How can you not be christian?

[Catoslovakia]

What do you mean, 'How can you not be a Christian'? Before you started this thread, did you even consider the question: how CAN you be a Christian. After all, Christianity doesn't have a very kind history, with the crusades and the Nazis and all of the religious executions of early Europe. Did you ever consider, maybe morality doesn't come from religion. And if your question means, how can you ignore all of the proof that Christianity is true, what proof? Some of you are saying that the Bible is proof that God is real and Jesus is our lord and savior. How is the Bible proof?

I'm a Christian, and I still find parts of the Bible hard to believe. Well, not hard to, I don't believe them. Some of you might think I'm a horrible person for not believing God's word, but has it ever occurred to you: maybe the Bible ISN'T God's world, or at least, not entirely. I know, this contradicts everything you were taught and believe, and you don't want to read it, and blah, blah, blah... Why can't you just stop and consider... maybe you're wrong. I was raised a creationist, and so was my dad, but we actually formulated our own opinions. He never told me evolutionism was real, he wanted me to believe what I wanted, which I did. If you want to keep taking what your parents or priest or minister tells you, go on ahead. I'm just asking, respect others beliefs. just because they contradict yours doesn't mean they are bad people.

The Old Testament was passed down verbally for nearly a thousand years before it was finally written down. Parts could have been misheard, or misunderstood, or entirely made up. There's also the chance it was translated wrong. The New Testament was written down almost immediately, so I believe it is the most accurate. Also, it contradicts itself several times. For example, in Lamentations, it states that if you are injured or diseased, it is because you had sinned horribly and God was punishing you. But if I recall correctly, Jesus stated the complete, exact opposite in the gospels.

So yes, I can understand why some people can not believe the Bible, and therefore not belong to the Christian religion. No, not some people, most people. Why some Christians absolutely DESPISE non-Christians, I'm still trying to figure out.

[Kalasion]

A troll is born every minute.

[Bavungria]

Person do you support your country's military? Do you think the Jews or any other holocaust survivors were offended by the soldiers who saved them ? i am sure they felt bad for there deaths but rejoiced and thank them for there good dead. So you would be offended that someone more "important" or "worth more than you " would die for you ? i would be thank full ! know that is just me. I see your point of view but i do not understand your total lack of value of your own life ?

In a 1 for 1 life trade I would prefer to die over someone who has more to live for. War is different. Soldiers are given the means to fight, and should attempt to protect civilians, in that case.

About God being corrupt or unethical i can understand that. but there is two ways you can look at it. Either God is unethical but can give us many treasures if we worship him. most people go for the money and other treasures when it comes to life not really what is right. Or he is good and we where shaped in his image but when Satan tricked eave to eat the apple we turned into the evil/angelic people. I believe that people are basically the most evil and cruel creatures scientifically known to man. Do you agree ?

I do not. Whilst some are, most people are not evil and cruel.

I personally do not take pleasure and happiness over the wellbeing of others. Which is a good thing for a number of people. I would stand by my morality even with the promise of eternal life I would prefer to die than live supporting evil.

And satan didn't trick anyone. The conversation in the bible was basically as follows:
Satan: Did god say you couldn't eat from any tree in the garden?
Eve: Yeah, except the ones in the middle. If we eat from that he said we'll die. (note, god lied)
Satan: You surely won't die. Your eyes will be opened and you will see the difference between right and wrong, like god.
Eve: *eats apple* Hey try some of this adam.
Adam: *omnomnom*
*their eyes are opened and they see the difference between right and wrong*

The passage, to check yourself:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

She then CLAIMED the serpent decieved her, but she was a lying bitch. God (oh how just he is) then punished the serpent for a crime he did not commit (and god being omniscient presumably knew this).

ok so basically you believe in some one sacrificing there life for you as long as there is a chance to survive.


so putting on clothes shows the difference between wrong and right ? :S

[Acycia]

Stupid thread.
I'm not christian because it's the belief that a book was written in pure truth.
which is total BS, because its a BOOK, it was written BY HUMANS, and has been RE WRITTEN and REWORDED and TRANSLATED over and over and over again.
I'm also not christian because they can't make up thier mind on who they want to worship, some worship god, and others are OBSESSED with jesus. thank you jesus, amen jesus. JESUS WAS A HUMAN, WAS A PROPHET, HE IS NOT GOD.
Another thing is that all these stupid christians bash Jews, HELLO; without jews you wouldnt even have your religion, same for the muslims.
then theres protestants, they all beleive different dumb shit on thier expansions of christianity, who gives a fuck, i'm not going to hell because im not evangelican or episcopalian.
And they bash catholics? who were the original christians.
and what the fuck?
Christmas? yeah good time of the year holidays and whatnot, but Jesus was'nt born on christmas, and St Nick has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTMAS.
and seriously, let's celebrate zombie jesus day by eating chocolate bunnies and finding plastic eggs.


the reason why i'm not christian is because it's pathetic.
End of story.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1) A universe that does not contain a god is logically possible.

ergo:

2) Reason/logic alone is sufficient to prove the existence of god.

ergo:

3) The contingency argument for god fails, as god him/her/itself is contigent.

thus:

4) God COULD exist, but doesn't exist NECESSARILY, so evidence is necessary to believe in god.

5) Within perfectly established physics, there exist ways for everything to have come about without the intervention of any intelligence.

6) These ways are ontologically simpler than "god did it!"

7) These ways are also more probable, as any being capable of designing a universe must be far, far more complex in terms of entropy than any of the currently available physical explanations.

Thus:

8) If complex things require a designer, then god needs more of an explanation than the universe. Who designed god? And then who designed the god that designed god? Ad infinitum.

9) There is no empirical evidence inside the universe which points to any god.

10) Even if god were shown to exist, that doesn't make Christianity automatically true.

Conclusion: I have no good reason to be Christian.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I also claim that any attempt to skirt around my previous argument is sophistry. You must address it directly. Show me evidence of god, or I'm uninterested.

[Acycia]

1) A universe that does not contain a god is logically possible.

ergo:

2) Reason/logic alone is sufficient to prove the existence of god.

ergo:

3) The contingency argument for god fails, as god him/her/itself is contigent.

thus:

4) God COULD exist, but doesn't exist NECESSARILY, so evidence is necessary to believe in god.

5) Within perfectly established physics, there exist ways for everything to have come about without the intervention of any intelligence.

6) These ways are ontologically simpler than "god did it!"

7) These ways are also more probable, as any being capable of designing a universe must be far, far more complex in terms of entropy than any of the currently available physical explanations.

Thus:

If complex things require a designer, then god needs more of an explanation than the universe. Who designed god? And then who designed the god that designed god? Ad infinitum.

9) There is no empirical evidence inside the universe which points to any god.

10) Even if god were shown to exist, that doesn't make Christianity automatically true.

Conclusion: I have no good reason to be Christian.

I agree, and understand, mister philospher.
I just had to put it in a DBAG way.
to beleive in god is one thing,
but to ask HOW CAN YOU NOT BE A CHRISTIAN?
How could you not be hindu?
or how could you not be a pegan?

god's god no matter which way you look at it, religions are just stupid.
and this is why i have claimed agnosticism.

because to call ones self atheist is silly, you have no proof that there is no such thing as a god.
and by definition god is just a creator and a holy designer.
in no way is god this bearded man in the clouds as people like to say





and if the bible was correct then that must mean that god is a monkey.

after all god did create us in his image? did he not? mister christian.

and we have proof that we have slowly and surely evolved over the years from an ape-like genus.




chew on that.

[Treznor]

because to call ones self atheist is silly, you have no proof that there is no such thing as a god.

I don't need proof that there is no god to not believe in gods. My inability to prove or disprove god is all I need to lack belief in gods. Agnosticism and atheism are not exclusive concepts.

and by definition god is just a creator and a holy designer.

They call that the "God of the Gaps" argument, which is another reason why I don't believe in gods. If the only reason to believe is because we don't have all the answers, then the rational choice for me is to assume nothing until we can find those answers. It means that some questions will never be answered in my lifetime, but I prefer to acknowledge my ignorance than draw bad conclusions from it.

Note I'm not refuting you in particular, I'm just clarifying my reasons for becoming an atheist. I agree that we can't know if gods exist or not, but that lack of certainty is true for a number of other fantasies like fairies, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. Yet, no one finds it unusual to not believe in fairies and unicorns.

[Dyakovo]

Also god isnt to blame for natural disastors or diseas thats the work of satan. And your probably thinking well why would jesus allow a christian to be killed well think about it that christian who is going to get killed is going to a better place. Also satan has free roam on earth thats wh ythings are the way they are since adam and ever bit the apple they allowed satan to have acess to the world. But if they wouldnt have bitten the apple then earht would be like heaven.

All any of this says to me is that you believe Satan is more powerful than Yahweh...

[Dyakovo]

What it means is that we merely have the illusion of choice.

But what makes it the illusion? No outside force compelled us to make that specific choice.

If your action are predestined then you don't actually have any choice. What 'choice' you're going to make has already been determined.

[New Amargosa]

How can I not be Christian?

Easy, I'm gay. It's not hard to exclude oneself from a religion that hates your guts.

[Weetslade]

Hmmm... and why is this here? I could go on and on about why none of your argument makes sense, but really, this isn't the time or place. I don't want to offend anyone - no, scratch that, I'm quite happy to offend anyone, really. But arguing about the nature of belief and the bizarre and problematic roots of Christianity simply isn't what this place is for. It's a political game with a wry sense of humour, and I'm not sure that quite fits with a theological debate.

Although seeing as it does have a political element, it's probably worth mentioning that the only reason you seem to think that Barack Obama is the antichrist, as opposed to any other political leader of the past 2000 years, is that he's not white, and leads a powerful country with a large white element to the electorate. And frankly, I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time being lectured about faith and truth by a racist.

[Freebodnik IV]

Answering:

"You have no proof that there is a god"

With:

"You have no proof that there is NOT a god"

Is analogous to:

"You have no proof that there are unicorns"

With:

"You have no proof that there are NO unicorns".

Insofar as it is not an argument FOR the existence of unicorns per se, as rather it is begging the question of the existence of unicorns without answering anything. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it is the burden of the claimer to prove that his claims are true, rather than on the listener to prove the claimer false. The existence of God is a very extraordinary claim, but, in my experience, is unsubstantiated by evidence. Thus, it's more rational to proceed for the moment as if this claim is false, than if it is true.

[Briganti]

To answer the question "How can you not be a Christian?" Answer very easily actually I am Pagan and Im afried... well actually Im not Christanity doesnt speak to me at all and thats that. Are you corious about peoples beliefs or are you tring to convert people? Personally I belive people have made a choice to follow their spirtal path ... well ok most people apart from the ones who only know one relgion.

I would be greatful to know your opinon

[Kalasion]

Lets face it: both god and the serpent were both morally ambiguous, There was no black and white. God said they would die if they ate the fruit(a half-truth). The serpent said that they would not die. What he did not say (nor did god, for that matter) was that they would not die immediately. Additionally, Unlike the snake, God did not say that there are (arguable) benefits to eating the fruits, benefits that the serpent (truthfully) pointed out. However, both are with holding vital information, and this with the addition of the "forbidden" tree of knowledge being the worlds first and possibly the best (in scripture, anyways) schmuck bait, plus the fact that, due to gods will, Eve was as naive as a new born baby, meant that eating the fruit was pretty much guaranteed.

In short; They both made some half-truths there. The serpent was guilty of causing the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden while God who is, btw omniscient, did not stop them from eating the fruit. (I do have to wonder what on earth God is doing when all of this is going down, playing Spore?)

^^
regarding above... Is it possible this is some elaborate and convoluted plan so complex that its goals are still unknown to us? (or perhaps, it is done for da shit and giggles?)

Eve practically knew as much as a newborn baby. >_>
Well, we do know that Spore is the best game ever, so that IS a possibility.

[Dyakovo]

[

Listen you yourself have destroyed this arguement.

1. God issued something called 'Free Will'
2. Free Will enables people to believe in whatever they want. Does God love everyone still? Yes no matter what. Does God want those people back with him? Yes, but he can't force them.

Not omnipotent after all, then?

I never was to begin with.

Your "god" isn't omnipotent.

Does God want those people back with him? Yes, but he can't force them.

If there is anything he can't do he is not omnipotent.

[Rustika]

One very contrevarsial thing is, how could god hate gays if they were made in his image? Ergo the bible is full of lies.

[Dyakovo]

He provided information which was not 100% accurate for the purpose of getting her to engage in actions which were damaging to her in a manner which can be nothing else but intentional on his part... there is a word for this called "disinformation", and it's a form of deceit.

But how is his "deception" more worthy of condemnation than Gods ?

Because God wasn't deceptive.

I'd say he was...

God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it (The tree of Knowledge), neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.'

She touched it and didn't die. Then she ate it and didn't die.

[Rustika]

OMG, I have seen the light! Jesus is part of the village people!!!

[Dyakovo]

For something to be deceptive it has to be made with the intent to cause damage.

No, for something to be deceptive it just has to deceive.

causing one to believe what is not true or fail to believe what is true
designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently

[Dyakovo]

For something to be deceptive it has to be made with the intent to cause damage.

no, it has to be intended to be false, and it was, since god is supposedly omniscient.

Fixed

[GuppyForce]

EDIT: Nvm misunderstood

[Dyakovo]

Motive does not alter the textual fact that because Adam and Eve ate of the tree God warned they would cause their death, they received a belated death sentence, which is true as to God's warning; nor does it change the fact that the serpent told Eve that in eating of the tree surely would not bring her death; which it did bring, and thus was a lie.

True, God told Adam and Eve that eating the fruit would make them die. The context, as provided to us, implies a rather immediate result which did not happen. In fact, it wasn't until God took a stroll in the garden later that day and noticed that they'd clothed themselves that the consequences were enforced. So God makes good on a threat he made, but there's so much gray area in terms of what he promised and what the snake told them that neither of them comes out as the clear villain. The story is obviously intended to demonstrate the duplicity of the snake and the consequences of exercising free will in defiance of God's Will, but when you look at it without the religious filter it's clear that God acts like an asshole.

The bolded is also a good argument against him actually being omniscient...

[Jalanat]

1) A universe that does not contain a god is logically possible.

ergo:

2) Reason/logic alone is sufficient to prove the existence of god.

ergo:

3) The contingency argument for god fails, as god him/her/itself is contigent.

thus:

4) God COULD exist, but doesn't exist NECESSARILY, so evidence is necessary to believe in god.

5) Within perfectly established physics, there exist ways for everything to have come about without the intervention of any intelligence.

6) These ways are ontologically simpler than "god did it!"

7) These ways are also more probable, as any being capable of designing a universe must be far, far more complex in terms of entropy than any of the currently available physical explanations.

Thus:

If complex things require a designer, then god needs more of an explanation than the universe. Who designed god? And then who designed the god that designed god? Ad infinitum.

9) There is no empirical evidence inside the universe which points to any god.

10) Even if god were shown to exist, that doesn't make Christianity automatically true.

Conclusion: I have no good reason to be Christian.

I thought up of a little theory,

We know we all exist right? What if someone asks where we come from? Someone would say that we come from the apes, where did the apes come from? etc. etc. untill you get to, where did the big bang come from? Theory is that 2 molecules collided, good, where did those 2 molecules come from? One could keep asking those questions infinitely just like point 8, so apparently something MUST have been created out of absolutely nothing, there you have your god...the god of...science?

However, one could say something cannot be created out of nothing, with other words the universe doesn't exist, in other words we do not exist and everything you see isn't real, even seeing isn't real. Even this post is not real.

[Techno-Soviet]

I thought up of a little theory,

We know we all exist right? What if someone asks where we come from? Someone would say that we come from the apes, where did the apes come from? etc. etc. untill you get to, where did the big bang come from? Theory is that 2 molecules collided, good, where did those 2 molecules come from? One could keep asking those questions infinitely just like point 8, so apparently something MUST have been created out of absolutely nothing, there you have your god...the god of...science?

However, one could say something cannot be created out of nothing, with other words the universe doesn't exist, in other words we do not exist and everything you see isn't real, even seeing isn't real. Even this post is not real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch