What do you object to about Christianity?

[moshquerade]

Fuck the OP, Fuck Religion Threads, and Fuck Religion.

tell us how you reeeeeally feel :awe:

OP, I don't object to the premise of Christianity if it is comprised of genuinely good people who treat others as they would like to be treated.

 

[soulcougher73]

A few reasons:

1. The existence of God cannot be proven. While I might understand how some people explore the possibility of an existence of a God, I cannot understand how people have an absolute conviction in the existence of something that cannot be proven. That level of conviction is, by definition, non-rational. I find it frustrating to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge that their certainty (in something you cannot be certain of) is a fundamental gap between us. It's even more frustrating when that person tries to persuade me to abandon a well-reasoned understanding of the world for something with no evidence, that asks me to change my life, and has no visible benefit.

2. I can look into history and see many things done in the name of Christianity that were abhorrent things, like the Inquisition and the Crusades. I can look at the present day and see things being done in the name of Christianity that are abhorrent things, like the Waco or the potential death penalty for gays in Uganda. I think that it is reasonable to predict more abhorrent things will be done in the name of Christianity in the future and that is enough reason, in my opinion, to dismantle the institution in protection of human rights.

3. The Bible contains contradictions (Thou shalt not kill / God makes the Israealites a massive war force, love thy neighbor / put sinners out of the congregation, no difference between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female / homosexuality is a sin) that indicate to me Christianity is inconsistent and that the present-day interpretation(s) are merely the most current spin on a social construct that has always been bent to fit the society it's in. I believe that the current interpretations are behind the societal curve and, given the power that Christianity has in the western world right now, that it is slowing the progress of social evolution and hurting individual people in the process.

4. I am offended by the idea that Christians have set up a narrow and arbitrary standard of who is saved and who is not saved and have marked me in a not-saved bucket simply because I don't take actions that I see as nonsensical and potentially harmful. They disregard whatever good I do in the world and instead they often abrasively accuse and threaten me. It's a very unpleasant and negative experience.

5. I witness Christians giving money to those who misuse it, giving power to those who wield it poorly, and supporting those who are hypocritical. I see that they often choose leadership poorly and vehemently and almost hysterically defend their leadership even after the leadership has been proven in scandal and a betrayal of their trust. This provides even more evidence to me that Christians are attached en masse to the idea of their religion, are operating on groupthink rather than individual critical reasoning, and that is distasteful to me and supports my original suspicion that they are clinging to the idea of a God without proof and not because of legitimate open-minded exploration and experience.

Oh, and by the way, I am a lifelong Christian, mostly in the Anglican tradition with some touches of evangelical background. I wrote my post from the perspective of a non-Christian because from that viewpoint I absolutely understand why they would dislike, distrust and disbelieve Christianity. The above are only a few examples of why.

Honestly, as a Christian, if you can't look at the history and current state of Christianity and how it interacts with the non-Christian world and FIGURE OUT why people dislike it, you are not doing nearly enough self-evaluation. The unexamined faith, where you refuse to consider it from all sides and contemplate the potential pitfalls and how you answer them, is no real faith at all.

This is a good place to start your research and contemplation. Very well stated.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

To the OP and anyone else interested in starting a religious thread:

Don't be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends. Teaching is highly responsible work. Teachers are held to the strictest standards. And none of us is perfectly qualified. We get it wrong nearly every time we open our mouths.

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all.

 

[Kadarin]

A few reasons:

1. The existence of God cannot be proven. While I might understand how some people explore the possibility of an existence of a God, I cannot understand how people have an absolute conviction in the existence of something that cannot be proven. That level of conviction is, by definition, non-rational. I find it frustrating to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge that their certainty (in something you cannot be certain of) is a fundamental gap between us. It's even more frustrating when that person tries to persuade me to abandon a well-reasoned understanding of the world for something with no evidence, that asks me to change my life, and has no visible benefit.

2. I can look into history and see many things done in the name of Christianity that were abhorrent things, like the Inquisition and the Crusades. I can look at the present day and see things being done in the name of Christianity that are abhorrent things, like the Waco or the potential death penalty for gays in Uganda. I think that it is reasonable to predict more abhorrent things will be done in the name of Christianity in the future and that is enough reason, in my opinion, to dismantle the institution in protection of human rights.

3. The Bible contains contradictions (Thou shalt not kill / God makes the Israealites a massive war force, love thy neighbor / put sinners out of the congregation, no difference between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female / homosexuality is a sin) that indicate to me Christianity is inconsistent and that the present-day interpretation(s) are merely the most current spin on a social construct that has always been bent to fit the society it's in. I believe that the current interpretations are behind the societal curve and, given the power that Christianity has in the western world right now, that it is slowing the progress of social evolution and hurting individual people in the process.

4. I am offended by the idea that Christians have set up a narrow and arbitrary standard of who is saved and who is not saved and have marked me in a not-saved bucket simply because I don't take actions that I see as nonsensical and potentially harmful. They disregard whatever good I do in the world and instead they often abrasively accuse and threaten me. It's a very unpleasant and negative experience.

5. I witness Christians giving money to those who misuse it, giving power to those who wield it poorly, and supporting those who are hypocritical. I see that they often choose leadership poorly and vehemently and almost hysterically defend their leadership even after the leadership has been proven in scandal and a betrayal of their trust. This provides even more evidence to me that Christians are attached en masse to the idea of their religion, are operating on groupthink rather than individual critical reasoning, and that is distasteful to me and supports my original suspicion that they are clinging to the idea of a God without proof and not because of legitimate open-minded exploration and experience.

Oh, and by the way, I am a lifelong Christian, mostly in the Anglican tradition with some touches of evangelical background. I wrote my post from the perspective of a non-Christian because from that viewpoint I absolutely understand why they would dislike, distrust and disbelieve Christianity. The above are only a few examples of why.

Honestly, as a Christian, if you can't look at the history and current state of Christianity and how it interacts with the non-Christian world and FIGURE OUT why people dislike it, you are not doing nearly enough self-evaluation. The unexamined faith, where you refuse to consider it from all sides and contemplate the potential pitfalls and how you answer them, is no real faith at all.

So given all of this, why choose to be a Christian?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Smarmy platitudes, DixyCrat. We need not be teachers to speak out, and offense may be a necessary result of our doing so.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I would also like to point out that it's pointless to engage the argument that science is as much a faith-based belief system as religion. Even if that weren't patently false, what is patently false is the implied conclusion: that religion would make a better candidate to describe and explain our physical world. It would not.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Smarmy platitudes, DixyCrat. We need not be teachers to speak out, and offense may be a necessary result of our doing so.

My smarmy platitudes are simply quotes from the bible.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203&version=KJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203&version=MSG

If you don't believe in the bible then the post was not directed at you (what a non-christian does is none of my business as-long as it doesn't hurt someone, my moralizing and bible thumping is meant to be limited to those who call themselves Christians)

what is patently false is the implied conclusion: that religion would make a better candidate to describe and explain our physical world.

and our social, cognitive and emotional world; does faith have just as little explanatory power?

 

[OutHouse]

Creationism.

Oh and I also hate the completely unjustified self-perceived moral superiority.

bottom line is NOBODY knows where we (humans) came from.

 

[bfdd]

I'm against organized religions as a whole, it has nothing to do specifically with any one religion.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

My smarmy platitudes are simply quotes from the bible.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203&version=KJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203&version=MSG

If you don't believe in the bible then the post was not directed at you (what a non-christian does is none of my business, my job is only to rebuke those who say they are Christians)

I would defend even your fellow Christians from the Bible's poor or, at the very least, misused advice.

Edit: Also, I might point out that your Bible does have some instructions on how to treat non-believers. Quite different from your stance of indifference:

And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

You also said:

and our social, cognitive and emotional world; does faith have just as little explanatory power?

Emphatically I say yes, as by all indications those are extensions of our physical world and condition. You might raise the point that science does not have a firm explanation for the emergence of cognition or consciousness from a biological point of view, but I would argue that it has a better shot at finding one than religion, especially given their respective track records on accurately explaining the nature of things.

It is very much a point in favor of science that rational people are able to say "I don't know," where religion tends to provide an answer even if it is a poor one -- and yet, people of faith see this as a small victory.

 

[Kadarin]

Emphatically I say yes, as by all indications those are extensions of our physical world and condition. You might raise the point that science does not have a firm explanation for the emergence of cognition or consciousness from a biological point of view, but I would argue that it has a better shot at finding one than religion, especially given their respective track records on accurately explaining the nature of things.

It is very much a point in favor of science that rational people are able to say "I don't know," where religion tends to provide an answer even if it is a poor one -- and yet, people of faith see this as a small victory.

Many people for some idiotic reason believe that if the process of science has yet to explain something, that it automatically means it's something that science cannot explain. And they use this to justify their belief in the fairy tale invisible man in the sky as if it were perfectly logical.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

bottom line is NOBODY knows where we (humans) came from.

Is this a joke?

 

[OutHouse]

Ben Franklin - this man was just an insanely interesting character. I'd like to argue that he and I share all the same beliefs, but he was a rather ordinary non-denominational individual, with very specific beliefs yet rather unspecific religious preference. He held the virtues of religion close to his chest.

yip he was also the masonic grand master of PA. you have to believe in a supreme being or grand architect to be a mason.

most but not all our founding fathers were Masons.

 

[OutHouse]

Is this a joke?

no its not a joke. neither side can absolutely prove were we came from. sorry but thats a fact.

 

[JulesMaximus]

What do you object to about Christianity?

Christians...

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Many people for some idiotic reason believe that if the process of science has yet to explain something, that it automatically means it's something that science cannot explain. And they use this to justify their belief in the fairy tale invisible man in the sky as if it were perfectly logical.

Indeed. I've also heard the argument that atheism deprives the universe of a beautiful sense of mystery. To that, I ask, "Which viewpoint provides a greater sense of mystery and the urge for discovery: one that acknowledges the unknown, or one that provides a facile, unprovable, and unquestionable explanation for everything?"

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

no its not a joke. neither side can absolutely prove were we came from. sorry but thats a fact.

What do you mean by "absolutely"? Our evolutionary origins are all but certain in scientific terms. Even if that weren't true, are you proposing that there is some faith-based explanation of equal probability?

 

[OutHouse]

Indeed. I've also heard the argument that atheism deprives the universe of a beautiful sense of mystery. To that, I ask, "Which viewpoint provides a greater sense of mystery and the urge for discovery, or one that provides a facile, unprovable, and unquestionable explanation for everything?"

atheism does that?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

atheism does that?

It's not inherent, but it allows for it more than the alternative.

 

[SlitheryDee]

The idea that believing in something really hard negates the need for evidence of it's existence. It's a bad way to go about finding out anything. People don't make decisions in their everyday life like that. They weigh probabilities based on what evidence they have and make decisions based on those probabilities. For some reason they give religion a free pass in terms of criteria necessary for belief even though by it's very nature it should be far more important than all those other things to which they apply their critical thinking skills liberally. The doublethink going on there is obvious to anyone who is able to view it objectively, and doublethink is never a good thing.

 

[OutHouse]

What do you mean by "absolutely"? Our evolutionary origins are all but certain in scientific terms. Even if that weren't true, are you proposing that there is some faith-based explanation of equal probability?

sorry but our evolutionary origins are not linked to ANYTHING other than ourselves period. there is no proof we humans evolved from anything.

just look back the past 30 years at what was taught in school. we came from monkeys, and look! here is Lucy which proves we are ancestors of ancient monkeys... Lucy is EVE!! now just last year science is leaning towards that modern man and hominids like Lucy coexisted and we arent related at all or even in the same gene pool.

so yea like i said neither side can absolutely prove their argument.

 

[OutHouse]

It's not inherent, but it allows for it more than the alternative.

eh not by some of the atheist in here.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

no its not a joke. neither side can absolutely prove were we came from. sorry but thats a fact.

ROFLMAO!!! I shake my head in pity of you, sorry, but that's a fact.

 

[soulcougher73]

The idea that believing in something really hard negates the need for evidence of it's existence. It's a bad way to go about finding out anything. People don't make decisions in their everyday life like that. They weigh probabilities based on what evidence they have and make decisions based on those probabilities. For some reason they give religion a free pass in terms of criteria necessary for belief even though by it's very nature it should be far more important than all those other things to which they apply their critical thinking skills liberally. The doublethink going on there is obvious to anyone who is able to view it objectively, and doublethink is never a good thing.

I think the reason most dont like to critically think about their religion is because they know deep down inside they will be proven wrong. It is much easier to just put your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA LA" then have to face the fact that your whole life was wasted on the invisible man in the sky.

 

[AreaCode707]

So given all of this, why choose to be a Christian?

I think that's a different thread, or a PM discussion. To go into it here would, I think, dilute the message that the OP needs to hear. If you really want my perspective go ahead and shoot me a PM.