This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Dear Christians, please form rebuttals on my arrogant objections to your faith.

#1EmbraceChaosPosted 12/4/2012 10:39:56 AM
Note: If you don't wish to get into a theological argument then please leave the topic now. You have been warned. The following below is a critical dissemination of Christianity in an arrogant and outspoken manner.

Key points to be noted from my Atheist perspective:

- Giving reverence to passages by speaking of the "Kingdom of God". The "Lord", "Messiah", "Prophet", "Anointed One", and "King", along with other such miserable shennanigans of singing about how he is "Old" and "New"... is just you giving credence to what isn't there.

You want it to be special so you say it is special. You give meaning to what is inherently meaningless words written on an old book that has long past it's point of relevance. It only exists to drag human society back to dark ages with it's words of lies.

- God isn't freedom. God determines what you eat, who you fornicate with, and in what position you are allowed to fornicate. That isn't freedom. That's thought crimes.

- Rationalizing the savage barbarity of the old testament merely renders it irrelevant. It doesn't grant the so-called holy book as morally-wise.

- If Jesus's doctrine of grace was really one of peace... then why didn't he end slavery? Why did he allow it to continue? Did he not care for the slaves who were being beaten and starved?

If slavery was really indentured servitude in the time of Jesus then why did the Bible Belt South defend slavery as God's institution of labor? This was a very common teaching during those days. Why did slavery exist within Christianity at all, if Jesus's doctrine of grace was so powerful and peaceful?

Jesus never cared for the slaves. The passages in the Bible only justify slavery, even in the new testament. Slaves obeying their masters is equivalent to people obeying Jesus. Therefore, the Bible does teach slavery of the masses.

Furthermore, in a real life setting:

I think Chris Hedges said it best when he explained that he stopped believing in God because his life was not more important than the lives of the children he had witnessed brutally murdered in the war in Sarajevo. He realized God didn't have a plan for him to watch children die, God didn't have a plan for those children to die, and his life was in no way more important than the lives of those children.

It's only narcissism within zones of safety of wanting comfort and desiring to feel special that allows for people to believe some Lord, King, Anointed One, is looking out for them from some spiritual sky.

Let's face it, just accept it, God was never real.

If he was real then every genocide that has happened, he allowed to happen via the structure of his rules. And therefore, he is not loving.

Continued to next post...
---
"Death's vastness holds no peace. I come at the end of the long road - neither human, nor devil... All bends to my will."
#2EmbraceChaos(Topic Creator)Posted 12/4/2012 10:40:35 AM
And as for the Christian Freewill argument:

Essentially, you no longer distinguish the differences between cruel and loving. You legitimize mass slaughter of innocents by rationalizing that "Oh, they're all in heaven having happy times now!".

You have no proof of such a fantasy!

It's more than likely that they are NOT in heaven. That they have simply died... and you don't care or concern yourself with loving your fellow human beings (innocent children in this case) because you like to think "oh, they're just happy and in heaven now!". Or "They're in purgatory and waiting to go to heaven now!".

The idea that they're in a better place isn't real. It's just you trying to justify selfishness in not caring that innocent children have just been slaughtered and never got the chance to live their lives and never will.

If God was found out to be the Extremist Sunni Muslim God that Al Qaeda believed in, then suicide bombings would be good under that God's terms.

That isn't a moral system at all. It's a dictatorship and brainwash but it isn't morality whatsoever.

Your morality is a broken system and the lies you tell yourself prevent you from truly loving your fellow man. Such is the wretchedness of human selfishness.




Alright, now please rebuke my contentions. Please and thank you! :)
---
"Death's vastness holds no peace. I come at the end of the long road - neither human, nor devil... All bends to my will."
#3TheRealJiraiyaPosted 12/4/2012 10:56:42 AM(edited)
You have no proof of such a fantasy!


So wait - are you objecting to the framework of my religion as it exists and the nature of the God I believe in, or challenging me to prove it?

I am more interested in arguing about the internal consistency of my faith than in trying to prove it, so if you are looking for the latter (as indicated by the above excerpt) then I will probably not participate much
---
"If a man does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable" -Seneca
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#4Faust_8Posted 12/4/2012 11:05:02 AM
Most of what you said made me instantly think "what is this I don't even..." and I've never been a real believer throughout my entire life.

You either vitriolically state your opinion with no facts, or your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Only a few points you made actually make some sense, but you didn't phrase them well.

Congrats for having all the hallmarks of a 15 year old angstheist.
---
The supernatural says that if you act a certain way you might avoid suffering. But reality says you came from the stars...
#5Hustle KongPosted 12/4/2012 11:08:40 AM
What Faust said. Along with a rolling of the eyes.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#6TheRealJiraiyaPosted 12/4/2012 11:15:48 AM
Eh.. Ill go ahead and address the internal consistency parts of your post, but if you respond to my rebuttals with "but there is no proof!" itll be uninteresting.

Lets establish what my faith is and whether it is internally consistent. THEN we can discuss whether there is any evidence tying it to reality. Makes more sense in that order.

Alright..

- Giving reverence to passages by speaking of the "Kingdom of God". The "Lord", "Messiah", "Prophet", "Anointed One", and "King", along with other such miserable shennanigans of singing about how he is "Old" and "New"... is just you giving credence to what isn't there.

You want it to be special so you say it is special. You give meaning to what is inherently meaningless words written on an old book that has long past it's point of relevance. It only exists to drag human society back to dark ages with it's words of lies.


This rant doesnt include any real debate claims.. and Im not sure how well it applies to me. Moving on

- God isn't freedom. God determines what you eat, who you fornicate with, and in what position you are allowed to fornicate. That isn't freedom. That's thought crimes.


dietary laws dont exist in modern Christianity, and bans on sexual positions are really rare too. I think both are stupid. The groups of people that believe homosexuality is acceptable, myself included, are also a steadily increasing group among Christians.

But, generally, it sounds like your complaint centers around the existence of moral rules. I dont know why you equate "freedom" with "no consequences for actions and no moral standard", but that is not my definition.

I also dont believe in objective moral rules. I believe that there exist objective moral VALUES (like, to use a cliche, love) that are descriptors of God's nature, and that we, as God's creation, feel a pull, on some level, to be like our creator. If you know something is wrong and do it anyway, that is a free choice you hvae made, and also a wrong one. The Bible does make it clear that you cannot sin out of ignorance. It is as simple as knowing what the right thing is and failing to do it. As you have no doubt done thousands of times.

- Rationalizing the savage barbarity of the old testament merely renders it irrelevant. It doesn't grant the so-called holy book as morally-wise.


Savage barbarity? There is a lot of relevance in the OT aside from "savage barbarity". I cant imagine what you mean by that term.

- If Jesus's doctrine of grace was really one of peace... then why didn't he end slavery? Why did he allow it to continue? Did he not care for the slaves who were being beaten and starved?

Jesus' ministry did not involve a whole lot of violent action against the government by forcibly undoing things that they were doing... he preached a message that, if followed, would undo all of those problems by itself, but Im not sure exactly what you want him to have done.

If slavery was really indentured servitude in the time of Jesus then why did the Bible Belt South defend slavery as God's institution of labor? This was a very common teaching during those days. Why did slavery exist within Christianity at all, if Jesus's doctrine of grace was so powerful and peaceful?


Dude, really? Why did stupid and uneducated people believe something stupid and uneducated? Why on earth should I care about what people decades ago in the Deep South thought or didnt think? How is it theologically relevant?

Jesus never cared for the slaves.

I think that seems pretty flagrantly false
---
"If a man does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable" -Seneca
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#7TheRealJiraiyaPosted 12/4/2012 11:15:56 AM
The passages in the Bible only justify slavery, even in the new testament. Slaves obeying their masters is equivalent to people obeying Jesus. Therefore, the Bible does teach slavery of the masses.


Almost every verse in the Bible dealing with slaves is restricting the badness with which they can be treated. Slavery is permitted, provided they meet a certain standard of living. Most OT slaves were criminals or something, because they didnt really have jails, and taking them in was considered a service to the community. You cant really compare that kind of slavery to what we had here.

The point of the "servants, obey your masters" passage is simply part of a series of messages, including ones about how masters should respect their servants (a common theme in the Bible), that centers around the sort of humble love Christians are to serve to all people.

I think Chris Hedges said it best when he explained that he stopped believing in God because his life was not more important than the lives of the children he had witnessed brutally murdered in the war in Sarajevo. He realized God didn't have a plan for him to watch children die, God didn't have a plan for those children to die, and his life was in no way more important than the lives of those children.


Who said his life was more important than theirs O.o ?

Jesus was asked about this sort of thing, and he explicitly said that those who avoided it werent more important. Its just the result of evil people in the world doing evil things. Those kids who were murdered were murdered by people, people given freedom, people who chose to do evil.

Let's face it, just accept it, God was never real.


Holy smokes, you werent kidding about arrogant. Sorry bud, but itll take more than a post filled with your angst to convince me.

If he was real then every genocide that has happened, he allowed to happen via the structure of his rules. And therefore, he is not loving.


Unless he thought freedom was a greater good than forced goodness, and that allowing us to mature as moral agents in a morally decaying (by our own hands) world would allow him to select people who had fought evil in this life, repented of hte evil they had done, and were able and ready to go and populate a better world that is both free and good after this life. (Note: The afterlife is not about punishment/reward, just about establishing the ideal earth)

read that last paragraph carefully, because it is the crux of my theology.

Essentially, you no longer distinguish the differences between cruel and loving. You legitimize mass slaughter of innocents by rationalizing that "Oh, they're all in heaven having happy times now!".


What

How have I done this

This whole post in this thread is just a bunch of nonsense

How could you be so ignorant
---
"If a man does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable" -Seneca
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#8SirThinkALotPosted 12/4/2012 11:16:05 AM
EmbraceChaos posted...
Giving reverence to passages by speaking of the "Kingdom of God". The "Lord", "Messiah", "Prophet", "Anointed One", and "King", along with other such miserable shennanigans of singing about how he is "Old" and "New"... is just you giving credence to what isn't there.

You want it to be special so you say it is special. You give meaning to what is inherently meaningless words written on an old book that has long past it's point of relevance.


No I dont . I'd rather not have to worry about God or the afterlife, but I dont think I have such luck.

- If Jesus's doctrine of grace was really one of peace... then why didn't he end slavery? Why did he allow it to continue? Did he not care for the slaves who were being beaten and starved?


This is actually an excellent question. And I think it comes down to two factors

1. Although slavery was widely practiced in the Roman empire, it was actually rare the point of being almost non-existent in Palestine, which is where Jesus lived and taught his entire life.

2. In the time the NT was written, slavery was such an enormous part of Roman society and culture that to wholly abolish the institution overnight would have result in total chaos and very likely even the destruction of the empire.

That said, throughout the NT we DO see, while not an outright call for abolition, a call to treat people with equality and respect, without regard to their social standing(Gal. 3:28, Eph 6:9, James 2: 1-4)

If slavery was really indentured servitude in the time of Jesus then why did the Bible Belt South defend slavery as God's institution of labor? This was a very common teaching during those days.


Because people dont do real critical study and instead just take the Bible to mean what they want?

It's only narcissism within zones of safety of wanting comfort and desiring to feel special that allows for people to believe some Lord, King, Anointed One, is looking out for them from some spiritual sky.


I actually agree to a certain extent. A lot of people I know seem to think that God is directly responsible for every minute thing that happens in their lives. Which is a rather silly way to look at the world imo.
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305
#9lastheroPosted 12/4/2012 11:29:53 AM
2. In the time the NT was written, slavery was such an enormous part of Roman society and culture that to wholly abolish the institution overnight would have result in total chaos and very likely even the destruction of the empire.


Eh, I dunno, I kind of take issue with this line of thinking. First off, it implies that God's hands were tied by the acts of men, which seems a bit silly - if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, it seems reasonable that, if he wanted to, he could have gotten rid of slavery in a way that would minimize chaos, and that even if he didn't, it wouldn't have been the end of the world if the Roman Empire was destroyed because of it.

It also begs the question of why he ever let it progress to the point where it would become such an enormous part of society that to get rid of it would cause chaos. God makes his feelings about other things he objects to very clear from the beginning - he was clearly against slavery when it was applied to his chose people, so why not anyone else? Why not punish the first slave masters with the same fervor that he punished the first Sodomites?
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#10SirThinkALotPosted 12/4/2012 11:32:12 AM
ricting the badness with which they can be treated. Slavery is permitted, provided they meet a certain standard of living. Most OT slaves were criminals or something, because they didnt really have jails, and taking them in was considered a service to the community. You cant really compare that kind of slavery to what we had here.


The OT laws actually require that every 7 years(called the 'year of Jubilee') all slaves and their families are to be freed and given a portion of their masters land. By NT times things were quite a bit different(since the Romans were in charge of things), but slavery was still rarely for life, slaves were not only permitted, but actually expected to save money to buy their freedom from their masters.

Also, in both slavery had nothing to do with race, and family members wernt kept as a slaves. If a slave died his wife and children were freed(although in practice they often continued to work for the mans master because the alternative was starvation).
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305