why reject christianity

[TripleZ]

why many people reject christianity? is there a problem with the teachings and messages? the crucifixion of christ means nothing to them? don't they like a religion based on love? many people want proof. but, if there was proof, ''believing'' would be an one-way street and faith would be pointless. if there was undeniable proof, how would we choose christ as our saviour?

,, well you reply as if they have been shown Gods Word ( Scripture ) in the first place. Look at the history of the RCC for a perfect example of what true Christianity is NOT!!! Never was and should never had been in the slightest.....

 

[TripleZ]

Telescopes can tell us many things about an exoplanet including size, atmospheric makeup, wind speeds and weather patterns. This information may help us ascertain the probability whether this exoplanet can have water or not. These telescopes of exoplanets are not just looking for life, but a habitable planet.

That's what I said. Thus, we sent a probe and did in-depth analysis of Mars. We also sent a probe around Europa. @Polymath257 added Titan. These are our best hope. However, no microbe was found. As an aside, I just watched Life movie. It's not a great movie, but has a cell coming back from Mars as the antagonist. Look how scary atheist science can be.

So what does our present atheist science evidence support?

You mean atheist science. That's why it's atheist.

The multiverse has no aspect of reality when it has no evidence and cannot be tested. The same reason why the God hypothesis is rejected. Why do all these scientists argue for it?

Sure it does, especially when it's true such as only life begats life or when the Big Bang Theory can support creation (Genesis). An eternal universe would be against it.

The Bible is Word. Word.

,, so what has this supposition of your got to with anything about true Christianity ?

 

[TripleZ]

Love is simple, but the details are complicated. In my opinion Christianity is rejected when it becomes brittle, too inflexible to allow multiple points of view. Brittle Christianity results in the rise of political power in its membership, and whoever has the strongest argument gains influence while whoever starts the argument also benefits. Everyone else loses. One person says the others are wrong, deluded and so forth. There is no trust that God will guide the other people. When Christians become concerned about who is right about what, that is when cracks develop in the love that holds everything together. There is a very long term war inside of Christianity between love and this tendency to clamp down on truth.

What people never seem to understand is we must believe the Word Of God ONLY! and reject all teachings that do not agree with and or comply with Gods Word strictly as given..eg; ask someone, " what do YOU believe ? " and see if their reply is," Only Gods Word! " ?

 

[Michael1981]

HaShem has never destroyed the Jewish people. They are always redeemed at the end of their chastisements. HaShem has also never said, G-d forbid, that His people are 'of the devil' (which isn't even a Hebrew concept) or that they 'killed the prophets'. HaShem always invited the Jewish people to return to Him and repent. He never said they are not children of Abraham and condemned them to hell.

Never destroyed the Jewish people? You are technically correct, in that He has never wiped them out completely; He always leaves a remnant. But He has certainly destroyed them, to say otherwise is just damned foolishness.

And yes, they have certainly killed prophets, as well. Perhaps Paul was only referring to such as Stephen, over whose death he himself presided, but in Jewish tradition the prophet Isaiah was sawn in half by King Manasseh, and it also seems Jeremiah was also killed. Elijah certainly would've been killed by Ahab and Jezebel had the Lord not protected him. Do you think Paul was referring to righteous Jews or something? Clearly he wasn't.

"They make their tongue sharp as a serpent’s, and under their lips is the venom of asps." (Psalm 140:3)

This is the same thing as saying, "You are not children of Abraham, you brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of Hell?" And it certainly was the Lord speaking, if not directly then by inspiration.

And if you're not a child of Abraham (that is, a child of faith), then you can't escape the condemnation of Hell, either in this world or the next. But ALL Israel will be saved, if not in this world then in the next. The Lord is the Omega, not Hell:

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

 

[TripleZ]

Believe is not faith. You do not need to believe that Jesus was an Archetype but if you realize that Spark of God you become enlightened just like Jesus.

,,so here is the point, when and where in Scripture is what YOU claim, taught AND was taught by Yeshua ?

 

[TripleZ]

Never destroyed the Jewish people? You are technically correct, in that He has never wiped them out completely; He always leaves a remnant. But He has certainly destroyed them, to say otherwise is just damned foolishness.

And yes, they have certainly killed prophets, as well. Perhaps Paul was only referring to such as Stephen, over whose death he himself presided, but in Jewish tradition the prophet Isaiah was sawn in half by King Manasseh, and it also seems Jeremiah was also killed. Elijah certainly would've been killed by Ahab and Jezebel had the Lord not protected him. Do you think Paul was referring to righteous Jews or something? Clearly he wasn't.

"They make their tongue sharp as a serpent’s, and under their lips is the venom of asps." (Psalm 140:3)

This is the same thing as saying, "You are not children of Abraham, you brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of Hell?" And it certainly was the Lord speaking, if not directly then by inspiration.

And if you're not a child of Abraham (that is, a child of faith), then you can't escape the condemnation of Hell, either in this world or the next. But ALL Israel will be saved, if not in this world then in the next. The Lord is the Omega, not Hell:

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

Well what then is " Judaism " without the Temple ?

 

[TripleZ]

Never destroyed the Jewish people? You are technically correct, in that He has never wiped them out completely; He always leaves a remnant. But He has certainly destroyed them, to say otherwise is just damned foolishness.

And yes, they have certainly killed prophets, as well. Perhaps Paul was only referring to such as Stephen, over whose death he himself presided, but in Jewish tradition the prophet Isaiah was sawn in half by King Manasseh, and it also seems Jeremiah was also killed. Elijah certainly would've been killed by Ahab and Jezebel had the Lord not protected him. Do you think Paul was referring to righteous Jews or something? Clearly he wasn't.

"They make their tongue sharp as a serpent’s, and under their lips is the venom of asps." (Psalm 140:3)

This is the same thing as saying, "You are not children of Abraham, you brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of Hell?" And it certainly was the Lord speaking, if not directly then by inspiration.

And if you're not a child of Abraham (that is, a child of faith), then you can't escape the condemnation of Hell, either in this world or the next. But ALL Israel will be saved, if not in this world then in the next. The Lord is the Omega, not Hell:

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

Yes all of that quote is Gods Word and yet Israel rejected their Messiah when He came to them. Yeshua was sent ONLY to Israel but they killed Him, rejected Him and His Teachings form God.. No Temple, Noo GOD for Israel right or wrong ?

 

[Rival]

Never destroyed the Jewish people? You are technically correct, in that He has never wiped them out completely; He always leaves a remnant. But He has certainly destroyed them, to say otherwise is just damned foolishness.

And yes, they have certainly killed prophets, as well. Perhaps Paul was only referring to such as Stephen, over whose death he himself presided, but in Jewish tradition the prophet Isaiah was sawn in half by King Manasseh, and it also seems Jeremiah was also killed. Elijah certainly would've been killed by Ahab and Jezebel had the Lord not protected him. Do you think Paul was referring to righteous Jews or something? Clearly he wasn't.

"They make their tongue sharp as a serpent’s, and under their lips is the venom of asps." (Psalm 140:3)

This is the same thing as saying, "You are not children of Abraham, you brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of Hell?" And it certainly was the Lord speaking, if not directly then by inspiration.

And if you're not a child of Abraham (that is, a child of faith), then you can't escape the condemnation of Hell, either in this world or the next. But ALL Israel will be saved, if not in this world then in the next. The Lord is the Omega, not Hell:

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

Have fun with your Christian interpretations.

 

[Michael1981]

Have fun with your Christian interpretations.

I'm not trying to have fun, and these aren't "interpretations." This is the Truth, straight from the Lord. There is always a right answer and a wrong one.

Not that I have them all, and I do apologize if I offended with the "damned foolishness" comment. I should've worded that differently, though the truth of it remains. God has destroyed Israel many times and in many ways.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Mr. So,

You're missing the point (though to be fair, that is understandable from what I've written). Jesus Christ said this:

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5:32)

Seems like a contradiction, right? If no one is good, then to whom might He be referring?

He was responding to Pharisees, and obviously He didn't think that they were righteous. The difference is this: He calls those who have been given to see that their own righteousnesses are as filthy rags, those with broken and contrite spirits:

"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (Psalm 51:17)

Some have been given to see their true natures, and those are the sinners Jesus was referring to, not the self-righteous like those Pharisees were.

And here is something else. Yes, many people seem good, and by human standards, they certainly are. But even this is a gift from God. People ARE generally "good" so long as things are alright in their lives. It's with struggle that we find out our true natures.

And everyone will struggle and learn at some point, either in this life or the next.

Was that intended as a rebuttal to the claim that the Christian worldview is nihilistic and misanthropic? It defines the human race as sinners - a spiritually diseased race of individuals, who, absent a plea for salvation, are all born worthy of perdition just for being born human. Your scriptures don't contradict that.

 

[TripleZ]

Have fun with your Christian interpretations.

Mat 15:24 He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Isra'el."
Mat 15:25 But she came, fell at his feet and said, "Sir, help me!"

have fun with your guess work an suppositions....

 

[TripleZ]

Have fun with your Christian interpretations.

lol, you guys,,
Mat 15:24 He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Isra'el."
Mat 15:25 But she came, fell at his feet and said, "Sir, help me!"

 

[james bond]

,, so what has this supposition of your got to with anything about true Christianity ?

The science discussion probably has a place in Science and Religion, and I would have put it there if I had a choice. However, today, I think science is part of Christian religion since we have members who are young and old earth creationists. The distinction is due to science. Today's Christians have to respond to scientific claims used to debunk their religion. They also have to point out where science has backed up the Bible when the Bible isn't a science book. That part is important. Furthermore, today's science is atheistic in that God, the supernatural and the Bible are rejected systematically. One cannot bring it up for discussion as they could in the past due to the atheist scientists gaining power in science and in some government areas such as the Smithsonian.

 

[Polymath257]

Telescopes can tell us many things about an exoplanet including size, atmospheric makeup, wind speeds and weather patterns. This information may help us ascertain the probability whether this exoplanet can have water or not. These telescopes of exoplanets are not just looking for life, but a habitable planet.

That's what I said. Thus, we sent a probe and did in-depth analysis of Mars. We also sent a probe around Europa. @Polymath257 added Titan. These are our best hope. However, no microbe was found. As an aside, I just watched Life movie. It's not a great movie, but has a cell coming back from Mars as the antagonist. Look how scary atheist science can be.

You do realize none of those are exoplanets, right? They are all part of our solar system.

For true exoplanets (i.e, planets orbiting other stars), our telescopes are NOT able to pick up wind speeds, or weather patterns. Only in the best cases can we pick up *some* of the atmospheric composition. And only in the cases where the orbit is close to edge on can we pick up size.

So what does our present atheist science evidence support?

At this point, no conclusion because not even close to enough has been explored.

You mean atheist science. That's why it's atheist.

Nope, just science.

The multiverse has no aspect of reality when it has no evidence and cannot be tested. The same reason why the God hypothesis is rejected. Why do all these scientists argue for it?

Mainly because it follows naturally from most attempts to merge quantum mechanics with gravity. And not all versions of the multiverse scenario are impossible to test. And, you fail to note that most working scientists don't consider it proved by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Michael1981]

Was that intended as a rebuttal to the claim that the Christian worldview is nihilistic and misanthropic? It defines the human race as sinners - a spiritually diseased race of individuals, who, absent a plea for salvation, are all born worthy of perdition just for being born human. Your scriptures don't contradict that.

Not really. Well, I'm afraid I don't understand how nihilism comes into play here, so you'd have to explain that one to me. We're here for a purpose, which is to be made in God's image. This requires that we experience evil and do evil, so that we truly possess the knowledge of good and evil. Beyond that, we need to know that the Lord doesn't tolerate evil, and learn to turn from it and to Him for salvation by His righteousness.

Misanthropic isn't accurate, either. God does love us, otherwise he wouldn't have died on the cross for us. In fact, that's the truly incredible thing about His love:

"But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

We are all worthy of perdition, so long as it isn't eternal. Eternal damnation is a horrible doctrine that seriously maligns God's character. It's pure evil.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The multiverse has no aspect of reality when it has no evidence and cannot be tested. The same reason why the God hypothesis is rejected.

That is correct. There is no hard evidence for the multiverse hypothesis.

Logically rigorous thinkers neither accept nir reject the god hypothesis, as there is no way to rule it in or out. This link (a recent RF post) shows that I have included the god hypothesis in my list of candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe.

Not accepting god claims is not the same thing as declaring them false.

Today's Christians have to respond to scientific claims used to debunk their religion.

Science isn't interested in debunking religion. It may contradict some religious beliefs, but that is an unintended consequence of its mission to describe reality and its history in a world where religions have previously tried to do the same thing.

 

[Baroodi]

(And Lut when he said to his people: Do you commit sodomy? No people before you did that!! * Ye satisfy your lusts on men in preference to women, verily ye are transgressing extravagantly* And his people gave no answer except saying: Drive them out of your village, they purify themselves* So We saved him and his family except his wife, she was one of those who perished)
Noble Quran 7 verse 80-84. Talking about Lut people who were indulged in sodomy and God punished them by flipping their lands upside down with all wrong doers

 

[socharlie]

,,so here is the point, when and where in Scripture is what YOU claim, taught AND was taught by Yeshua ?

12“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do

 

[james bond]

You do realize none of those are exoplanets, right? They are all part of our solar system.

For true exoplanets (i.e, planets orbiting other stars), our telescopes are NOT able to pick up wind speeds, or weather patterns. Only in the best cases can we pick up *some* of the atmospheric composition. And only in the cases where the orbit is close to edge on can we pick up size.




At this point, no conclusion because not even close to enough has been explored.



Nope, just science.



Mainly because it follows naturally from most attempts to merge quantum mechanics with gravity. And not all versions of the multiverse scenario are impossible to test. And, you fail to note that most working scientists don't consider it proved by any stretch of the imagination.

I was looking forward to reading what you had to say until I read the first sentence. Disappointing. I should have known and probably won't take you seriously either.

 

[james bond]

That is correct. There is no hard evidence for the multiverse hypothesis.

Logically rigorous thinkers neither accept nir reject the god hypothesis, as there is no way to rule it in or out. This link (a recent RF post) shows that I have included the god hypothesis in my list of candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe.

Not accepting god claims is not the same thing as declaring them false.



Science isn't interested in debunking religion. It may contradict some religious beliefs, but that is an unintended consequence of its mission to describe reality and its history in a world where religions have previously tried to do the same thing.

I hope I didn't miss any of your responses. If I did, then let me know. I found the God of the gaps argument related to Sir Isaac Newton now. I think it shows that it was used before Henry Drummond, 19th century. Will post it below.

Okay, I saw your list and would have to add invisible particles and singularity from quantum mechanics. The one I would withdraw is #1 for the universe not having a cause. One of the tests for a rational mind is to look for a cause. As for multiverses, have you read this article -- Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean. It's gives a nice summary of the differing views.

Sure it is. That's why I call today's science atheist science. The atheist administrators discriminate against creation scientists. A creation scientists could lose their funding, tenure, their jobs or not be promoted -- Creation Scientists. I'd like to see more creation scientists be able to publish in Encyclopedia Britannica, but most wouldn't dare risk it. However, the ones who are better known as creation scientists probably could. I don't know if Britannica won't publish them, but they seem to me more neutral.

Newton, himself, used to invoke God in his arguments and fell into its trap when Pierre Simon Laplace was able to explain without God. I think this is what separates creation science from ID. I said it was usurped by atheists in the BBT and while it may be true, the modern GOTG arguments seems to have started with their arguments against ID.

Modern definition of God of the gaps
"God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain. The assumption is that if science cannot explain how something happened, then God must be the explanation. WARNING: But the danger of using a God-of-the-gaps argument for the action or existence of God is that it lacks the foresight of future scientific discoveries. With the continuing advancement of science, God-of-the-gaps explanations often get replaced by natural mechanisms. Therefore, when such arguments are used as apologetic tools, scientific research can unnecessarily be placed at odds with belief in God.1 The recent Intelligent Design (ID) movement highlights this problem. Certain ID arguments, like the irreducible complexity of the human eye or the bacterial flagellum, are rapidly being undercut by new scientific discoveries."

Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God?

Warnings of GOTG - Baconianism
Sir Francis Bacon proposed separating Scripture and Nature. He thought that nature and God's Word would not contradict. Where he made a mistake was thinking that humans judging the two would be neutral. Little did he think that someone like atheist Charles Lyell would rebel and write nature against that of the Word.

The warnings of GOTG are:
1. First, the primary-cause activity of God does not depend on our examining a circumstance for possible naturalistic/scientific explanations, and then inferring God’s activity if no plausible naturalistic explanation turns up. One can't invoke God like Newton did to explain something in nature that could have a natural explanation.
2. Second, if we ground our theory of God and nature in Scripture, then miracles are not the normative means of God’s interaction with nature. We keep God's miracles with the Bible and not use it in nature.

Full explanation here
Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps - creation.com

So, applying the above to fine tuning parameters, then we see that there is evidence of a fine tuner or design in nature unless there are other natural explanations. Whether a multiverse falls into that criteria is debatable. It depends on whether one allows science into the realm of metaphysics when God isn't allowed into science. Notice this is different from GOTG since it's atheist administrators not allowing God into science and not Christians warning themselves. Since atheist science has the power today, they allow it and ignore the metaphysics. Even Stephen Hawking got his paper in before he died and it will be accepted. What it is Atheist Science of the gaps!