40 Problems With Christianity

[sdelsolray]

(1) Relative Time

We choose our ultimate destiny, not God. Time lived on earth does not matter in the outcome of our choice.

No person has a valid excuse for rejecting God. Every person has a chance to God’s offer of salvation and life eternal.

What if some persistently refuse to "join the party"?

God will grant their request.

 

Now, as to the “whys and hows” God works all this out, I can’t answer.

I’m just glad He made it so easy and fair.

 

 

Your recitation of your particular religious dogma fails to address Runyan's main point which dealt with relative time and the comparison between finite time and infinite time.

[sdelsolray]

(2) Lack of Gradation

 

I agree there are complexities and varieties of human experience, but that does not demand that offering only two judgments is absurd.

Indeed people are born into many different circumstances. As I stated in response to the first point, God will take everything into account and his judgment will be fair and just.

 

I agree that the teaching of “purgatory” is completely made up without any scriptural support.

 

Once again you miss the mark.  Runyon points to a dichotomy, which you do not address other than to say it is not absurd.  You do not explain why the dichotomy is valid, appropriate or necessary (although I'm sure you have a host of apologetics to weasel around Runyon's point - Lack of Gradation).  All you seem to say is, "Yes, there is only two choices, and there is no gradation, but my God will be fair and just when deciding which to employ."  That's just more religious dogma from an infantile an obsolete religion. 

 

So far you are batting 0 for 3.  But please try again.

[bdp]

we 'choose' an 'ultimate destiny' that only 'exists' because 'god' created both it and us.  That's fair...

 

My ultimate destiny is that I will cease to exist, period.  That's the reality of it all.

[ironhorse]

amateur, here is a explanation of the Roman census as recorded in Luke. 

 

http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp

[mymistake]

Luke is fiction.  It didn't happen.  He gets much of the history wrong because Luke's author made it up long after the fact.

 

Have you noticed a pattern Ironhorse?  You have not debunked any of these reasons.  They all stand and remain as problems with your man-made religion.

[ironhorse]

mymistake, 

 

Did you even read the explanation I posted?

It presented a view that explained the Roman census as recorded by Luke.

 

I understand you believe it is all fiction.

 

Others here are free to decide like we have. 

[bornagainathiest]

mymistake, 

 

Did you even read the explanation I posted?

It presented a view that explained the Roman census as recorded by Luke.

 

I understand you believe it is all fiction.

 

Others here are free to decide like we have. 

 

A view?

 

Not proof, IH?

[ironhorse]

"A view?

Not proof, IH?"

 

~BAA

 

 

 

The article did give reference to the Roman census from The Antiquity of the Jews by Josephus.

[mymistake]

mymistake, 

 

Did you even read the explanation I posted?

It presented a view that explained the Roman census as recorded by Luke.

 

I understand you believe it is all fiction.

 

Others here are free to decide like we have. 

 

 

Yes, a view.  Just like a Spiderman comic book is a view that spiderman is real.

 

Luke is not history.  Luke didn't record anything.  Fiction is not a record.

 

All the evidence indicates that Luke is fiction.  No evidence indicates that it is a record.

 

 

 

From the article:

 

"I must be missing some important issue and am sure hoping you can clear this up for me.

Thank you,

Cheryl"

 

Yeah, the important issue she is missing is that the Bible is made up.  Do you realize this one answer solves all of the apparent contradictions in the whole Bible?  If the Bible were made up then we would expect it to look exactly like we see today - full of contradictions and nonsense.

 

He says that Caesar Augustus ordered a census.  But that didn't happen and the description in Luke doesn't match Roman census methods.  (Because Luke is made up.)

 

In fact there were hundreds of historians who lived in the first century and none of them said a word about Jesus except for one some doctored Josepush sections.

 

The author of Luke was trying to force the mythical God-man to be born in Bethlehem.  Religious cults didn't care that Rome didn't demand that people return to their ancestral homeland. They had a theological problem and they needed to jump through some hoops to fit a prophesy.  The neat thing about fiction is you can make the characters do whatever you want.

[ironhorse]

"Yeah, the important issue she is missing is that the Bible is made up.  Do you realize this one answer solves all of the apparent contradictions in the whole Bible?  If the Bible were made up then we would expect it to look exactly like we see today - full of contradictions and nonsense."

 

~mymistake

 

 

That is your view mymistake. I see it differently.

 

I don't claim to be able to explain every verse in scriptures, but I do think

that almost all of the contradictions do have alternative explanations. 

 

This is one of the reasons I post in the Lion's Den.

[mymistake]

I have one explanation that address them all and I can explain every single verse in scriptures.  But you think I am wrong and you are right because you can't explain all the verses and every time you try your explanations fall apart at the slightest questioning.

 

 

Seems legit.

[Jeff]

IH. Your weak defense of your beliefs do more to further the aims of this website than most of the nonbeleivers here could hope for.

I used to tire of your illogic but now I think you are just exactly what one would hope for really. Your reasoning does hurt my head but it's worth it I guess.

On a personal level I wish you could be free of it and think rationally but thats your own choice.

[bornagainathiest]

Please answer my question as I phrased it and stop dodging, Ironhorse.

 

Is your referenced article a 'view' or a 'proof' of the authenticity of Luke's account of the Roman census?

[Guest Furball]

 

That is your view mymistake. I see it differently.

 

 

 

MyMistake is using actual facts to support his claims. They are not his views or his opinions. We have actual evidence/historical proof on record, that luke's account is made up. Since when are actual facts/factual evidence that we can see/read with our own eyes counted as simply one's point of view? 

[sdelsolray]

To some folks, factual assertions in the Bible are assumed to be true.

[Guest Furball]

and you know what they say about assumptions

[amateur]

amateur, here is a explanation of the Roman census as recorded in Luke. 

 

http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp

This doesn't really answer the whole question.  I've read things that show the exact opposite with a timeline of Herod and Quirinius.  But sending people back to a homeland for a census?  That doesn't happen.

 

And what about the prisoner release when Jesus was executed?  That never existed either.  See if you can find something that "proves" it did.

[Guest Furball]

And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

 

If god was his father and not joseph, why does it use parents in the plural sense?

[♦ ficino ♦]

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist! I mean, look at all the evidence for God and Jesus!"

 

Such as ... ?

 

"Well, we have a world. It didn't create itself! Proof for God."

 

Not really.

 

"Wm. Lane Craig showed me the Kalam argument. It proves God!"

 

No, it doesn't.

 

"The second law of thermodynamics! the world would have ended by now if not for God!"

 

No, not really.

 

"Well, life had to be started. It can't start itself. No one has replicated abiogenesis!"

 

Scientists are getting closer.

 

"Well, the TOE makes no sense! It's been debunked. Even Darwin denounced it on his deathbed."

 

No, no and no.

 

"Well, the amazing fulfillments of prophecy."

 

They fall apart under scrutiny or else are backdated.

 

"The proofs that archeologists have found. Look at the burn levels of ruins of Canaanite cities!"

 

Archeologists have shown that a good deal of the OT is myth.

 

"The Resurrection! The only explanation that makes sense is that Jesus rose and walked out of the tomb! I mean, women were witnesses, and no one would have made that up. Plus, the apostles would not have been tortured for what they knew was a lie!"

 

No. All this fails.

 

"Miracles! My cousin heard a guy who said a missionary came and talked about a dude being raised from the dead in Indonesia!"

 

Miracle stories always fall apart unless they are about psychosomatic healings.

 

"I look at my baby and I love my child so much! You can't explain love on an atheistic world view."

 

Yes, you can.

 

"Morality! No God, no morality."

 

False.

 

"Well, you're going to hell unless you repent. You know God is real but you refuse to believe because you love sin."

 

Fallacy, ad baculum. When you've got nothing left, attack the other person's character.

 

"Well, Ironhorse believes. That's enough for me!"

[disillusioned]

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist! I mean, look at all the evidence for God and Jesus!"

 

Such as ... ?

 

"Well, we have a world. It didn't create itself! Proof for God."

 

Not really.

 

"Wm. Lane Craig showed me the Kalam argument. It proves God!"

 

No, it doesn't.

 

"The second law of thermodynamics! the world would have ended by now if not for God!"

 

No, not really.

 

"Well, life had to be started. It can't start itself. No one has replicated abiogenesis!"

 

Scientists are getting closer.

 

"Well, the TOE makes no sense! It's been debunked. Even Darwin denounced it on his deathbed."

 

No, no and no.

 

"Well, the amazing fulfillments of prophecy."

 

They fall apart under scrutiny or else are backdated.

 

"The proofs that archeologists have found. Look at the burn levels of ruins of Canaanite cities!"

 

Archeologists have shown that a good deal of the OT is myth.

 

"The Resurrection! The only explanation that makes sense is that Jesus rose and walked out of the tomb! I mean, women were witnesses, and no one would have made that up. Plus, the apostles would not have been tortured for what they knew was a lie!"

 

No. All this fails.

 

"Miracles! My cousin heard a guy who said a missionary came and talked about a dude being raised from the dead in Indonesia!"

 

Miracle stories always fall apart unless they are about psychosomatic healings.

 

"I look at my baby and I love my child so much! You can't explain love on an atheistic world view."

 

Yes, you can.

 

"Morality! No God, no morality."

 

False.

 

"Well, you're going to hell unless you repent. You know God is real but you refuse to believe because you love sin."

 

Fallacy, ad baculum. When you've got nothing left, attack the other person's character.

 

"Well, Ironhorse believes. That's enough for me!"

 

This is fantastic. The only thing missing is the (rather pathetic) assertion that since God is God, we can't really be expected to understand Him. His ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts, etcetera, etcetera. To which we reply, "How convenient. The claim is both incomprehensible and unverifiable. Seems legit."

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist! I mean, look at all the evidence for God and Jesus!"

 

Such as ... ?

 

"Well, we have a world. It didn't create itself! Proof for God."

 

Not really.

 

"Wm. Lane Craig showed me the Kalam argument. It proves God!"

 

No, it doesn't.

 

"The second law of thermodynamics! the world would have ended by now if not for God!"

 

No, not really.

 

"Well, life had to be started. It can't start itself. No one has replicated abiogenesis!"

 

Scientists are getting closer.

 

"Well, the TOE makes no sense! It's been debunked. Even Darwin denounced it on his deathbed."

 

No, no and no.

 

"Well, the amazing fulfillments of prophecy."

 

They fall apart under scrutiny or else are backdated.

 

"The proofs that archeologists have found. Look at the burn levels of ruins of Canaanite cities!"

 

Archeologists have shown that a good deal of the OT is myth.

 

"The Resurrection! The only explanation that makes sense is that Jesus rose and walked out of the tomb! I mean, women were witnesses, and no one would have made that up. Plus, the apostles would not have been tortured for what they knew was a lie!"

 

No. All this fails.

 

"Miracles! My cousin heard a guy who said a missionary came and talked about a dude being raised from the dead in Indonesia!"

 

Miracle stories always fall apart unless they are about psychosomatic healings.

 

"I look at my baby and I love my child so much! You can't explain love on an atheistic world view."

 

Yes, you can.

 

"Morality! No God, no morality."

 

False.

 

"Well, you're going to hell unless you repent. You know God is real but you refuse to believe because you love sin."

 

Fallacy, ad baculum. When you've got nothing left, attack the other person's character.

 

"Well, Ironhorse believes. That's enough for me!"

 

This is fantastic. The only thing missing is the (rather pathetic) assertion that since God is God, we can't really be expected to understand Him. His ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts, etcetera, etcetera. To which we reply, "How convenient. The claim is both incomprehensible and unverifiable. Seems legit."

 

 

To me, a good response might also be, "If we can't be expected to understand him because he's so different from us that his behavior makes no sense whatsoever, why blindly trust such a god then?"

[ironhorse]

"This doesn't really answer the whole question.  I've read things that show the exact opposite with a timeline of Herod and Quirinius.  But sending people back to a homeland for a census?  That doesn't happen.

And what about the prisoner release when Jesus was executed?  That never existed either.  See if you can find something that "proves" it did."

 

~ amateur

 

 

I could not find a source outside of scriptures that mention Barabbas, the prisoner released according to the Gospel narratives.

 

There are, however, several ancient texts that mention the releasing of prisoners for various reasons.

 

Here is one:

 

Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners who had been incarcerated for crimes other than murder.

 

'he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.' (Antiquities 20.9.3).

[mymistake]

Pack up boys, it's over!  We lost fair and square.  If the Romans ever released prisoners for a variety of reasons then Jesus must be real and Jesus must have died so that God can forgive us for doing the things God knew we would do but chose to create us to do them anyway.  There is no way to explain Romans releasing prisoners except that God watches us while we masterbate and it makes God so angry.

[bornagainathiest]

Fail, Ironhorse!  

 

Look closely at the way Albinus divides the prisoners into two groups.

Those who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death... and... those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions.  The first group he ordered to be put to death accordingly.  From the second group, Albinus took money and ordered them to be released.  By these two means, the prisons were emptied.

 

But, according to the Gospels, into which group did Barabbas fall into? 

According to Matthew 27: 16, he was a 'notorious' prisoner.  According to Mark 15 : 7 and Luke 23 : 19, he was an insurrectionist and a murderer.  Also, the biblical scholar and archaeologist Robert Eisenman has this to say on the matter. "Contemporaries combining insurrection and murder in this way were Sicarii, members of a militant Jewish movement that sought to overthrow the Roman occupiers of their land by force."  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii

 

For Barabbas to be released in the way you're suggesting Ironhorse, Pilate would have had to have carried out the same practices as Albinus, dividing the prisoners into two groups and taking money from those he had released.  Is there any record that Pilate did this?  If not, then it's just conjecture to say that one Roman governor carried out exactly the same practices as another.

 

To fall into the second group, Pilate would have had to have taken money (a bribe?) from Barabbas.

This runs completely counter to the Gospel accounts, where Pilate asks the crowds to decide who should be released.  If Pilate had already been bribed by Barabbus, why did he need to ask the crowd to decide? 

 

Putting that decision into the hands of the crowd make no sense, especially when Pilate had much to gain by not doing so. 

Instead, he could have easily placated them by announcing that he had already decided to release Barabbas.   At a stroke he would have quelled the riot, found favor with the mob by releasing their favorite, found favor with the High Priests and the Sanhedrin by getting rid Jesus and being rid of not just one, but TWO troublemakers.  Jesus gets executed and Barabbus gets released.   Win/win for Pilate.  But only if Pilate does exactly the same with his prisoners as Albinus...which is debatable.

 

Furthermore, according to Josephus, Albinus divided the prisoners into those two groups when he was preparing to leave office.  As a means of emptying the prisons.  For your appeal to Josephus to hold water, Pilate would have to be doing the same thing.  So was he leaving office too?   Was that the reason why he was emptying the prisons?  If you're saying that Pilate did as Albinus did and released certain prisoners, then to be consistent, you'd have to say that Pilate was doing so for the same or similar reasons as Albinus, right?

 

But do we have any record that Pilate was leaving office at the time that Jesus was brought to him?  

Do we have any record that like Albinus, Pilate chose to empty the prisons at the very time Jesus was on trial?

 

  

.

.

.

Lastly, what's the standard Roman response to armed insurrection in any of their provinces?

 

To release the guilty party upon payment of money to the Governor?

 

Really..?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm starting to get vibes of William Lane Craig lite. That is, a lot of effort and word salad goes into an argument that boils down to, "after all, Christianity might not be false."