All the problems with Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

Very interesting...my Grandfather was A Catholic Priest that rebelled against the Vatican...speculation by my mother that my life was cursed for that....

I am not easily influenced by things like that.

Coming here to post this of what may be my last post here...I'm not sure about that...nice to see your face last on this thread...as you have a most open mind I see here yet...along with a few others about everything about GodETC.

I call this 418 For INfinity Now. It IS about True love True Will and yes that one that some people call God Allah or whatever...

What I find is the most important THAT beyond faith or hope is simply believing in me.

aND for some people to experience true love IT only two words or less...IT took me over 5 millions just to gain that part that was lost...every sacred number, Letter and word is worth IT because true love is life...and no not just the emotional kind...

http://katiemiaaghogday.blogspot.com/2013/08/418.html

The common essential features of religion do not indicate that their claims are true, but that they operate on the human mind in similar ways. For example, by setting up impossible demands (e.g. that even an erotic thought warrants eternal torture in hell), which people are guaranteed to fail at meeting, they are in debt to avoid the imaginary consequences. So the consequences tend to have things in common too (e.g. scary place of eternal torture for disobedience). The principles for exploiting and manipulating human wishful thinking, fears and weaknesses are universal, as are the types of human desires and imaginings that work best. It's a mind trap which turns gullibility and grovelling slave mentality into alleged virtues, and channels the highest and lowest of humanity to its own ends.

There's a different post I want to respond to and just haven't had time, but this one raises a similar issue I'll address more later.

In Christianity, God's own righteousness is held up as an ideal. The path of the sinner is to ultimately realize that without God's grace and forgiveness, attaining God's righteousness is impossible. NO ONE is ever exempt from human nature, hence the need for salvation. Only in death can the believer find fulfillment and ultimately attain this measure of perfection. We can't worry about that in the living years because not even believers are perfect. It's only through faith that we trust that God will rescue us (and has already) when the time comes.

Christianity in its purest form does not require any ritual, song-and-dance kind of process to get there. All that is required is that we humble ourselves, admit our faults as imperfect human beings, ask for and accept God's forgiveness through the atoning work of Christ. Sure, you should expect to see a change in a person's life after that, but it is because of the willingness of the believer to do those things rather than some man-made requirement. Christianity in its purest form is unique in that regard, whereas other religions do teach that it's about doing more good than bad and hoping that the good outweighs all else. Christianity teaches that only God is good and nothing we can do per se can save us. Salvation only frees us from our guilt, nothing more in terms of what we do in this world. All other good things we do from that point forward flow from our desire to follow Jesus' example, not from "hoping the good outweighs the bad."

That's not to say that Christianity as an ORGANIZED religion hasn't been manipulative, and that's not to say that many professing Christians haven't been gullible, or that some churches and church leaders haven't used the name of Jesus for false purposes. It's just that authentic Christianity isn't about any of that. Some people do find comfort in ritual or feel better trusting in a church leader. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, either, because giving comfort to those who are emotionally or spiritually needy is perhaps an even more important role than taking care of physical needs alone--and providing physical and spiritual comfort is something all Christians should be doing, anyway. There's nothing wrong with organized Christianity because it is more effective if Christians are unified. All I'm saying is any organized religion is unfortunately open to abuse from those with less than pure motives. If you're following Christ and you find yourself in a congregation that is abusive and manipulative, there are PLENTY churches out there in most places you can attend, not just one.

What caught my attention was that you mentioned the "highest and lowest" of humanity. Two things:

Christianity teaches that there is no "highest" or "lowest" and that all are equal in God's sight. Pharisaic Judaism of the 1st century held that material blessings were a sign that one was approved before God. In order to be "saved" (for lack of a better term), one should accumulate wealth. Religious leaders of the time were wealthy because they lived within the comforts of the burnt offerings and taxes that the nation of Israel was required to give them. And they weren't the ONLY wealthy people at the time; but now, just as back then, there were poor people who for all sorts of reasons either did not know how to accumulate wealth, figured out the principles of wealth-building too late in life for it to have any significant impact, did not inherit wealth or were unable to hang on to it, or were simply unable to build wealth for whatever reason. Jesus taught His disciples to give up everything, which caused them to doubt their salvation, to which Jesus responded by reminding them that salvation doesn't depend on wealth. The point is that all are free to accept God's grace. It doesn't matter if you're a murderer on death row, a billionaire, homeless, an octogenarian, or a kindergartner. God's grace is free to all who are willing to accept it. There is no "highest" or "lowest."

The other thing is many people just feel helpless, that we are all slaves in some capacity and are unable to do anything for ourselves. It's not some delusional mentality unique to those who are already Christians. If we're being honest, we're not completely free. We're all slaves to something. In the Old Testament there is a law that allows slaves to run away from oppressive masters by running to a benevolent master who, by law, cannot return the slave to the original master. If being a slave to the world is unfulfilling, one may always run to God and escape the kinds of worry that come with the alternative. We live the best lives we can while we're here, but it is God's kingdom that we ultimately look to.

Which brings me to that whole fear of eternal consequences thing...

Let's say someone was a lifelong, anti-theistic atheist committed to the delusion that somehow God can simply be wished away by those who adamantly DO NOT WANT to believe and absolutely would not accept any evidence, no matter how inescapable or incontrovertible--even if that meant meeting God Himself. Would it be better for God to enslave his mind for all eternity in Heaven, to condemn him to an eternity in the presence of the Supreme Being he never wanted to accept in life? Or would that just be another hell? I'll never have to worry about it, of course; but I think if I had to make the choice, I'd prefer God setting me free in the "outer darkness" where I'd at least have the company of my own sorrow than the presence of the One I hated most. Just my opinion, of course, but something to think about...

I have nothing against Christianity. I do,however, strongly object to what it has become. Constantine changed Christ's message from spirituality (Luke 17:21) to a system of social control (based on obedience, submissiveness ).

Firstly, I was speaking generally about common patterns, regarding what Aghogday wrote, as quoted. This was regarding the similarities of different religions being held up as evidence of some sort. It's a mystical perspective which I'm familiar with.

AngelRho, you're speaking about specific details of Christianity, as you present it. I was speaking about a range of common characteristics. Every religion has differences (product differentiation, as it's known in marketing), which gives believers a buzz/ego trip for thinking they're special.

All you've done here is illustrate one of my points. The requirements of "righteousness", such as denying human nature, that is, unnatural rules, are bound to be violated, and then we're supposedly in debt. Typical con. To be free from this "debt", we're expected to accept a human sacrifice, believe claims without evidence, and submit to enslavement.



No? Your religion's claims as above are quite manipulative, and you'd have to be gullible to believe them. I see that you think you have the true faith. That's what they all think. I'm sure you can point out plenty of faults in other religions & other ("false") versions of Christianity, but that still doesn't make your fantasy a reality.





By "highest", I meant for example great art, or deep experiences in the beauty of the natural world. By "lowest", I meant for example war. Again, that was speaking generally, and I'm sure you'd argue that your pure version of Christianity is justified or deserving, and that it's only "false" religion that sends people to war / "unjust" war / whatever. Maybe (hopefully) you're a pacifist. That's beside the point anyway.



Preserving rather than coping with fear of death by false hope keeps people helpless. Like living with a gun against your head, you must always be obedient to unnatural and impossible rules and go further into debt for failing, as you inevitably will - and feel even more helpless for doing so.

Slave to breathing for example? Why not make that a sin too, then we'll be in more debt and need to your ransom sacrifice even more.
Slavery to a thought police God is a great oppression that we're far better off without.



So you think solid evidence isn't necessary because it'd never be enough with some people? What a load of bollocks. This idea that some people don't want to believe, or refuse to because they'd have to follow rules or whatever, I think it's mostly something that religious people tell themselves to explain away why others don't believe. Atheists in my experience, including myself, tend to wish there was a God, eternal life, etc., but there's just no solid reason to believe. If there was a God, don't you think it would be just good manners to give more reason to believe than we have, if the consequences of not believing are eternal torture? I don't believe in your myth because it's just not credible.

How about that whole, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" thing. That was surely authentic as well as evil. You see, the "true" purposes can be even worse than the "false" ones.


False premise. Atheists accept evidence, that's their whole thing, that's what science is about. If there was evidence, we would have to believe it, even if the idea is repulsive, which it is.

After dating my future wife after only two months I asked her to marry me. She responded,"thats weird." I responded,"well do you like weird"?It worked!! !
Anyway, I like my weird response. I agree with both of you! And do not accuse me of being diplomatic, I'm hardly that! What I am saying is that both of you hate modern Christianity. And yet you both like (if you knew history) what Christ actually said.

Atheists reject the notion of God; nothing more to it. Replace 'atheists' with 'Christians', 'Jews', "new agers' and your sentence will be the same gross generalisation.

Jesus was a guy that was obviously interested in religion and philosophy. At his time and area Buddhism and Greek philosophy were well known. Remember that Judea was a crossroad between Greece and India. Also that Alexander the Great had been to India hundreds of years before Jesus birth. Jesus was overwhelmingly Jewish. However, he incorporated Buddhist ideas and ancient Greek philosophical ideas. For example, Jesus (even in the gospels that escaped censorship) was a man for the poor and when confronted with the idea that he was blasphemous for claiming to be the son of God,responded by saying you are also a child of God and that God (Luke 17:21) is within you as much as me!
Unfortunately,. Constantine transformed Christ's spiritual message into one that facilitated social hierarchy (obedience and submission to authority ).

Jesus was a control freak and passive-aggressive. Jesus' suffering for mankind is dwarfed by the suffering experienced by even one of the billions of people he has personally shoved into the pits of hell.

If Jesus had been influenced by Buddhism, wouldn't he have referred to Gautama as well as other Eastern thinkers? He did no such thing.

OK, as an intellectual he had no interest in the ideas that surrounded him. Unlikely! You should understand Judea at his time. It would have been insane for him to claim that his ideas were influenced by Buddhism. (My idea is not only mine, it is shared by scholars)
Anyway, probably the most intense passage in the Bible is when Jesus said," My God,my God,why hast thou forsaken me." My understanding is that Jesus thought his wisdom would overcome his suffering. Unfortunately, for Jesus, the Buddhist realization that the self is an illusion was not helpful.

Jesus did not do that. Constantine did!
I call modern Christianity, Constantine Christianity. It has almost nothing in common with what Christ taught.

Let me be very clear about this! I hate Dan Brown. His interpretation is typical elitist nonsense,blood lines etc. Nice car chases in his movies tho!

Sure. Just like secular humanism.


Human sacrifice is forbidden in Judaism and Christianity.

What claims without evidence?

What enslavement?


What claims?


What fantasy?

How are your delusions more real?


What impossible rules?


How do we go further into debt? The debts of believers are already paid.


How is God "thought police"? Christians enjoy a broad range of freedom in that we don't have to concern ourselves with our eternal destiny. We look forward to the next life while trying to make the one we live in now a better world for everyone--believers and unbelievers alike.


Straw man argument here.



Again, what rules?


Well, you can think whatever you like. I'm aware that the reasons for non-belief are as diverse as the non-believers themselves.


Sure there are solid reasons to believe. Belief in some sort of Supreme Being is more than adequately rational. I would say it's more irrational NOT to believe.


Well, there IS a God, and I agree. However, the consequences of not believing are not eternal torture. Torture requires action on the part of the one inflicting pain and suffering on the victim. The torment of being eternally separated from God, on the other hand, is not about what God does to us, but rather what we do to ourselves. Torment is the inevitable result of choosing to live eternally out of God's reach, favoring an eternity of a neglect over an eternity of providence.

Besides, would an eternity with God who desires that your mind and soul be conformed to His will against your own be something you really want? For me, life is about willingly seeking what it is God wants of me as best I humanly can. My "fire insurance" (in a manner of speaking) has already been bought and paid for, so the destiny of my soul is not something that I worry about. It is because I love God and seek His presence that I try to do what is pleasing to God, not fear of what God will do to me if I don't. If this is something you feel strongly about and take issue with, then--sorry if this sounds cold, but--belonging to God and remaining forever in His presence is not for you.

Since you brought up "good manners," I'd say God has plenty good manners. He's the ultimate perfect gentleman and won't stay where He isn't wanted.

I'd also say that perhaps God already has given an abundance of reasons to believe in the past. When mankind decides that those reasons are inadequate, exactly what is left for God to do to contend with man? I mean, I'm not God or anything, but I'd probably do the same thing: Leave the best evidence of the past and let man take it on faith or not.


What "myth"?