Why Are People So Critical About Christian Beliefs

[Pinewald]

This is a secretly orchestrated plan to gradually rot out the real US and to have the bad guys from various enemy sides to control our real US like a puppet, this is all a plan to attrition away our nation like a cancer on a declining cognizant eldery person.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because, of course, the central fucking message of the New Testament is irrelevant when confronted with Leviticus, a book of guidelines for Jewish priests, or out of context quotes from Paul.

Except it isnt the central message. Forgiveness is.
Oh, and yeah, forgiveness isnt allowance surprise surprise.

If ya noticed, Christ forgave people their sins... and told them not to sin anymore. That wasnt "OK you're going to heaven, so sin away."

Just because we are loving, doesnt mean we should approve or tolerate evil.

No... but that judgement isn't yours to make.

[Grave_n_idle]

:palm: You people really hate christians..

Not at all. I mean, maybe I don't speak for all Atheists - and I wouldn't want to try - but I'm a pro-religion Atheist. I think religion is a wonderful thing - even Christianity - just... not for me. And even I would 'believe' if I could.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, not really.
But I think the world would be a better place without religion, and I can't trust anyone who truly believes, since their moral code is fundamentally compromised.

My moral code is compromised....Mind telling me how?

The argument is fairly simple, actually. If a moral code is about deciding what is 'right' and what is 'wrong', then strict adherents to a religious code are compromised in as much as they don't (tend to) make those decisions themselves, but instead have all their moral questions answered in advance by someone else.

[Samuraikoku]

Just because we are loving, doesnt mean we should approve or tolerate evil.

If someone told me that, I'd answer like this:

(*Pulls shirt over head*)

Are you threatening me? I AM CORNHOLIO!

[Risen Britannia]

why am i critical about Christian beliefs?
(This is from an ex-Christian btw)

1- they say im going to hell and then wonder why i dislike them
2- its the only religious group i know anything about or come into regular contact

religious man "do you have evidence for the big bang?"
science man "well we have wholes in the theory but we are working on it"
religious man "well untill you have evidence im going to belive in god"
science man "so where is your evidence then for god?"
religious man "there is more to life than evidence

that winds me up to no end

also here a quote i like
"tell me why you dont believe in the other religions, and thats why i dont belive in yours"

anyway only 38% of the UK believe in a god

[-St George]

Because, of course, the central fucking message of the New Testament is irrelevant when confronted with Leviticus, a book of guidelines for Jewish priests, or out of context quotes from Paul.

Except it isnt the central message. Forgiveness is.
Oh, and yeah, forgiveness isnt allowance surprise surprise.

If ya noticed, Christ forgave people their sins... and told them not to sin anymore. That wasnt "OK you're going to heaven, so sin away."

Just because we are loving, doesnt mean we should approve or tolerate evil.

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. So how is it evil?

[Dyakovo]

Except it isnt the central message. Forgiveness is.
Oh, and yeah, forgiveness isnt allowance surprise surprise.

If ya noticed, Christ forgave people their sins... and told them not to sin anymore. That wasnt "OK you're going to heaven, so sin away."

Just because we are loving, doesnt mean we should approve or tolerate evil.

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Yeah, it really does...

[Alowwvia]

Because, of course, the central fucking message of the New Testament is irrelevant when confronted with Leviticus, a book of guidelines for Jewish priests, or out of context quotes from Paul.

Except it isnt the central message. Forgiveness is.
Oh, and yeah, forgiveness isnt allowance surprise surprise.

If ya noticed, Christ forgave people their sins... and told them not to sin anymore. That wasnt "OK you're going to heaven, so sin away."

Just because we are loving, doesnt mean we should approve or tolerate evil.

Evil is subjective.

[Sociobiology]

Actually, my moral code says "No compromise." >_>

And that's why people like you are the biggest problem with Christianity. People all too willing to misinterpret and even rewrite the Bible in order to justify bigotry. People who ignore the words of Jesus in Mathew 5 when tells us to love everyone as our neighbour. People who turn up at the funerals of gays and other so-called 'decadents' and act disgustingly and disgracefully. People who use the Bible as a weapon of bigotry and reinforce the sterotype of Christians being hateful apologists for genocide, rape, murder and any number of other crimes.

Your 'moral code' is not Christian in the slightest, and should be challenged by Christians and non-Christians alike.

the very fact you have two Christians with opposing morality but both claim an absolute source for said morality, is the flaw. Absolute yet ambiguous morality is the most dangerous form imaginable.

[Samuraikoku]

Christianity fails to serve a purpose in this modern world. Bushîdo, on the other hand...

[-St George]

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Yeah, it really does...

Do I have to explain again? I swear I've done it for you in another thread...

[Dyakovo]

Yeah, it really does...

Do I have to explain again? I swear I've done it for you in another thread...

Feel free. And I will, once again, show you why you are wrong.

[-St George]

Do I have to explain again? I swear I've done it for you in another thread...

Feel free. And I will, once again, show you why you are wrong.

See here.

[Dyakovo]

Feel free. And I will, once again, show you why you are wrong.

See here.

Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
1 Samuel 20:31-3
1 Kings 14:24
Isaiah 3:9
Romans 1:26-8
Romans 1:31-2
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:10

[Norstal]

This is a secretly orchestrated plan to gradually rot out the real US and to have the bad guys from various enemy sides to control our real US like a puppet, this is all a plan to attrition away our nation like a cancer on a declining cognizant eldery person.

Yes! I bet the Soviets invented a time machine and invented Christianity to ruin the U.S. Thus now, in our timeline, we have a religion that is destroying humanity little by little.

[Pinewald]

:palm: You people really hate christians..

Not at all. I mean, maybe I don't speak for all Atheists - and I wouldn't want to try - but I'm a pro-religion Atheist. I think religion is a wonderful thing - even Christianity - just... not for me. And even I would 'believe' if I could.

Great post, I was an Atheist for six years or so, one of the main motivators for it was all the religiously, practically book throwing ultra mega Christians thinking I want to hear about religion.

All the positive religions are based on doing good things, if you do that, all is not lost. Wow, I hope I don't go to hell for posting that!

I almost converted to modern Mormonism, but the more I read about it, the more I knew it was loony, even the modern system for it. Not the FLDS stuff included, loonier.

[Pinewald]

Just because we are loving, doesnt mean we should approve or tolerate evil.

If someone told me that, I'd answer like this:

(*Pulls shirt over head*)

Are you threatening me? I AM CORNHOLIO!

IMFAO!

[Samuraikoku]

Yes! I bet the Soviets invented a time machine and invented Christianity to ruin the U.S. Thus now, in our timeline, we have a religion that is destroying humanity little by little.

You know, someone in EA can listen and make Command and Conquer: Red Alert 4 out of that plotline.

[Xenohumanity]

The roman empire documented it, look it up if you want to. And again, who would die for something they know is a lie, I certainly wouldn't.

As a Christian who supports good arguments in debate, I humbly refute the concept that death for a lie is impossible. If you believe something hard enough, even if it is false, you can die for it. Admittedly, many members of the People's Temple were forced into suicide or hid when they began handing out the cyanide Kool-Aid, but we can safely assume that the more devout members of the cult gladly welcomed the orders from Jim Jones with open arms.

[Xenohumanity]

Oh really, so you believe that once upon a time there was nothing and then it exploded into mostly hydrogen which somehow turned into dust which then made planets and lightning zapped the water turning it into a mixture of 2 percent amino acids and 98 percent life inhibiting toxins and that mixture of nonliving particles somehow became living and then evolved into humans.

I'm a church-going Catholic...
...And even I think that's a mis-interpretation of scientifically accepted Big-Bang/galactic molecular/biological evolution theory.

[Xenohumanity]

And you believe that somehow a sentient being exists from nothing and created a planet to sustain life forms, and then made a man out of dirt and woman out of his rib? Then he gave them free will, but told them not to eat a piece of fruit because it would make them intelligent? And then, even though he was all-seeing, he ignored the fact that he knew an angel would turn into a snake with legs and talk the rib-woman into eating the fruit, then acted surprised and punished them? And then he pulled the legs off the snake and kicks the people out of a garden and later flooded the world because he didn't like how people were living, even though he told them they could do whatever? And then he impregnated a virgin with himself so he could be born as himself as a human, talk to himself, refer to himself as father, and then allow himself to be killed? And then he caused himself to become a cosmic Jewish zombie who ascended into heaven, but heaven isn't a physical place? And then he "changed" even though he knew he was going to change and think differently? And also, he allowed that former-angel/snake to plant evidence to try to make people not believe in him, and then when people don't believe him, or commits any of his thousands of ridiculous sins in a finite time, he punishes you for eternity and considers it a fair trade? And also even though he will fuck you up for not believing in him, he refuses to give proof of himself, just so he can LOL because you aren't gullible? And then, you consider this guy to be a good dude?
Sounds legit.

Yep, He is. Though it wasnt cuz itd make them intelligent, it was so they wouldnt know what they shouldnt. And He saw the serpent coming, but He didnt intervene because it would stop free will.
According to the Dake's commentary on the Bible, heaven is a literal planet too...
Theres more. But yeap, He is a legit, good guy.

[Xenohumanity]

This is a secretly orchestrated plan to gradually rot out the real US and to have the bad guys from various enemy sides to control our real US like a puppet, this is all a plan to attrition away our nation like a cancer on a declining cognizant eldery person.

Uh...
We talkin' 'bout d' Chrischins or d' haters now? 'Cuz I confused.

[Xenohumanity]

Now, she's a Catholic and when she was divorced she went someday to the Church, the priest refused to give her the Communion just because she was a "sinning" woman.

Well, then that priest was a bad one. You can get divorces in the Catholic Church if the marriage is dangerous to you, and you can indeed re-marry if your partner dies before you. Whatever that priest was smoking, it definitely wasn't the Baltimore Catechism. You can't be denied communion, either. If you take it with mortal sin on you, that's grave sacrilege, but you still can go up and damn yourself. Nobody has the right or power to deny it to you. Sometime, it's distressing to see how little priests know about the religion they profess. It's like Abe Lincoln said: "Whatever you are, be a good one." That's my view in religion: I don't care what you are, but be good at it, seemingly alien beliefs and everything. It's better that everyone is well-moralled enough to respect alien beliefs than to have a world populated by xenophobes and raving zealots.

[-St George]

See here.

Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
1 Samuel 20:31-3
1 Kings 14:24
Isaiah 3:9
Romans 1:26-8
Romans 1:31-2
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:10

And here I thought people were actually reading my posts on Leviticus, Corinthians and others. Silly me...

But let's do it anyway.
Leviticus 18:22: ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
You see, this reads as a condemnation of Homosexuality, indeed. Until you do something rarely done when debating scripture, look at the context. Leviticus is a book of guidelines for Jewish Priests. Now, I am not a rabbi. So why exactly should I follow it?
Leviticus 20:13: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
This, again, reads as a condemnation of homosexuality, but this passage throws up two questions. 1. Can a man have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman? and 2. The passage quoted is from the New International Version, which has been guilty of rewriting passages elsewhere in the Bible, so is this passage accurate of the original text?

The answer to the first question is, perhaps. Both men and women can engage in anal sex, so it is likely it is condemning homosexuality. The answer to the second is, not entirely. The King James Version, which is far from the original text, but is accurate enough has the passage as follows: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Not the differences.

Also note the differences between the KJ version, the NI version and the translated word-for-word Herbrew:

They state that a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew is:
"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."

In modern English this could be translated as:

"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

This does not generally forbid homosexual behavior between two men. It only limits where the act can be done.

And, again, Leviticus is both a set of guidelines for Jewish Priests and apart of the Old Covenant between God and Israel, which is irrelevant in the Christian faith, as it is replaced with the New Covenant. Leviticus and the like only serve as a psuedo-history of pre-Christian Abrahamic Faith.
1 Samuel 20:31-33: As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send someone to bring him to me, for he must die!”

32 “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” Jonathan asked his father. 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David.
Just how, pray tell, is this a condemnation of Homosexuality? Especially as it is Saul speaking, and not God/God speaking with the voice of Saul? Doubly so when you look at the context of the 1 Samuel 20 which essentially tells the homosexual version of Romeo and Juliet?
1 Kings 14:24: There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
Now, 14:24 speaks of Male Prostitutes, which, I'm going to assume, where fairly rare at the time, so it may be more a statement of shocked disgust more than anything (as male prostitutes would be worse than female ones in the male dominated Jewish society). Then I looked at the proceeding passages, and 1 Kings 14: 21-29, as Chapter 14 is split into this story, and that of Ahijah’s Prophecy Against Jeroboam. Verses 21-29 speak of the excesses and 'evils' of Judah's reign as king of Israel, and the events of his reign also. I'm not seeing the condemnation of homosexuality here.
Isaiah 3:9: The look on their faces testifies against them;
they parade their sin like Sodom;
they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
They have brought disaster upon themselves.
Isaiah speaks of Sodom, of which it has been incorrectly claimed to have been destroyed for the Sodomites engaging in homosexual acts. The actual story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and two further Caananite cities that were apparently destroyed by God (the actual names of Sodom and Gomorrah are lost, these two seem to have been given after the event occurred) is recorded in Genesis, specifically Genesis 19.

But, again, rarely is context taken into account in these things. Genesis 14:1-2 states that Sodom had recently been attacked by foreign kings (them being Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer, king of Elam and Tidal, king of Goyim), so the two 'angels' would've been regarded with suspicion anyway. The mob that gathers around Lot's house demands Lot hand them over so they can rape them, homosexual rape was a common method of humiliation at the time, being so different from consensual heterosexual rape. Lot's actions in offering his daughters to the mob are explained by a) the male dominated culture of the time and b) the same culture that demanded you protect visitors inside your home.

It should noted that, in the Islamic Hadith, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not homosexuality, but of their ungodliness and attitude to strangers. This isn't to say the Hadith doesn't condemn homosexuality, but to give a wider range of interpretations of the story beyond the 'gaysrbaaad' version.
Romans 1:26-28 and Romans 1:31-32: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
-snip-
they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I don't entirely understand why you've not just asked for Romans 1:26-32, but then again, that provide some context. I shall, for that reason, post the entirety of the story in Romans 1:18-32 below:

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

As I have said before, this story refers to a single group of Christians who left the faith (and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. - Verse 23) and proceeded to engage in orgies of both the homosexual and heterosexual kind ( Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. - Verse 24.) Several times Romans 1:18-32 starts a verse with 'God gave them over', i.e. God prompted them to do such acts. Why would God prompt them to do acts that he apparently condemns?

Further, we again see here that the New International Version has reworded it so it reads more of a condemnation of homosexuality as a whole, and less of a condemnation of the group committing acts that are unnatural to them alone.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Ah, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Reads like a condemnation of homosexuality, doesn't it? Well, let's give it some context.

The verse in the King James Version: 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Well, what do you know, 'men who have sex with men' isn't in the King James? The reason for this is that the passage was rewritten by the 'writers' of the NIV, and numerous other 'modern' Bible versions. The 'men who have sex with men' comes from the Greek word 'arsenokoitai', a word which Paul invented. Had he been referring to homosexuality, why did he not use the accepted word of the time, 'paiderasste'?

It should be noted that, during the Middle Ages and even up until the late 60s, the Catholic Church thought that 'arsenokoitai' referred to masturbation. Other interpretations claim the word means 'pimp', 'homosexual offenders' or 'male temple prostitutes'. Now, if either of the latter two are correct, should they be taken as a condemnation of homosexuality as a whole?
1 Timothy 1:10: for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
Another one that reads, in the NIV at least, as a condemnation of homosexuality. Until of course you find out that the passage in Greeks, like 1 Corinthians, uses the word 'arsenokoitai'.

So, can we really say it condemns homosexuality? Or that the passage has been rewritten by so-called Christians to justify bigotry?