What Is Your Problem With Christianity?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Did you become an ex-Christian because your understanding (faith) in the resurrection of Christ changed? Or is it because people and institutions have failed for a variety of reasons?

 

Neither.

 

The more I studied the bible the more I realized that it simply cannot be the "perfect Word of God." The two issues that got to me first are the irreconcilable contradictions and the fact that the NT takes the OT out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments. Of course, then there's also the immoral nature of the god of the bible and the silliness of some of the stories.

 

Coming to a loss of faith was NOT an easy thing. I went through a very heart wrenching time, since the worldview I was raised with and had believed until I was 29 was turning out to be folly. I did not choose to disbelieve, I simply COULDN'T believe anymore because of the weight of the evidence against christianity.

 

So, there you have it. You asked and I answered. Don't preach to me, though, as I've heard it all before, many, many times. I used to teach Sunday school and bible studies, and I read a lot of apologetics materials, in addition to studying the bible. You'd be wasting your time and energy to try to reconvert me, so don't bother trying.

 

Have a good day....

[Wind Walker]

I believe that Buddha was a seeker who was indeed enlightened and sought God with all of his heart. I have always wondered what his reaction would have been to Jesus and vice versa had they met each other in life!

 

I was asked: "What is it about seeking enlightenment in other religions or through science and reason that lead you away from them into your non-belief in them?"

 

Honestly I do seek truth everywhere I can find it, and that is certainly not to the exclusion of science. In fact I believe that science is a very valid means of finding truth in the natural world in which we live in. In regards to other religions... there are proofs of many universal truths to be found in all of the monotheistic religions of the world. I am particularly fascinated by the Native American concept of the Great Spirit and their understanding of Him as the Creator. In fact I find very little in other world religions that honestly and earnestly seek the truth that I have a problem with, the only exception being when the writings of a religion speaks in the third person for God. As far as I know, only Islam does this aside from Christianity and Judaism. I could be wrong about that, but it is a quality that I understand to be unique among Abrahamic religions.

[NotBlinded]

When you all get to know me better you will discover that I am not a conventional Christian. I do not and will not defend things that the "church" gets wrong, but I do and will defend those things that I know to be true and are not wrong.

 

The Apostle Paul said... "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

 

Much of what I see in the exodus away from Christianity is due to well founded gripes about the "church". When I say the "church" I am speaking specifically of the churches that most of us attend or attended. None are perfect and never will be, but the problem with most churches is that they have failed to operate as they are supposed to operate. It's a human flaw, and the price is that humans have rightfully seen through things such the molestation of children, the use of fear to scare people into getting in line and goosestepping as they are instructed to and the use of pressure to get people to act a certain way. None of which are right, and all of which are very valid reasons to take issue with and even leave churches who get it wrong.

 

The Apostle Paul was speaking to this issue when he declared that if this life is centered around the man Jesus Christ, then we are doomed to a life of misery. His point was that that either Jesus is the risen Lord, or every effort we make in life is in vain. Men don't raise themselves from the dead, and it is the make or break issue that Paul proposes of the Christian faith. Either Christ rose from the dead and is in fact the son of God as scriptures claim, or He is not.

 

So my question to those of you who are ex-Christians is very simple...

 

Did you become an ex-Christian because your understanding (faith) in the resurrection of Christ changed? Or is it because people and institutions have failed for a variety of reasons?

You know, that is very shallow on all points you addressed. We left for a variety of reasons and most of them are much deeper than the "actions of the church". Sheesh...it's all dress for you people isn't it?

 

Jesus can be A son of God and the scriptures screwed up that message. Black and white thinking is a sickness that is hard to overcome, but it can be if you try hard enough.

[NotBlinded]

Did you become an ex-Christian because your understanding (faith) in the resurrection of Christ changed? Or is it because people and institutions have failed for a variety of reasons?

 

None of the above.

 

I decided the whole "plan of salvation" was bogus. I don't believe in "sin" and I don't believe that human beings are born hopelessly corrupt. Neither do I believe that there is an age of accountability. I don't believe that the punishment of hell equals the crime of being born.

 

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. Nor do I believe it was even inspired by God.

 

I don't believe in the type of God described in the Bible. A God who requires blood sacrifices and discriminates between people according to whether or not they believe in him - the whole "chosen people" line.

 

I don't believe in heaven or hell as described by Christians, although there may be states of mind and places in the universe that approximate both.

 

Secondary reasons - I don't see Christ as having teachings that are unique in the history of the world and I think his followers misunderstood what he was actually saying. No one really knows what that was now, they twisted it so much afterward. The resurrection - there is no proof. Most likely it never happened except on a spiritual level. By the time the church was an institution, all value Christ's teachings may have had departed.

 

The lies of creationists.

 

The notion that a worldwide flood and Noah's ark was actually real.

 

You asked your questions respectfully and in this forum you will receive a polite answer from me.

Yeah, what Deva said. Ok, except the polite part. She's nicer than I am.

[NotBlinded]

The Apostle Paul was speaking to this issue when he declared that if this life is centered around the man Jesus Christ, then we are doomed to a life of misery. His point was that that either Jesus is the risen Lord, or every effort we make in life is in vain. Men don't raise themselves from the dead, and it is the make or break issue that Paul proposes of the Christian faith. Either Christ rose from the dead and is in fact the son of God as scriptures claim, or He is not.

 

Paul was setting up a false dichotomy, which Christians are very fond of doing. Always either/or with no area in between. Its just typical.

Damnit...I'm a Deva echo. Wait, that's a good thing!

[Deva]

I believe that Buddha was a seeker who was indeed enlightened and sought God with all of his heart. I have always wondered what his reaction would have been to Jesus and vice versa had they met each other in life!

 

Yes, it would be an interesting conversation, I am sure. I wouldn't say Buddha Shakyamuni was actually interested in seeking God. He was interested in finding a remedy for suffering.

 

He came out of Hinduism and he would only know about many different gods. As far as we know, he never advocated the idea of a supreme creator God

[NotBlinded]

So you take issue with my response? Well, that is just how it reads to me. Maybe within the context in which it was written you are right. Its true that I cannot get inside Paul's head to exactly discern his motive and what exactly he intended by it. It is a fact, however, that Christians often use either/or false dichotomies in order to "prove" parts of their faith that are beyond proof. It strikes me as the same type of thing. I think C.S. Lewis was the master of this technique.

 

I understood what you said perfectly and I even agree that using that tactic isn't correct. There are indeed choices that you (I or anyone) must make when confronted with choices, but my point was that Paul wasn't using that angle when he said that. The point I was making from it was simply that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then he is just a man and that the faith is in vain. It makes no sense to follow a man who claimed to be God if it is not true that He rose from the dead. It's not given to get a response, just an observation of something that I myself hold the faith to. If Jesus is just a teacher like Buddha or Mohamed, then it is pointless IMPO.

Nooooo...What if Paul didn't understand what Jesus was saying? Do you worship Paul or the teachings of Jesus? Poor Jesus, I feel sorry for the guy.

 

Jesus was very much like Buddha. Paul was a Jew with the same mindset of a Jewish follower. Why is it pointless? It has much more meaning if you can understand that Jesus was trying to tell us that we are ALL God's offspring. We can move mountains ourselves if we understand what he was telling us. He didn't mean that he was the go-between.

 

What does rising from the dead have to do with him being "God"? These are thoughts put in your head by people intrepreting what he was saying. He didn't say that that I'm aware of.

[Wind Walker]

If I have some down time tonight, I'll read the Noah piece you posted.

 

What do you make of Gen 1:1? In particular:

 

1)What is up with the light being created, and light/dark cycles occuring a couple days before the sun and moon are hung in the sky?

 

2) On day two, waters are separated, and a firmament is between them (which later the moon and sun are hung in). What is this describing, in modern terms?

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Phanta

 

I am not a Young Earth Creationist. If the sun isn't created until day four, how could there be literal 24 hour days for says 1 to 3?

 

My take is that the Genesis account is given in the language that people at the time could understand it, but that it is also correct. The word in Hebrew that is translated as day is yowm in Hebrew. It can mean a 24 hour day, and it can mean a period of time or an age if you will. I tend to agree with Gerlad Schoreder and have read all of his books. He is a very intelligent man who has an MIT PhD, and his work on this subject has been peer reviewed and found to be mathematically correct. I'm sure that some folks can and have taken issue with some of his theories, but he uses the known laws of physics to lay out how the 6 ages of time as presented in the Bible are in fact 6 divisions of times in which the described events unfolded over what we on earth call 15 billion years (give or take).

 

The short version is that the Genesis account is given from the perspective of the event horizon at the point of Creation (Big Bang), and BTW that would be that light on day one you referred to. Schoeder's math is simply an account of the effect of the fabric of space time by the forces at play during the Big Bang. I can go into more detail if you like, but that is the short version.

 

I didn't understand the second question though. It sounds to me as if it is speaking to the stage of earth's evolution where evolutionists point to when speaking of the pre-biotic soup that was necessary for life to evolve. There had to be a time when there was earth and water without any life, and I think it is describing this age of earth history. Did I answer the question? Or did I misunderstand you?

[NotBlinded]

The point I was making from it was simply that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then he is just a man and that the faith is in vain. It makes no sense to follow a man who claimed to be God if it is not true that He rose from the dead. It's not given to get a response, just an observation of something that I myself hold the faith to. If Jesus is just a teacher like Buddha or Mohamed, then it is pointless IMPO.

 

I don't have any problem that the statement was written by Paul, but I have to disagree with the whole idea behind it. A lot of teachers in India not only would claim they were God, but would say you are also God. They obviously don't mean the same type of God you do, but it is an idea of God.

 

As far as Buddha being "just a teacher". Feel free to believe what you like, I happen to think he was more than that, but I know you don't believe in the enlightened mind so I won't waste my time.

 

I don't know much about Mohammed, nor do I like Islam, but for his influence to have continued in the world as long as it has is quite an accomplishment. I somehow doubt the Muslims would have a view that their faith is "pointless."

 

Actually, unlike some of my fellow Ex-Christians here, I think there is some evidence to support the existence of an apocalyptic Jewish teacher who we now know by the title "Jesus". Do I think he bodily resurrected - no . He was a human being.

Deva! Stop saying what I'm thinking before I say it!

[NotBlinded]

I believe that Buddha was a seeker who was indeed enlightened and sought God with all of his heart. I have always wondered what his reaction would have been to Jesus and vice versa had they met each other in life!

 

That would be interesting. Alas, it will never happen, as Buddha is in hell and Jesus has been reincarnated as a sea turtle.

HA!

 

Phanta, you crack me up!

[Wind Walker]

What does rising from the dead have to do with him being "God"? These are thoughts put in your head by people intrepreting what he was saying. He didn't say that that I'm aware of.

 

In the Gospel of mark it is written... "Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen."

 

Personally, I think that the timing of His death, burial and resurrection is the most compelling evidence of His claim of deity. Although the church has distorted this timing with the celebrations of Lent and Easter, there were 4 events that occurred on the 4 spring feasts of the Jewish year that were a fulfillment of prophecy that was recorded by the prophet Daniel. I can give you the details if you like, but the resurrection is the 3rd of the 4 events and it is central to all of them.

[Wind Walker]

My girlfriend is picking me up for dinner, but I look forward to getting to know you more when I return this evening. Ciao for now

[Neon Genesis]

I didn't reject Christianity, Christianity rejected me first. I was taught to believe that homosexuality was a sin and God would send you to hell if you were gay. I was also taught that you could change your sexuality but I later realized I was gay and yet no matter how hard I tried to change, nothing ever worked to change my sexuality. A god that would tortue people for all eternity no matter what the reason is a barbic god not worthy of worship. We consider it barbaric to torture terrorist suspects, so why should God get away with it? Hell isn't the only barbaric action God approves of in the bible and the bible has too many out-dated and outrageous teachings in it to be believed literally. I still like to read the bible as literature, but Christianity as an institution no longer has any meaning for me.

[NotBlinded]

What does rising from the dead have to do with him being "God"? These are thoughts put in your head by people intrepreting what he was saying. He didn't say that that I'm aware of.

 

In the Gospel of mark it is written... "Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen."

 

Personally, I think that the timing of His death, burial and resurrection is the most compelling evidence of His claim of deity. Although the church has distorted this timing with the celebrations of Lent and Easter, there were 4 events that occurred on the 4 spring feasts of the Jewish year that were a fulfillment of prophecy that was recorded by the prophet Daniel. I can give you the details if you like, but the resurrection is the 3rd of the 4 events and it is central to all of them.

Maybe, but he could still be God without rising from the dead. I'm pretty sure that what he taught and beleived was twisted in order to "fulfill" certain prophecies. I'm not interested in prophecies that are thought about and then filled in in order to become reality. Everything you said above could have been generated after his death and probably was. Most of what Christians pick from the Tanakh to use as prophecy are misinterpreted. David speaks of himself in Psalm 16:10. Isaiah 9:5 was changed to present tense in the KJV and on and on.

 

And yes, I'm familar with the preconfiguration of Christ in the story of Jonah and the whale. It's a great mythological writing. It's a hero's journey. Read my signature.

 

That's not what you're talking about is it? I just opened this and don't have time to read it: Four of Seven Feast Fulfilled I'll get back with you, but as I said, prophecy doesn't interest me.

 

What I'm saying is that one doesn't have to raise from the dead to be "God".

[Ouroboros]

All of you pretty much replied with more or less with the same message... issues with the rules as set forth in scripture

1 out of 15, as far as I could see. That's about 7%. A whoopdedoo for the immensely extensive poll that resulted in a majority of 7%!!!

 

Does this mean all Christians are serial killers?

 

Hasty generalization much?

 

or just flat out believing that scripture is just a work of mankind.

Yup.

 

But do understand, no one here really doubted the scripture while they were Christian. I didn't. I went on mission trips, spent weekends in Church or evangelizing downtown, etc. I was hard core, not because I doubted it, but because I really, truly believed it.

 

But to suggest I move along before that isn't very nice, wouldn't you agree?

Nice? You expect us to be nice? Us evil, immoral, sinful, hateful, God-bashing, baby-eating, Communist, Evil-utionist, foolish atheist pagans? Interesting. Perhaps you are a different kind of Christian after all. Perhaps you can see beyond prejudice and religious blindness and believe that even non-Christians can be of different kinds, and even be nice sometimes. Very interesting.

 

So do you believe I can be a good person, even though I'm an unbeliever?

[Deva]

I have no idea what these particular alleged prophecies in Daniel are, but I am sure that if they appeared to be fulfilled in the New Testament they were written in such a fashion as to appear that way. After all, these people in 70-100 AD had access to this book Daniel. They were trying to bolster their claims that Jesus was God or the Messiah or whatever.

[NotBlinded]

I have no idea what these particular alleged prophecies in Daniel are, but I am sure that if they appeared to be fulfilled in the New Testament they were written in such a fashion as to appear that way. After all, these people in 70-100 AD had access to this book Daniel. They were trying to bolster their claims that Jesus was God or the Messiah or whatever.

hehehe...you said it after me this time!

 

 

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Personally, I think that the timing of His death, burial and resurrection is the most compelling evidence of His claim of deity. Although the church has distorted this timing with the celebrations of Lent and Easter, there were 4 events that occurred on the 4 spring feasts of the Jewish year that were a fulfillment of prophecy that was recorded by the prophet Daniel. I can give you the details if you like, but the resurrection is the 3rd of the 4 events and it is central to all of them.

But nowhere in Paul's letters does he ever say that the resurrection is physical. In fact, he says that it's impossible for a physical body to go to heaven, so how could Jesus go to heaven if his resurrection was physical? And why doesn't Paul ever mention any details of the ascension of Jesus? Why does Paul only refer to Jesus as being raised, as if he already went to heaven directly after he died? Paul may have believed the spiritual resurrection of Jesus was essential to Christianity, but you're trying to read the gospels into Paul and are confusing the resurrection with the ascension of Jesus and there's no indication in any of Paul's letters he thought Jesus was literally raised back into this life.

[oddbird1963]

When you all get to know me better you will discover that I am not a conventional Christian. I do not and will not defend things that the "church" gets wrong, but I do and will defend those things that I know to be true and are not wrong.

 

The Apostle Paul said... "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

 

Much of what I see in the exodus away from Christianity is due to well founded gripes about the "church". When I say the "church" I am speaking specifically of the churches that most of us attend or attended. None are perfect and never will be, but the problem with most churches is that they have failed to operate as they are supposed to operate. It's a human flaw, and the price is that humans have rightfully seen through things such the molestation of children, the use of fear to scare people into getting in line and goosestepping as they are instructed to and the use of pressure to get people to act a certain way. None of which are right, and all of which are very valid reasons to take issue with and even leave churches who get it wrong.

When you get to know the teachings of the Christian faith and it's leaders and students better, you will discover that it is a common "spin" strategy of apologists to separate churches from the "one true god," or to separate churches from the "true" teachings of Jesus Christ in order to "prove" that god is true and it is the churches fault for a doubters issues with the christian faith.

 

But , really, if God were real he would be more evident throughout the church. You can't separate a true god from the church he presumably owns. One major reason I quit believing christianity was that the things going on in the church, good and bad, could best be explained in terms of sociology, psychology and economics and not by the presence of a god.

 

You could insist that a "true" believer or a "true" church would somehow demonstrate the power of god, but after all these years, I just see that as trying to slice a bowl of jello with a butcher knife. If god exists, his presence would be found in his church. And frankly, there's nothing about christians and their churches that needs a God , Christ or Holy Spirit to explain it.

 

The Apostle Paul was speaking to this issue when he declared that if this life is centered around the man Jesus Christ, then we are doomed to a life of misery. His point was that that either Jesus is the risen Lord, or every effort we make in life is in vain. Men don't raise themselves from the dead, and it is the make or break issue that Paul proposes of the Christian faith. Either Christ rose from the dead and is in fact the son of God as scriptures claim, or He is not.

 

Silly dichotomy here. First of all , experientially, my life is much better in the year since I became an atheist than the 30 years or so I spent as a Christian. I've still got problems. Some major ones coming around the corner. But I am much more satisfied with a life centered around reason and a good healthy dose of skepticism than I ever was with trying to make a mythical god-figure the center of my life.

 

Your dichotomy would be much more effective if it weren't false to its core.

 

 

So my question to those of you who are ex-Christians is very simple...

 

Did you become an ex-Christian because your understanding (faith) in the resurrection of Christ changed? Or is it because people and institutions have failed for a variety of reasons?

 

I became an ex-Christian after realizing that the only conclusion that really made sense was that there is no god, no risen christ and no supernatural forces working for our good.

[Ouroboros]

Wind Walker, I asked in the other thread about the physicality of Jesus and Heaven, so let me ask it here too, just in case.

 

If Jesus was resurrected in physical form, and Heaven is, according to you, not a physical place and does not have space or time, then where did Jesus's body go? Did he leave it behind? Did he leave it on the cloud he ascended on? Why was it necessary for Jesus to be resurrected to a body if he didn't need it? Was it just for the show, "look how amazing God the magician is to do these unnecessary things"?

[SEEtheScorn]

Wind Walker, I admire your efforts. You remind me a whole lot of my Christian self, claiming I was not your typical Christian. I accepted unconventional beliefs and believed I was all about Jesus and Jesus alone. I also, quite arrogantly, challenged the reasoning of unbelievers, fighting tooth and nail in many a forum like this one.

 

I would welcome a good chat from you, you seem intelligent and reasonable.

 

With that being said, why did I leave Christianity? You seem to think what I used to think, that people leave because of personal problems they have. God failed them, didn't give them what they wanted. Church people failed them, church failed them. Yes, many people leave for this reason. I know many who have, although they claim otherwise. Something went down that was hypocritical in church, and as they say they "gave up on Christ."

 

Although I've had my moments with churches and church people, I love my church. I was born and raised in it. My pastor is my cousin, half the congregation is related to me, the other half I either saw grow from a baby, or taught me in Sunday school. My church has never failed me, they have supported every moment and ever step I've made. Even during my doubting period, when I went up for prayer for my doubt they did not exorcize the doubt from me and condemn the spirit of doubt, they just accepted me and said " no matter what, the holy spirit will never leave you." Although they are not aware of my complete unbelief, I know they would still support me and I would still, in the end, feel comfortable there.

 

I deconverted because I studied. I found it does not make sense. It was not an arrogant search for a reason to not believe in God, it was actually very incidental and accidental. I did not intend it. I went to college to become a youth pastor, I was majoring in Youth Ministry and Biblical and Theological Studies.

 

Honest, intellectual, Christ-loving professors sparked my motion away because they taught the truth. They still accepted the Bible and Jesus despite what they taught, I could not. They taught hard philosophy, they taught the real exegetical Bible. Add to their teachings my own independent study, and I found no reason to believe that Jesus was God. I actually became very convicted when it hit me that it could actually be blasphemous to believe Jesus was equal with God based off of writers later interjections into the Biblical texts and later Councils decisions to make him God.

 

Add to that more study, and I'm in a state of very honest, very raw curiosity. I seek truth. I do not think my creator, if I have one, would want me to blindly believe doctrines of man, created by man. I think my creator would want me to do just what I am doing. Shunning what does not make sense in pursuit of what is true. I can promise you, if you can propose facts and a reason to believe your Jesus is equal with my creator, if there is one, and that I need to believe in him, then I will change my ways. No one has done so yet.

[mwc]

I'm sure that some folks can and have taken issue with some of his theories

Yep.

 

mwc

[Taphophilia]

I never set out to deconvert from Christianity. As a matter of fact, I set out to reinforce my faith. The more I read the more I realized that outside the Bible and Christianity, there is no evidence that it's true.

 

Yes, a lot of physicists believe in god. I asked my boyfriend, whose father is a nuclear physicist, why this is. He said they see and understand order. However, if there is a god, it's not the Christian god who created everything perfect. It would have to be a god who learns from nustakes and builds on experience. It would have to be more like a committee of engineers, "We'll try this and see if it works."

 

Edit: Even if there is a god, how does that guarantee an afterlife?

[Mike D]

I didn't reject Christianity, Christianity rejected me first. I was taught to believe that homosexuality was a sin and God would send you to hell if you were gay.

What he said - God hates fags.

 

Oh and I almost forgot - he doesn't exist.

[Wind Walker]

Wind Walker, I asked in the other thread about the physicality of Jesus and Heaven, so let me ask it here too, just in case.

 

If Jesus was resurrected in physical form, and Heaven is, according to you, not a physical place and does not have space or time, then where did Jesus's body go? Did he leave it behind? Did he leave it on the cloud he ascended on? Why was it necessary for Jesus to be resurrected to a body if he didn't need it? Was it just for the show, "look how amazing God the magician is to do these unnecessary things"?

 

Honestly, I am overwhelmed by the response here that is largely been very cordial and I appreciate that a lot, and I'm sorry that I missed this in the other thread but I'm having a hard time just keeping up with this one. I'll try my best to answer your question...

 

My personal belief is that "heaven" isn't here and now as we understand here and now. Science seems to indicate that there are 10 dimensions that should exist theoretically, and it is in the 10th dimension that Jesus exists (past, present and future). Here's a pretty neat video that explains the 10th dimension: Imagining the 10th Dimension.