why reject christianity

[Unveiled Artist]

as I noted, it is not persons religious beliefs. God just exists, e.g., like a radio station emanating spiritual signals and everyone who may have a receiver can be connected.

How is that? Without the analogy. I understand the concept. Explain how knowing god (and the biblical one at that) can just be picked up like wearing an ET wire or something.

 

[joe1776]

False claim of authority is a fallacy. Logical deduction is only logical if it is stated what the assumptions are and that there is reasoning going on. For example "I deduce from the present state of Christianity that the founder's intent must have been X" so that people who are interested in really finding out their intent are not mislead. If it is a guess or deduction then make it clear, please.

[repeating the post you are challenging]

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 don't, we are threatened with Hell. Christianity can't teach love because it can't teach what it doesn't understand.

p = premise
C = Conclusion

p1 Genuine love is always unconditional;

p2 In Christianity, God's love is conditioned upon acceptance of the doctrine offered; eternal punishment in Hell is the penalty for non-acceptance;

C1 Therefore, the founders of Christianity must not have understood that genuine love is always unconditional;

p3 In order to teach a topic, one must first understand it;

C2 Therefore, having created a god that loves conditionally, the founders of Christianity were incapable of teaching genuine love.

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps because Christianity rejects them.

Everyone will have particular teachings they dislike. The root problem, for me, is that western Christianity views God as a person with feelings and emotions, like a big toddler; who loves you if you do what it wants and hates you if you don't. You shall find salvation, if you just "believe" - seriously? Nobody can make themselves believe any more than you can make yourself love or respect someone you don't. You can 'fake' it though and there's a thought.

I personally believe Jesus did exist (Josephus mentions him). The Romans thought he was a trouble maker - perhaps some Jews did too, so he was crucified. What that means to me is that he only had three years to preach, which is a great shame, as we only know the tip of the iceberg.

Nothing wrong with love but many legalistic Christians are manipulative and judgemental. Not much love there - too many strings attached.

Sure, if you tell them that there is a super sentient being somewhere up there, they're going to expect you to produce evidence. The irony is, that some teachings in the Bible refute this notion; just that most Christians ignore those. Too abstract probably.

So basically you are saying that a Christian can never 'know' God and will always require belief and faith. This is odd, if you think about it. I don't "believe" there's a country called Spain, because I know there is; belief and faith are unnecessary when we know something exists. The problem is, the big Sky Man doesn't, so you're stuck with belief.

Mention of Jesus in Josephus antiquities of the jews is suspect

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you suppose that one part of the communion of eating his flesh and drinking his blood might be a means of trying to justify this non-food ritual blood sacrifice?

I do like the part about his sacrifice being the last one for all time, supposedly. I'm all for ending blood sacrifice.

There is something I love about vegetarians. Almost no and somewhat yes. What follows is opinion. Jesus death serves only as an atonement for the gentiles and does not end Jewish sacrifices from what I understand. That being said the key to the sacrifice is a covenant, and the key to the covenant is forgiving one another, not blood. The ancient law states that a sacrifice is used, its blood drained and everyone eats the flesh though not the fat. Upon this code is built the peace of the modern world. For its time it is very progressive, and there is no telling if we will need to fall back on it again someday if everything goes to hell. Hopefully not.

Despite what the ancient code requires, it is entirely possible to make a covenant and atonement without any blood if all parties are willing. If you forgive me and love me, and if I forgive you and love you then all of our wrongs are atoned for are they not? Why would God stand in the way of such forgiveness? I deduce or guess that the sacrifice means a shared meal but also a treaty, like a marriage. When you partake of communion you drop your vengeance and consider yourself avenged as you have taken blood, and you consider yourself also to be related to everyone else eating and drinking. All offenses are to be dropped as if you are all suddenly related through marriage. The idea is to preserve peace and life, yes.

The red color of the blood is the reason I think why it is central to the code. We all have red blood, and so once some of it is spilled it is enough to consider all offenses paid. Red blood spilled is your own. The red color is emphasized and used to suggest we are all related, so it is used as a powerful unifying symbol. It is family blood after all, and it is our own blood that has been spilled.

I think the word LORD is the word for this covenant for Jews (but cannot say for certain), and Jesus is the name of this covenant for Christians. That is probably a little hard for some people to agree with, but I don't mind telling you what I think. Its not a reverent way of speaking, but I think sometimes speaking irreverently is required.

So....yes but the death of Jesus does not close the requirement of sacrificing animals for Jews.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

don you really think billions of people ever lived were fooled?

No. You would need to explain what they are fooled of. Who knows, you can be fooled too.

What benefit do you recieve from saying other people are fooled from Your truth?

Ignorant, yes. We cant read your mind. Fools??

 

[David T]

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 have no idea.Its a fraud? Its superficial? it's full of itself? Don't confuse church with the text that's self serving self love in full self servicing, which is more obscene than anything any atheist can come up with. Christianity's copyright ran out. It does not own the text. Its a now a platform for hucksters, frauds, and charlatans.

I feel the love baby coming from a marketing slogan by a privately held Corp called the federal reserve. Where is the outrage "believer"?

Christianity is so screwy even Dylan stepped into and realized ooops my old song is more right than I realized this place is nuts it's filled with normal people.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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?

We need not throw the baby (Jesus/love) out with the bathwater (religion).

But the bathwater surely is due for a change.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

as I noted, it is not persons religious beliefs. God just exists, e.g., like a radio station emanating spiritual signals and everyone who may have a receiver can be connected.

I like that.

I think everyone has the radio receiver, but most people tune to a different station.

 

[socharlie]

I like that.

I think everyone has the radio receiver, but most people tune to a different station.

different station may be ok, important is that that it actually function...

 

[socharlie]

No. You would need to explain what they are fooled of. Who knows, you can be fooled too.

What benefit do you recieve from saying other people are fooled from Your truth?

Ignorant, yes. We cant read your mind. Fools??

fooled believing that God is real? Relationship is between God and I, just two sides, that is only benefit I get. Atheism disregards faith of billions, their experience can not be real?

 

[socharlie]

fooled believing that God is real? Relationship is between God and I, just two sides, that is only benefit I get. Atheism disregards faith of billions, their experience can not be real?

they are not fooled, atheism thinks that that they are - their faith in God is baseless because atheism lacks physical proof?

 

[socharlie]

How is that? Without the analogy. I understand the concept. Explain how knowing god (and the biblical one at that) can just be picked up like wearing an ET wire or something.

I can not explain that, it just happens, you just know it. Bible has nothing to do with this, it happens to all theists.

 

[ChristineM]

fooled believing that God is real? Relationship is between God and I, just two sides, that is only benefit I get. Atheism disregards faith of billions, their experience can not be real?

Nope atheism does not disregard the faith of others, it knows only too well what that faith can do. Yours for example attempts to diminish and belittle atheism by pouring your pet hatreds and misunderstanding on them

Atheism does however not believe in god, nothing more, nothing less. The definition is explicit, anything other than that is not included in atheism.

For you to paint atheists with your pet hatreds only highlights ignorance and intolerance of atheism. If that's what your belief in goid does to you then again, i am proud to be godless

 

[Unveiled Artist]

fooled believing that God is real? Relationship is between God and I, just two sides, that is only benefit I get. Atheism disregards faith of billions, their experience can not be real?

I was wondering what benefit is it to think atheist are fooled because they dont know your god?

Not all people believe in a creator. There are billions of abrahamic believers but they dont speak for everyone else. Least thats the ideal. Christians, pagans, muslims, etc killed others who didnt comform to religious/political beliefs. If anything, atheist have the upperhand. Why follow a religion that sees others not like them fools?

Of course atheist experiences are real. Are they aliens?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can not explain that, it just happens, you just know it. Bible has nothing to do with this, it happens to all theists.

Why call people fools for not receiving your specific revelation?

All theist experience gods (not god) differently. some as a force. Some not as a creator. Some as a disobodies spirit. Others as an "essense" some gods cant speak for themselves. They have spirits and ancestors speak on its behalf since god cant be known directly. Others have no relationship with god because he exist but does not interact with anything. Gods can be like humans such as Buddhist deities. Others god is not seperate but is all and through all.

Atheism by definition is the opposite of theism. As for the def. you know of is personal just as their are atheist hindus and atheist pagans. Everyone has a "but..." but Im different...not me....I dont think like that.

Theism doesnt describe one view of gods.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

I love the Torah, I love the apocrypha, I love Jesus' parables.
However, I don't like the theology, the self-infatuated doctrines, the Christian religion itself in it's general state (and dispersion) and the kinds of dumbed-down way it is assumed into Churches.

The texts are fine and I have several Bibles myself (which I routinely get out and read from, among many other religious texts) but the religion made out of the texts is not beneficial to my spiritual growth and development in any way.
Still, my family (and extended family) is Christian, some of my friends are Christian and I've had Christian girlfriends. Yet, I'd rather stick to Jewish mysticism and Gnosticism (when it comes to Abrahamic religion in general)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I expect that is why "god"(s) are so like projections of human beings.

All we can know of God is through His Messengers.

Many do see them only as men like our own selves. But they are not, they are the cause of all life, they are our only connection to God.

Regards Tony

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yeah, about that. Only Christians, Muslims and Baha'is believe in Jesus as messiah.

Muslims don't. Jesus was just a prophet to them.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

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 reject it because it really makes no sense. It presents concepts that are not unlikely. They're impossible.

Example: Hypostatic Union

The notion that God and human can be equally both at the same time inside a single vessel. That is frankly, beyond any logic. That's like saying water and dirt can mix and stay water and dirt. I'm being nice by not going into how horrid I find the atonement concept, and trying not to offend my Christian friends on here.

Does the crucifixion of Christ mean anything to me?

Should it? How many people did the Romans crucify daily? Yearly? Do their crucifixions mean anything?

As for this question: don't I like a religion based on love?

What does one have to do with the other? Is something being loving enough to make it true? Does the love equate with any truth value?

Buddhism is a religion of love. I could as easily ask you: why don't you like Buddhism?

People believe in many things, so I'm not sure how that alone makes Christianity true.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

In my opinion Christianity is rejected when it becomes brittle, too inflexible to allow multiple points of view.

Okay, so are you saying then: you don't think a person can hear the premises of Christianity and reject them? You don't think that could happen? It must be the intolerance of some churches? I know people that leave very liberal churches that aren't 'brittle'.

It always strikes me as odd that some Christians seem to think no one could reject the logic of their religion.