The Bible Is The Biggest Deterent To Christian Faith

[mwc]

So YHWH approves of using a wife and kids as leverage to keep a man your slave forever but admittedly he is lax when it comes to treatment of single Hebrew men. Now, I couldn't say how many people actually obeyed this rule. Like the Sabbath planting law that never worked it seems it may have been overlooked or altered elsewhere in the bible (I don't know but most likely it was there to encourage taking foreign slaves).

To follow up my own posting I did discover a place where YHWH actually backs up his own words:

 

Jeremiah 34

 

19 The rulers of Judah and the rulers of Jerusalem, the unsexed servants and the priests and all the people of the land who went between the parts of the ox, 20 Even these I will give up into the hands of their haters and into the hands of those who have designs against their lives: and their dead bodies will become food for the birds of heaven and the beasts of the earth. 21 And Zedekiah, king of Judah, and his rulers I will give into the hands of their haters and into the hands of those who have designs against their lives, and into the hands of the king of Babylon's army which has gone away from you. 22 See, I will give orders, says the Lord, and make them come back to this town; and they will make war on it and take it and have it burned with fire: and I will make the towns of Judah waste and unpeopled.

Apparently they released the slaves as ordered and then took them back as slaves again. This seemed to piss old YHWH off so he then does the above to punish them. Not that this is an indictment of slavery but it does seem to show that the seven year rule for the Hebrews seemed to matter to "Jeremiah" (which most likely was written after the Babylonian captivity so this reasoning is after the fact but still...I may have finally found some form of this "justice" I've heard so much about ).

 

mwc

[Jennywocky]

Like anything psychological, or otherwise, there will be exceptions. The article I posted should not be expected to be a 100% solution. Some people will be convinced by different means. But how many xians are convinced in the face of straight-forward evidence? Few. The myth persists as it has for a long, long time. Urban legends continue in the same fashion despite how ridiculous most of them truly are upon very little examination. The same article sheds some light onto a possible reason why and a possible way to deal with those who tend to gravitate towards this type of thinking (notice I am not saying this is an all encompassing solution but a way to deal with a specific mindset...but an unfortunately large one).

 

I think one of the sticking points for Christians is that, regardless of what inconsistencies or logical problems that could be revealed with Biblical scripture, the system "works" for them.

 

We all deal with the prejudice issues and political claptrap and the like... but most of them on a very subjective level have come to Christianity and found their lives improved by it.

 

There is enough meat in the words of Jesus about how people should idealistically treat each other or in passages like 1 Corinthians 13 (the "love" chapter) to set down some very positive, life-changing behaviors. And there's enough practical do's and don't's that can help someone "clean up" their life effectively to suggest that, "Yes, there might be something to this."

 

Tie subjective positive religious experience (the ecstasy often found in worship of any faith), and you basically come down to enough "positive personal change" in the individual that they will shrug off any inconsistencies. Because, as far as they are concerned, the faith is "real" to them and if they have to choose, they'll stick with their faith... especially if there is nothing better being offered in its place.

 

People toe the line about Biblical inerrancy; they might not actually buy or care about how many animals Noah supposedly took on an ark, but they will just accept such presumptions as "collateral damage/inconsistency" in the process of saving their own souls,because overall Christianity makes sense to them and offers the best way to live they have discovered.

 

Honestly, much of the evil comes in the collateral damage: Once they identify as Christian, and are told now they have to believe "all of the Bible," then they'll go through and start imposing rules that lead to prejudicial or oppressive behavior. But most of these are conclusions they draw after the fact.

 

For example, people usually don't become Christians because they think homosexuality is evil. They become Christians because they experience something positive when they embrace it. But once they embrace it, they are told "Christians have to believe that homosexuality is immoral," so then they do. Attacking them based on inconsistencies in the homosexuality stance will not result in a loss of faith.

[mwc]

I think one of the sticking points for Christians is that, regardless of what inconsistencies or logical problems that could be revealed with Biblical scripture, the system "works" for them.

 

We all deal with the prejudice issues and political claptrap and the like... but most of them on a very subjective level have come to Christianity and found their lives improved by it.

Right. There's definitely a "placebo" type affect that occurs for most people when they first come into the fold. It's a type of "puppy" love. Depending on many conditions it can last different lengths of time.

 

There is enough meat in the words of Jesus about how people should idealistically treat each other or in passages like 1 Corinthians 13 (the "love" chapter) to set down some very positive, life-changing behaviors. And there's enough practical do's and don't's that can help someone "clean up" their life effectively to suggest that, "Yes, there might be something to this."

The problem is there isn't enough meat in those things you mention. The church/pastor/whoever adds the meat. Case in point 1 Corinthians 13. It's entirely out of context. It's about in-fighting within the congregation itself. With that in mind who'd want to walk into that situation? Not many people. In addition, I just now came across this tidbit:

ἀγάπη (agapē 26)

1. love [noun]

love. [A word not found in the profane writers, nor in Philo and Josephus, nor in Acts, Mark, and James. It is unknown to writers outside of the NT. φιλανθÏωπία (philanthrÅpia 5363) philanthropy was the highest word used by the Greeks, which is a very different thing to ἀγάπη (agapÄ“ 26) and even far lower than φιλαδελφία. φιλανθÏωπία (philadelphia. philanthrÅpia 5363) in its full display was only giving to him who was entitled to it his full rights.] ἀγάπη (agapÄ“ 26) denotes the love which springs from admiration and veneration, and which chooses its object with decision of will, and devotes a self-denying and compassionate devotion to it. Love in its fullest conceivable form.

Reference(s)

Mat 24:12, Luk 11:42, Joh 5:42, Joh 13:35, Joh 15:9, Joh 15:10, Joh 15:10, Joh 15:13, Joh 17:26, Rom 5:5, Rom 5:8, Rom 8:35, Rom 8:39, Rom 12:9, Rom 13:10, Rom 13:10, Rom 15:30, 1Co 4:21, 1Co 16:24, 2Co 2:4, 2Co 2:8, 2Co 5:14, 2Co 6:6, 2Co 8:7, 2Co 8:8, 2Co 8:24, 2Co 13:11, Gal 5:6, Gal 5:13, Gal 5:22, Eph 1:4, Eph 1:15, Eph 2:4, Eph 3:19, Eph 4:2, Eph 4:15, Eph 4:16, Eph 5:2, Eph 6:23, Php 1:9, Php 2:1, Php 2:2, Col 1:4, Col 1:8, Col 2:2, 1Th 1:3, 1Th 3:12, 1Th 5:8, 1Th 5:13, 2Th 2:10, 2Th 3:5, 1Ti 1:14, 1Ti 6:11, 2Ti 1:7, 2Ti 1:13, Phm 1:5, Phm 1:7, Phm 1:9, Heb 6:10, Heb 10:24, 1Jo 2:5, 1Jo 2:15, 1Jo 3:1, 1Jo 3:16, 1Jo 3:17, 1Jo 4:7, 1Jo 4:8, 1Jo 4:9, 1Jo 4:10, 1Jo 4:12, 1Jo 4:16, 1Jo 4:16, 1Jo 4:16, 1Jo 4:17, 1Jo 4:18, 1Jo 4:18, 1Jo 4:18, 1Jo 5:3, 2Jo 1:3, 2Jo 1:6, Jud 1:2, Jud 1:21, Rev 2:4

 

2. charity

love (a word not found in Cheek writers, nor in Philo, Josephus, in Acts, Mark, or James; apparently coined by the hex). Love that is self-denying and compassionately devoted to its object; the highest word among the Greeks was φιλανθÏωπία (philanthrÅpia 5363) (philanthropy), but this does not denote love to man as such, but rather justice, giving him who was entitled to it his full rights; it even falls short of the φιλαδελφία (philadelphia 5360) (brotherly love) of the NT ἀγάπη (agapÄ“ 26) therefore designates a love unknown to writers outside of the NT). Love it its fullest conceivable form; first exhibited by Christ (1Jo 3:16), expressive of God's relation to us (1Jo 4:9), and the relation between the Father and the Son (Joh 15:10; 17:26. Col 1:13). Lastly it is the distinctive character of the Christian life in relation to the brethren and to all.

This word "agape" that is translated as "charity" or "love" is MADE UP. The Greeks didn't know of it. The NT authors like old Paul pulled it out of their asses and we use it today like it's something magical handed down from on high when it came from nowhere. Where's the meat? There is none. It's all bread...and stale bread at that.

 

For example, people usually don't become Christians because they think homosexuality is evil. They become Christians because they experience something positive when they embrace it. But once they embrace it, they are told "Christians have to believe that homosexuality is immoral," so then they do. Attacking them based on inconsistencies in the homosexuality stance will not result in a loss of faith.

I snipped most of what you had to say because I basically agree with you. Except if that person deep down has issues with condemning homosexuality then pointing out the hypocrisy just might cause them to think about things a bit. Some people won't. Some people will rework their beliefs (either ignoring the problem or coming up with a coping mechanism so their version of "god" doesn't require this of them) and some will not be able to reconcile it and fall away. This is a rather simple answer to all you had to say but it's just one quick take on the whole thing. I think the article I referenced was much better at addressing the whole issue (I'm not quite sure where it's at or I'd give you an easy link to it...sorry).

 

mwc

[Mythra]

The thing that is really insidious and downright evil about christianity is the way the religion uses group think to support itself.

 

I mean, if any single believer were to get by himself for a year with the bible, with no external support or influence from other believers, how many would come out of that year-long hiatus with their faith still intact?

 

But that isn't what happens. Most fundies cluster together for support. And, when one of them dares to publicly raise a question about some immoral or absurd passage in the bible, what happens?

 

I'll tell you what happens. Rather than the group concurring with the obvious difficulty, they tend to examine the questioner's faithfulness to God.

 

Private conversation between two fundies:

 

"Uh-oh. Joe is bringing up the Midianites again. And he's saying that it didn't seem right for God to condone killing them like that."

 

"Oh dear. I wonder what's behind him doing that?"

 

"Well, isn't it rather obvious? He's clearly under attack."

 

"I think you're right. He has obviously cracked the door open for the enemy"

 

"UM-HMMM.... do you think he's been - maybe - going to one of those places on the internet?"

 

"I wouldn't be surprised. Remember last year, just before Greg and Lisa turned their backs on us - that was the first thing they started doing. Raising questions about God's word. Now look at them. Haven't been to church for eight months"

 

"Well, you know - a dog eventually returns to its vomit"

 

"It's just so sad. The seed scattered amonst the thorns."

 

"I hate Satan so bad".

 

"me too."

[mwc]

I knew I should have read what I wrote again. I mis-spoke. "This word "agape" that is translated as "charity" or "love" is MADE UP." I wanted to say the words "charity" and "love" are made-up in this context but botched it (which is obvious from the parts I quoted and took the time to highlight). The xians tended to expand the word to mean more of a self-sacrificing love which is beyond the scope of how the Greeks used it (ie. loving an object like a good meal, a family member, etc.). Sorry for the confusion.

 

mwc

[Taphophilia]

I would like to point out that most Christians have no idea what the Bible says beyond John 3:16. When you show them verses like the ones in the opening post, their automatic response is "You've taken it out of context", even though the only time they crack open their Bible is when the minister gives them a verse on Sunday morning.

 

What I hear from Christians all the time, almost everyday, is, "Somewhere in the Bible it says....(insert what ever they think it says)." Example: "Somewhere in the Bible it says cleanliness is next to godliness. The point is, they make shit up. What the Bible actually says isn't important to them, what's important to them is what they think it says.

 

Most Christians are not all that bright and are ready with excuses they have conveniently been given.

[Ouroboros]

Most Christians are not all that bright and are ready with excuses they have conveniently been given.

Agree. And even worse, I think Christianity as a religion/"philosophy"/memeplex causes people to be willfully ignorant. Basically, the makes them stupid. I can tell my mind works completely different now compared to then. I was stupid, I know it, I can look back and know how silly my arguments were and how little sense they made and all the conflicts with reality. To be Christian and do apologetics, it's comparable to being a Lord of the Rings fan and try to make it fit as a religion and give excuses to this and that and how this or that worked and it's not a conflict or contradiction etc. Christianity is like living a fantasy life. You want it to be true, so you try your hardest to make it true, even when every odds is against you, only because your "in love" with the idea/fantasy.