why reject christianity

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Scott,

If any Christian thinks that anyone is good, then that person is not a Christian. The Scriptures are clear about this:

"As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one..." (Romans 3:10)

Any righteousness we have isn't true righteousness, because it isn't God's righteousness:

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."
(Isaiah 64:6)

Even Jesus Christ said He wasn't good, at least while He walked among us in the flesh:

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." (Luke 18:19)

Only God is good...we are all evil. (Not saying that Christ was evil, only that He walked according to the Spirit (Who is God), and not according to the flesh, and therefore was without sin)

Yes... nobody is good, except for Abel, Lot, Noah, Daniel, Job, David, Zacharias son of Barachias, Elisabeth, Zechariah, and an unspecified group of people referred to as "the righteous."

Has there ever been a righteous person?

 

[syo]

This question implies that you can only be a good, caring person if you are a Christian, which is utter nonsense and very prejudice against atheists and generally against other religions too. Did it not occur to the poster that people surely were capable of being good even before Christianity?

they were good before christianity, but they didn't have global love and peace.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Thanks for that. It was consistent with my understanding of a multiverse, by which I mean any unconscious source of this universe, and likely countless others.

The atheist administrators discriminate against creation scientists.

Science discriminates against all non-science, not just creationism.

I'd like to see more creation scientists be able to publish in Encyclopedia Britannica

You probably mean respected scientific journals. I doubt much that calls itself science would get to the Britannica if the scientific community hasn't vetted it and found it worthy first.

Newton, himself, used to invoke God in his arguments and fell into its trap when Pierre Simon Laplace was able to explain without God.

Correct - a nice illustration of the god of the gaps phenomenon. The gaps were larger for Newton than Laplace. Newton inserted his god into the larger gap, and it needed to be moved again when that was filled in with the knowledge Laplace added.

Today, many of us are content just to observe the present gaps and not try to insert gods into them. It would just be guessing to do so.

I think this is what separates creation science from ID.

I don't make a distinction. As I have told you before, there is no such thing as creation science. There is only creationists doing pseudoscience, and it's usually called the ID program.

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."

I'd agree with all of that.

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.

Science goes where the evidence leads without regard to how that relates to scripture. I don't consider that rebelling. That's growing.

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.

The multiverse hypothesis accounts for fine tuning by positing that every possible universe will be formed, includingones like ours, and some that collapse back in on themselves almost immediately. Naturally, because we are alive and intelligent, we find ourselves in one where life and mind are possible.

And the multiverse does this without a god, which would presumably much more complex than an amorphous substance budding off universes like a glass of champagne producing bubbles. That sounds like a viable hypothesis to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

they were good before christianity, but they didn't have global love and peace.

Do you think Christians do?

BTW: what would global love and peace just for Christians even mean? Seems like a contradiction in terms (like "60% of the time, it works every time.")

 

[james bond]

Thanks for that. It was consistent with my understanding of a multiverse, by which I mean any unconscious source of this universe, and likely countless others

You're welcome.

Science discriminates against all non-science, not just creationism.

Atheist science discriminates against creation science because the admins are bullies and they don't want their greatest competitor back.

You probably mean respected scientific journals. I doubt much that calls itself science would get to the Britannica if the scientific community hasn't vetted it and found it worthy first.

No, I'm talking about encyclopedias where people can get information and make up their own minds. Creation scientists should do a better job of getting their view in it. Britannica is neutral imho. While atheist professors get their article published and are credited, creation scientists do not have as many articles in it. Wikipedia is atheist prejudiced (they're haters) and censor Christian views.

Correct - a nice illustration of the god of the gaps phenomenon. The gaps were larger for Newton than Laplace. Newton inserted his god into the larger gap, and it needed to be moved again when that was filled in with the knowledge Laplace added.

Today, many of us are content just to observe the present gaps and not try to insert gods into them. It would just be guessing to do so.

I was trying to point out that it was from earlier times and a warning from Christian theologians. What I didn't know was how extensive it was. For example, Newton used it. Bacon came along and set things straight. His separating Scripture from nature was interesting. However, he left the epistemology to people and didn't count on atheists to turn nature around in the 1850s.

What about atheist science of the gaps? Evolution has lost credibility since 2011. Most people aren't going to believe in multiverses. It has nothing to do with their lives. I believe in evolution by rapid natural selection. The evolutionary thinking involving macroevolution and origins in biology and BBT is not credible nor sustainable. I don't think the radiometric dating is correct, either, as assumptions were faulty. The above is based on circular reasoning. People fit the evidence with their basic beliefs of Darwinism instead of finding knowledge from the evidence. Darwinism was this great big breakthrough that no one heard about before. The radiometric assumptions gave it the time needed for it to work.

 

[syo]

Do you think Christians do?

BTW: what would global love and peace just for Christians even mean? Seems like a contradiction in terms (like "60% of the time, it works every time.")

global love and peace would mean that despite our differences we will live peacefully. nations helping other nations etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

global love and peace would mean that despite our differences we will live peacefully. nations helping other nations etc.

So you're saying that pre-Christian people have something that no Christian has ever had either?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheist science discriminates against creation science because the admins are bullies and they don't want their greatest competitor back.

OK, but this greatest competitor has added nothing to scientific understanding regarding an intelligent designer but to worsen its reputation by not only beig sterile, but seeing irreducible complexity where there was none. Multiple claims of biological systems such as the eye, the coagulation cascade, the bacterial flagellum, an the immune system were each claimed to be irreducibly complex when they aren't. The dollars poured into the search for an intelligent designer have generated exactly what one would expect if the basic assumption of ID were false. Those dollars were wasted.

Science has standards for how science is done. Scientists have no reason to modify them to accommodate religious beliefs.

I'm talking about encyclopedias where people can get information and make up their own minds. Creation scientists should do a better job of getting their view in it. Britannica is neutral imho.

Encyclopedias also have standards. What were you hoping that the Britannica would include about creationism? Are you sure that the subject is described nowhere in the encyclopedia?

Wikipedia is atheist prejudiced (they're haters) and censor Christian views.

Wikipedia are haters because they don't carry Christian views?

I'll bet it would be pretty easy to find Christian views in multiple places in Wikipedia. What Christian views did you want them to publish, and why? Remember, they're also an encyclopedia, also not there to promote Christianity.

The church needs to promote itself, and not to expect other institutions to do it for them. It's not the job of scientists or encyclopedia makers, nor that of the government or the public schools.

Evangelists need to do it using their own resources missionaries, billboards, televangelists,people like you on, Christian web sites, and the like.

If that doesn't grow the church, then we must conclude that its market is dwindling.

[Lyell] left the epistemology to people and didn't count on atheists to turn nature around in the 1850s.

Atheists turned nature around? Pretty powerful people,wouldn't you say?

Evolution has lost credibility since 2011.

Not with me or any other non-creationist I read.

Evolutionary theory is pretty well entrenched, and apparently for good. The evidence for Darwin's theory being correct in the main is overwhelming. It might be tweaked a bit here and there, but not overturned.

What else can account for all of that evidence if not this theory, evidence that is inconsistent with the Christian creationist worldview, incidentally. None of that evidence should be there in the ground or the DNA if Christian creationism is correct

Most people aren't going to believe in multiverses.

Nor should they. We shouldn't believe in anything, if by that you mean accept as true on faith (with insufficient support).

Unless and until somebody can rule the multiverse hypothesis out, they should believe that the hypothesis might be correct, but they shouldn't believe in it.

The evolutionary thinking involving macroevolution and origins in biology and BBT is not credible nor sustainable. I don't think the radiometric dating is correct, either, as assumptions were faulty.

I think they're all correct. Of course, neither of our opinions matter except to ourselves.

People fit the evidence with their basic beliefs

You're describing confirmation bias / antiprocessing / motivated reasoning. That where you start with an unsupported premise and then sift through the evidence keeping what you thinks supports your premise and ignoring or downplaying the rest.

The critical thinker fits his beliefs with the evidence - all of it. The evidence precedes the belief and serves as its basis.

 

[Chris Lovel]

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?

Let me see, perhaps it's the fear mongering, Christians say if you either don't believe in God or Jesus as your saviour you go to hell. There is so much evidence that this is just not true. (study the NDE phenomenon) You seem to believe the Bible is the absolute truth, well no, not true. There are over 400 conflicting passages in the Bible they can't all be true. Then there is this problem with credibility. None of the accounts about the occurrences or dialogues were ever recorded at the time by anyone present. The earliest was about 90 years later. That means it is all hear-say, not acceptable in a court of law and the refore not a reliable form of communication. Let us look at the attitude of most Christians, it's this I'm right and you are wrong, that is called arrogance. Most of you have doxastic closure or are closed minded. I have no problem with Christians they believe because it seems to give them comfort but also because they have been told to believe and all those around them reinforce this without question. It is called conditioning. That should keep you busy. My motto, "question everything"

 

[Chris Lovel]

About love...

The founders of Christianity didn't understand that genuine love is always unconditional. They created a god who would love us on the condition that we accept the doctrine offered. If we didn't, we were threatened with Hell. Christianity can't teach love because it can't teach what it doesn't understand.

This is so true. Not only did they create a God who had conditions they created a God in the image of man. They endowed God with negative human emotions, anger, jealousy, vengeful, cruellty, the list is long. Then they endowed it with an ego. They suggest we should all praise God, I don't think any self respecting God would require our praise but a human God would because humans would be flattered. Here we have an omnipotent being needing human adoration, I don't think so. Gratitude? yes, by all means. You are correct about unconditional love, during an NDE I came face to face with unconditional love and it was totally indescribable and most people would not understand what it is.

 

[stvdv]

The crucifixion paints God as being a rather unjust and a little insane. It makes no sense when one thinks about it.

Agreed. The sin was killing Jesus, so:
Belief = "Jesus died for our sins"
Truth = "Jesus died because of our sin"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

I know I already replied, but another reason christianity isnt positive is the idea of human sacrifice (symbolic or literal). Those two words alone sound off. Why would people reject living a positive life without needing a person to die in the process?

 

[ChristineM]

Agreed. Jesus was killed, so:
Belief "Jesus died for our sins"
Truth "Jesus died because of our sins"

Alternative "Jesus died for sins against the ruling government"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Alternative "Jesus died for sins against the ruling government"

That's better. The idea that someone has to be tortured to death for natural human failures is very immoral. The idea that Jesus had to die makes no sense and only paints God as a blood thirsty savage.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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?

1. It's theological claims make no sense to me;
2. Its claims to exceptionalism, while far from unique, are incredibly arrogant;
3. It thrives by fostering a 'them-vs-us mentality;
4. The faith relies on ignorance to prosper.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

only atheism denies Christ, all others just have different terminology for the spark of God presence within and that only way to God is through that spark.

In other words 'all you other religions are hyped up on our god. Even if you don't know it'.

Such hubris is painful to look at.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

god is omniscient. the human part of christ isn't omniscient. when the Son* became human, his human side was forced to live the pain to gain knowledge. Jesus was perfect god and perfect human. his human side had to learn like a simple human.

*i'm a trinitarian, i believe the father son and holy spirit are the holy trinity.

So... Christ was omniscient?

 

[ChristineM]

That's better. The idea that someone has to be tortured to death for natural human failures is very immoral. The idea that Jesus had to die makes no sense and only paints God as a blood thirsty savage.

To me it's the only scenario that makes sense. What (it is claimed) he taught goes directly against the Roman mindset. One god??? What about Jupiter, Minerva, Venus, Cloacina and sin of sins, the emperor.

What faithful cult of the emperor priest is going to accept "there is only one god and he doesn't live in Rome". A treasonous offence for sure in a society that accepted any and all gods, not one god.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheist science discriminates against creation science because the admins are bullies and they don't want their greatest competitor back.

Please provide evidence of this claim.

As far as i understand it "creationist science" is an oxymoron. Creationists who claim to be scientist do not want to abide by the scientific method because they know that their claims will not stand independent scrutiny. That means they are not scientists but opinion merchants

Competitor? Unlikely unless they become honest.

 

[PureX]

The crucifixion paints God as being a rather unjust and a little insane. It makes no sense when one thinks about it.

A painting of God with a stern face does not mean that God has a stern face. It doesn't even mean that God has a face. It just means that the painter imagined God as having a stern face.

People who reject Christianity are rarely even aware of what the basic message of Christianity is, because they have falsely presumed that the depictions of God and Christ as imagined by some Christian or other ARE God, Christ, and Christianity. They reject the ideological substance, in complete ignorance, because all they can see are the mythological depictions as imagined by a few overly zealous, authoritarian type Christians, and they don't like them. It's the classic, "throwing out the baby with the bath water" scenario because they can't see the baby in the bathwater.

One does not have to accept the various religious depictions of God, Christ, or of some faction or other of religious Christianity to appreciate and practice the principals proposed to us by the theological ideal being offered to us through the 'revelation of Christ'. And when those ideals are couched in a different set of representations, they are often agreed to by nearly everyone.