-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
why reject christianity
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
I put my opposition to blood sacrifice as one reason for rejecting Christianity. You just replied to my post.
I don't have anything against Jesus--I admire his teachings and his holding corrupt authorities' feet to the fire. 
The Christian church did and still does object to the practice of same sex marriage.
There is no law of nature relevant to marriage. Marriage is a human construct distinct from pair bonding, mating, setting up a household, and child rearing. All of that can be done without marriage as most of the animal kingdom plainly exemplifies.
Marriage is the legal arrangement added to that for purposes of defining the rights and obligations of a couple that chooses to accept those terms.
And the state is uninterested in scripture. Those who choose to accept the terms of scripture do so informally absent legal obligations. Others are not obligated to agree, hence same sex marriage is the law of the land in some secular states.Those that don't approve are free to not marry somebody of their own gender.
james bond
Well-Known Member
>>IANS: There is no law of nature relevant to marriage.<<
Both nature and atheist science Darwinism are against gay marriage. It's about procreation and propagating one's species. Have you not watched Children of Men?
Alea iacta est
Pretend that I wrote something cool.
Christianity contradicts itself many times. The trinity is polytheism. Praying to saints (as in Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is a severe polytheism. The Christian texts bases a lot on bad translations from Hebrew into Greek. Jesus was not God, especially when God himself are very clear on the point He can't be a human. Jesus even prayed to God. All men are sons of God (as women are daughters of God). But in Genesis there are references to Sons of God, which is something else. It's even in plural. Jesus didn't fulfilled any of the prophecies from the Hebrew scriptures. The scriptures even warn about people like Jesus. Jesus didn't say he was God.
However I see Jesus as a Jewish reformer. He wanted to make Judaism more humane at the time. Then his followers created their own religion based on his teachings. Jesus didn't founded Christianity. Paul pretty much founded it as an independent religion separated from Judaism.
There are many pagan things in Christianity (besides the holidays). The Mithras cult but also Zoroastrianism and Greek/Roman religions have influenced a lot on Christianity etc.
However I see Jesus as a Jewish reformer. He wanted to make Judaism more humane at the time. Then his followers created their own religion based on his teachings. Jesus didn't founded Christianity. Paul pretty much founded it as an independent religion separated from Judaism.
There are many pagan things in Christianity (besides the holidays). The Mithras cult but also Zoroastrianism and Greek/Roman religions have influenced a lot on Christianity etc.
bubbleguppy
Serial Forum Observer
To be honest, I like many the core values of Christianity! I even like Jesus a heck of a lot! Love is amazing! I just don't believe in His divinity, and there are some troubling values such as the dedication to killing "sorcerers", anti-science ideals, and anti-LGBT themes that do not sit well with me. If the religion were solely about love without committing to believing a dude I never knew was God incarnate I might be down for it, but unfortunately (for me) neither of those things are true.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Meh. None of that is really important to me, I'm just not into tales designed for children.
You didn't address a single aspect of my argument. You merely disagreed with its conclusion, then made unsubstantiated claims about nature and Darwin's theory, neither of which have anything to do with marriage, then repeated the mistake already refuted that procreation and propagation require a legal understanding, which is clearly not the case.
Do you disagree that marriage is a human construct rather than a law of nature? Do you disagree that marriage is distinct from pair bonding, mating, setting up a household, and child rearing. Do you disagree that all of that can be done without marriage? Do you disagree that marriage is the legal arrangement added to that for purposes of defining the rights and obligations of a couple that chooses to accept those terms? You didn't mention any of that.
If you want to attempt to rebut those specific elements that were offered in support my conclusion that there is no law of nature relevant to marriage, then we can have a discussion.
Until you do, the argument stands. My answer to you is the same as it was before your comment.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I pointed out one of your weaknesses of argument using "nature" as a means to justify gay marriage. Since you cannot respond, I'll accept it to mean you agree with me.
As for your conclusion, I suppose you are saying it's a reason to reject Christianity. It's hard for me to argue against one's worldview. They are entitled to it. If it means Christianity is against homosexual marriage, so I reject Christianity. One's entitled to this worldview.
In regards to the law, I think you are mistaken. Christianity says we must follow the law despite the Scripture being against it. It means that one has to try and work to repeal the law if it is unfair to them. They understand that 2015 changed everything and that the law could be used against them. Christians understand the law is a double edged sword.
I don't recall doing that.
@Baroodi had posted, "Christianity mutated and surrendered values until the church knelt to allowing a man to marry a man against the clear law of nature let a lone scriptures." I believe that HE was invoking natural law as an argument against same sex marriage, and I countered that claim with, "There is no law of nature relevant to marriage" Somehow, you saw that as me trying to defend same sex marriage "using nature."
That is not my position. My position is that marriage and the laws of nature are unrelated.
I happen to support same sex marriage because I support anything that increases freedom, the dignity of people, facilitating loving couples in their pursuit of happiness, and equal protection under the law.
But that was not part of my argument.
No, not that either. My reason for rejecting Christianity is that it seems neither correct nor helpful, and I disapprove oof many of its values, including homophobia. On another thread, you've been writing about the persecution of Christians. I see the church's position on this matter as a continuation of its centuries long persecution of homosexuals, which is antithetical to my values.
And you still haven't addresses the elements of my argument - all of those "Do you disagree?"s - nor why they don't lead to the conclusion I suggested they do. Can we assume that you have no intention of so doing?
james bond
Well-Known Member
>>IANS: My reason for rejecting Christianity is that it seems neither correct nor helpful, and I disapprove oof many of its values, including homophobia.<<
The Bible doesn't rail against same-sex marriage. What it preaches against is homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. That's different from being homophobic. Most, if not all, Christian churches accept gays even though they may not allow for gay ministers or perform gay marriage. Gays and lesbians are part of one's family or one's schools, workplace and communities. We can't just refuse to interact, be friends, and not share with them. Today, I think ministers are working to get same-sex marriage as part of the church because the law has changed. However, many churches may resist believing that homosexuality being a sin overrides it.
Why is it a sin in God's eyes? I think God does not view homosexuality as natural. It is a choice just like using drugs is a choice and that it leads to not what God intended for sex and marriage to be. As for other reasons, I'm not certain, but I think it has to do with it leading to promiscuity, STD and having one's morality and sexuality skewed. In this regard, same-sex marriage would help fight that. The latter is my opinion.
If you do not believe Christianity and the Bible correct, then that's your worldview. I do take issue with not being helpful as it has turned many of shameful and addicted lives around. As for Christian values, it rails against Hollywood values.
I agree that homosexuals have been persecuted, but the subject of that thread was persecution against Christians. When I asked the poster to clarify, i.e. what other things besides Moss' book led him to his statements, he did not provide any. I even said to you, if one railed against "women, atheists, Muslims, and homosexuals," then would you hold the same opinion of Moss' book?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Sex is about procreation
Marriage defines the responsibility and legal roles of a committeded couple via religion and/or law. There is no '"straight" in committment and law. Thats all religion.
Athiesm doesnt relate to darwanism. If you go to out national museum of natural history in DC US, youd find a full historical lineage of our relationship with animals. Athiests didnt create tne exhibit. People did.
Gay (sexual orientation) has nothing to do with evolution. Sex does not either. Mirrage doesnt either. Cant imagine niandrathals talking about their sexual orientation. If christians decided to treat people based on others vwlues abd not their own, it would be a start to less desths. Religion is a human thing. Not athiest. Not evolution. Not gay.
According to the bible not all LGBT are homosexual.
According to medics the words homoeexual does not mean same sex sex.
The Church defines it as an action. Anyone (straight too) who does that action they call homosexual. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation and identity.
We can change our actions not our orientation.
Last edited:
That is correct. The church does.
And that is the basis for the homophobia. If the Bible had stated that red-haired people were an abomination to God, that would have become an irrationally and unfairly scapegoated group for that reason, and we could it accuse the Bible of inciting gingerphobia..
You might be telling us that that is not bigotry, either, but obviously, if people were making that claim on their own, it would qualify as such. Moving the claim from man to a god doesn't change that.
Not to me and millions of others.
You are referring to the God that is said to have created the world complete with many people and animals with homosexual or bisexual proclivities. I'f we assume that, we'd have to call homosexuality natural, since it's a condition frequently found in nature.
Sorry. I was not clear. I meant that one reason I reject Christianity is that it would not be helpful to me.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
There is some truth to this, that God guides certain people, but it is more complicated than that.
God guides those who He knows will believe in Him, but God does not force those who He knows will not (of their own free will) believe in Him to believe in Him.
God cannot guide people who reject Him without taking over their free will, it is like that...
"Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence, and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 145
But God will guide anyone who is sincere and makes an effort to believe in Him...
“Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.””
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 266-267
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
God could have gotten rid of original sin if there was such a thing, but there was no such thing just because Eve ate an apple.
Not even mentioned is the fruit, so apple is even just an interpolation.God could have gotten rid of original sin if there was such a thing, but there was no such thing just because Eve ate an apple.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It would make perfect sense that Muhammad would claim to come to the Jews as their Prophet, because Muhammad was the return of Moses and all the former Prophets...I wish I was more familiar with the Qur'an, but from what I know Muhammad did refer to the Torah quite a bit.
Some of the prophecies in the Bible are about Muhammad because He was the return of the Spirit of God, but Muhammad was not the Messiah who would come to usher in the Messianic Age... That was Baha'u'llah.
The answer has been given by Abdul'baha, it is not a short answer, but I post it so you can read it if you wish;
"Answer. -- Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection.
The Christ sacrificed Himself so that men might be freed from the imperfections of the physical nature and might become possessed of the virtues of the spiritual nature. This spiritual nature, which came into existence through the bounty of the Divine Reality, is the union of all perfections and appears through the breath of the Holy Spirit. It is the divine perfections; it is light, spirituality, guidance, exaltation, high aspiration, justice, love, grace, kindness to all, philanthropy, the essence of life. It is the reflection of the splendor of the Sun of Reality.
The Christ is the central point of the Holy Spirit: He is born of the Holy Spirit; He is raised up by the Holy Spirit; He is the descendant of the Holy Spirit -- that is to say, that the Reality of Christ does not descend from Adam; no, it is born of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, this verse in Corinthians, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," means, according to this terminology, that Adam is the father of man [Abu'l-bashar, I.e., the father of man, is one of the titles given by the Muslims to Adam.]-- that is to say, He is the cause of the physical life of mankind; His was the physical fatherhood. He is a living soul, but He is not the giver of spiritual life, whereas Christ is the cause of the spiritual life of man, and with regard to the spirit, His was the spiritual fatherhood. Adam is a living soul; Christ is a quickening spirit.
This physical world of man is subject to the power of the lusts, and sin is the consequence of this power of the lusts, for it is not subject to the laws of justice and holiness. The body of man is a captive of nature; it will act in accordance with whatever nature orders. It is, therefore, certain that sins such as anger, jealousy, dispute, covetousness, avarice, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, pride and tyranny exist in the physical world. All these brutal qualities exist in the nature of man. A man who has not had a spiritual education is a brute. Like the savages of Africa, whose actions, habits and morals are purely sensual, they act according to the demands of nature to such a degree that they rend and eat one another. Thus it is evident that the physical world of man is a world of sin. In this physical world man is not distinguished from the animal.
All sin comes from the demands of nature, and these demands, which arise from the physical qualities, are not sins with respect to the animals, while for man they are sin. The animal is the source of imperfections, such as anger, sensuality, jealousy, avarice, cruelty, pride: all these defects are found in animals but do not constitute sins. But in man they are sins.
Adam is the cause of man's physical life; but the Reality of Christ -- that is to say, the Word of God -- is the cause of spiritual life. It is "a quickening spirit," meaning that all the imperfections which come from the requirements of the physical life of man are transformed into human perfections by the teachings and education of that spirit. Therefore, Christ was a quickening spirit, and the cause of life in all mankind.
Adam was the cause of physical life, and as the physical world of man is the world of imperfections, and imperfections are the equivalent of death, Paul compared the physical imperfections to death.
But the mass of the Christians believe that, as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, He sinned in that He disobeyed, and that the disastrous consequences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage and have remained among His descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity. This explanation is unreasonable and evidently wrong, for it means that all men, even the Prophets and the Messengers of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment. This is far from the justice of God. If Adam was a sinner, what is the sin of Abraham? What is the fault of Isaac, or of Joseph? Of what is Moses guilty?
But Christ, Who is the Word of God, sacrificed Himself. This has two meanings, an apparent and an esoteric meaning. The outward meaning is this: Christ's intention was to represent and promote a Cause which was to educate the human world, to quicken the children of Adam, and to enlighten all mankind; and since to represent such a great Cause -- a Cause which was antagonistic to all the people of the world and all the nations and kingdoms -- meant that He would be killed and crucified, so Christ in proclaiming His mission sacrificed His life. He regarded the cross as a throne, the wound as a balm, the poison as honey and sugar. He arose to teach and educate men, and so He sacrificed Himself to give the spirit of life. He perished in body so as to quicken others by the spirit.
The second meaning of sacrifice is this: Christ was like a seed, and this seed sacrificed its own form so that the tree might grow and develop. Although the form of the seed was destroyed, its reality became apparent in perfect majesty and beauty in the form of a tree.
The position of Christ was that of absolute perfection; He made His divine perfections shine like the sun upon all believing souls, and the bounties of the light shone and radiated in the reality of men. This is why He says: "I am the bread which descended from heaven; whosoever shall eat of this bread will not die" [1 Cf. John 6:41, 50, 58.] -- that is to say, that whosoever shall partake of this divine food will attain unto eternal life: that is, every one who partakes of this bounty and receives these perfections will find eternal life, will obtain preexistent favors, will be freed from the darkness of error, and will be illuminated by the light of His guidance.
The form of the seed was sacrificed for the tree, but its perfections, because of this sacrifice, became evident and apparent -- the tree, the branches, the leaves and the blossoms being concealed in the seed. When the form of the seed was sacrificed, its perfections appeared in the perfect form of leaves, blossoms and fruits." Abdu'l-Baha : Some Answered Questions
Thus this is the bounty of Free Will, the ability to choose. The chance to be born again in the Spirit.
Regards Tony
Buddha Dharma - You may wish to read this link to confirm your thoughts - Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 45-61
Regards Tony