Hit me with your best shot.
What are the top 3 objections you have to Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible?
I’ll pick the top responses and devote some posts to them in the near future.
-
What Folks are Saying
Rich Bordner on My Story Judge Bob on My Story Wrestling’s Un… on Wrestling Unhealthy? Augustinus on Real Jesus Vs. Republican… Michael G. on Real Jesus Vs. Republican… -
Greatest Hits
- Truth is in the Eye of the Beholder
- No-Zero Grade Policy: What a Bunch of Bullfeathers
- Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part 1
- Public Education: Solutions
- Too Set in His Ways?
- The Cost of Delaying Marriage
- Skeptics Answered: Jesus is a Copy Cat Myth...So There!
- Hands Free Cell Phone User=Crazy Person
- Sodom and Gomorrah on Steroids
- Bible Verse Twisting
Topics of Interest
-
Top Clicks
-
Blog Stats
- 91,235 hits
Hello.
My question is – Why is Christianity so exclusivist? Meaning – why is the Christian Church the only way of reaching ‘God’ , or redemption, or peace? By saying ours is the only true Lord, doesn’t one deny the beliefs of others?
Would surely like an answer.
Hmmmm…
(In order:)
If we can be good without it, we don’t need it.
There’s no good evidence for his existence, let along the supernatural things he’s supposed to have done.
There’s no good evidence for the supernatural claims.
Done.
That was a : and a ) , not a smiley face.
My 3 –
1. No good evidence for anything supernatural (let alone a deity)
2. No good evidence for the biblical Jesus (i.e., no contemporary sources (please don’t insult us with citing Josephus – he was not contemporary), no eyewitness accounts (as if that would at all be good evidence to begin with for such an extraordinary claim), etc.)
3. No good evidence for miracles in the Humean sense (that is, suspension of natural law).
Good luck.
My biggest objection is that God, at least in the old testament, seems so deliberately cruel a lot of the time. Sure, he’s merciful if you happen to have the right ancestors and the right attitude, but what about everybody else?
Of course, that doesn’t mean the bible isn’t true or he doesn’t exist, but assuming he is there, what evidence do I have that he cares about me, and why I should care about him? What if I believe in him but don’t even like him?
Following on from that, do we worship God out of self-interest or because he is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator? And what if our creator was all-powerful, all-knowing and pure evil? Would we still be obliged to worship him?
Not exactly what you asked, but those are some big sticking points for me…
Pingback: Calling all Skeptics, Again « The Pugnacious Irishman
if there is a god etc etc and he wanted us to be good,compassionate,sin free etc etc why didn,t he make us all that way in the first place!not just from birth but through all of our lives?or is that just being silly again..if there is a heaven or even a hell why doesn,t he let someone back out to tell us all & prove us wrong?and if there is a god and he provides,why does the catholic church always ask for money for this and that-our one needs a new roof,surely he can manage that project for free.
Pingback: Calling all Skeptics, Thrice « The Pugnacious Irishman
Great idea! I’m straining to avoid answering the ones listed above. Just my reflexes, I guess.
It is hard to list one without going into “answer mode,” but I just came across one at another blog which I tweaked for your purposes (I’m posting my response later this week, but you can take a fresh stab at it):
“The Bible contradicts science. Can you point out which part of the Bible even mentions Genes? DNA? Germ Theory? Bacteria? Anything that couldn’t have been written by some wandering nomad in the desert???”
If there is a God and he is good, why do bad things happen to good people? If he wanted to save the world, why did he have to send his son to die? Wouldn’t it have been easier for him to just fix everything.
How can a good God only provide one way to heaven? Why couldn’t he let everyone searching for him come to him from all avenues?
Why is it that people who are “saved” still sin? Shouldn’t being saved fix everything?
How do we know that some of the bible isn’t just fiction? What is so divine about it? Even if we can prove that the bible is an authentic historical piece, how can we prove it is non-fiction in it’s entirety?
If God is so loving and wanted us to have free will, why does he care if we sin? Why can’t he just let us enjoy our free will anyway we want with no consequence?
Pingback: Roundup « 4Simpsons Blog - Eternity Matters
Great topic Rich!! I can’t wait for your replies!
First off, I AM a Christian.
But I do have questions:
1) Why does our all powerful God allow human’s to be so mistreated by others. There are such horrible and sick things people do to others. Why allow that to happen? Especially to children?
2) Why create a system that sends people to everlasting pain and torment if they do not accept of follow you? Why create them in the first place?
3) Why allow the fallen angels freedom for any period of time on earth?
Re, “What are the top 3 objections you have to Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible?”
No objection gere to Christianity, only to cocksure Christians.
No objections to Jesus, only to the insistence that all Christians agree as to exactly who He is and what the Incarnation means.
No objections to the Bible, only to the insistence that all Christians accept the literal reading and inerrancy, etc., thereof.
So, it could be that I have no objections at all.
ER, you seem rather sure of yourself and you seem to object to Christians who don’t hold the same views as you do.
More specificity or examples with your objections would help as well, at least for me. If you mean that it is bad to insist that we believe “exactly” who Jesus is on some minor point then I’d tend to agree. But if you think it is bad that we insist that Christians agree that He is God then that is a completely different matter.
The same thing applies to “literal reading.” Those words mean different things to different people.
I am not sure of myself at all. But then I don’t have to be.
“Jesus is God” oversimplifies the historic Christian concepts — plural — of Jesus over time and ignores the entire concept of Christology. Divine? Yes. God incarnate? I think so.
On literalness of Scripture: I personally reject any notion that the Bible, in any of its forms, has ever been “infallible” or “inerrant” and I disagree with any notion of the Bible, as a whole, as “God’s revelation to man,” although revelation is included therein. I do not, however, care if you or others see it that way.
Heh.
To paraphrase ER’s second paragraph of his most recent post:
I believe what I believe and LALALALALALALALA I’m not listening!
Bull.
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: Evil, Suffering, and God « The Pugnacious Irishman
It’s accurate. You described your personal beliefs and then stated you don’t care what anyone else thinks.
To paraphrase, you believe what you believe and plug your ears to anything else.
Adam,
While it seems to me like there’s a certain aggressive, sarcastic tone in E.R’s responses thus far, I think you are being a bit uncharitable towards him. I don’t know if you two have locked horns in the past, but looks like he was just stating his beliefs in the paragraph in question.
ER is less dangerous than most who teach false doctrines, but I do recommend taking Dramamine when reading his comments. The circles will get to you. It is basically classic passive-aggressive behavior, as in, “Gosh, we just don’t know these things for sure and I kinda believe them, but I do know for sure that you are wrong.”
He seems to know enough about his beliefs to label his link to my blog, “Neil’s Cult of One” or something like that (at least that’s what it used to say . . . let’s just say it isn’t in my reader).
But he is a funny and engaging guy so I don’t mind him commenting.
Rich, no, I’ve never communicated with ER before. I just got a kick out of his second paragraph.
Wow. … No sarcasm intended. No aggression intended, passive or otherwise. I most certainly do NOT insist that those who disagree with me are wrong — how could I when I don’t believe, nor do I need to believe, that I’m exactly right?? On theology and doctrine, that is.
On politics, Neil, buddy, you’re wriong. Painfully so. But that’s a whole other matter.
As for the label on the link to your place on my own blog, I put that up when you told me you would kill comments of mine that you didn’t like and that you reserved the right to edit others. Such efforts at control are cultlike. Oh, and the amen corner you’ve got goin’ over there.
Oh, and Neil, you crack me up with your false accusations of false teaching — j’accuse! — to every. single. person. who disagrees with you. LOL. Chill, man.
BTW, somebody is gonna have to splain to me what’s so dang funny about this, which is fairly basic theology talk:
‘ “Jesus is God” oversimplifies the historic Christian concepts — plural — of Jesus over time and ignores the entire concept of Christology. Divine? Yes. God incarnate? I think so.’
WHAT?!?
ER,
Here’s what I was talking about:
“No objection gere to Christianity, only to cocksure Christians.
No objections to Jesus, only to the insistence that all Christians agree as to exactly who He is and what the Incarnation means.
No objections to the Bible, only to the insistence that all Christians accept the literal reading and inerrancy, etc., thereof.
So, it could be that I have no objections at all.”
Also, calling Neil a “cult of one” is another example…textbook case of using loaded language where it doesn’t apply.
–Just explaining where my sentiment came from.
Well, I don’t see how any of that is sarcastic or aggressive, especially in a thread to a post that is an “invitation to skeptics.” Those words of mine are honest and I meant them, but I didn’t mean to come across as sarcastic. I apologize.
BTW, I am a skeptical Christian. A Christian skeptic. And I’m sorry but I am impatient — and I can be a little short — with fellow Christians who insist that there is only “one way to believe” and who insist further that they have it down pat.
As for the labeling of Neil’s link from my place: That has nothing to do with this thread, or my skepticism; it has to do with Neil’s and my past at his own place. It’s *is* meant to be sarcastic. But Neil brought that up.
And, Adam was the one who got a kick out of the paragraph I repeated. I do want to hear from him what makes that boilerplate theology talk give him grins.
Re. false teachers — I just label as false teachers those who claim to be Christians and deny the essentials of the faith. Don’t worry, I am very chilled. I just call ‘em like I see ‘em. I’m really quite liberal, but only on non-essentials.
Some false teachers are more dangerous because they are more clever at hiding their heresies. Yours are more transparently incoherent so I often don’t even bother responding.
If I’m a “cult of one” then how come I have an “amen corner?” (That’s rhetorical. I return this thread to its original programming.)
Good.
Just to play devil’s advocate* (my wife would be oh-so-proud!), here’s some of my top ‘objections’:
1. Christianity oppresses freedom of thought and is a religion that uses fear to motivate its adherents
2. Jesus can’t be God as the Gospels show he was surprised by certain events and did not know the answers to certain questions
3. The Bible purposely excludes other texts that contradict some of its core doctrines (ie. Jesus’ divinity, doctrine of hell) and is therefore doctored to favour only certain strands of Christian teaching to the exclusion of other views
* I just listened to a talk on suffering by theologian and philosopher, Peter Kreeft. He mentioned a task he routinely did amongst his classes on logical arguments (?) where he asked them to sort themselves into two groups, according to their beliefs: theists and anti-theists. Now that the groups were defined, he then gave them a topic to debate: Does God exist? He then asked the theists to take the negative (to present arguments why God doesn’t exist) and the anti-theists to take the affirmative (that God does exist). Dr Kreeft noted that, without fail, every time he ran this exercise that the theists arguing the negative always made stronger arguments than the anti-theists arguing the positive. His conclusion is that the theists know both sides of the argument while anti-theists frequently do not. Therefore, in order to better argue for your own position, you must understand the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments of your opponents. Good advice!
Interesting.
1. Many Christians oppress freedom of thought, but not all. Many Christians, but not all, rely on fear to motivate adherents. The religion surrounding Christianity sucks, for the most part.
2. Depends on whatcher definition of “God” is.
3. True. Totally. But that doesn’t mean the Bible is without value or that there are not truths therein.
Re. 3 — the Bible “excludes” other books that talk about Jesus because the texts weren’t credible and didn’t meet any of the criteria for canonization. That isn’t some conspiracy, that is just a fact. E.g., The gospel of Thomas was written late and not by Thomas. It has all kinds of weird teachings that contradict scripture. It was not accepted by the church. And more. Not having it in the Bible diminishes the Bible about as much as not having “Hop on Pop” in there.
Pingback: Carnival of the Godless #111 - The Atheist Blogger
1. christianity – why are there so many versions when you supposedly follow the one god from the one bible?
2. jesus – very likely didn’t even exist, certainly wasn’t the son of any god, prove otherwise.
3. bible – if it is supposedly the inerrant word of god, why are there so many errors and contradictions in it?
@ Mathew, not having a go at you because you are only repeating someone else’s words, but IMHO Kreeft’s conclusion is misguided.
I agree that in order to better argue for your own position, you must understand the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments of your opponents but I don’t see this as the main reason that the theists are better able to argue for the negative.
It could be said that the reason is because there are better arguments for the negative. (ie. there are better arguments to prove god does not exist, therefore no matter what side of the fence you are on, you are better able to argue for the non-existence of god)
Ozatheist: Interesting.
1. christianity — “so many versions …”
Why are there so many Americans when we all supposedly adhere to the same Constitution? So many kinds of people when we all are of the same humanity? Um, so many tastes when we all have the same kinds of tastebuds? … Sorry, but only a relatively few Christians claim there only is one precise expression of Christianity.
2. jesus — “very likely didn’t even exist …”
Rejected. Prove he didn’t exist. Ha ha. Forgive the laughing nod to your next thought: “certainly wasn’t the son of any god, prove otherwise.” Gad. We’re not talking about science here.
3. bible – “supposedly the inerrant word of god.” As a Christian who does *not* idolize the Bible, I encourage you to keep hammering away at the clear contradictions and errors of fact, history and primitive cosmology expressed in it.
@Neil: ” the Bible “excludes” other books that talk about Jesus because the texts weren’t credible and didn’t meet any of the criteria for canonization. That isn’t some conspiracy, that is just a fact. E.g., The gospel of Thomas was written late and not by Thomas.”
Err, you are aware that ALL of the gospel was “written late and not by” the supposed authors, right? Thomas didn’t meet the needs of the early church who gathered to “approve” the bible (Council of Nicae, I think) and who then declared (or had declared) that their version must be correct because they voted it so.
@ER: “Prove he didn’t exist” Yours is the unsubstantiated claim, you prove it. You can’t prove a negative anyway. Prove Harry Potter doesn’t exist. Prove Doctor Who doesn’t exist. Prove that Sauron didn’t get overthrown by hobbits throwing a magic ring into a volcano.
Pingback: In the Meantime « The Pugnacious Irishman
@ ozatheist – while i don’t necessarily agree that the arguements against God’s existence are stronger than those for, I believe the inference Kreeft was making with his example is this: that despite the ‘allegedly’ strong arguments for God not existing, still the theist believes, presumably because he sees the weaknesses of anti-theists arguments.
we could then say that the theist sees what he wants to see, and then it could be replied that the anti-theist sees what he wants to see … and then it all becomes rather pointless at that point, don’t you think?
irrespective, perhaps Kreeft’s main point is that theists have stronger arguments that anti-theists far too easily dismiss (and don’t understand in order to argue them?) … but i may conjecture too much?
peace
Is that 3 or nine response all up?
Christianity – which version? I have severe issues with Westboro but would probably find (apart for the believing in the god thing) some liberal christians not too far from my own views on life.
Objections to Jesus, none he’s dead(presumig he existed). Do have some exceptions to what is claimed, acted upon in his name.
Bible – none as a work of literature or historical artifact, outdated and contradictory moral rulebook.
So possibly no objections depending on the context.
Marty, re when I said: “Prove he didn’t exist. Ha ha. Forgive the laughing nod to your next thought: “certainly wasn’t the son of any god,” … I forgets how sarcasm and the like are hard to get across in this forum. So, like, the author of that can prove the negative that Jesus “certainly wasn’t the son of any god”? Oh, never mind.
1. why didn’t god send jesus during noah’s time?
2. explain why jesus was needed to me without using biblical references.
3. since evolution is fact, what’s the deal with original sin?
I am endlessly amused with the “very likely didn’t even exist” comments from atheists. Have fun with that one. When they deny historical facts like the existence of a person named Jesus it shows that they are very ignorant of history — whether deliberately or not.
I respect all religions, let alone Christianity.
But I would like to put my objections, as i do for every other religion.
1) Jesus isn’t divine, he is a prophet – If you have to prove the existence of Jesus, you will have to get his remains. But if you get them, he becomes human. So, if you prove Jesus existed, well, you have accepted him as a human too.
2) Bible, a manuscript from 5th century AD – If not all, most pages of the bible originally was written around 5th century AD, that means, 500 years between the existence of Jesus and the book. So it is obvious that bible cannot be taken as a evidence for his existence. We will never know if the bible contains even a single sentence from the mouth of Jesus, even if he existed.
3) When there are 13 Gospels(experts claim it to be more), why only 4 made it to the bible. Why where the other rejected? Is it simply because, it did not contain anything important or it really contained something important? This is a clear indication of how fake the bible is. And latest discoveries indicate how each Gopsel contradict with each other. For example when all gospels in Bible say “Judas betrayed Jesus”, why does Gospel of Judas say, “Jeses asked him to do so”.
4) And if Jesus were the son of God, why didn’t he ask god, his own father to create people who are always good and non-sinners. why should he take the cross for others sin?
If Christianity is a faith which considers, Jesus a divine. I m really sorry for christians. But if its a faith based on the teachings of a great man, I bow my head to those Christians !
And Thanks in Advance to anytime you will be spending in replying to my comment.
I really appreciate the sportive nature of this blog and the owner.
Just three? That’ll be tricky — there are so many good arguments against religion. But if it has to be three, let’s make it these:
1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones. The history of human knowledge has an astonishingly consistent pattern. Supernatural explanations for phenomena have been replaced with natural ones thousands upon thousands of times. Natural explanations for phenomena have been replaced with supernatural ones exactly never. Given that this is so, why should anyone assume that any currently unexplained phenomenon is probably caused by God or souls or angels? Isn’t a natural explanation far, far more probable?
2: The inconsistency of world religions, and the failure of religion to improve or clarify over time. If religious experiences and beliefs were a real perception of a real entity, wouldn’t people have moved towards some sort of consensus about what that entity is? We certainly have with our perception of the physical world, which is far larger and far stranger than we’d ever imagined even five hundred years ago. The fact that we have no consensus or clarity about God strongly suggests that it’s an idea people just made up.
3: The complete and utter lack of solid evidence for God’s existence. The “evidence” that’s typically cited by believers for God is either religious texts (circular thinking — “I believe the Bible because the Bible tells me so”), or the argument from design (shattered by the theory of evolution), or “lots of people believe this and they can’t all be wrong” (sure they can — lots of people believed that the sun went around the earth, too), or their own person intuition (demonstrably fallible — and not reliable as a sole source of information). I have never seen any evidence for God that would be accepted as solid by any good scientist, historian, or archeologist.
Rich: here’s my Summary Case for Atheism. Fire away.
Andrew,
Thanks for stopping by with your link. I checked out your site, and I’d love to devote a few posts to it in the future. Warning: it might be a while…as you might notice, quite a few people have offered challenges so far!
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: Through the Dark Mystery of Evil « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: no Evidence for God? « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: Jesus is a Copy Cat Myth…So There! « The Pugnacious Irishman
Okay, so:
OT:
1: Exodus. Why didn’t the Egyptians record the highly momentous events that are supposed to have happened in this book – further, if God hardened Pharoahs heart, why is this taken as an excuse by God to kill him some Egyptian children?
2: Genesis. The fossil record we have indicates that species did not evolve in stages relative to them being air, land or sea animals. There is no indication that some supreme being finished his last fish and said “right, now for the Bee Eaters.” Even aside from the Young Earthers, this contradicts the Biblical account for creation, how do you reconcile that?
3: Job. Job loses his fortune, his children and his health. At the end of the story, God rewards Job for sticking with his faith by giving him a bigger fortune, better health and well, better children. This last one sticks in my craw. If you are a parent, would you accept the idea that if someone killed your kids it would be okay so long as they replaced them with better kids?
NT:
1: Jesus and the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5) First of all, what were the Pharisees doing there? Second, these don’t appear to be Jesus’ followers’ ears of grain, so why didn’t the Pharisees bring up theft? Third, Jesus doesn’t even get the story involving David right – the OT account has David on his own, and the priest who broke the bread with David was Abimelech not Abiathar, a curious mistake for a Jewish rabbi to make and not get called on. Is the book of Mathew really the inerrant word of God?
2: Lack of instruction. Jesus didn’t give his people, who were suffering, anything amazing to improve their lot. Sure, miracles sound very nice, but where is Jesus giving the farmer a revolutionary new agricultural insight? About the nearest he gets is cursing a tree for not giving fruit in its off season. There is nothing concrete in the way of products from his teachings – just platitudes and the odd magic show.
3: The start and end of the story. Why did the Romans require people to return to the lands of their ancestors simply to fill in a census form (The equivelant of requiring an American to return to Ireland to fill in a census form there)? Why are there no examples of this census in surviving Roman records? And that massacre of the innocents – are you are telling me even an evil king would get away with that retread from the story of Moses?
Then you get the death of Jesus. Where are the records of the earthquake and darkness that were supposed to have fallen? Joseph of Arimathea gives Jesus, a guy convicted of treason who is not exactly praised by Jewish authorities, his highly expensive freshly carved tomb – when the Romans could have just buried Jesus in a far less grand fashion anyway?
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: Why so Narrow? « The Pugnacious Irishman
I’d really like some feedback on an essay of mine; see link below. (1) apocalyptic predictions given by Jesus (2) ethical teachings make sense only in the context of an imminent apocalypse (3) stark differences between content of Matthew, Mark, and Luke on the one hand, and John on the other.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/JesusEthics.htm
My biggest problem with Christianity/Jesus as God is that there’s no argument for either that can’t be used to equally support any other religion (i.e. there may have been a First Cause, but there’s no evidence that it’s the Holy Trinity instead of Allah or [insert naturalistic cause here]).
Secondly, I find the Ultimate 747 argument to be particularly compelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit). In essence, god is a bad explanation for [whatever] because the existence of such a complex, powerful, and intelligent entity such as a god is very highly improbable. (In other words, if you think that cellular life is too complex to “just have happened”, wouldn’t God be infinitely much more so?)
Thirdly and lastly, the Christian view of the universe has very little predictive power. If the Biblical description of how the universe works was accurate, then we’d be able to use it to predict what we see around us (unambiguously answered prayers, ensoulment at birth/conception/whenever, geological evidence for a worldwide flood, etc.). The world around us is inconsistent with Biblical statements, instead seeming to work just like a world without a god (prayers are “answered” at the same rate that statistics would predict, mental abilities develop along with the brain over time and are subject to change if the brain is damaged or altered, all evidence points to an old earth with no indication of any more than the occasional local deluge, etc.).
So, I’m excited to see your responses!
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: why so Hidden? « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: God’s Means « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: A Very Nice Try « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: Metaethics 101 « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: what About Other “Gospels”? « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: More on the Bible « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: The “Ultimate 747,” Like the Titanic, Crashes « The Pugnacious Irishman
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: Evidential Problem of Evil « The Pugnacious Irishman