Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

zgreat, thank you for the compliments my friend.

I do have an edge over those who wrote and edited the Bible one difficult, painstaking, tedious character at a time. I have computer word processing, cut and paste, a spell checker, and a delete key. I wonder what the Bible would have looked like if they had all that?

To akaMechsmith and C.I. I would say that you are absolutely correct that the Bible is ambiguous and can be interpreted pretty much as the Christian, Jew, person of another faith, and/or the athiest chooses to interpret it. . . unless . . .s/he knows the available history, background, culture i.e. the anthropological, archeological, and geological evidence of those times. The true experts (I'm not one but working on it) are helping Bible scholars to see the world through the eyes and life experience of the ones who wrote the ancient texts.

If we read the text with 21st century understanding, the Christian will likely see what supports his/her particular doctrinal beliefs. The person of another faith will see something quite different. The athiest will see at least contradictions, assertions that are contrary to science, and/or a savage people unworthy of being taken seriously.

If we read the text through the eyes of those who wrote it, and within the backdrop of historical and scientific evidence, a very different perspective quickly emerges.

I would guess that no two Christians, unless not separated at birth and raised in a cave, would agree on every single point of Christian doctrine. And I would guess no two athiests would have identical reasons for being in a forum like this.

I am genuinely curious, however and do not mean this as in any way as contentuos nor is it a loaded question, but I have to wonder why are non Christians drawn to this particular thread? Why do you care?

0 Replies

akamechsmith wrote:

The Jewish elders that had a lot to do with approving the Old Testament were not stupid, shortsighted men. They recognised the fact that if their society was to survive they needed a set of laws that could be interpreted in whatever way seemed appropriate to whoever was running things at the time.

Hitler wrote:

It is completely indifferent from what Jewish brain these disclosures originate; the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims.

akamechsmith wrote:

Personally I suspect that the Elders knew darned well that no God ever existed but they needed one so they invented Him.

Hitler wrote:

To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion

I saw a striking similarity.
But hey, that's just me.

0 Replies

Well I saw nothing in Mechsmith's well reasoned and thoughtful post to suggest any comparison with Hitler.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I saw nothing in Mechsmith's well reasoned and thoughtful post to suggest any comparison with Hitler.

Me either. I thought maybe "It was just me".

0 Replies

Foxfyre,
Thanks for the great post that explains the need
to understand the cultural backdrop at the time the
Bible was written. It is impossible to get a full scope
view and understanding of what the Bible is saying
without it. This is true of the Old and New Testaments.
Just one "for instance" would be the parable that Jesus
tells about the bride waiting on the bridegroom and
other references to the a Jewish wedding found in
John 3, Matthew 9 and Mark 2. You simply cannot
grasp the full meaning of what is being said there,
without understanding the cultural mechanics of a
Jewish wedding of that day.

That is also one reason we do not fair to well in Middle
Eastern foreign affairs today. We seem to forget that,
in many ways, their culture simply thinks differently than
we do here in America. We could deal with the Arabs
and the Jews a lot better if we would understand that their
differences go all the way back to Issac and Ishmael in
the Old Testament. Issac, the father of the Jews and his
half brother Ishmael, father of the Arabs. Both sons of
Abraham.

There is even a phophesy that explains how the Arabs
would be.

Genesis 16:12 (Amplified Bible)
And he [Ishmael] will be as a [1] wild ass among men;
his hand will be against every man and every man's hand
against him, and he will live to the east and on the borders
of all his kinsmen.

Footnote [1]
"Nothing can be more descriptive of the wandering, lawless,
freebooting life of the Arabs than this. From the beginning
to the present they have kept their independence, and God
preserves them as a lasting monument of His providential
care and an incontestable argument of the truth of devine
revelation. Had the books of Moses no other proof of their
devine origin, the account of Ishmael and the prophecy
concerning his descendents during a period of nearly 4,000
years would be sufficient. To attempt to refute it would be a
most ridiculous presumption and folly" (Adam Clarke [?1760-
1832], The Holy Bible with A Comnmentary).

0 Replies

Quote:

You actually had to be taught not to believe.

This is the most patently absurd statement I have seen in a while. What do you go to church on Sunday for -- to not be taught?

And the only response I've seen to mechsmith's very brief catalog of Biblical atrocities is, "Well, you had to be there," before moving into more comfortable territory.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

You said:

Quote:

I am genuinely curious, however and do not mean this as in any way as contentuos nor is it a loaded question, but I have to wonder why are non Christians drawn to this particular thread? Why do you care?

The title of the thread is: Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

It would seem to me that the topic is targeted to non-Christians rather than Christians.

Many Christians believe it is important to share and promote their beliefs*. Hell, some are so bent on sharing that they ring my doorbell to tell me about it. Others like to get into government to share their beliefs and enforce them on others. Because religion usually involves the grouping of people, they can be a strong voice when lobbying for change.

Non-believers don't congregate to discuss their disbelief, so it's in casual conversation or online that they can speak their mind.

If Christians should have the right to "sell" their beliefs, why wouldn't non-Christians be afforded the same right?

I wonder what would happen if non-believers organized and started knocking on believers doors to tell them, that in fact, they had found the "right" way?!

We care because we hold our right to disbelief as sacredly as you hold your right to belief.

I would be much happier if peoples' religions were a personal thing, rather than a collective thing.

*Not all and if you aren't one who shares or promotes your beliefs you needn't argue with me about it.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Quote:
You actually had to be taught not to believe.

This is the most patently absurd statement I have seen in a while. What do you go to church on Sunday for -- to not be taught?

And the only response I've seen to mechsmith's very brief catalog of Biblical atrocities is, "Well, you had to be there," before moving into more comfortable territory.

It so understandable that you would think it was "most patently
absurb statement". Expected even. You are not alone in your
thinking, I'm sure. Even an innocent little child is already in God's
embrace. It stays there until it is broken by worldly influences.
That is why Jesus made this statement.

Matthew 18:3 (Amplified Bible)
And said, Truly I say to you, unless you repent (change,
turn about) and become like little children [trusting, lowly,
loving, forgiving], you can never enter the kingdom of
heaven [at all].

As for going to church on Sunday. I don't have to go
anywhere to have church and be taught by God. I can,
and any Christian can, have church and be taught by
God 24/7. As for a church building I do go there to.
More than just Sunday. For fellowship and study.

As for mehsmith's brief catalog of Biblical atrocities.
You didn't have to be there. but just have and understanding
of the setting at that time. How can we take his surface
observations and try to lay each one open. What good
would it do anyway? He is still going to think what he
thinks unless he wants to do what we did and dig it out
for himself. With some help, of coarse. It took
years for us to learn what we know and not much
time at all for him to yank something out of the Bible
and form a quick opinion. Anybody could pick up a book
on rocket science and do the same thing. You have to
work from the bottom up and not from the top down.
Especially the Bible. It is not about a belief system, but
is spiritually discerned as Foxfyre and me have already
tried to explain to you. You soon learn to stop beating
on the same bell when it refuses to ring.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Others like to get into government to share their beliefs and enforce them on others. Because religion usually involves the grouping of people, they can be a strong voice when lobbying for change.

It has already been well explained, in this forum, that
Christianity is not about a belief system.

We are not trying to force our "beliefs" on others through
government. We are simiply trying to get back what was
already there that our government used, as a model, to
set itself up. We do have "to group" to get back the principles
that made this country, you enjoy, so great. The atheist
Madeline Murray O'Hare did tremendous damage to this
country all by herself, while we Christians sat on our hands
and let it happen. This country was founded on Christian
principles whether anybody likes it or not. Have you not
noticed what is happening as those principles are being
stripped away? If not, what is the name or your planet?

0 Replies

Quote:

Have you not noticed what is happening as those principles are being stripped away?

Ah, the good old days. What, pray tell, is happening?

0 Replies

Jer wrote

Quote:

Non-believers don't congregate to discuss their disbelief, so it's in casual conversation or online that they can speak their mind.

Now that's interesting. I think you're right. I can't remember any of my athiest friends mentioning getting together to not pray or not study athiesm or any of the stuff Christians sometimes do.

Do any of you subscribe to the American Athiest? And have any of you ever been to one of the national or state athiest conventions? And if so, is the theme generally political? Or is non-belief discussed?

http://www.americanatheist.org/

0 Replies

Foxfrye,
Sorry, I responded to a post addressed to you again.
Partly anyway. I did manage to leave your question
that was addressed alone. Your response was superb.

If I ever have another post addressed to me, I
would appreciate you answering it. You nave a way
of saying what I wish I could have said.

0 Replies

Thanks Z but please don't apologize. I figure anything I put out there is fair game for anybody even if the comment is directed to a specific person.

0 Replies

I haven't seen nor head of any atheist knocking on doors to "convert" a person of religion to an atheist. I also don't see that ever happening. So, what's the beef? We're trying to point out that this president is hell-bent on using his religion to impose his beliefs into our politics. This president is trying to push his beliefs on homosexual marriage and stem cell research on all of the citizens of this country. Where do you supposed it comes from? I can tell you it's not non-religious learning.

0 Replies

zgreatarteest wrote:

This country was founded on Christian principles whether anybody likes it or not.

Those who make this assertion confuse the founding of the United States as a political unit with the settlement of North America. It is true that a number of the first Europeans to arrive on our shores were religious dissenters who sought freedom to worship. Many of these people believed they were establishing some type of Christian utopia, and many supported religious liberty only for themselves. Most of the early colonies were theocracies where only those who worshipped according to state orthodoxy were welcome.

Following the America Revolution, political leaders began to construct the new U.S. government. Although a minority clung to the European notions of church-state union, a general consensus emerged that the new country should steer clear of officially established religion. States with government-favored religions gradually began moving toward separation also. Massachusetts, the last state to maintain an official religion, dis-established its state church in 1833.

During the Constitutional Convention, a minority faction favored some recognition of Christianity in the Constitution. In a report to Maryland Lawmakers, delegate Luther Martin asserted that some delegates had believed that "in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." But those views were rejected by the convention, and the Constitution was adopted as a secular document.

Further proof that the founders did not intend for the government to be Christian is found in the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed betewen the United States and the Muslim region of north Africa in 1797 after negotiations under George Washington. The document, which was approved the the Senate under John Adams, states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (The assertion remained a part of the agrement for eight years, until the treaty was renegotiated.)

zgreatarteest wrote:

The atheist Madeline Murray O'Hare did tremendous damage to this country all by herself, while we Christians sat on our hands and let it happen.

Atheist leader Madalyn Murray O'Hair played no role in the Supreme Court's school prayer decsion of 1962.

In the Engel v. Vitale case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against New York's "Regents' prayer," a "nondenominational" prayer state education officials had composed for public scholl children to recite. The government-sponsored religious devotion was challenged in court by a group of parents from New Hyde Park - some athiests, some believers. O-Hair was not involved in the case at all.

One year later, a case originated by a Philadelphia-area man named Ed Schempp challenging mandatory Bible reading in Pennsylvania schools reached the Supreme Court. At the same time, Murray O'Hair was challenging a similar practice as well as the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in Maryland public schools. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and in 1963 ruled 8-1 that devotional Bible reading or other govrnment-sponsored religious activities in public schools are unconstitutional.

The Engel and Schempp cases were a result of the changing religious landscape of the United States. As religious minorities grew more confident of their righful place in America society, they came to resent the de facto Protestand flavor in many public schools. Litigation was inevitable. The high Court's rulings stiking down mandatory prayer and devotional Bible reading in public schools would have occurred if O'Hare had acted or not. And the late atheist servers as a convenient villain for Religious Right propagandists to this day.

0 Replies

I'll plead nolo contendra to your rebuttal, but I still stand by the general principals of what I said to be self evident
whether the specifics of the case be questionable or not.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I haven't seen nor head of any atheist knocking on doors to "convert" a person of religion to an atheist. I also don't see that ever happening. So, what's the beef? We're trying to point out that this president is hell-bent on using his religion to impose his beliefs into our politics. This president is trying to push his beliefs on homosexual marriage and stem cell research on all of the citizens of this country. Where do you supposed it comes from? I can tell you it's not non-religious learning.

Well, if "our politics" includes the two agendas you
mentioned you can believe any Christian, president or
not, or sane person, Christian or not, is not going to just
sit around and open up to such atrocities being pushed
on them. Yes, such insanity effects everybody in this
country in a negative way. Even the perpetrators.

And we worry about terrorist sneaking into this country
and doing damage? Some of our own citizens are
pushing for more damage than any terrorist could
ever dream up. I already know you can't see that.

0 Replies

The bible should be more representative of the earth.We are from nature what esists in nature is permissable for all. All all of nature has permissive qualities.It is meant for us to follow our instincts,but chaos is also a very important aspect to our growth.
The funny thing about chaos is that itis more pervasive as one gets older.I hope there is place enough thats nice to wait till our next incarnation.
While in costa rica a place of fantastic metamorphic quality the brain coral is like that of a computer.Spirits might have stayed here in colonies beneath the waves in tune to a vibration that is no more due to all the coral destruction.

0 Replies

Algis.Kemezys wrote:

The bible should be more representative of the earth.We are from nature what esists in nature is permissable for all. All all of nature has permissive qualities.It is meant for us to follow our instincts,but chaos is also a very important aspect to our growth.
The funny thing about chaos is that itis more pervasive as one gets older.I hope there is place enough thats nice to wait till our next incarnation.
While in costa rica a place of fantastic metamorphic quality the brain coral is like that of a computer.Spirits might have stayed here in colonies beneath the waves in tune to a vibration that is no more due to all the coral destruction.

I'm writing a book and would like to request permission
to quote what you just said.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To akaMechsmith and C.I. I would say that you are absolutely correct that the Bible is ambiguous and can be interpreted pretty much as the Christian, Jew, person of another faith, and/or the athiest chooses to interpret it. . . unless . . .s/he knows the available history, background, culture i.e. the anthropological, archeological, and geological evidence of those times. The true experts (I'm not one but working on it) are helping Bible scholars to see the world through the eyes and life experience of the ones who wrote the ancient texts.

I have to disagree with the "unless" conclusion you have made. I don't think that there is any anthropological, archeological, or geological evidence that removes any ambiguity from the bible and virtually none that reinforces any divine aspect of the bible. A while back, on the topic of creationism, someone tried to introduce scientific evidence to support creationism. That was all easily refuted.

Quote:

If we read the text with 21st century understanding, the Christian will likely see what supports his/her particular doctrinal beliefs. The person of another faith will see something quite different. The athiest will see at least contradictions, assertions that are contrary to science, and/or a savage people unworthy of being taken seriously.

If we read the text through the eyes of those who wrote it, and within the backdrop of historical and scientific evidence, a very different perspective quickly emerges.

How does reading through the eyes that wrote it put a loving spin on this passage?
De21:18-21

Quote:

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

It is not as if the above passage was an abberation. The "good book" is chock full of similar guidlines and "lessons".

Quote:

I am genuinely curious, however and do not mean this as in any way as contentuos nor is it a loaded question, but I have to wonder why are non Christians drawn to this particular thread? Why do you care?

For most of my life it has not mattered to me what others believe in the way of religion and in most respects it still doesn't. What does bother me is the way that the religious right has become so politically active. This to me is dangerous to the US, both for domestic policy and especially now for foreign policy.

A good portion of those politically active fit into the fundamentalist category which gets toward the more literal interpretations, such as those at PHC. Six 24 hour days is pretty clear to me that it leaves little room for seeing through the eyes that wrote it.

PHC wrote:

Creation. Any biology, Bible or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God's creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six twenty-four hour days. All faculty for such courses will be chosen on the basis of their personal adherence to this view

0 Replies

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know