Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Five reasons why Christianity is a false faith, based on a false god

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 6, 2012 2:34:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 2:42:33 PM PDT
Celsus says:
Five reasons why Christianity is a false faith, based on a false god:

1) Prayer to Biblegod doesn't work. This is the conclusion from numerous studies conducted in the Western world on the subject of prayer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ns/health-heart_health/t/power-prayer-flunks-unusual-test/

http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/prayer_does_not_work.htm

2) The widespread lack of agreement among Christians on basic aspects of the faith suggests their faith is not divinely inspired (a genuine God would have been capable of communicating his truth effectively);

3) The sordid and violent history of Christendom suggests the faith does not work;

4) The mass of evidence showing that early Christians were prolific liars and forgers on behalf of their messiah;

5) The mass of evidence showing the Resurrection is not a genuine historical event, but rather, the product of delusions, deceptions and wishful thinking.

These are the five points that convinced me Christianity is false, but I would be interested in hearing what others think. What are the main points that convinced you Christianity is a con?

[edited to add: I really should add another point to the list, which is:
6) The hundreds of contradictions, errors and logical impossibilities found in the New Testament.]

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 2:43:23 PM PDT
How did you come to these conclusions?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 2:48:50 PM PDT
Nat says:
The same way you came up to asking questions

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 2:52:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 2:53:27 PM PDT
Celsus says:
Steve

>>How did you come to these conclusions?<<

Well, the short answer is, by studying the Bible and church history while I was a Christian.

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 3:01:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 3:01:29 PM PDT
I would be interested in hearing the mass evidence you have for 4, 5, and 6.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:04:49 PM PDT
karmaman says:
Celsus says:
"3) The sordid and violent history of Christendom suggests the faith does not work;"

Indeed. Truth does not require coercion to make people believe in it; it is self-evident. Yet the sword was the preferred method of conversion for centuries, and even today's missionaries sometimes use unethical tactics like bribing starving people with food and withholding it unless they agree to convert.

"5) The mass of evidence showing the Resurrection is not a genuine historical event, but rather, the product of delusions, deceptions and wishful thinking."

Yep... supposedly the most important event in history, yet the gospels can't even get their story straight about who was there, who saw what, what Jesus was doing (or if he was even there at all). Each ones tells a different tale, yet people think they don't contradict each other. The mind boggles. If there were Muslim holy scriptures speaking of Muhammad's supposed ascent to heaven in this way, the Christians would jump all over it, but they don't dare use that kind of scrutiny towards the claims of their own scriptures.

"These are the five points that convinced me Christianity is false, but I would be interested in hearing what others think. What are the main points that convinced you Christianity is a con?"

Too many to name... you touched on some big ones in your post, but one thing that always bugged me was how God threw hissyfits over the most petty things in the Bible, yet we're to believe that this being is omni-everything and perfect? I can't buy a perfect being acting so childish.

I've also always had a beef with the Genesis story, how Adam and Eve were punished for doing wrong AFTER the fact, when they ate the fruit before they even knew what right and wrong were. And the reason that they were kicked out of the garden seemed to be NOT just because they disobeyed God, but primarily because if they ate of the other tree, they would become immortal AND knowing like he was, and he didn't want to share that power with his creations. For all we know, the god depicted in the Bible could have just been the first person to find that garden and eat from both trees.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:08:10 PM PDT
You won't get it because atheists always use their 'rational thought processes' to come to their conclusions. It is, after all, a matter of faith. You can no more make an atheist believe in Christianity than you can reach your hand up, grab the Moon, and pull it down to Earth. So, why bother trying.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:23:58 PM PDT
Celsus says:
Steve

>>I would be interested in hearing the mass evidence you have for 4, 5, and 6.<<

And I am happy to oblige. But I will need to tackle one at a time, given the amount of info. So I'll start with point 4

Early Christians were proficient Liars for Christ. It never bothered Paul, Matthew, Eusebius, Luther, and many others, who freely admitted, even boasted of their proclivity for lying on behalf of the Gospel (quotes provided at end of this message). In fact, liars and forgers were responsible for much of the works now known as the New Testament. Among these `holy' works, we find a vast number of forgeries and interpolations. These include the entire epistle of 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles, the last 12 verses in Mark (there are four different versions), the story of the adulterous woman in John 8, the entire chapter of John 21, and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8, among others. Then there are the numerous apocryphal Gospels, such as those of Thomas, Peter, Mary, Judas etc., and apocryphal epistles like the 15 epistles of Ignatius, 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas and dozens more spurious works concocted fraudulently in the names of earlier church leaders. The practice of interpolating and forging Christian scripture was clearly endemic, as evidenced not only by the plethora of such works, but also the admissions of leading figures such as Origen, Celsus, Cardinal John Henry Newman, Victor Tununensis, and Bishop Dionysius, as follows:

Cardinal John Henry Newman admitted, in his book Apology for His Life: "The Greek fathers thought that when the cause was just, an untruth need not be a lie."

Victor Tununensis, an African bishop of the sixth century wrote: "The holy Gospels, being written by illiterate Evangelists, were censured and corrected."

A late second century church father, Bishop Dionysius, complained in his epistle to the Romans that his own writings were "falsified by apostles of the Devil, taking away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is understandable then that some have also attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings...."

Origen, writing it the mid third century, said in his Commentary on St Matthew: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please". (15:14)

Celsus confirmed the above when he wrote: "Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism" (Against Celsus 2.27)

Here are the quotes I promised from Paul, Eusebius etc:

Paul freely admitted lying about who he was for the sake of the Gospel, when he said: "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you". 1 Cor 9: 20-23.

Eusebius said: "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

John Chrysostom, the great 5th century preacher, said: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
(Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).

Martin Luther said: "What harm would it do if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them"
(Cited by Luther's secretary in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel
Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, Vol. 1).

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:29:45 PM PDT
celsus is an atheist
so it is clear to him that it is true in his bizarro world

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:30:51 PM PDT
the one true church
or the rcc whore of babylon church
or some name brand nutcase church or
soem off the wall scientology moslem budda hindu church
or what

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:31:31 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:32:02 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:33:27 PM PDT
Celsus says:
andthehorsesbackside

I am only atheistic in respect to Biblegod, who is a logical impossibility.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:35:22 PM PDT
only in your bizarro world

you think all the stuff you see popped up out of nothing and nowhere to be here ?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:36:17 PM PDT
Celsus says:
andthehorsesbackside

>>total boolsheet lies by you<<

You wish. I provided references for everything, apart from the apocryphal works, which you can view here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:38:46 PM PDT
i guarantee that within 120 years you will see HIm firsthand

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:40:28 PM PDT
karmaman says:
"you cant punish them before they did the crime could you?"

Well, seeing as your god knew about it before it happened, he could have, and it would have made just as much sense as what he actually did. You can punish them when they're actually capable of knowing what right and wrong are and THEN do wrong. They were punished for doing wrong before they knew what right and wrong were. You might as well throw some pans of paint on the floor, tell an infant not to touch them, and then punish the infant after he's made a mess of your carpet even though he can't understand a word you say yet.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:41:04 PM PDT
Celsus says:
and...

>>you think all the stuff you see popped up out of nothing and nowhere to be here ?<<

Are you incapable of comprehending what you read? I said I am ONLY atheistic in respect to your particular sky pixie. That means I am agnostic or theistic in respect to the general idea of a God.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:44:19 PM PDT
karmaman says:
andthehorseirodeinontoo? says:
"i guarantee that within 120 years you will see HIm firsthand"

Or Allah

Or Odin

Or Krishna

Or Osiris

You can use the same threat with different gods, but it remains just as ridiculous and a blatant scare tactic all the same. Like I said in an earlier post, truth is self-evident, it doesn't require coercion... that includes implying punishment due to one's (*gasp!*) thought crime of not believing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:45:22 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:45:56 PM PDT
There is only ONE God.
the others are idols and nonsense tht you will never see.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:51:00 PM PDT
When can I expect to read the mass evidence for point 5?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:59:46 PM PDT
Celsus says:
Steve

>>When can I expect to read the mass evidence for point 5?<<

Here is a summary of the evidence. I am happy to expand upon any of the 15 points given.

1) There are numerous natural explanations for the resurrection, any of which is more likely than a miracle having occurred. It may have been the product of hallucination, delusion, wishful thinking, deception, faulty memories, a con perpetrated by frustrated apostles, a staged trick, an evolving myth, a work of fiction......the list of natural possibilities is very long.

2) Some Gnostics, who were present during the formation of the Christian faith, denied that Christ rose from the dead in physical form.

3) Early Christians such as Paul indicate that Christ's resurrection body was spiritual, not physical. Paul's only experience of Christ was through visions and dreams, and his epistles suggest the other disciples also experienced the risen Christ in this way. It was only later, with the advent of the Gospels, that the notion of a physical resurrection came to the fore.

4) The death of Elvis Presley, followed by thousands of Elvis sightings, reveals how easily a resurrection myth may have arisen.

5) The Gospels include two post-resurrection accounts where the disciples did not recognize Jesus, and only on later reflection decided it must have been Jesus they spoke to. Thus the resurrection tale may have begun as a case of mistaken identity.

6) Christians forged, altered and interpolated numerous documents to the glory of God. Such forgeries include well known passages in the Gospels, the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, 2 Peter, Ignatius and numerous other apocryphal works, thereby casting doubt on all works contrived at that time, including the Gospels.

7) The first Gospel (Mark) failed to provide any post-resurrection details (the most important part of the story) resulting in four forged endings in an attempt by Christians to correct this problem. It was not until decades later that Matt, Luke and John fleshed out the tale to provide post-resurrection details, lending credence to the evolving myth hypothesis.

8) There are numerous variations in the Gospel accounts concerning post resurrection events, some of which are contradictory.

9) The Gospels are comprised of anonymous hearsay composed 40+ years after the event, penned by Greek scribes (not illiterate, Aramaic speaking disciples). In other words, they are about as far from reliable testimony as you can get.

10) The gullible, ignorant and superstitious people of that day provided fertile ground for a resurrection myth to take hold.

11) Every reference by Paul says Christ was `buried' ( Romans 6:4; 1 Corinthians 15:4; Colossians 2:12). But Christ wasn't buried. He was put in a tomb, according to the Gospel tales. And strangely, the word `tomb' does not appear in any of the epistles. One might even conclude, based on this strange fact, that the original tale incorporated a standard burial, as was the general custom of the day, and that the idea of a tomb was added later, probably as a literary device.

12) No one knows where the genuine tomb is located. Given the fervor with which early Christians regarded holy relics, the lack of knowledge concerning the location of the tomb - the most sacred relic of all - indicates it is highly likely there was no such tomb.

13) No one knows when the resurrection occurred - not even the correct year. We know the death dates for many famous people from Jesus' time and before (Cleopatra, Mark Antony, Caesar, Alexander the Great) but no Christian bothered to remember or commemorate the most important event in the history of the world. We do not know even the year when Jesus died, despite the event supposedly being heralded by an earthquake, three hours of darkness at mid-day and disinterred saints strolling through Jerusalem. This makes no sense if the resurrection was a genuine historical event, but perfect sense if it is not.

14) Matthew tells of a multitude of "saints" who crawled out of their graves at the time of Jesus' resurrection and wandered around, being "seen by many", but fails to elaborate further. This is a verse (27:51-52) that Christians like to pretend doesn't exist, since it demonstrates that one of their primary source Gospel writers was prone to delivering up amazing whoppers. Matt and Luke further claim the sun was darkened for three hours at the crucifixion, another whopper totally uncorroborated by historians (or anyone else) at that time.

15) The gospel accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus contain several incidents and observations that make no sense, given the time and place they are supposed to have occurred. Among these are: having Jesus examined before a magistrate before his trial, which was expressly forbidden by the Jewish laws of the time; being tried before the Sanhedrim, who did not have jurisdiction over capital offenses after 30 AD; being tried subsequently before Pilate, which he would not have been subjected to if he already had an original trial before the Sanhedrim; having his trial at the palace of the high priest, in which it would have been illegal to hold a trial; being charged with blasphemy, which was not a capital offense and would not have resulted in his execution (*); being questioned by the Sanhedrin, who did not in real life question prisoners; having his trial held during Passover, which would have been illegal; as would have been holding it in the evening (or through the night, as one Gospel has it). Such a mass of historical errors in the account of Jesus' trial and death sentence tells us the entire account is, at best, a largely fictionalized account written by individuals who were mostly ignorant of the time and place they were writing about.

*(The idea that an organization of Jews, after finding one of their number guilty of blasphemy, could have carried out a death sentence with the approval of the Roman government is as ridiculous as the notion that a Muslim organization in present-day U.S. could find one of their number guilty of blasphemy and put them to death with the approval of the U.S. government.)

I suggest that the above points, taken in their entirety, provide compelling evidence that the Resurrection is not a genuine historical event.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 4:20:06 PM PDT
Nat says:
Allah just means god. It's not name. Just a different language

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 4:42:05 PM PDT
karmaman says:
Nat, it's associated with Islam and their beliefs about god. Christian fanatics like "andthehorseirodeinon..." see it as a different god entirely. I am quite aware that Allah is merely the Arabic word for "God."
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  193
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jul 6, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 13, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions