What Is Your Problem With Christianity?

[Ouroboros]

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...

That's okay. I'm asking more for the reason to make you start thinking about these things. You're not the first one I've talked to about this. I lost count.

 

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.

I see a slightly small problem with that view, since the 10th dimension in science is something that exists here and now. It's an integral part of space and time. I don't think it's treated as another spatial dimension in the sense you're describing. Even the so called three dimensions we have is a bit misleading. In which direction does the x-axis go? Is a ray going from the center of Earth and through Greenwich? There's no right up-down-left-right-forward-backward, and even worse, most likely space is not a proper Euclidean geometry, but a non-Euclidean, which means parallel rays very well could intersect. So really, what we call different dimensions are just different aspects of measuring reality.

 

That's my view on it.

 

But lets say Jesus was a 10th dimension being. Then unfortunately, we are too. We live in this reality which contain these 10 dimensions. So do my dogs. Roxie, Joey, and Tessy. They all live in this reality which contains 10 dimensions. No one is excluded.

 

Also, Jesus was resurrected to a full physical body, dimension 1, 2, 3, ... 10, not just the 10th. So the problem still stays. Where did the 1th-9th dimension particles end up when the 10th went to Heaven?

[Wind Walker]

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

Yep.

 

mwc

 

The article was indeed critical of Schroeder, but having read all of his work I can assure you that what I read there bore no resemblance whatsoever to what I read in those books. It read like a character assassination more than anything else, a tactic used often and effectively by folks in debates, but honestly I don't go there myself. I try to stay focused on the facts and leave the personal assaults in the gutter where they belong. Sorry, but that's how I roll.

 

Let me put it like this to separate the man from the facts the man tried to communicate...

 

When the singularity expanded at the moment of the Big Bang, it is not at all reasonable to suggest that time could be treated like time here and now. The forces that we know effect time where in a state of mind numbing transformation as the laws of the universe as we understand them were literally being created. Looking back to that event we can apply what we do know from the laws of science and see very clearly that time itself was very contracted at that specific moment in the history of the universe. As all of the matter in the universe expanded and space was literally being created, time was influenced by variations in gravity and the speed in which the universe was expanding. When you look at it from the point of origin to here and now, it would be highly inaccurate to describe the universe as being 15 billion years old. In fact it would be as as inaccurate as describing it as 5,000 years old if you were trying to measure that time from this particular point in the universe.

 

Schroeder explained that when we apply what we know of the Creation event (Big Bang) and we look at it from both angles, there is a very neat overlay that produces a harmony that is too uncanny to ignore. The events themselves match, the time lines match, and we are left with a stunning example of harmony between Genesis and science.

 

Listen, I don't expect any of you to buy any of this. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. This is what I believe to be true to the best of my ability to understand it, and that's where it ends. We can discuss how wrong or right I may be in what I believe, but I can assure you that none of us really know how exactly everything happened. I respect your beliefs and will not badger you about them. I would like it if I was extended a similar courtesy. I certainly would like to hear what you believe to be true, and if we agree to be cordial to one another I'm sure we can have a fruitful and interesting conversation!

[Wind Walker]

I see a slightly small problem with that view, since the 10th dimension in science is something that exists here and now. It's an integral part of space and time. I don't think it's treated as another spatial dimension in the sense you're describing. Even the so called three dimensions we have is a bit misleading. In which direction does the x-axis go? Is a ray going from the center of Earth and through Greenwich? There's no right up-down-left-right-forward-backward, and even worse, most likely space is not a proper Euclidean geometry, but a non-Euclidean, which means parallel rays very well could intersect. So really, what we call different dimensions are just different aspects of measuring reality.

 

That's my view on it.

 

But lets say Jesus was a 10th dimension being. Then unfortunately, we are too. We live in this reality which contain these 10 dimensions. So does my dogs. Roxie, Joey, and Tessy. They all live in this reality which contains 10 dimensions. No one is excluded.

 

Also, Jesus was resurrected to a full physical body, dimension 1, 2, 3, ... 10, not just the 10th. So the problem still stays. Where did the 1th-9th dimension particles end up when the 10th went to Heaven?

 

If I understand the 10th dimension correctly, it is the sum total of all the other other dimensions. Trust me, my head aches to try to understand this stuff and I am at the limit of my ability to grasp it. I am not an astrophysicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[Legion]

Well, it made sense when I was a kid.

[Taphophilia]

 

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.

 

As Hans says, the other dimensions are in the here and now. They are also on a subatomic level not above us or apart from us. What you are describing here is not a dimension in science but an parallel/alternate reality which is science fiction, not science fact.

[dagnarus]

In reply to "The notion that a worldwide flood and Noah's ark was actually real."

 

That may be what some believe, but it's not what the Bible demands. Here is an article that is very scholarly and speaks directly to this point... The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?

 

In fact how that particular scholar approaches scripture is exactly how I approach scripture. I look at what is actually said while weighing in the original language, context and audience and I look for answers that are logical. I do not look to theological apple carts and defend points of view that have implications. that is putting the horse before the cart.

 

Gen 6

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

 

This seems to suggest that God's motivation for the flood was that Man had become exceedingly wicked thus he wished to wipe him out. If the flood wasn't a universal flood, are we to understand that only men from this very localized area were evil? If the people from other areas were also evil, why were they spared. Were they a different kind of human, not created in God's image thus somewhat beneath God's notice. It would seem that given God's stated objective a global flood would actually be required, why a local flood?

 

Furthermore if the flood were local, why is an ark even necessary? Why put of his plans of flooding the area for 100 years while Noah constructed a massive Ark, when all that was required was for Noah and the animals to temporarily migrate out of the affected region and to return after the cleansing. This would have certainly been quicker.

 

Finally if the flood was local, why are rainbows universal? If the flood was local then God's promise never to flood the entire earth only really applies to a massive local flood centered around modern day Palestine. The entire world however receives the promise of the rainbow. Does not the universality of the promise, point to the universality of the flood?

[Casey]

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.

(Wind Walker)

 

Thanks Wind Walker, you just stated in one fairly concise sentence why I left christianity. Ever been told, at the top of some bellowing creature's lungs every day, just how worthless you are? I was, when I was in a private "christian" school. I must say the fellow I'm talking about here was the most even tempered man I ever met, he was always in a rage. Needless to say, when he was in a rage, we kids also got used as punching bags and speed balls. OK he was a catholic, but aren't catholics christian?

 

Still, his rages were as the twittering of little birds compared to child sexual abuse. Ever had that happen to you? I have, happened the next year in another branch of that same "christian" school when I was thirteen. It was a long time ago and I don't dwell on it. Suffice it to say though, that it took some time for me to straighten myself out, which I had to do for myself. Neither your God nor the aforesaid christian church did much of a damn thing for me in that regard. Matter of fact, another christian church told me I had to forgive the man who did that to me. Well I still haven't and I never will!

 

As for goosestepping, the only reason we didn't learn that style of marching is that, in the Australian State where I live, only the Defense Forces are allowed to drill people. (It says so in the Criminal Code, but that's irrelevant I suppose). However, what is relevant is that for quite a while I shouldn't have minded learning the goosestep even under a rifle and a full pack, if only I got the chance to let daylight into some christian or other whether by bullet, bayonet or bomb. Kicking what was left of the so and so with a stout pair of hobnailed jackboots wouldn't have been so bad either. (And there's a few old marching songs that would just go so cool with it too!) Now that don't solve anything, I know that, but it sure as hell would have made me feel better nonetheless.

 

I think I should tell you I don't feel like that any more but that's not down to christianity, it's simply realising there are better things to do with one's life, that's all.

 

However your theme is that if Christ hadn't died and been resurrected, then, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." Um, no, that's not the central thing with christianity, ya know. The central thing in christianity is the fear of dying and toddling off to Hell, isn't it? Because if it weren't for the fear of that mythical infernal region, what else would christinsanity have to sell?

Casey

[dagnarus]

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?

 

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

Does water predate the big bang?

 

 

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

 

So here the bib bang occurs

 

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

 

Where do these waters which have to be separated fit in? This makes sense in the context of the creation of an Earth which is surrounded on all sides by water as the ancients believed, in the context of the next thing to happen after the big bang, not so much so.

 

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

 

The earth now has seas and dry ground, but still no Sun.

 

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

 

And plants and even trees before the Sun was brought into being. Actually this sounds a lot more plausible for young Earthers, they say that this period were there were plants but no sun was only for 24 hours, your saying that it could have been an age which could have lasted billions of years.

 

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

And finally we actually have the Sun.

[Wind Walker]

Corrected below...

[Wind Walker]

Gen 6

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

 

This seems to suggest that God's motivation for the flood was that Man had become exceedingly wicked thus he wished to wipe him out. If the flood wasn't a universal flood, are we to understand that only men from this very localized area were evil? If the people from other areas were also evil, why were they spared. Were they a different kind of human, not created in God's image thus somewhat beneath God's notice. It would seem that given God's stated objective a global flood would actually be required, why a local flood?

 

Furthermore if the flood were local, why is an ark even necessary? Why put of his plans of flooding the area for 100 years while Noah constructed a massive Ark, when all that was required was for Noah and the animals to temporarily migrate out of the affected region and to return after the cleansing. This would have certainly been quicker.

 

Finally if the flood was local, why are rainbows universal? If the flood was local then God's promise never to flood the entire earth only really applies to a massive local flood centered around modern day Palestine. The entire world however receives the promise of the rainbow. Does not the universality of the promise, point to the universality of the flood?

 

The timing of the Genesis account of the flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh (as well as the details) are strikingly similar. It also fits the general time period that it is believed by scientists that the Black Sea was joined with the Mediterranean Sea as the Bosporus Straits were breached.

 

My personal opinion is that the area directly surrounding that massive event would have naturally received much more rain than other parts of the world, but that it was indeed a time of extremely heavy rains around the planet. So heavy were the rains were that a flood myth can be found in every corner of the planet in cultures on almost every continent.

 

The moral of the story of great flood seems to me to be the purpose for the story, and the event that it was described in the context of was the backdrop for the tale as told in scripture. Personally, I look at what is being told and try to determine if it was in fact meant to be literal. In some cases it is, and in others it is not. I believe that the account of the flood is based in fact, but the purpose of the story was to convey a message rather than to replace your science books.

 

As the article stated, there is clear evidence of a local flood at the right time and in the right place to validate the tale in the Bible. Also, the language used was covered in great detail in regards to what scripture says versus what theologians have claimed it must mean. I always defer to what it says, and allow the facts to lead me to come to a conclusion about what it means. Like I have said, I am not your average Christian in this respect. I heard many of you loud and clear that you've seen others like me before, but I can only speak for myself and what I know about how most of my brothers and sisters of the faith form their belief system. My approach is generally not accepted very well by the casual Christian observer, but that is usually greatly diminished when they discover that I am quite knowledgeable in scripture and can and do defend my faith well. In fact I have never met a Christian fundamentalist (perhaps the literalist type you are more accustomed to) that has debated me and concluded that I was not a Christian. We might agree to disagree about things, but they eventually understand what I believe, why and how. Atheists on the other hand are usually more friendly to me when they get it that I look at things the way I do, but similarly we tend to agree to disagree about many things.

 

If you're looking to catch me flat footed, I assure you that you wont. My opinion changes with my understanding of the truth. It is impossible to catch a person flat footed who simply accepts the truth as he or she is aware of it. If it is truth you'd like to share with me, I am eager to hear everything you have to say!!!

 

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

 

Charles Darwin

 

"Dear Faithful Christian...

 

Search for Truth, Hear Truth, Learn Truth, Love Truth, Speak the Truth, Hold the Truth, and Defend the Truth til Death"

 

Jan Huss

[Wind Walker]

For dagnarus...

 

I am on a mobilization with the military right now now and don't have my book collection with me. In the Science of God (I'm almost certain that is the book), Schroeder has a very simple chart with explanation of all of your questions. I am not Gerald Schroeder and I will not claim to have all the answers either. I will also point out that you are in the same boat I am in though. We both have ideas and theories to reinforce what we believe to be true, but I can assure you that neither of us can defend every detail of every issue with our belief system. You would be wrong to assume that science has it all figured out, as I would be wrong to assume the same.

 

For example...

 

Are you aware of the first cause argument? It is very old and very valid, but nonetheless an unsolved mystery of science.

[FiddlingAround]

First off, welcome aboard Wind Walker. When we get a new Christian on the board, I like to gauge their chances of making it long-term (ie. more than a week or two). So far, I'd say your chances are pretty good.

 

For me, deconversion took a long, long time. The issues I'll list below piled up and gained in strength and I still fought to believe for years. Deconverting was just finally being honest with myself.

 

I'll list these in the order they became important to me and reserve the right to list more later in case there's something I forget.

 

1. The widely-held assumption that being a Christian means shutting off your brain. God prefers fools who just accept what they're told. (Like another person on this board, my mother also worried about my faith as a child because I was smart; just recently my deconversion was attributed to "being too smart for [my] own good")

 

2. The Bible. Every time I got serious about Bible study, I ran across something that made no sense or, more often, was just revolting: the spiteful, petty, bullying character of God in the OT. The teachings on predestination and the role of women in the OT.

 

3. The Bible. If you start chalking up things like the above to cultural context, where does it stop? To me, it stopped with leaving Christianity altogether.

 

4. Homosexuality. If "God" didn't want any gay people, he shouldn't have gone and made any!

 

5. Lack of evidence. Big, big claims, all to be accepted simply on the word of an old book.

 

6. Faith. Why should the ability to believe without evidence be the one and only way to be saved from eternal torment? That's the number one virtue God requires of the human race? Really?

 

7. Devaluing of the world. I like this world rather a lot, and I take issue with the idea that it's only purpose is as a pale reflection of God or heaven or somesuch.

 

8. Sin. Making God the injured party in anything we do pretty much negates the importance our actions have on each other.

 

Well, that's about all I can think of for now, but I may add some more later. Also, I've probably phrased at least part of the above rather confusingly, so feel free to ask me for clarification if you like.

[Wind Walker]

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.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but the Dead Sea scrolls were written and dated at least a hundred years before Christ. The timing I am speaking of predicts the Messiah to be revealed in the year AD 33, and it was on that year that a chain of events occurred that coincide with the accounts of scripture of the events, as well as the timing of astrological anomalies that also occurred to verify those dates. Even if it is all made up as you are suggesting is a possibility, the timing as written in astrological events could not have been manufactured.

[Wind Walker]

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).

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have further questions along similar lines to another member, who covers more clearly my second question.

 

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

Does water predate the big bang?

 

I second this queston.

 

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

 

Where do these waters which have to be separated fit in? This makes sense in the context of the creation of an Earth which is surrounded on all sides by water as the ancients believed, in the context of the next thing to happen after the big bang, not so much so.

 

This is my second question. What do you see is going on here? There are waters on the ground, and waters above the "sky"/"firmament"/"heavens". Then later God places the sun and moon in that "sky"/"firmament"/"heavens", above the lower water and under the upper water. Weird. What is that referring to? Consider:

 

Gen 1:6-1:8

"And God said, 'Let there be a vault in the midst of the waters, and let it divide water from water.' And God made the vault and it divided the water beneath the vault from the water above the vault, and so it was. And God called the vault Heavens, and it was evening, and it was morning, second day."

 

Gen 1:14-1:18

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the vault of the heavens to divide the day from the night, and they shall be signs for the fixed times and for days and years, and they shall be lights in the vault of the heavens to light up the earth.' And so it was. And God made the two great lights, the great light for dominion over the day and the lesser light for dominion over the night, and the stars. And God placed them in the vault of the heavens to light up the earth and to have dominion over day and night and to divide the light from the darkness."

 

He placed them in the vault of the heavens. Under the upper water.

 

Phanta

 

I don't look to the Bible as a science book. I don't propose that we teach it in school as science, as it is in fact not a science text book. that being said...

 

What did the writer mean exactly, in the original language?

 

I could give you what I believe to be true, but that would be my opinion not a declaration of fact or truth. So here is my opinion...

 

Lets go with the New Living Translation for ease of reading in context at first...

 

Genesis 1:1- 10

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day.

6 And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8 And God called the space "sky." This happened on the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear." And so it was. 10 God named the dry ground "land" and the water "seas." And God saw that it was good.

 

I see in this text a Big Bang and then a description of a planet being formed that consisted of a watery surface and a dense and thick atmosphere which buckled and heaved until land masses were formed.

 

You know I have always wondered about where all the water came from. Like I said I am not a Young Earth Creationist, so I am not one to try to interpret scripture literally where it seems pretty clear to me that that is not how or why it was written. Whatever science tells me I am inclined to believe to be perfectly honest. But let me ask you a question now...

 

What does science say in regards to where all the water, and there is a lot of it, came from?

 

I don't buy that we were bombarded by asteroids made of ice to account for all of the water.

 

It seems to me that the earlier/ancient waters are what we now call seas and oceans as evidenced by the mineral content of the water, and that fresh water is the result of the solidification of hydrogen and oxygen from the heavens (the atmosphere).

 

The question of where the water came from has always intrigued me.

[Shyone]

Wow, lot of replies!!!

 

All of you pretty much replied with more or less with the same message... issues with the rules as set forth in scripture or just flat out believing that scripture is just a work of mankind.

I think you have only begun to touch the surface of the reasons for rejecting Christianity.

 

I am a physician. I tend to think pretty logically, so emotional reasons do not have a role for me, but they do for many. I wound up doing a lot of research (what I call "work") into aspects of religion that started with Christianity, but went well beyond. Mostly, it's just not believable.

 

1. I've seen lots of dead people; they don't come back to life.

2. People can float, but not walk, on water.

3. Turning water into wine or staffs into snakes are cheap parlor tricks.

4. Donkeys and snakes don't talk.

5. Sometimes knowing the future is common sense, sometimes it's luck, and sometimes it's faked. It's never supernatural.

6. I studied ancient texts predating the bible and was surprised to find many of them quoted in the Old Testament. If the words they used to worship false gods are in the OT, then the OT is written about a false god as well.

7. One cannot curse fig trees and make the tree "whither."

8. Jesus believed in possession as the cause for mental illness. Dumbass.

9. There is such gruesome criminal activity in the OT portrayed as "Godly" and supposedly ordered by God that it is not only a bad source for morality, but has been used to justify continued cruelty towards fellow humans for centuries.

10. Faith healing is fake. I know.

11. Christians get sick and die like everyone else; believers, unbelievers, other religions or no religion.

12. The prophecies supposedly of Jesus from the OT are taken out of context.

13 - 10,000 Too many to list.

 

I know there are apologists that could and have claimed to have answers to every question, but there are thousands more problems with religion in general and Christianity in particular. Heck, an "omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent" being is self contradictory, and an invisible, immaterial and "supernatural" being cannot and does not exist.

 

Substitutionary human sacrifice is an ancient concept that is absolutely disgusting. We don't kill good people to help other people, even if they want to die.

 

Miracles are for the gullible. Reality is physically based and there are no events that are "explained" by the supernatural. Medical trials don't take into consideration the religion of the participants.

 

Perhaps worst of all, there are many societal problems that endured for generations because the bible failed to address them. The instution of slavery, as the clearest example, is not acceptable, but the bible does nothing, in either the NT or the OT to abolish it.

 

Job suffered because of a fucking Bet?

 

Ah, I quit.

[Wind Walker]

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.

(Wind Walker)

 

Thanks Wind Walker, you just stated in one fairly concise sentence why I left christianity. Ever been told, at the top of some bellowing creature's lungs every day, just how worthless you are? I was, when I was in a private "christian" school. I must say the fellow I'm talking about here was the most even tempered man I ever met, he was always in a rage. Needless to say, when he was in a rage, we kids also got used as punching bags and speed balls. OK he was a catholic, but aren't catholics christian?

 

Still, his rages were as the twittering of little birds compared to child sexual abuse. Ever had that happen to you? I have, happened the next year in another branch of that same "christian" school when I was thirteen. It was a long time ago and I don't dwell on it. Suffice it to say though, that it took some time for me to straighten myself out, which I had to do for myself. Neither your God nor the aforesaid christian church did much of a damn thing for me in that regard. Matter of fact, another christian church told me I had to forgive the man who did that to me. Well I still haven't and I never will!

 

As for goosestepping, the only reason we didn't learn that style of marching is that, in the Australian State where I live, only the Defense Forces are allowed to drill people. (It says so in the Criminal Code, but that's irrelevant I suppose). However, what is relevant is that for quite a while I shouldn't have minded learning the goosestep even under a rifle and a full pack, if only I got the chance to let daylight into some christian or other whether by bullet, bayonet or bomb. Kicking what was left of the so and so with a stout pair of hobnailed jackboots wouldn't have been so bad either. (And there's a few old marching songs that would just go so cool with it too!) Now that don't solve anything, I know that, but it sure as hell would have made me feel better nonetheless.

 

I think I should tell you I don't feel like that any more but that's not down to christianity, it's simply realising there are better things to do with one's life, that's all.

 

However your theme is that if Christ hadn't died and been resurrected, then, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." Um, no, that's not the central thing with christianity, ya know. The central thing in christianity is the fear of dying and toddling off to Hell, isn't it? Because if it weren't for the fear of that mythical infernal region, what else would christinsanity have to sell?

Casey

 

Let me start by saying that it pains me to hear any story of abuse Casey, and that I don't have all the answers. I can try to understand your pain, but I can not tell you why there is suffering in the world in a way that would be meaningful in a discussion forum. I can tell you that anyone, church or not, that asks a person to forgive someone guilty of horrific levels of abuse are wrong. You can chose to forgive them if you want, but I personally think it is unreasonable and unfair to try to shoulder that on the victim.

 

You said: "The central thing in christianity is the fear of dying and toddling off to Hell, isn't it?"

 

Actually I didn't say that Casey. In fact I said the opposite. I am not a defender of the doctrine of hell. Fi you would like I could post what I said again, but it was on the 1st couple of pages of this thread.

 

Hell is not a place of eternal torment and I can show you or anyone that the Bible doesn't say that. People and churches say that, but the Bible doesn't.

 

Your quote of my words is how I feel about it Casey. Using fear to control and manipulate people is not what Jesus instructed His followers to do to spread the good news. In fact it was made clear to them (the disciples) that the road would be difficult. They weren't called to spread the gospel by whatever means necessary, but by loving God and man with reckless abandon. In fact they did what they were told to do, and almost all of them died as a result of refusing to deviate from what Jesus had taught them. Yes the church failed and failed miserably over time, but it has also thrived wherever the faith has been practiced correctly.

 

I am one of those people who try my best to practice what I am told in scripture to practice by Jesus. That means that I sometimes do things others don't always agree with, but I don't care what other people think. I know what I am supposed to do, and I try my best to do it.

[centauri]

...The timing I am speaking of predicts the Messiah to be revealed in the year AD 33,

Are you claiming that Daniel predicts this?

If so, would you post the exact scripture where this is confirmed.

[Wind Walker]

...The timing I am speaking of predicts the Messiah to be revealed in the year AD 33,

Are you claiming that Daniel predicts this?

If so, would you post the exact scripture where this is confirmed.

 

Here is a link to this explanation...

 

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm#daniel

[Shyone]

 

For example...

 

Are you aware of the first cause argument? It is very old and very valid, but nonetheless an unsolved mystery of science.

I studied St. Thomas Aquinas in some detail, and the First Cause argument has tons of flaws. So does the Kalam Cosmological Argument. So does the "Design" argument. If you don't know the flaws, you haven't begun to understand your religion or why others would reject it.

 

Just because something is unknown is no reason to assign God or Vishnu to it. If you "know" that God did something, why look for a "reason" or an "explanation"? Religions making scientific claims seek to halt exploration and research.

 

First cause arguments also do not necessarily indicate any god, much less the OT or Christian god, and Occam's razor suggests that "God" is an extraneous entity.

 

Assuming God doesn't have a cause is a theistic ploy with no justification or merit. God can't be proven, and his "properties" are pure speculation, so as far as I'm concerned, the arguments from first cause are no better than saying, "It's turtles all the way down". (Google that if you are confused)

[dagnarus]

For dagnarus...

 

I am on a mobilization with the military right now now and don't have my book collection with me. In the Science of God (I'm almost certain that is the book), Schroeder has a very simple chart with explanation of all of your questions. I am not Gerald Schroeder and I will not claim to have all the answers either. I will also point out that you are in the same boat I am in though. We both have ideas and theories to reinforce what we believe to be true, but I can assure you that neither of us can defend every detail of every issue with our belief system. You would be wrong to assume that science has it all figured out, as I would be wrong to assume the same.

 

For example...

 

Are you aware of the first cause argument? It is very old and very valid, but nonetheless an unsolved mystery of science.

 

Who said that science had all the answers?

 

Why should the fact that we don't how the universe first came into being, somehow give credence to the Bible. It still is filled with failed prophecies Isaiah 13, Ezekiel 26-29. It still has historical inaccuracies Daniel. It still proclaims as moral and good that which we know to be utterly reprehensible Joshuah, OT in general.

 

If Moses wasn't given the OT law by God on Sinai, what possible reason could we have for believing that Judaism is any different to all the other man made religions, and yet if we look into Egyptian history we find no mention of Moses, no mention of Hebrew slaves, no mention of plagues, no mention of a mass slave escape, no mention of the Pharaoh and his army being drowned in the Red sea. In addition to this we will find that during the period in which the Hebrews supposedly took the promised land, the Egyptians were of the opinion that they owned Canaan and were receiving tribute from it. There is no reason to believe that the Pentateuch and Joshua weren't spun out of Whole clothe.

 

Christianity is based upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Yet there is no evidence from the historical documents of the region to even suggest that he existed, let alone that he went around performing all these miracles, pissed off the religious elite, and had Herod worried he was going to take over the entire country. Add to that the fact that even a cursory look at the OT prophecies the NT authors state that Jesus supposedly fulfilled will demonstrate just how desperate they were to find anything to tie their new religion back in. Why is Jesus anymore likely than Mithras, Horus, Krishna, or any other dieing, rising, saviour gods.

[Wind Walker]

 

For example...

 

Are you aware of the first cause argument? It is very old and very valid, but nonetheless an unsolved mystery of science.

I studied St. Thomas Aquinas in some detail, and the First Cause argument has tons of flaws. So does the Kalam Cosmological Argument. So does the "Design" argument. If you don't know the flaws, you haven't begun to understand your religion or why others would reject it.

 

Just because something is unknown is no reason to assign God or Vishnu to it. If you "know" that God did something, why look for a "reason" or an "explanation"? Religions making scientific claims seek to halt exploration and research.

 

First cause arguments also do not necessarily indicate any god, much less the OT or Christian god, and Occam's razor suggests that "God" is an extraneous entity.

 

Assuming God doesn't have a cause is a theistic ploy with no justification or merit. God can't be proven, and his "properties" are pure speculation, so as far as I'm concerned, the arguments from first cause are no better than saying, "It's turtles all the way down". (Google that if you are confused)

 

I have to get to bed (I am a driver in a veterans day parade tomorrow) but I am curious as to what the flaws are in the argument?

 

Science gives us two scenarios in regards to the Big Bang...

 

1) All of the matter in the universe existed in a stable state in a/the singularity of compressed matter and then it expanded, or

2) All of the matter in the universe appeared suddenly and then it expanded into the universe.

 

I'm not aware of another option, but both scenarios beg the question... What caused either possibility to happen?

[Shyone]

...The timing I am speaking of predicts the Messiah to be revealed in the year AD 33,

Are you claiming that Daniel predicts this?

If so, would you post the exact scripture where this is confirmed.

 

Here is a link to this explanation...

 

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm#daniel

Really, now, this is disingenuous.

 

From this link,

 

Dispensationalist Christians like Dr. Harold Hoehner have a totally different theory.[52] They claim the seventy weeks begin in 444 BC with the decree issued by Emperor Artaxerxes I in the twentieth year of his reign authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8). The obvious problem with this theory is that the seventieth week would then last from 40 to 47 AD--too late to connect with the crucifixion of Jesus in 30 or 33 AD, or with any other plausibly significant event.

 

To make the numbers add up and the problem go away, dispensationalists have invented an artificial "biblical year" of 360 days, arguing that in God's eyes a biblical month is invariably thirty days. Reading obviously round numbers with micrometer precision, they argue that the story of Noah's Flood equates five months with an exact period of 150 days (5 months X 30 days/month--Genesis 7:11,24; 8:3-4). Similarly, they point out that the Book of Revelation equates 42 months (3 1/2 years X 12 months/year--Revelation 11:2; 13:5) and 1260 days (42 months X 30 days/month--Revelation 11:3; 12:6) with 3 1/2 years (Daniel 7:25; 9:27; 12:7; Revelation 12:14).

 

[...]

 

Finally, the biggest problem of all with the dispensationalist theory is that the seventieth week never happened. The Roman "people of the prince who is to come" should have cruelly oppressed the Jews and destroyed Jerusalem along with its Temple from 33 to 40 AD, after which Jesus should have come to rule the Earth. To dispose of this error, dispensationalists have argued that God postponed the seventieth week to the distant future because the Jews crucified Jesus instead of accepting him as their king on his terms rather than theirs. Under this interpretation, Daniel's seventieth week is the Tribulation Period in our future, and the "prince who is to come" is the Antichrist, who will desecrate the Tribulation Temple in the middle of the period. The Church Age, a mystery that God had kept hidden until Pentecost, fills an invisible gap of many centuries separating the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. To describe this theory is to refute it.

 

There is a lot more, but the whole idea of taking things and twisting them to make them fit is "Lying for Jebus!"

 

It's crap like this that makes people predict the end of the world every few years.

[Wind Walker]

...The timing I am speaking of predicts the Messiah to be revealed in the year AD 33,

Are you claiming that Daniel predicts this?

If so, would you post the exact scripture where this is confirmed.

 

Here is a link to this explanation...

 

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm#daniel

Really, now, this is disingenuous.

 

From this link,

 

Dispensationalist Christians like Dr. Harold Hoehner have a totally different theory.[52] They claim the seventy weeks begin in 444 BC with the decree issued by Emperor Artaxerxes I in the twentieth year of his reign authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8). The obvious problem with this theory is that the seventieth week would then last from 40 to 47 AD--too late to connect with the crucifixion of Jesus in 30 or 33 AD, or with any other plausibly significant event.

 

To make the numbers add up and the problem go away, dispensationalists have invented an artificial "biblical year" of 360 days, arguing that in God's eyes a biblical month is invariably thirty days. Reading obviously round numbers with micrometer precision, they argue that the story of Noah's Flood equates five months with an exact period of 150 days (5 months X 30 days/month--Genesis 7:11,24; 8:3-4). Similarly, they point out that the Book of Revelation equates 42 months (3 1/2 years X 12 months/year--Revelation 11:2; 13:5) and 1260 days (42 months X 30 days/month--Revelation 11:3; 12:6) with 3 1/2 years (Daniel 7:25; 9:27; 12:7; Revelation 12:14).

 

[...]

 

Finally, the biggest problem of all with the dispensationalist theory is that the seventieth week never happened. The Roman "people of the prince who is to come" should have cruelly oppressed the Jews and destroyed Jerusalem along with its Temple from 33 to 40 AD, after which Jesus should have come to rule the Earth. To dispose of this error, dispensationalists have argued that God postponed the seventieth week to the distant future because the Jews crucified Jesus instead of accepting him as their king on his terms rather than theirs. Under this interpretation, Daniel's seventieth week is the Tribulation Period in our future, and the "prince who is to come" is the Antichrist, who will desecrate the Tribulation Temple in the middle of the period. The Church Age, a mystery that God had kept hidden until Pentecost, fills an invisible gap of many centuries separating the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. To describe this theory is to refute it.

 

There is a lot more, but the whole idea of taking things and twisting them to make them fit is "Lying for Jebus!"

 

It's crap like this that makes people predict the end of the world every few years.

 

I have to get to bed but real quick, the destruction of the Temple did not occur in in 33 to 44 AD. It occurred in 70 AD. I'll need more time to read the rest of what was written. I am familiar with the website that you got that from, and they are indeed skilled atheist apologists! I don't do very good at responding to things that large, ADD and all, but from what I read so far it seems to me that it is an attack on the what I cited in very broad terms to cover a lot of ground. The article I cited was pretty specific and is accurate to the best of my knowledge.

 

And do you really have to talk to me like that? Obviously you can if you want to, but would you please just talk to me person to person like you would talk to anyone else you meet in life?

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Actually I didn't say that Casey. In fact I said the opposite. I am not a defender of the doctrine of hell. Fi you would like I could post what I said again, but it was on the 1st couple of pages of this thread.

 

Hell is not a place of eternal torment and I can show you or anyone that the Bible doesn't say that. People and churches say that, but the Bible doesn't.

 

 

If you don't believe in hell, why is it important for us to believe in Christianity?

[centauri]

...The timing I am speaking of predicts the Messiah to be revealed in the year AD 33,

Are you claiming that Daniel predicts this?

If so, would you post the exact scripture where this is confirmed.

 

Here is a link to this explanation...

 

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm#daniel

This excerpt is from the link you provided, my response is in bold script because I couldn't get the color font to work.

 

The Bible records that during such a time of passion, Daniel had a vision. The angel Gabriel appeared to him and spoke. The Book of Daniel, Chapter 9:

"21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, "Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed...

 

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven `sevens', and sixty-two `sevens'... 26 After the sixty-two `sevens', the Anointed One will be cut off..."

One of the problems with this is that it seems to be a standard Christian translation, not a Jewish one, which makes a great deal of difference.

There are two anointed ones in the timeline, not one as Christian translations would like people to believe. The first anointed one, a prince or king comes after 49 years or 7 weeks. The second anointed one, which could be a priest or a king, is cut off 62 weeks or 434 years later. These are two different people, not one.

 

Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troubled times. And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off, and he shall have nothing; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the Sanctuary.

 

The word "Christ" means "anointed one." For this and other reasons, most commentators conclude that Daniel received a prediction of Messiah's coming. More than that, Daniel was told the date of Messiah's death, the date he would be "cut off."

 

The second anointed one in this timeline is the one cut off.

 

That's the date we seek for our astronomical investigation. So, can the numeric symbolism of Daniel's "sevens" be deciphered? Perhaps it is not terribly complicated.

Taking a direct approach, let us assume that the "sevens" are seven years. Gabriel told Daniel that after the decree to rebuild, there would be "seven sevens" (which is 49), plus "sixty-two sevens" (which is 434). After these 483 years, the Anointed One would be cut off. If the prophecy is true, this would be the year of the crucifixion.

 

This explanation has already started off with a faulty assumption by not recognizing that there are two anointed ones involved in this prophecy.

The prophecy also says nothing about anyone being crucified.

 

Remember that in ancient times, our modern calendar system was not in use. In other prophetic passages a year of 360 days is used (23). To convert to our modern system which uses the longer solar year, we must divide by the time it takes for Earth to orbit the Sun, which is 365.24 days. This yields 476 years on our calendar (24).

 

The Jews don’t use a 360 day calendar.

 

We now have a number of years, but when do we start the countdown? Gabriel said to count "[f]rom the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." When was that? The prophet Nehemiah records such a decree, and he dates it as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (25). On our calendar, that date is 444 BC (26). Counting 476 years from 444 BC, and remembering that there is no year numbered "zero" AD, we discover what Gabriel told Daniel: the Messiah would be cut off in 33 AD.

 

This is cherry picking a starting date to fit the desired outcome.

The word to restore Jerusalem went out long before Artaxerxes.

The initial decree was issued by Cyrus, who is the first anointed one spoken of in the prophecy.

This stunning prophecy, made over 500 years before Christ was born, is consistent with all of the other evidence we have seen. So, we have increasing confidence that Jesus was crucified on April 3, 33 AD.

 

It’s not stunning because it’s the equivalent of an archer drawing a bulls eye around an arrowhead after he shots the arrow into the target.

Jesus was never an anointed king according to the specifications of the Hebrew scriptures.

Nor does a death date of 33 AD conform with information provided by Matthew on when he was born.

According to the prophecy the death of an anointed one was also supposed to coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem and that didn’t happen with Jesus.

 

You can find a Jewish explanation of what their scriptures mean here:

http://www.word-gems.com/god&religion.scripture.gs.dan9.html