Some good reasons not to become a Christian even if Jesus did rise from the dead

[Johnny Skeptic]

The advantages that Christians believe they have over skeptics regarding apologetic issues will avail them naught regarding the quite important philosophical issue of the nature of God.

Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would not become a Christian unless God first answered a lot of questions to my satisfaction. For instance, I would like for him to explain some of his questionable actions and allowances in the Old Testament, some of his questionable allowances in the world today, such as allowing tsunamis, hunger and plagues, why he gives humans such a brief amount of time to accept him, why he doesn’t provide more proof of his existence, and why Jesus hasn’t returned to earth.

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

If an evil God created the universe, it would be impossible for anyone to know what his motives are. He could easily make prophecies that come true, heal the sick, cause anyone to rise from the dead and be responsible for pleasing spiritual experiences. Even the delivery of a comfortable heaven would not be proof of God’s love since he could easily soon take it away and send everyone to hell.

The Bible claims that there was tangible evidence of God’s power thousands of years ago, but what tangible evidence is there of his power and involvement in the lives of humans today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention.

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.� We need compassion from Jesus (or from the Holy Spirit) today just as much as people did back then, but the fact that there is no evidence today of tangible miracles, in other words of compassion on the part of Jesus or the Holy Sprit, calls into question that there were any back then.

Spiritual and emotional experiences are not evidence of a divine power, and even less so of a specific divine power.

Christians often accuse skeptics of being predisposed against the existence of miracles. Skeptics are in fact predisposed against occurrences of miracles because there is no evidence that any have ever occurred, but any skeptic would love for miracles to be available to help us with our many burdens. I am defining miracles as events that are beyond the abilities of humans to achieve.

Historically, the vast majority of humans have always had a penchant for dreaming up all sorts of religions in order to satisfy their desire for a comfortable eternal life. The common denominator is comfort. This desire has caused many people to defend religions that are much more unbelievable than Christianity is, clearly testifying to the human desire of obtaining eternal comfort.

No disrespect intended, but Christians are just like trained seals looking for a reward of fish from their trainers. Christians’ rewards are partly found in Revelation 21:4. The verse reads “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.�

Seals in the wild with abundant food supplies would never be interested in performing tricks for humans. If humans were able to achieve obtaining a completely comfortable life at this time that indicated to them that it would be eternally comfortable, only a relative handful of people would be interested in religion. Although out of perceived self interest Christians vigorously defend the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, the claim is definitely incidental to their desire of obtaining a comfortable eternal life. Eternal comfort is the desired goal. Any of a number of means of obtaining it would be deemed equally acceptable.

The Bible says that God can predict the future. If that is true, then he knows in advance who will be born and what their world views will be when they die. Instead of creating Adam and Eve, he could have created the city of New Jerusalem (reference the book of Revelation) to start with and populated it only with people who he knew would have accepted him, the result being that he would not have created hell. That would have been a very good, loving and compassionate thing for God to have done. When confronted with difficulties like this, Christians frequently refer to Isaiah 55:8, which reads “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.� The problem for Christians here is that in order for the verse to make any sense, Isaiah would had to have known what God thoughts and ways are in order to know that there are different from our own, which of course he didn’t. If I had been alive back then, I would have asked Isaiah “How do you know that?� His response might have been “God told me so.�

[gee]

Johnny Skeptic;

I must admit I agree with Paul with this one. Christianity is nothing if Jesus didn't rise from the dead. It totally falls apart. :)

gee

[Not the Ripest Apple]

There is one simple reason why I could not become a Christian if Jesus rose from the dead (assuming he was the true son of God). The Bible instructs us to love God with all our hearts, and I simply do not have the capacity to love a God who tortures his creation for even one day, much less for an eternity. Sure, I could pretend or try to love God, but if God is all knowing, he would see that my love is not sincere and that I truly despise his existence. The only reason I would even "try" to love him is of course to avoid eternal torture. Some Christians might say that if I am in this position I should "pray that God changes my heart", or that I should accept Christ, and when he enters into me he will change my heart. But if I accept Christ out of fear of hell, all the while hating his guts, and God reworks my heart (brain really) so that I love him instead of hate his guts, how would this love be any more sincere than my pretend love? I guess if God goes for that, I would become a Christian to avoid eternal torment.

And if hell being a torture chamber is just a big misunderstanding, I still don't think I could be able to love a God who could be so negligent as to leave an ambiguous book as the only information about himself, and then when people are getting the wrong picture, not do anything to clear it up. Especially if these misconceptions are causing people to miss out on eternal paradise.

[Kilgore Trout]

Even if Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead, he is still a Deut 13 false prophet. In Deut 13, god said he would send false prophets to test the peoples's faith. Jesus is changing the way that god wanted the Jews to live. This makes him a false prophet so his miracles are irrelevant.

[advancedatheist]

Johnny Skeptic;

I must admit I agree with Paul with this one. Christianity is nothing if Jesus didn't rise from the dead. It totally falls apart. :)

Christianity requires a "supernatural" resurrection, whatever that means, as a necessary condition. This event can't supply a sufficient condition for christian validity, however, because it might not have worked as claimed. I can imagine Jesus saying, "What do you mean, Father, that the Plan of Salvation failed and my resurrection won't save anyone? I hate to think what I'd have to endure for Plan B!"

[Magus55]

Even if Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead, he is still a Deut 13 false prophet. In Deut 13, god said he would send false prophets to test the peoples's faith. Jesus is changing the way that god wanted the Jews to live. This makes him a false prophet so his miracles are irrelevant.No, Jesus taught how humanity is supposed to live after Him. The Pharisees were misinterpreting a lot of what God taught the Jews.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic;

I must admit I agree with Paul with this one. Christianity is nothing if Jesus didn't rise from the dead. It totally falls apart.

1 Corinthians 15:14 says “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." Paul was wrong. First of all, the Resurrection is of little tangible value without the return of Jesus. Here we are two millennia after Jesus died and the Devil is still loose and there is still sickness, hunger, plagues, war etc. Second of all, a comfortable eternal life might be available from a source other than the God of the Bible. Why do you limit the possibility of intelligent design and a benevolent God specifically to the God of the Bible?

[screwtape]

There is one simple reason why I could not become a Christian if Jesus rose from the dead (assuming he was the true son of God). The Bible instructs us to love God with all our hearts, and I simply do not have the capacity to love a God who tortures his creation for even one day, much less for an eternity. Sure, I could pretend or try to love God, but if God is all knowing, he would see that my love is not sincere and that I truly despise his existence. The only reason I would even "try" to love him is of course to avoid eternal torture. Some Christians might say that if I am in this position I should "pray that God changes my heart", or that I should accept Christ, and when he enters into me he will change my heart. But if I accept Christ out of fear of hell, all the while hating his guts, and God reworks my heart (brain really) so that I love him instead of hate his guts, how would this love be any more sincere than my pretend love? I guess if God goes for that, I would become a Christian to avoid eternal torment.

And if hell being a torture chamber is just a big misunderstanding, I still don't think I could be able to love a God who could be so negligent as to leave an ambiguous book as the only information about himself, and then when people are getting the wrong picture, not do anything to clear it up. Especially if these misconceptions are causing people to miss out on eternal paradise.

That was a good read.

[Kilgore Trout]

No, Jesus taught how humanity is supposed to live after Him. The Pharisees were misinterpreting a lot of what God taught the Jews.It doesn't matter what the Parisees we doing or saying. All you have to do is look at what's in your "perfect" OT that god wrote. God told Jews to have certain festivals, not eat certan things, and to live by certan rules. Jesus overturned those rules. By not following those rules, Jesus is changing the way that god taught the Jews to live. No interpretation needed. By changing their ways, Jesus is a Deut 13 false prophet.

I don't care if the Pharisees added and changed 500 rules from the Torah. The rules I'm talking about are clearly spelled out in the Torah. As long as christians do not get circumcised, celebrate the high holidays that god said to celebrate forever, and think its OK to eat meat with blood in it, they are spitting on gods "holy" laws. This clearly makes Jesus and Paul false prophets. Simple ideas like getting circumcised, and not eating blood can't be misinterpreted.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy All hail the false prophet!

[sharon45]

Some good reasons not to become a Christian even if Jesus did rise from the deadI always have to ask, which version of jesus?

and why Jesus hasn’t returned to earth.Because this supposed jesus from out the NT never lived on earth.

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.Right, there are other older myths that talk of rising from the dead.

Predicting the future is also nothing special. People do that many times even today, but it really isn't proven if it really is an actual prediction or just a lucky guess. In jesus' case, it was obviously bias writing.

Goodness should be self-explanatory. There are good and bad in people and there always has been. Jesus had some good points and some bad points, so he again doesn't count.

If an evil God created the universe, it would be impossible for anyone to know what his motives are. He could easily make prophecies that come true, heal the sick, cause anyone to rise from the dead and be responsible for pleasing spiritual experiences. Even the delivery of a comfortable heaven would not be proof of God’s love since he could easily soon take it away and send everyone to hell.Right, and with the advent of the NT especially alongside the OT, this is already demonstrated as being about an evil god that can not be trusted.

We need compassion from JesusWe don't need compassion from a fictional character. We all need real results, and we needed it thousands of years before the NT was being fabricated. As an impersonation, jesus had some compassion, but was also very heartless as well.

No disrespect intended, but Christians are just like trained seals looking for a reward of fish from their trainers. Christians’ rewards are partly found in Revelation 21:4. The verse reads “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.�

Seals in the wild with abundant food supplies would never be interested in performing tricks for humans. If humans were able to achieve obtaining a completely comfortable life at this time that indicated to them that it would be eternally comfortable, only a relative handful of people would be interested in religion. Although out of perceived self interest Christians vigorously defend the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, the claim is definitely incidental to their desire of obtaining a comfortable eternal life. Eternal comfort is the desired goal. Any of a number of means of obtaining it would be deemed equally acceptable.Christianity has a lot to do with fear and greed.

The Bible says that God can predict the future. If that is true, then he knows in advance who will be born and what their world views will be when they die. Instead of creating Adam and Eve, he could have created the city of New Jerusalem (reference the book of Revelation) to start with and populated it only with people who he knew would have accepted him, the result being that he would not have created hell. That would have been a very good, loving and compassionate thing for God to have done.Nothing that good and loving about it, but it is a huge step-up from what the NT already proposes. He just creates some "trained seals".

When confronted with difficulties like this, Christians frequently refer to Isaiah 55:8, which reads “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.� The problem for Christians here is that in order for the verse to make any sense, Isaiah would had to have known what God thoughts and ways are in order to know that there are different from our own, which of course he didn’t. If I had been alive back then, I would have asked Isaiah “How do you know that?� His response might have been “God told me so.�Well, christians already don't understand the mind of god as expressed in the OT even though his messages were consistent and clear enough.

One does not have to know all of god's thoughts, but remain true to what was provided much earlier as a well established and accepted accounting already revealed in the Torah. If they are not truly god's actual wishes for his people, then simply making up others like the christians did isn't going to make anything anymore true.

[sharon45]

No, Jesus taught how humanity is supposed to live after Him. The Pharisees were misinterpreting a lot of what God taught the Jews.Unless you want to make the assertion that the Torah is a lie, the Pharisees were enough on target even while held within the obvious confines of the NT. In the NT, jesus taught what he wanted to teach and there isn't much evidence to support that it came with the OT god's approval.

[sharon45]

Second of all, a comfortable eternal life might be available from a source other than the God of the Bible. Why do you limit the possibility of intelligent design and a benevolent God specifically to the God of the Bible?In defense of gee, there was no mention for or against this possibility. There is a chance for billions of of different outcomes, but the evidence is what's really needed, not just imagination.

[Magus55]

It doesn't matter what the Parisees we doing or saying. All you have to do is look at what's in your "perfect" OT that god wrote. God told Jews to have certain festivals, not eat certan things, and to live by certan rules. Jesus overturned those rules. By not following those rules, Jesus is changing the way that god taught the Jews to live. No interpretation needed. By changing their ways, Jesus is a Deut 13 false prophet. Well, technically Jesus is God so He can do anything He wants if He so chose. The OT rules were for the Israelites. Gentile's aren't under the same convenant. Jesus fullfilled the OT laws.

I don't care if the Pharisees added and changed 500 rules from the Torah. The rules I'm talking about are clearly spelled out in the Torah. As long as christians do not get circumcised, celebrate the high holidays that god said to celebrate forever, and think its OK to eat meat with blood in it, they are spitting on gods "holy" laws. This clearly makes Jesus and Paul false prophets. Simple ideas like getting circumcised, and not eating blood can't be misinterpreted. Did you happen to read what the purpose of circumcision was? Why would circumcision apply to Gentile Christians, when its purpose was to establish a convenant with the Jews?

[orac]

Well, technically Jesus is God so He can do anything He wants if He so chose.
Yeah? How come he's incapable of speaking for himself, and has to send you to "interpret" his word for us? Doesn't he want us to know the truth?

The OT rules were for the Israelites. Gentile's aren't under the same convenant. Jesus fullfilled the OT laws.
So, what you're saying is that muder and adultery are now ok, because the laws against those things have been fullfilled?

Great, let us know how that works out for you, ok?

Incidentally, if those laws are "fulfilled" and no longer relevant, can you explain why Jesus (according to the bible) considers breaking them to be a sin? And that whole "not one jot or tittle shall pass" bit, what was that supposed to really mean if, as you say, the laws no longer apply because they've been fulfilled?

(Incidentally, I have a problem with laws against jaywalking. I can talk to politicians and possibly get them repealed, but if I demanded that they be fulfilled so that they no longer apply, I'ld be carted off to the loony bin. Is there a possibility that the whole "jesus fulfilled the law" isn't supposed to mean that jesus repealed the law?)


Why would circumcision apply to Gentile Christians, when its purpose was to establish a convenant with the Jews?
Good question - any idea why it's so popular with non-jews in the nation where you live? Are you seriously telling us that you're right and all the rather large numbers of christians around you are wrong? How come you got appointed as god's official spokesperson?

And would you please start witnessing to all the false christians before worrying about us? Seriously, I'm sure you're sincere and honest in what you believe, but all those liars telling us that the bible means something completely different to what you say are getting irritating. Sure, you know the truth, but all of the false followers of Jesus are making things really difficult for you, so if you can set them straight we'ld all appreciate it and you'll find your message gets through much easier.

I don't know, all these people screaming "believe in Jesus the way I do and not like all those other people who worship in the wrong way and who don't understand the bible like I do" amuse me no end.

And for a brief on-topic comment: the vast hordes of christians who all have a completely different interpretation of the bible are a good reason not to become a christian. Even if a real person called Jesus Christ was crucified and ressurected 2000 years ago, christians can't agree on his opinion regarding anything from shellfish eating to blood transfusions to how to do an exorcisim to what will happen when we die. If they can't agree on any of this, then obviously the bible is a pretty poor guide and should not be trusted.

Also, the typical christian answer to the problem of evil (children die slowly in terrible pain but it's just fine because it's for the Greater Good) is moderately despicable and not something I would like to emulate, but at least it technically is an answer that works for the problem.

[Magus55]

Yeah? How come he's incapable of speaking for himself, and has to send you to "interpret" his word for us? Doesn't he want us to know the truth? All His children can serve as witnesses. And He gave you the truth, you're just too stubborn and prideful to accept it.


So, what you're saying is that muder and adultery are now ok, because the laws against those things have been fullfilled?

Great, let us know how that works out for you, ok? Of course not. Murder and adultery wouldn't be loving God or your neighbor now would it. And the 10 commandments certainly hold more prestige than the dietary laws. They are the only laws written directly by the hand of God.

Incidentally, if those laws are "fulfilled" and no longer relevant, can you explain why Jesus (according to the bible) considers breaking them to be a sin? And that whole "not one jot or tittle shall pass" bit, what was that supposed to really mean if, as you say, the laws no longer apply because they've been fulfilled?I never said the laws were irrelevant, I merely said the Jewish covenant laws ( see Leviticus) don't control humanity. The laws serve as a guide. Read Paul. He says that even though Jesus fullfilled the OT laws, doesn't mean it gives us the right to sin. The law now serves as a method of seeing where we fail. It is no longer the means of salvation. Think of Jesus as the embodiment of the law, perfectly fullfilled. By accepting Him as our savior, we accept that fullfillment and use Him as an example of how to follow the law, without expecting the law to save us from our sins.


Good question - any idea why it's so popular with non-jews in the nation where you live? Are you seriously telling us that you're right and all the rather large numbers of christians around you are wrong? How come you got appointed as god's official spokesperson? I'm not aware of any Bris' being performed within Christian denominations. Health reasons certainly account for many of those being performed, and sure Christians may get it for certain religious value based on what the Jews were told to do, but Jesus never told Gentile's to get circumcised for covenant reasons.


And for a brief on-topic comment: the vast hordes of christians who all have a completely different interpretation of the bible are a good reason not to become a christian. Even if a real person called Jesus Christ was crucified and ressurected 2000 years ago, christians can't agree on his opinion regarding anything from shellfish eating to blood transfusions to how to do an exorcisim to what will happen when we die. If they can't agree on any of this, then obviously the bible is a pretty poor guide and should not be trusted. Why do you assume the Bible is the main cause of the disagreement. Humans disagree, its been going on since before the Bible was written, and it will continue until the end of the world. The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions. JWs don't allow them because the Bible says blood is the lifeforce of the body. It is their decision to choose how they interpret blood being important, and to what effect that has on their lives. What do you expect the Bible to do, specifically say, blood transfusions are not a sin and are a good thing? Do you have any idea how many exceptions and specifics would have to be put into the Bible to account for every disagreement or interpretation that humanity would have over any single verse? You'd have a Bible so large no human on Earth would have bothered to read the thing. It is unrealistic.

Have you read the U.S. constitution? Its very simple and certainly doesn't include anywhere near the number of issues that need to be resolved with the changing times. It serves as a framework; a guide. So does the Bible. The Bible emphasizes the most important parts over and over, specifically how to be saved and why we need to. It leaves other parts open to interpretation.

Also, the typical christian answer to the problem of evil (children die slowly in terrible pain but it's just fine because it's for the Greater Good) is moderately despicable and not something I would like to emulate, but at least it technically is an answer that works for the problem.Evil is a result of humanity, not God. Want to stop evil? Change humanity. (And don't bring up the we're not omnipotent argument. You don't need to be. If every "good" human did their part, and were less selfish/prideful/greedy etc., the world would be a much better place to live).

[Johnny Skeptic]

One of the most important issues here, if not the most important issue, is the nature of God. How can any mere human know the nature of God when he has never been available for detailed questioning? The Gospel writers showed where Jesus answered some questions, but the questions and answers left many important issues unresolved. What in the world is wrong with God providing us with some answers to some very important questions. Christians by necessity insist that God is not obligated to do everything that we want him to do. Well, that is correct if we are talking about self-imposed dictators with no accountability to anyone, and who refuse to justify their actions and allowances. The only reason that Christians put up with God's dictatorial ways is because they want to enjoy eternity in comfort. If they were able to obtain through their own efforts a completely comfortable life. and if they believed that their comfort would be eternal, a good percentage of them would lose interest in religion. Truly, as far as Christians and other religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to comfort, and if an extra-terrestrial being one day provides eternal comfort for some people, to them his identity would be of no importance whatsoever.

[Magus55]

One of the most important issues here, if not the most important issue, is the nature of God. How can any mere human know the nature of God when he has never been available for detailed questioning? The Gospel writers showed where Jesus answered some questions, but the questions and answers left many important issues unresolved. What in the world is wrong with God providing us with some answers to some very important questions. Christians by necessity insist that God is not obligated to do everything that we want him to do. Well, that is correct if we are talking about self-imposed dictators with no accountability to anyone, and who refuse to justify their actions and allowances. The only reason that Christians put up with God's dictatorial ways is because they want to enjoy eternity in comfort. If they were able to obtain through their own efforts a completely comfortable life. and if they believed that their comfort would be eternal, a good percentage of them would lose interest in religion. Truly, as far as Christians and other religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to comfort, and if an extra-terrestrial being one day provides eternal comfort for some people, to them his identity would be of no importance whatsoever.Actually, while i don't consider God to be a dictator ( He doesn't force us to do anything we don't want and dictators don't care about other people), one thing God has over a human dictator is He is perfect. It is a lot easier to accept what God does and says when we believe He can't be wrong, and knows everything.

[Soul Invictus]

Well, technically Jesus is God so He can do anything He wants if He so chose. The OT rules were for the Israelites. Gentile's aren't under the same convenant. Jesus fullfilled the OT laws.

Can you please explain how one goes about "fulfilling" a law? What happens and what does this mean? What exactly are you saying that Jesus did?

[Johnny Skeptic]

Actually, while i don't consider God to be a dictator (He doesn't force us to do anything we don't want and dictators don't care about other people), one thing God has over a human dictator is He is perfect. It is a lot easier to accept what God does and says when we believe He can't be wrong, and knows everything.

God is a dictator because he had declared himself to have the uncontested right to determine peoples' future with no accountability to anyone whatsoever, and with no explanations whatsoever for his actions and allowances. He has no use for democracy whatsoever.

Regarding your claim that God is perfect and all-knowing, where is your proof of that? Regarding a perfect being, it takes one to know one. No human could possibly know whether or not God is perfect. Whether you know it or not, your actual definition of God's perfection is that you believe that you will have a comfortable eternal life. That is the only kind of perfection that you require. If God is imperfect and still gives you a comfortable eternal life, would you care about whether or not he is perfect? Of course not. Do you really care who gives you a comfortable eternal life as long as you get it? Of course not? Truly, for religious minded people, all roads lead to comfort.

[sharon45]

Well, technically Jesus is God so He can do anything He wants if He so chose.Well, actually, jesus is just a fictional character in the NT. As such, he never once outright says or establishes himself as god. This is instead christian belief gathered from conflicting accounts, testimonies and assumptions.

The OT rules were for the Israelites. Gentile's aren't under the same convenant. Jesus fullfilled the OT laws.The OT Laws were to observed for all time and gentiles joining with the OT god would also have to follow these Laws as well, unless as I said before, you want to assert that the OT is a lie and the OT's god is a lie.

Jesus couldn't even enough try to follow his own teachings, what would be the worth of his supposed claims and bearing on the Law?. Besides, truly fullfilling the Law is in following it, there is no other way around it.

Did you happen to read what the purpose of circumcision was? Why would circumcision apply to Gentile Christians, when its purpose was to establish a convenant with the Jews?Again wrong. The Laws were to be observed by anyone following this same god.

Break off the OT from the bible if you don't want to pay attention to it.

[sharon45]

All His children can serve as witnesses. And He gave you the truth, you're just too stubborn and prideful to accept it.This opinion can easily work against you as well.

Of course not. Murder and adultery wouldn't be loving God or your neighbor now would it. And the 10 commandments certainly hold more prestige than the dietary laws. They are the only laws written directly by the hand of God.Wrong. In the OT, the 10 Laws were just the beginning. God continues relaying more Laws starting with Exodus 20:22 all the way through to the end of Exodus 23.

I never said the laws were irrelevant, I merely said the Jewish covenant laws ( see Leviticus) don't control humanity. The laws serve as a guide.The Laws were meant to be obeyed and followed for all time.

Read Paul. He says that even though Jesus fullfilled the OT laws, doesn't mean it gives us the right to sin. The law now serves as a method of seeing where we fail. It is no longer the means of salvation. Think of Jesus as the embodiment of the law, perfectly fullfilled. By accepting Him as our savior, we accept that fullfillment and use Him as an example of how to follow the law, without expecting the law to save us from our sins.The Laws keep one from sinning, because to not follow them is the sin. One does not need anyone else to tell them how to follow the Laws, they are already self-explanatory as it is.

I'm not aware of any Bris' being performed within Christian denominations. Health reasons certainly account for many of those being performed, and sure Christians may get it for certain religious value based on what the Jews were told to do, but Jesus never told Gentile's to get circumcised for covenant reasons.What jesus says concerning the Laws isn't important since he showed himself as to not being a servant of the OT's god.

Have you read the U.S. constitution? Its very simple and certainly doesn't include anywhere near the number of issues that need to be resolved with the changing times. It serves as a framework; a guide. So does the Bible. The Bible emphasizes the most important parts over and over, specifically how to be saved and why we need to. It leaves other parts open to interpretation.That's the beauty of the OT, it does constantly say how one is saved and the NT reveals its corruption by outright changing these obvious consistent messages.

Evil is a result of humanity, not God. Want to stop evil? Change humanity. (And don't bring up the we're not omnipotent argument. You don't need to be. If every "good" human did their part, and were less selfish/prideful/greedy etc., the world would be a much better place to live).Yes, but it is still unrealistic since many of those saying this are christians, being selfish, prideful and greedy, because their own NT is this and much more.

[sharon45]

Actually, while i don't consider God to be a dictator ( He doesn't force us to do anything we don't want and dictators don't care about other people)First of all, of course god would be the most obvious example of a dictator. He has is own self-righteous decisions about what is right and wrong and we are forced to abide by those or suffer the most extreme of dire consequences imaginable.

, one thing God has over a human dictator is He is perfect.Says god though as he dictates that he is, but reveals that he is not.

It is a lot easier to accept what God does and says when we believe He can't be wrong, and knows everything.Yes, like you say, when you believe this, but you surely can not provide the evidence of such realistically, because he clearly isn't perfect.

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, technically Jesus is God so He can do anything He wants if He so chose.Circular argument. in order to claim jesus is god, you first have to show that he isn't a Deut. 13 false prophet, but your "evidence" that he isn't a false prophet is that he his god! You can't use his miracles as evidence because false prophets can do miracles according to Deut 13. If his miracles are off the table what's left? Jesus actually claims his miracles are proof that he's not a false prophet. That's more evidence that he IS a false prophet because he doesn't know about Deut. 13.

Also, god can't do anything he wants without making himself a liar in Deut 13. He says if anybody changes the laws or the ways of the Torah, that person is a false prophet. Once he says that, he's painted himself in a corner. In order to tell people that the rules have changed he has to have a prophet announce it, but that prophet would be a Deut. 13 false prophet automatically.

The OT rules were for the Israelites. Gentile's aren't under the same convenant. In case you didn't notice, Jesus was telling Jews the "eye for an eye" rule is no longer to be followed. He told Jews that you can never make ANY oaths, yet in the Torah, god says it's OK to make oaths in god's name. And he told Jews that nothing they can eat will make them unclean. He was not talking to gentiles. So even if you were right that the rules were "only for Israelites", since Jesus is telling Israelites to not follow them, he is a false prophet.

Did you happen to read what the purpose of circumcision was? Why would circumcision apply to Gentile Christians, when its purpose was to establish a convenant with the Jews? Well here's Genesis 17:9-14.

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

And here is Galatians 3:29....

If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Therefore, Paul is saying EVERY christian is grafted into the Abrahamic covenant. Circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. So every male christian must get circumcised under the Abrahamic covenant.
And don't give me that "circumcision of the heart" nonsense that Paul spouts. The key phrase in Genesis 17:13-14 is "in the flesh." It is clearly talking about a real, physical circumcision, not some spiritual one.
Also, Paul says no one is to be circumcised, not even Jews. He says anyone who is circumcised cannot be saved by Jesus. So Paul is clearly saying even Jewish christians are not required to be circumcised, which makes your point moot. It also makes Paul a false prophet.


And He gave you the truth, you're just too stubborn and prideful to accept it.God gave you the truth: he said he was going to send Jesus as a Deut. 13 false prophet in order to test your faith and guillibility... you're just too stubborn and prideful to accept it.
Murder and adultery wouldn't be loving God or your neighbor now would it. Part of "loving god" is obeying his rules, like not eating blood, no matter how stupid you think they are. You are not to question the rules of this "perfect" god. How can you dare say that some of his rules are outdated? By thinking up excuses why those rules "no longer apply" you are disrespecting god. When someone gathered wood on the sabbath, god had him killed. Are you saying he thinks it's OK to work on the sabbath now even though he used to kill people for it? He said "anyone who eats meat with blood still in it must be cut off from his people", but now I'm supposed to believe god couldn't care less if people eat blood?
And the 10 commandments certainly hold more prestige than the dietary laws. They are the only laws written directly by the hand of God.From what I've seen from your other posts you claim there's no such thing as a "little" sin. God hates all sin. Therefore "prestige" means nothing when it comes to laws. A law is a law. Somehow I'm supposed to believe that god hates coveting more than eating blood? Also, who cares which ones were "written by his own hand"? Every rule in the Torah is supposed to be a direct quote from god. Or is the Torah lying? Some perfect book, now it's lying about what god is saying.
If being directly written by god meant anything, then I guess you shouldn't follow the NT either since that's all a bunch of hearsay also.
I never said the laws were irrelevant, I merely said the Jewish covenant laws ( see Leviticus) don't control humanity. The laws serve as a guide. They're called laws because they are laws, not a guide. God used threats of punishment for many of them. You don't use threats for a "guide." God didn't say "Uh, it would be nice if you didn't commit adultery OK?" He said anyone who commits adultery is to be killed. That's not a guide.
Read Paul. He says that even though Jesus fullfilled the OT laws, doesn't mean it gives us the right to sin. The law now serves as a method of seeing where we fail. It is no longer the means of salvation. Think of Jesus as the embodiment of the law, perfectly fullfilled. By accepting Him as our savior, we accept that fullfillment and use Him as an example of how to follow the law, without expecting the law to save us from our sins. More circular arguments. Paul is a false prophet so who cares what his "excuses' are for being a false prophet? Deut 13 says anyone who changes the ways the Jews were told to live is a false prophet. It doesn't say "unless they have a good excuse or are smooth talkers." What are you saying here anyway? That to eat pork is still a sin, but it doesn't matter because Jesus died for you? Like that makes any sense. God doesn't like you to eat blood, but you deliberately do it anyway. As sharon45 said, not following the law IS the sin.

God already said how to have your sins washed clean in Ezekiel 18:21-22....

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

You don't even have to worhip some false prophet, either. What is the point of Jesus dying for your sins when god already said how your sins could be forgiven without the shedding of blood? These verses in Ezekiel show why the book of hebrews is lying when it says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness".

[Johnny Skeptic]

I suggest that we get back on topic. The simple truth is that we have only the Bible writers' word for it that God is good. Why should anyone believe that? There is no evidence at all that the Bible writers ever met God. Where is any tangible evidence of God's presence in the world today? We have tsunamis, plagues and hunger, but where is God?

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, that does not prove that God is good. Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between power and goodness. If God exists, then he needs to explain himself. Some answers to just a few simple questions would do quite nicely. Does might make right? I don't think so.

[King of Men]

He does tend to repeat himself a bit, the lord god of the hosts. A touch of insecurity there, perhaps? Or maybe he just doesn't think his subjects are very bright.

[sharon45]

The simple truth is that we have only the Bible writers' word for it that God is good.Not really. What they honestly convey is far from that. Their words describe a being of great power yes, but also one that is clearly a vicious murderer and a severe liar as well.
Why should anyone believe that? There is no evidence at all that the Bible writers ever met God. Where is any tangible evidence of God's presence in the world today? We have tsunamis, plagues and hunger, but where is God?All we have around are millions of the faithful...all worshipping different gods.If God exists, then he needs to explain himself. Some answers to just a few simple questions would do quite nicely. Does might make right? I don't think so.The thing is, the god of the bible is an example of a god using "might is right" as his main principle. This god does what and how, when he wants, and it all could well be for a lesson to us, but he doesn't think he needs to answer to anybody for the real convincing explanation.

[Johnny Skeptic]

The simple truth is that we have only the Bible writers' word for it that God is good.

Not really. What they honestly convey is far from that. Their words describe a being of great power yes, but also one that is clearly a vicious murderer and a severe liar as well.

Christians by necessity claim that anything that God does is good, that his moral code need not necessarily be exactly the same as ours is, and that he never lies. Whether God is good or evil based upon a human persepctive, no one can verify this one way or the other unless God shows up to disucss the matter in person and in great detail.

[sharon45]

Christians by necessity claim that anything that God does is good, that his moral code need not necessarily be exactly the same as ours is, and that he never lies. Whether God is good or evil based upon a human persepctive, no one can verify this one way or the other unless God shows up to disucss the matter in person and in great detail.Yes, christians and the bible's gods both claim this, but the devil is written in the details.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Christians by necessity claim that anything that God does is good, that his moral code need not necessarily be exactly the same as ours is, and that he never lies. Whether God is good or evil based upon a human persepctive, no one can verify this one way or the other unless God shows up to disucss the matter in person and in great detail.

Yes, christians and the bible's gods both claim this, but the devil is written in the details.

My main point is "Whether God is good or evil based upon a human persepctive, no one can verify this one way or the other unless God shows up to disucss the matter in person and in great detail." God needs to speak for himself, not through human proxies.

[sharon45]

My main point is "Whether God is good or evil based upon a human persepctive, no one can verify this one way or the other unless God shows up to disucss the matter in person and in great detail." God needs to speak for himself, not through human proxies.Even with this, one still couldn't be sure. While a good rule is "respect is earned", one can still fool people for many many years while gaining enough trust just to completely take advantage of that trust.

[Johnny Skeptic]

My main point is "Whether God is good or evil based upon a human persepctive, no one can verify this one way or the other unless God shows up to disucss the matter in person and in great detail." God needs to speak for himself, not through human proxies.

Even with this, one still couldn't be sure. While a good rule is "respect is earned", one can still fool people for many many years while gaining enough trust just to completely take advantage of that trust.

That is true. I have used the very same argument myself. My point is that the issue is not even debatable unless God shows up. What he would do following an appearance is a completely different matter. If a man promises to financially provide for his wife, and if he has done so for a number of years, he might eventually change his mind, but least there would have been prior evidence that he had kept his word so far. There is obviously no prior evidence that God will provide Christians with a comfortable eternal life, and that he has explained his motives and allowances in great detail.

[sharon45]

My point is that the issue is not even debatable unless God shows up. What he would do following an appearance is a completely different matter.Agreed.

There is obviously no prior evidence that God will provide Christians with a comfortable eternal life, and that he has explained his motives and allowances in great detail.A christian would try to suggest that the bible is already enough prior evidence as it is even while admitting it still leaves plenty of unanswered questions. When thoroughly rationalized, they should have to conclude this is still all a clear matter of faith though.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Agreed.

A Christian would try to suggest that the Bible is already enough prior evidence as it is even while admitting it still leaves plenty of unanswered questions.

Well of course. Christians are afraid to say otherwise. He who is perceived to have ultimate power makes up all of the rules, no matter what the rules are. As long as Christians believe that they will one day enjoy a comfortable eternal life, they don't care at all what God does to anyone else, or for that matter whether or not he is perfect. Most Christians are not aware that they would accept a comfortable heaven from any being, even one that wasn't perfect. Comfort is the goal, not the means by which it is obtained (believing in Jesus Christ) and who provides it. Any of a number of other means delivered by any other being would also be deemed entirely acceptable.

When thoroughly rationalized, they should have to conclude this is still all a clear matter of faith though.

Yes they should, but most fundamentalist Christians don't want to use a faith only argument even if that is the case because skeptics would say that the followers of other religions have faith too, thereby creating a need for fundamentalist Christians to use apologetic arguments based upon logic, such as the 5,000 copies of manuscripts and Biblical archaeology. The majority of people who become fundamentalist Christians become interested in apologetic arguments subsequent to becoming Christians, not prior to becoming Christians, but yet they often use apologetic arguments when proselytizing non-Christians.

[Kilgore Trout]

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.� We need compassion from Jesus (or from the Holy Spirit) today just as much as people did back then, but the fact that there is no evidence today of tangible miracles, in other words of compassion on the part of Jesus or the Holy Sprit, calls into question that there were any back then. Yes, if the NT was true, my take on Jesus would be that while he was on earth he only felt sorry for the sick because he had to look at them up close. Now that he's up in heaven eating bon-bons, sick people aren't right in his face, so he doesn't care about them any more. Out of sight, out of mind. It makes no sense that all of a sudden he feels sorry for sick people. He's the one who made them sick in the first place.

Another explanation would be that he doesn't really feely compassion, he just knows healing them will make him look really cool so people will follow him. What's the point of a false prophet if you don't have any followers?


My main point is "Whether God is good or evil based upon a human persepctive, no one can verify this one way or the other unless God shows up to disucss the matter in person and in great detail." God needs to speak for himself, not through human proxies.

The old Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man" is a great illustration of why this can be problematic. Aliens came to earth and "proved" their good intentions by ending famine and curing diseases and other nice things. Then it turns out that they just wanted to eat us and by ending famine and curing diseases there are more of us around to eat.

Let's say god explained in great detail why he killed millions of people in the OT, and why he doesn't stop tsunamis, plagues and hunger. Now let's say everyone on earth was satisfied with the answers. That still doesn't show he's good. Maybe he's a great liar and smooth talker. Maybe he cast some spell on us so that we believe what he says is good. There are endless possiblities. After all he's (allegedly) god.

That brings up the other problem. How do you know that even was god? Many skeptics say things like "I won't believe in god unless he appears in front of me and does miracles." Well, even that doesn't mean much. All you would have just seen, assuming you aren't crazy, is that there is some being who claims to be god and appears to be able to do what we define as miracles.

It all boils down to might doesn't make right, but when might says "jump" you're probably going to ask "how high?"

[Johnny Skeptic]

Let's say god explained in great detail why he killed millions of people in the OT, and why he doesn't stop tsunamis, plagues and hunger. Now let's say everyone on earth was satisfied with the answers. That still doesn't show he's good. Maybe he's a great liar and smooth talker. Maybe he cast some spell on us so that we believe what he says is good. There are endless possiblities. After all he's (allegedly) god."

True, but I believe that a much better argument to use against Christians is that some reasonable explanations on God's part wouldl be a good beginning, and it would be much better than the very few explanations that we have now.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I would like to ask Christians what God is tangibly doing in the world today.