Most Convincing Argument Against Christianity

[chefranden]

Chef thinks that the Problem of Evil is the most convincing argument against Christainity.

 

1. If God exists as Christians describe him, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

 

2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

 

3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

 

4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

 

5. Evil exists.

 

6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.

 

7. Therefore, God as Christians describe him doesn't exist.

 

8. Therefore, Christianity is useless.

[Kuroikaze]

I laughed when people said these were bad arguments. Would I still be a christian if i they were

The idea was for people to just vote for whichever they thought was the most significant argument in the list. Just trying to get a feel for what reasons are the most common for rejecting christianity.

 

 

You imagine a commonality that doesn't exist here or likely anywhere else. Everyone chosses thier beliefs for different reasons, some of the people here are athiest, others agnostic, still more follow other gods all together. The reasons for these choices, as well as the choice to leave behind the chrsitan faith are all different.

 

I can see the wheels turning in your head, you came here to find a single reason that we all left so you could trash that reason to all of your super religions and self rightous friends...while vilifying us at the same time. Sorry but we won't play silly mind games with you or fit into the narrow boxes you provided for us either.

 

Find someone else to make fun of because I for one am not going to give you the bullets to shoot me with (metaphoricly speaking)

[Artur]

*

[Guest fatalGlory]

I apologise to anyone I have offended, this was not my intention and I certainly don't regard anyone as unintelligent for rejecting christianity on the basis of solid logic.

 

I did not make up the list, it was largely given to me with only partial input on my part. If there is enough demand of different options (and it is apparent that there is) then the list put together by myself and my partners is obviously lacking and I am happy to hear your suggestions.

 

To make things clearer, I believe that christianity which refuses to take the bible literally (as it is understood in the light of sound principles of interpretational exegesis, such as recognising the use of Hebrew symbols) is no christianity at all. It is mere liberalism. It is heresy. Do I hate people that believe it? No, I just don't regard them as being christians.

 

I am disappointeed with the insults that have been hurled at my intellectual and argumentative integrity like this one:

 

He isn't really looking for information or for truth though, he just wants to put together some information so he can vilify us like every other fundamentalist does.

 

1) that puts fundamentalists in a box - it's discriminative.

2) I'm not looking to vilify anyone, I simply believe christianity is true and can be shown to be so. In such a case it is really only worth me attempting to argue against people's reasons for not believing in order of their significance is it not?

 

If a new list can be collaboratively decided upon, I will definitely run it out of personal interest.

 

For the time being I would like to politely point out to chefranden that the 'problem of evil' has been thoroughly dealt with in a great many easy to obtain, easy to understand, cheap to buy christian books so I did not consider its inclusion necessary. A good one to start with is John Dickson's "If I were God I'd end all the pain". To get people thinking about it, after reading chefranden's logic, consider the reversed logical statement of the christian:

 

premise 1: God exists and is omnipotent (he has the means to end suffering)

premise 2: God exists and is omniscient (he knows every bit of suffering occurs)

premise 3: God exists and is omnibenevolent (he loves all people and does not desire them to suffer)

 

conclusion: This all loving, all powerful God must have reasons for allowing suffering to exist that are not understandable to me but that make sense to him in his omniscience.

 

While you may find the preceding logic unsatisfying, you must never the less admit that it is not illogical.

 

Please post better reasons for rejecting christianity and i will read over them after a few days and compile a new list. Thanks for your input everyone.

[Vigile]

I fail to understand why we should help you with your little project. It occurs to me that the point Kuroikaze made, which you quoted, is valid. Why should I think otherwise when you already sliced out the problem of evil? Once you have your list you will just run through and list faith as your answer to each problem just as you have done with the problem of evil. If you want to know why we rejected your religion, feel free to read through our antimonies.

[KT45]

I'll help you with your project just because I'm a nice guy. Please show these to your congregation instead of the list you wrote. There are obviously more but I'll let others post them if they desire.

 

1. The obvious similarites between Jesus and the older egyptian story of the god Horus

 

2. Inconsitancy with historical evidence and the actual evidents in the bible

 

3. The strong links between astrology and biblical stories

 

4. Existance of mythological creatures in the bible

 

5. Numerous inconsitancies with the bible with itself

 

6. Numerous unfullfilled prophecies

 

7. The bible has been copied, rewritten, editted, retranslated over and over again to lose it's meanings.

[Celsus]

It is a belief system that is logically incoherent, based upon absurdities, primitive conceptualizations of reality and has the same validity basis as Aeosop's Fables. Pretty simple really.

[Ouroboros]

So you made a poll, you get one answer, and you criticize it? Why is it important that you have to argue your faith at the same time as you do the poll. As a poll taker, shouldn't you try to be objective? So why even argue for the oposite side?

 

Anyway, here's a reason you can add to the list:

 

- In the world, the majority are not Christians

- Of the Christians in the world, the majority are not true Christians.

- Of the True Christians, most are liberals and don't take the word literally

- Of the True Literal Christians, a majority are hypocrits

- Of the Non Hypocritical True Literal Christians, almost all are assholes

- That left me alone. And heck, I had better things to do than to play the "invisible friend" game.

 

[Antlerman]

To make things clearer, I believe that christianity which refuses to take the bible literally (as it is understood in the light of sound principles of interpretational exegesis, such as recognising the use of Hebrew symbols) is no christianity at all. It is mere liberalism. It is heresy. Do I hate people that believe it? No, I just don't regard them as being christians.

To put an even clearer face to this, is it accurate to say that 90% of those who consider themselves Christians in the world today are not Christians, and are liberals? 90% is not liberal, it's mainstream.

 

I know people in that huge center area of the bell curve who would say that the fundamentalist/literalist, though Christian are really missing the whole spirit of the faith. I would have to agree with them. I think that's awful poor form to call all of Christianity heresy, and the 10 percent truth. I call that cult. I call that presumptive arrogance.

 

BTW, your rationale for claiming the Bible is infallible is not based on sound scholarship at all. It's on the same level as the "science" of the Evolution Deniers. Your use of the word "refuses" above, along with your other words highlighted in red, are all clearly charged with bias and betrays your lack of objectivity and careful scholarship.

 

Edit: To add, people who approach discussions like you do with such an apparently closed mind, as is demonstrated in your post I just quoted, will have nothing to offer someone like me who tries to be fair and objective, which I think would include almost all of us here. Add to your list of reasons why we reject your flavor of Christianty: Closed Mindedness. (I also think that's why 90% of Christians do too.)

[Ouroboros]

Again, this just doesn't make sense. A poll is a poll is a poll. Why did fatalGlory even questioning the reason you gave Antlerman? Either it's a poll because he wanted to know, or he wanted to start an argument and the poll was an excuse.

 

So if Antlermans answer is that Literalism is a valid option, then sorry fatalGlory, you did NOT put enough or fair options on the poll. And your own opinion is not requested for the poll.

 

It's like going out with a gallup and tell people what TV show they must answer they like, or eitherwise we're going to smash your head with our opinions! The poll person should and have to be independent and objective in mind, or they're tainting the result and also they have false reasons for doing the poll.

 

From this I can only conclude that FatalGlory have misrepresented his reasons to be here, not to ask a poll, but to argue his views. It's better if you come clean FatalGlory instead of arguing your own views under a false excuse of a poll.

[Antlerman]

Again, this just doesn't make sense. A poll is a poll is a poll. Why did fatalGlory even questioning the reason you gave Antlerman? Either it's a poll because he wanted to know, or he wanted to start an argument and the poll was an excuse.

 

So if Antlermans answer is that Literalism is a valid option, then sorry fatalGlory, you did NOT put enough or fair options on the poll. And your own opinion is not requested for the poll.

 

It's like going out with a gallup and tell people what TV show they must answer they like, or eitherwise we're going to smash your head with our opinions! The poll person should and have to be independent and objective in mind, or they're tainting the result and also they have false reasons for doing the poll.

 

From this I can only conclude that FatalGlory have misrepresented his reasons to be here, not to ask a poll, but to argue his views. It's better if you come clean FatalGlory instead of arguing your own views under a false excuse of a poll.

You know, you’re right on the money Hans! This isn’t a poll. If it was there would be dispassionate objectivity. No, this is disingenuous evangelizing. It is disrespect, to come into someone’s home under false pretenses. It is arrogance.

 

Add this as the first choice in the new “poll”: INSINCERITY.

[Japedo]

 

 

You're choices are a projection of what you believe we'd choose, they are not realistic. Good luck with the church sermon, but... you most likely wont get any of the answers you're looking for here. Most people have already pointed you in the direction of what the poll should be more reflective of our major reason for leaving or not believing.

 

I originally left the faith because I wanted to find the "real" church was my intent. Anyways.. back tracking thru various different branches and what not.. it eventually brought me to Judaism, My intense studying of the original prophecy and understanding of the 613 mitzvah cleared any doubt in my mind that Christianity was a mystic pagan religion, which was also confirmed by all my studying of sungod/sungod myths. There isn't one thing original in Christianity.. not one. Once I starting looking at the original stories and unjust judgments I eventually became agnostic.

 

The Search for Truth is not the same as a Search on Faith the two are completely different entity's.

 

If you have arrived at your conclusion before your seeking of answers then your not looking for truthful valid answers from us, you're looking for anything to support your faith and I'm sorry friend, you wont find what you're looking for here.

 

Re the comment you made about evil, An all loving God can not be evil. Wisdom and common sense were given to man to decipher BS answers from fact. You can not defend a gods unjust judgment not because god is greater then you and you possibly wouldn't understand , but because you as a mere human are suppose to be more just then a supposed god per our man made laws and morals, his mass genocide of tribes and innocent people would never hold up in a court.

 

You can probably post your quiz on a Christian board where they will give you what they "think" is our reason.. but the majority of things cited here as choice" are just not even in the realm of realistic major choices for most of us anyways.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for confirming that A-man. It just didn't sit well with me that the thread all of a sudden became centered around apologetic arguments when it was a question about our reasons.

 

Yes. Option 1, Insincerity is now my top choice.

 

(You kind of can see why some of the members on this site can be quite abrasive when Christians get into a discussion. Sometimes it's just a bit hard to get some decent honesty.)

[Antlerman]

Thanks for confirming that A-man. It just didn't sit well with me that the thread all of a sudden became centered around apologetic arguments when it was a question about our reasons.

 

Yes. Option 1, Insincerity is now my top choice.

 

(You kind of can see why some on this site can be quite abrasive when Christians get into a discussion. Sometimes it's just a bit hard to get some decent honesty.)

It just pisses someone of more than anything to be lied to by someone claiming high moral standards. I've be planning at some point to start a thread about the insult it is to have someone say, "I'll pray for you", when they know you don't believe. It's the same sort of icky, for a lack of any better word, feeling. Disingenuous people are not human. They are a facade of humanity, cloaked in the plastic garbs of self-righteous, presumptive arrogance, shrouded in a halo of pseudo-intellectual self-delusions.

[KT45]

To make things clearer, I believe that christianity which refuses to take the bible literally (as it is understood in the light of sound principles of interpretational exegesis, such as recognising the use of Hebrew symbols) is no christianity at all. It is mere liberalism. It is heresy. Do I hate people that believe it? No, I just don't regard them as being christians.

Another reason I left christianity. People like you. I'm a true christian and your not. My way is obviously the right way and yours is not. So many denominations claim to read the bible literally but they can't even agree. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time writing this since you probably won't come back. It just sickens me when people say my way is the only way and everyone else has it wrong but me and my congregation.

 

#1 reason: Superiority Complex

[julian]

Fatalglory, where do I start?

 

I'll start at your "logic":

 

Why would a god that is "omnibenevolent" (premise 3) allow suffering to continue IF he is "omnipotent" (premise 1)? That simply does not make any sense at all. IF someone wants to end suffering, AND s/he has the power to end suffering, THEN s/he will end suffering. Your "logic" is decidedly illogical.

 

I'd like to continue and say that the idea that your "god" is somehow higher than any other being is surely ridiculous. Everything is subject to its own will, all things can act and feel the effects of those actions. No omnipotentbenevolentchristian father is involved whatsoever. That is as easily observable in physics as it is in everything else. This proves that any argument that "God" (the xian one) is divine while we are his lowly sheep incorrect. Furthermore, it is true that there is a constant to existence. Look at the seasons, as life ebbs and flows with the changing of temperature and otherwise, but the life verily remains the same. In this way, we can see that with the cycle of birth, life and death, along with the way this is perpetuated in of itself, the being does not change. Couple this with the knowledge that all things are connected (fact), and you get what I'm getting at. The conclusion is that all things are equally divine and eternal.

[garrisonjj]

For me, the answer is easy. And none of those listed.

 

Jesus and the Gospel Story never actually happened. Christianity is a religion based on a story. A goddamned good one. But just a story.

 

The absence of any first century writers mentioning this glorious, famous miracle worker. (obscure travelling preacher - NOT ACCORDING TO THE STORY) Like Hansolo says - Christians cannot explain Philo. Most won't even try.

 

The 300 year long sorting out process to refine and define what was God's official word and what would come to be considered heretical trash.

 

The study of the evolution and development of the gospel story as it is told in the Bible. The story just kept getting better and better with each new version of the telling - starting with Mark (without a post resurrection appearance), and ending with the full-blown God-in-the-flesh, Jesus-created-all-things described in John.

 

The failure of the early epistles to mention so many critical things about the Jesus story that would have bolstered their argument and helped convince their audience - if the details of the story had been known at the time these epistles were written.

 

The popularity of the dying and resurrecting god-men mythos during that age. Popular shit.

 

Luke and Acts stole historical details from Josephus to frame their account of Jesus. Beyond doubt.

 

Two billion people worshipping a story.

 

Amazing.

 

 

Absolutely excellent and correct response!

[All Gods Fail]

It is a belief system that is logically incoherent, based upon absurdities, primitive conceptualizations of reality and has the same validity basis as Aeosop's Fables. Pretty simple really.

 

What Bruce said.

 

To put it even simpler, it's a ridiculous fairy tale. Why would anyone believe it?

[Thackerie]

To get people thinking about it, after reading chefranden's logic, consider the reversed logical statement of the christian:

 

premise 1: God exists and is omnipotent (he has the means to end suffering)

premise 2: God exists and is omniscient (he knows every bit of suffering occurs)

premise 3: God exists and is omnibenevolent (he loves all people and does not desire them to suffer)

 

conclusion: This all loving, all powerful God must have reasons for allowing suffering to exist that are not understandable to me but that make sense to him in his omniscience.

 

Thanks, fatal, that provides another great argument AGAINST christianity - i.e., whenever they're confronted with a logical argument that they can't refute they always cop out by saying something like "god's ways are not ours" (thot for a fundie bumper sticker: "It's a God thang; you wouldn't understand.") Christians are too arrogant and close-minded to ever admit they are starting from a faulty premise.

[Young Mother Atheist]

I'm new to these forums and they seem to lack a poll function so let's just try to stick to the options on our own.

 

The Gist: I am a christian and am preparing a short talk for my church. It's just a small personal project but I would like some opinions. Of those listed below, what do people believe is the most convincing argument against christianity?

 

*A*) Radioisotope Dating

*B*) Archaeological incompatibility

*C*) Just can't accept it ethically/phillosophically

*D*) The Da Vinci Code

*E*) The Fossil Record

*F*) Theism as a whole is just ignorant

*G*) It contains the flat-earth theory and other scientific errors

*H*) The fact of evolution proves there's no god

*I*) The bible is unreliable

*J*) Christians are just hypocrites

 

To make it easy for me to count, can each person include they're choice in the form of *X* somewhere in their post? That way I can just use firefox's find functions to quickly count them.

 

Cheers everyone, look forward to seeing the cross section.

 

*I*. I would go with the contradictions in the Bible. There are just so damned many and eventually it is impossible to get around them.

 

I could argue all the others right now so those aren't any good to address.

 

 

 

 

For the time being I would like to politely point out to chefranden that the 'problem of evil' has been thoroughly dealt with in a great many easy to obtain, easy to understand, cheap to buy christian books so I did not consider its inclusion necessary. A good one to start with is John Dickson's "If I were God I'd end all the pain". To get people thinking about it, after reading chefranden's logic, consider the reversed logical statement of the christian:

 

premise 1: God exists and is omnipotent (he has the means to end suffering)

premise 2: God exists and is omniscient (he knows every bit of suffering occurs)

premise 3: God exists and is omnibenevolent (he loves all people and does not desire them to suffer)

 

conclusion: This all loving, all powerful God must have reasons for allowing suffering to exist that are not understandable to me but that make sense to him in his omniscience.

 

 

Um, the problem here that hasn't even been addressed is that evil came from God. He created hell and sent the angels there. If he is the be all and end all, it all came from him. And some people say that evil is just the absence of God. But that implies that there is something out of God's control which shoots a whole in him being omni-whatever.

 

And the list isn't any good. It seems to me it is made to address some issues Christians face to pacify people and give them some answers when it skirts around the real problems with Christianity. Of course, most Christians that don't want to change what they believe will avoid these discussions at all costs.

 

If you'd really like to make a good sermon or dicussion or whatever, you might hang around here and read some of the points we talk about. THEN you can get a good idea of why people left the religion. It certainly won't be any you thought of because you haven't left the religion. If you had, you would understand. You can't be on this side until you are.

[mwc]

To get people thinking about it, after reading chefranden's logic, consider the reversed logical statement of the christian:

 

premise 1: God exists and is omnipotent (he has the means to end suffering)

premise 2: God exists and is omniscient (he knows every bit of suffering occurs)

premise 3: God exists and is omnibenevolent (he loves all people and does not desire them to suffer)

 

conclusion: This all loving, all powerful God must have reasons for allowing suffering to exist that are not understandable to me but that make sense to him in his omniscience.

 

While you may find the preceding logic unsatisfying, you must never the less admit that it is not illogical.

Um, yeah, I'll go right ahead and admit your illogical statement is not illogical. Okay.

 

Let's see. God HAS the power to end suffering and god really WANTS to end suffering but for reasons unknown to you he just doesn't and I'm supposed to agree that is logical? Are you really sure about that? He has the means and the desire but doesn't. That's not logical my friend.

 

Let me give you an alternate view. In WWII Churchill had to let his own cities be bombed so as not to let the Nazis know the Allies had broken their code. He had the means and the desire to save those cities but he had to choose between those cities and the allied war effort in general. Tough call. I'm quite certain if he could have he would have saved his own people and preserved the war effort (had his cake and eaten it too but no such luck). You see this is a Catch-22 situation. Churchill would sacrifice one thing to save another.

 

But you're trying to tell me that god needs to "hold back" for an unknown reason as well. Maybe not like the one I describe but for something. I call bullshit. God just makes things happen. Reality is what god wants it to be. According to your beliefs the fact that everything is as it is proves that statement. So if god ended suffering the results would be the end of suffering. No consequences as god controls those absolutely. You seem to think that god needs to wait for the right time or the right conditions or something but that's silly. The right time is any time since god controls it all. You're projecting your reasoning onto god thinking he's holding back for a reason since (in)actions have consequences and/or serve a purpose (to teach for example) but god controls all consequences absolutely and he could simply instill any lesson within our mind.

 

So lets try this again. God has the power to end evil and suffering. God has the desire to end evil and suffering. God controls the consequences of ending evil and suffering. God doesn't end evil and suffering. This doesn't add up logically. Don't pretend it does.

 

mwc

[Taphophilia]

If it were just one reason than many of us would still be Christians. It is many, many reasons, and most of your poll doesn't even come close as reasons for leaving behind Christianity as a faith system.

 

Many of the reasons why I am no longer Christian have already been expressed. I will add a few to the list. I will again say it is not just one, but the large body of overwhelming evidence that Christanity isn't true that makes me an apostate:

 

Christians re-write history. (i.e. The US was founded by Christians as a Christian nation; Ecclesiastical History by Euesibus.)

 

There are more differences in the surviving manuscripts of the NT, than there are words in the NT.

 

Many things that are in the later copies, are not in the earlier copies. The copies, even the earliest ones, are removed from the originals by hundreds of years.

[Grandpa Harley]

I apologise to anyone I have offended, this was not my intention and I certainly don't regard anyone as unintelligent for rejecting christianity on the basis of solid logic.

 

I did not make up the list, it was largely given to me with only partial input on my part. If there is enough demand of different options (and it is apparent that there is) then the list put together by myself and my partners is obviously lacking and I am happy to hear your suggestions.

 

To make things clearer, I believe that christianity which refuses to take the bible literally (as it is understood in the light of sound principles of interpretational exegesis, such as recognising the use of Hebrew symbols) is no christianity at all. It is mere liberalism. It is heresy. Do I hate people that believe it? No, I just don't regard them as being christians.

 

I am disappointeed with the insults that have been hurled at my intellectual and argumentative integrity like this one:

 

He isn't really looking for information or for truth though, he just wants to put together some information so he can vilify us like every other fundamentalist does.

 

1) that puts fundamentalists in a box - it's discriminative.

2) I'm not looking to vilify anyone, I simply believe christianity is true and can be shown to be so. In such a case it is really only worth me attempting to argue against people's reasons for not believing in order of their significance is it not?

 

If a new list can be collaboratively decided upon, I will definitely run it out of personal interest.

 

For the time being I would like to politely point out to chefranden that the 'problem of evil' has been thoroughly dealt with in a great many easy to obtain, easy to understand, cheap to buy christian books so I did not consider its inclusion necessary. A good one to start with is John Dickson's "If I were God I'd end all the pain". To get people thinking about it, after reading chefranden's logic, consider the reversed logical statement of the christian:

 

premise 1: God exists and is omnipotent (he has the means to end suffering)

premise 2: God exists and is omniscient (he knows every bit of suffering occurs)

premise 3: God exists and is omnibenevolent (he loves all people and does not desire them to suffer)

 

conclusion: This all loving, all powerful God must have reasons for allowing suffering to exist that are not understandable to me but that make sense to him in his omniscience.

 

While you may find the preceding logic unsatisfying, you must never the less admit that it is not illogical.

 

Please post better reasons for rejecting christianity and i will read over them after a few days and compile a new list. Thanks for your input everyone.

 

Not illogical? Premise 3 is sorted by God's handling of the Egyptians alone. The were NO exceptions to the first born rule, so New Borns were killed, people who'd had nothing to do with the slavery (if it occured) were killed. Omni-benevolent? My entire British arse... and don't get me started on the Onan stuff... or the strange fire. Thus if prenmise 1 and 2 are correct then God, if he exists inthe form you kiss ass on, is a prick.

 

So, if god exists premise 3 is nonsense to make you feel better about demon worship. Effectively the three premises are just articles of faith... pig wind... strident, pungent and with no inherent worth.

 

When someone tries to pour logic where there is none, it really sticks a burr up my vent...

 

Reasons Christianity never took with me, and reasons it won't now...

 

1)Biblical errancy - both OT and NT. Example:They can't get Joseph's lineage correct. How many fathers can one man have? There are numerous others; Geographical, Mathematical, Biological, Cosmological... the list goes on and on... A brief internet search will point them out and the eyebleedingly bad apologetics people pull to justify things.

2) Capricious and immature God. What sort of idiot accepts murder as number 6 on the not to do list? Virtually every other legal system has murder as #1, theft as #2 and 'False Witness' as #3.

3) Cherry picking of the 'law'. Jesus said he came not to replace the law but fulfil (enforce) the law. Paul said you can do as you like... well, if you take Paul as the arbiter of correctness then you're right not wearing tassels and eating prawns. If you take note of Jesus, you wear one and don't ea the other... mutually exclusive.

4) The ideas in the texts are Greco-Roman. You can't communicate ideas about the 'afterlife' in Aramaic, nor is there really a delineation between the internal to the person and the external. To claim that any translation of the Bible is 'accurate' neglects the alieness of Aramaic thought to the Classical (and by extension, western) mind.

 

 

Seems to me Christians are too busy making up pretty stories to justify their demented Child-God to actually sniff what they're shovelling...

[Mongo]

Fatalglory,

 

As I read through this thread I see two vehicles coming to an intersection that has no stop sign. Your approach (unscholarly) combined with several responders who have chosen derision/obfuscation rather than edification has guaranteed a collision where I feel one could have been avoided.

 

Although I do not feel you came here intending to provoke, you still bear responsiblility for not doing some research prior to posting a flawed list of options.

 

People leave xtianity for many different reasons. A failure of some sort of logic is the basis of the vast majority of the reasons here. For others, a failure of the xtian experience (being born again and/or filled with the holy ghost) over time fails to live up to expectations.

 

Representing all of these reasons in a poll takes work that you and your friends have clearly not done. (I’m not offended at this mistake but only trying to explain) That said, I was able to gleen from your remarks that this was not intended to be a scholarly work but rather an informal collection of prime issues.

 

Another critical error on your part is not defining the question clearly. The fact that you don’t consider liberal xtians to be true xtians is a choice you make. To assume that the people on this site would agree with you shows you have not done your research or considered all the points.

 

Is creating a valid poll, worth your time? I suspect your deadline is passed but if still want to look into the matter I suggest the following…

 

1) Create a thread asking for help creating a poll of attitudes towards xtianity.

2) Use that thread to revise and critique a list

3) Once complete, create another thread with a poll function (not sure newbies can do it but an admin would be able to help)

 

As to getting sucked into arguments. Its human nature. We love to argue here. If you are doing a poll, I’d resist until it is complete and then start a new thread with your beef.

 

Mongo

 

PS - As for my reasons, I have several and one that never gets mentioned is the "Its a relationship" in the end failed me. Me, my friends and people in the church on a rotating basis were able to climb the 'mountain top" and then crawl through the valleys. Constantly fluctuated between, "the bible is facinating and I love to pray" to "I'm having a hard time doing my devotionals and praying". Those that never had any trouble with this got through with their own 'will power' which is neither godly or biblical.

 

It is a logical inconsistancy to believe that god is who his is and also not be interested in talking to him and read his love story written to you. Yet, I struggled with this and clearly others I churched with did too.

 

Another strong reason was the embarassment I felt when my brethern said something utterly stupid like, "God told me that you <<put idiotic statement here>>" or "the earth can't be older than 6000 years". The latter statement is not so bad when uttered out of ignorance but when it is presented as a something that only people under the devil's influence would challenge then I found it embarassing because I was certain from my education and personal exploration of the seashore (lots of fossils and strata) that the earth had to be very very old.

 

I also found indoctrination by moral intimidation to be repugnant. When you ask about a moral question and someone says, "I guess it depends on how big your god is" can only be interpreted as a personal challenge, not as a any attempt to illuminate dark places or enhance your relationship with god. So much of the daily interaction took on this kind of "If you really mean business with god then <<put idiotic challenge here>>.

 

Oh... in my day... many people in my church thought Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Bakker were god's gift to the PAOC/AOG. For me it was embarassing to go to a church where so many people supported such an obnoxious display of begging for money with tears. What really got me though was not what was on TV but that my brothern were unable to see that. Their incompetence in discerning charletons similar to the members of Ted Haggard's church folk struck me like a ton of bricks since the bible tells us that god will give his people discernment. Indeed, as a general trait of xtians, they are oddly exceedingly poor at discerning honest from dishonest. This is wholly unbiblical.

 

So your poll leaves out:

The use of indoctrination (Coersive Persuasion) techniques

Rejection of litteral interpretation of the bible

Failure of the religious experience (vague term - I'd like something better)

Gullibility - failure to reject many TV evangelists

Rejection of doctrine - problem of evil

Rejection of doctrine - etc.

 

As well your poll fails to define what **you** mean by Christian.

[Toxic]

The bible doen't give very practical advice does it? I'm supposed to hate my family, love people who abuse me, give away all my material possesions, not worry about the future, pay double damages, not worry about food and clothing, let everyone walk over me, deny sexual urges, mutilate myself, not defend myself if I am physically attacked, be content with my wages, trust all governmental authority (even if I am living in Iran or North Korea) etc