite

 

[Weatherman2020]

6 word sentence. I don’t teach remedial 3rd grade English. Either answer the OP or I report you for trying to derail the thread.

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.

 

[irosie91]

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.

be careful-----some of those "agents" are known to be
aggressive WIT DA HANDS

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Just as Christianity does, overwhelming evidence points to the truth. Truth does not require lies to be believed.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Wow I am so impressed.....lol.....

So again- what was the point of this thread?

Oh right- not the title of the thread but:
Only distortions of the faith are negative.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Just as Christianity does, overwhelming evidence points to the truth. Truth does not require lies to be believed.

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?

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Just as Christianity does, overwhelming evidence points to the truth. Truth does not require lies to be believed.

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.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

be careful-----some of those "agents" are known to be
aggressive WIT DA HANDS

He is not an agent, I work direct.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Wow I am so impressed.....lol.....

So again- what was the point of this thread?

Oh right- not the title of the thread but:
Only distortions of the faith are negative.

I recommend it for your Christmas list.
https://www.amazon.com/Teach-Your-Child-Read-Lessons/dp/0671631985/?tag=usmb-20

 

[deanrd]

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.

Have you asked gay people?

 

[2aguy]

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.

Hell. If you reject God and behave in an evil way.....you go to Hell....

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

The downside could be that it’s a false religion established by the devil, designed to separate Jews from G-d. To lure future hell dwellers down the path to eternal damnation with the temptation of a false prophet whose goal was to fool the righteous and the desperate into believing he was G-d.

It could be. But in order for that to be true you’d have to show the malice of the devil in creating Christianity. I eat bacon and lobster and do yard work on the Sabbath. I don’t think that’s going to separate me from God.

I grow so many mixed crops in my field, it isn't even funny!

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Just as Christianity does, overwhelming evidence points to the truth. Truth does not require lies to be believed.

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.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just as Christianity does, overwhelming evidence points to the truth. Truth does not require lies to be believed.

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.

 

[Bonzi]

What Is the Downside to Christianity?

Nothing, if you are a true Christian. It's only bad for those that think they are. Horrible in fact.