Why Are People So Critical About Christian Beliefs

[Frankastain]

It seems to me that people are just extremely critical of Christian beliefs. Its not just people disagree and move on they have to comment and mock it and I just want to know why. I've never done that to anyone else's beliefs so why would people do it to me.

I'm sure there's a laundry list of items even larger than what I'm going to post:
1. Egotism. Christianity demands that you acknowledge God and his commandments as superior to one's self and ways as a matter of Faith.
2. Defensiveness of the Ego. The self-centered are generally unwilling to acknowledge superiority in others to the point where no one can have anything in their life beyond what they have or believe those others ought to have.
3. Defense of one's own religious practices. In general, it seems that all religions believe that thier's is the "true path".
4. Upbringing. Like any other prejudice, the other religious sects and the non-religious can indoctrinate the young to have prejudices about Christianity.

i hate to break it to you but those things are comoon to every group

1. belief that you are correct with out this you do not belong to said group
2. this goes with the belief that you are right the logic follows that other people must be wrong
3. most groups have out spoken individuals that will defend them or attack groups that have a phiosphy that in some way threatens them
4. few parents chose to bring up their children to believe in different values then them teaching children your beliefs is second nature to all adults

[Bluth Corporation]

Michael L White's From Jesus to Christianity
and The Jesus Legend by G A Wells both go over the lack of contemporaneousness references to Jesus, it all comes long after the time of his supposed death. The biblical account is equally late referencing practices that did not occur until much later or events that never happened.

Professors White and Wells are both serious scholars whose work should be taken seriously, but it bears mentioning that theirs is nevertheless a vastly minority viewpoint. Obviously, minority does not mean wrong; but it does mean that it's patently dishonest to completely fail to acknowledge the majority viewpoint among serious scholars as being the majority viewpoint: there's a reason so many are convinced of Jesus's historicity.

Academic specialists in the ancient world are generally pretty convinced of this. My own field is modern Eastern Europe, so I'll trust their ever-growing body of work.
again source because most archeologist, and historians in the field agree the references to Jesus were not written by eyewitnesses.

Perhaps most of the ones you've read would. The problem with self-study is that you lack the guidance of an expert in the field to put various conflicting interpretations in context.

do they believe in the supernatural,

No, not in the least.

[Avenio]

i disagree their is a second group evolutionists,

'Evolutionism' is an outdated 19th century term used when evolution was still debated in the scientific community. It's rarely ever used outside of creationists who like to pin an 'ism' onto science.

prime example Dawkins who admits that he can not explain life with science and will go as far as aliens with supernatural powers did it but, dont call them gods what ever you do that would be bad

No, he's never said anything close to that. The only thing that's close is that he might have said that aliens creating life through naturalistic means is more likely than a theistic creation, which is true, in a sense. But that does not mean he actually believes that alien-based creation ever happened.

on a side note aliens with odd powers / vodo science match some religions gods most notably Scientology so dose that make Dawkins a Scientologist

As much as I dislike Scientology, that's grossly oversimplifying their beliefs. And no, Dawkins is not a Scientologist.

[New Alaxia]

by helping you mean converting them to their religion and only feeding those that attend church services. Only to teach then the dogma of cannibalism, anti-science, and bigotry.

is ruining a million lives really better than ending a few dozen.

and if your really want to include history Lutherans have a great deal of blood and war to answer for.

1 thousands on a normal day more on a special occasional is not a few dozen
2. no i mean like the salvation army s.t Johns first aiders and other charity organization that help people with no preaching involved because Christian religionist practice tell them that they should or to be more pacific to the open brethren i personally know of a group dedicated to bulidng a public children's hospital in India no success yet but things are looking hopeful
3. the founders of the scientific method where all Christian (what body did you thin Darwin spoke to that was christain dominated....) Christianity is the father of modem science as such it is not anti science this is baseless propaganda
3. Cannibalistic practise? not in any open brethren service i've been too
4.history war oppression I think not by the open brethren unless you can give me an example as an atheist i would go their though Stalin communist china not a very good record on that font for the last 50 years this is a classic example of what the o p is talking about however

OK, hold up here.
1. You do not have to be a christian or religious to be good.
2. The founders of the scientific method also thought the world was flat for hundreds of years.
3. They meant your practice of drinking the blood and the body of christ, a practice some of my christian evangelical friends love to boast of daily as being one with christ.
4. You only have to look back, oh, say ten years ago, to see why christianity is just as violent as the governments of atheists. The American christian beliefs helped fuel patriotism that led us into two unnecessary wars, which still causes our soldiers to die every day. Still further back, we have the crusades, the inquisition, which personally pisses me off, since i am jewish by culture, and the motivation from christians to destroy the great empire of Rome. And still today christians persecute those who do not agree with them. So don't you dare even try to say christians are not a violent people.
5. Just saying, you put in two number threes.

[Bottle]

It's worse than that,Bottle.

1) With either stove or candy, the likely outcome is just minor problems.
This was a one-time irreversible effect we are talking about .. more like a bottle of sodium hydroxide cubes looking like sugar on the kitchen table.

2) What does god do when Adam and Eve are told to leave? Stations guard angels with burning swords next to the tree of life. Why didn't he think of stationing some near this tree, unless he was deliberately calculating to trick Adam and Eve

Why do some young children drown in the family pool? Clearly their parents put it there to trick them into near-death or death.

How many children do you think would drown if parents were all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful?

[Controlistan]

The question was, "Why are people so critical about Christian beliefs?"
The answer is simple.
It doesn't matter what Christ may or may not have actually said or did.
When most people think about "Christians," the image that comes to mind is this:

I've read the Bible, and most of it is all right. But when I picture "Christians" in my head, I don't think about Christ feeding the poor or curing lepers, I think about the "Christians" I see on the news, who are people like the ones in the picture above.
That's why.

[Bottle]

The question was, "Why are people so critical about Christian beliefs?"
The answer is simple.
It doesn't matter what Christ may or may not have actually said or did.
When most people think about "Christians," the image that comes to mind is this:

(Image)

I've read the Bible, and most of it is all right. But when I picture "Christians" in my head, I don't think about Christ feeding the poor or curing lepers, I think about the "Christians" I see on the news, who are people like the ones in the picture above.
That's why.

That might be why you are critical of Christian beliefs, and it's a good reason. But many of us have read the Christian scriptures and find them morally reprehensible. It's not an either-or for me...I think the Bible is fucked up and immoral, I think Christianity as an organized institution is fucked up and immoral, AND I think that the corporate-right-wing-political form of "Christianity" is fucked up an immoral.

[Bluth Corporation]

The question was, "Why are people so critical about Christian beliefs?"
The answer is simple.
It doesn't matter what Christ may or may not have actually said or did.
When most people think about "Christians," the image that comes to mind is this:

(Image)

I've read the Bible, and most of it is all right. But when I picture "Christians" in my head, I don't think about Christ feeding the poor or curing lepers, I think about the "Christians" I see on the news, who are people like the ones in the picture above.
That's why.

That might be why you are critical of Christian beliefs, and it's a good reason. But many of us have read the Christian scriptures and find them morally reprehensible.

Which part--the part where Jesus said to be nice to other people, or the part where Jesus said to help other people?

I think the Bible is fucked up and immoral,

What's that got to do with Christianity?

I think Christianity as an organized institution

There is no such thing.

[Bottle]

That might be why you are critical of Christian beliefs, and it's a good reason. But many of us have read the Christian scriptures and find them morally reprehensible.

Which part--the part where Jesus said to be nice to other people, or the part where Jesus said to help other people?

Yes, Bluth. That's obviously the part I was talking about. Because I'm a fucking moron, right? And because there's certainly NOTHING at all in the Bible besides the parts where Jesus says some nice things, right?

[Bluth Corporation]

Which part--the part where Jesus said to be nice to other people, or the part where Jesus said to help other people?

Yes, Bluth. That's obviously the part I was talking about. Because I'm a fucking moron, right? And because there's certainly NOTHING at all in the Bible besides the parts where Jesus says some nice things, right?

Of course there is. But none of those are Christian beliefs. Explaining that a certain group of people at a certain point in time held certain myths, legends, and traditions as a means of providing cultural context for the life of a certain figure, is not at all the same thing as actually endorsing those myths, legends, and traditions.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Yes, Bluth. That's obviously the part I was talking about. Because I'm a fucking moron, right? And because there's certainly NOTHING at all in the Bible besides the parts where Jesus says some nice things, right?

Of course there is. But none of those are Christian beliefs. Explaining that a certain group of people at a certain point in time held certain myths, legends, and traditions as a means of providing cultural context for the life of a certain figure, is not at all the same thing as actually endorsing those myths, legends, and traditions.

Only because you use Christian incorrectly

[Bottle]

Yes, Bluth. That's obviously the part I was talking about. Because I'm a fucking moron, right? And because there's certainly NOTHING at all in the Bible besides the parts where Jesus says some nice things, right?

Of course there is. But none of those are Christian beliefs. Explaining that a certain group of people at a certain point in time held certain myths, legends, and traditions as a means of providing cultural context for the life of a certain figure, is not at all the same thing as actually endorsing those myths, legends, and traditions.

Yes, we've been over your personal view of Christianity, and I think it's been pretty well explained to you why most other people don't share your view. I don't see any reason to repeat what you've already heard...you can flip back a few pages if you want to read it all over again.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Jesus is one of the few laudable figures that feature in the canon of Abrahamic religion - I don't criticise him much. As for the rest of it - unprovable mythology that advocates misogyny, uncritical obedience and irrelavent, often detrimental, moral codes.

Of course there is. But none of those are Christian beliefs. Explaining that a certain group of people at a certain point in time held certain myths, legends, and traditions as a means of providing cultural context for the life of a certain figure, is not at all the same thing as actually endorsing those myths, legends, and traditions.

Only because you use Christian incorrectly

See, I don't beleive in platonic abstracts - saying that his view differs from the mainstream, would be more appropriate.

[Bluth Corporation]

I'm quite aware that many people confuse the cult of Jesus and Jehovah with Christianity. That doesn't change the fact that they're not the same thing.

[Salandriagado]

I do not expect a non Christian to except advanced theology

That's good, start with an insult.

but yes God is unknowable however he has told us things about him self

You're going to have to substantiate them.

which one can ether except or reject i accept them which makes me a hence the being a Christian

Fair enough, that makes sense.

i find fault with your analogy
1
2. a monotheistic god is far more powerful than any of them doing on his own

Again, substantiate it.

what they often can not do even with cooperation e.g the greek gods didn't wipe out humantiy becoues one of their number had fallen and they where no longer capable of making intelligent life seting it apart on a completely difrent scale

Or maybe they just didn't want to wipe out humanity. I'd like to see some evidence for your god wiping out humanity though.

3. are capable of being killed

Some are, some aren't.

4.out of all of them how many of them are said to actually love humans and sacrifice for them

Erm, the majority, to varying degrees.

compile a new list of detiys that are all powerful and claim to love humans and adopt them as thier children

Can do better than that. How about actually having them as their children.

and give them a full inheritance as such asking only to be recognised ie admitting that they are real and I might listen to you about them being "nice"

Right. A full inheritance. Of genocide, the slaughter of innocents for the crimes of others and bigotry. I'd rather not have one of those thanks. And the church asks for a damn sight more than for someone to admit that god exists. You're still going to have to demonstrate the existence of your god though.

1 thousands on a normal day more on a special occasional is not a few dozen

It's not like there are polytheistic religions that don't go in for human sacrifice or anything.

2. no i mean like the salvation army s.t Johns first aiders and other charity organization that help people

Or the hundreds of thousands of non-religious ones. Irrelevant.

with no preaching involved because Christian religionist practice tell them that they should or to be more pacific to the open brethren i personally know of a group dedicated to bulidng a public children's hospital in India no success yet but things are looking hopeful

I've yet to see one of these groups that doesn't go in for preaching to some degree.

3. the founders of the scientific method where all Christian (what body did you thin Darwin spoke to that was christain dominated....) Christianity is the father of modem science as such it is not anti science this is baseless propaganda

The fact that some intelligent people a long time ago claimed to be Christian (because seriously, nobody would have listened to them if they didn't) has no relevance whatsoever to the actions of the organisation as a whole, either then (Gallileo much?) or now (way too many examples to list. Just look at all of the anti-genetic research people that don't want "man playing god".

3. Cannibalistic practise? not in any open brethren service i've been too

You know, the bit where you eat the flesh and blood of Jesus (yes, the Catholic church claims it to be literal transfiguration).

4.history war oppression I think not by the open brethren unless you can give me an example as an atheist i would go their though Stalin communist china not a very good record on that font for the last 50 years this is a classic example of what the o p is talking about however

#

Firstly, Stalin was not Chinese. OK, you want a few examples: Westborough Baptist church, the various people that shoot up abortion clinics and the Nigerian Child Witch hunts.

I'm quite aware that many people confuse the cult of Jesus and Jehovah with Christianity. That doesn't change the fact that they're not the same thing.

That is the sense in which the word "Christianity" is used by the vast, vast majority of the English speaking world and that, above all else, is the measure of the correct use of a word in a language.

[Bluth Corporation]

I do not expect a non Christian to except advanced theology

That's good, start with an insult.

While he misused the term "Christian," since Christians also do not accept theology so there's no difference, it's hardly an "insult" to say that you don't expect people to accept something they disagree with.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I'm quite aware that many people confuse the cult of Jesus and Jehovah with Christianity. That doesn't change the fact that they're not the same thing.

This is a no True Scotsman - I suppose few people would have problems with how you have interpreted the religion, so maybe you should take solace in that your own views are irrelavant to what is being criticised. Making exception for the more general criticism of the concept of having "faith" - but that applies generally to most religions.

[Salandriagado]

That's good, start with an insult.

While he misused the term "Christian," since Christians also do not accept theology so there's no difference, it's hardly an "insult" to say that you don't expect people to accept something they disagree with.

Accusing anyone that doesn't agree with you of not being able to understand anything that is "advanced" is an insult. Also, see my edit to the above post.

[Bottle]

See, I don't beleive in platonic abstracts - saying that his view differs from the mainstream, would be more appropriate.

Who's talking about "platonic abstracts"? How about just...the dictionary?

If somebody wants the word "Jew" to refer to a person who enjoys eating ham every day, are we really going to say that "his views differ from the mainstream"?

In my eyes, Bluth isn't any different from any of the billions of other Christians who are quite sure that THEIR personal version of Christianity is the right one. If a Catholic proclaims that Protestants aren't "real Christians," I don't say "your view differs from the mainstream." If a Baptist insists that Catholics aren't really Christian, I don't bring up Platonic Forms. I simply say, "That term does not mean what you think it means." The definition of "Christianity" doesn't change whenever some Christian wants to exclude all the other Christians for not thinking as he does.

[Bluth Corporation]

I'm quite aware that many people confuse the cult of Jesus and Jehovah with Christianity. That doesn't change the fact that they're not the same thing.

This is a no True Scotsman

It's not. Like all informal fallacies, the "No True Scotsman" does not apply to every argument that takes a certain form. It only applies in certain circumstances. When there are objective criteria for being a member of Group X, that someone allegedly of Group X demonstrably does not meet, then it is no fallacy at all to argue that that person is indeed not part of Group X.

[Tekania]

As I Christian, I've found that people aren't really critical of Christian beliefs... only critical in-so-far as Christians attempt to use laws to force their beliefs upon others... Which ironically, from my Christian perspective, if decidedly anti-Christian.

[Georgism]

Why do some young children drown in the family pool? Clearly their parents put it there to trick them into near-death or death.

How many children do you think would drown if parents were all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful?

[Bottle]

How many children do you think would drown if parents were all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful?

That's just ridiculous. His mother wouldn't have drowned him, she was Austrian. They'd have made him into some lovely sausages instead.

[Salandriagado]

Oops, I missed one:

4. few parents chose to bring up their children to believe in different values then them teaching children your beliefs is second nature to all adults

No, it isn't. It wasn't for my parents, for a start.

[Georgism]

(Image)

That's just ridiculous. His mother wouldn't have drowned him, she was Austrian. They'd have made him into some lovely sausages instead.

Or a ridiculous economist.