Why Nobody Should Be a Christian (Even if the bible is true.)

[j.woodard24]

If you don't want to watch the video (self-promotion can be supremely irritating, but I thought it was a good topic for discourse, anyway), then the basic point is this:

Even if the the Bible were true, and Jesus somehow died for our sins, we should then recognize that it was a meaningless sacrifice (he went straight to heaven to live an eternity in paradise. He did not "die". He is better off than your average sinner on earth.), that a system in which death for some reason atones for sin is a cruel and sadistic one, and that the god depicted in the bible, generally speaking, is a dictatorial monster who refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes upon his creation. I use the Hitler analogy - if Hitler became omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and commanded that I love him, I wouldn't, and nobody should.

Thoughts?

If you do want to watch the video, keep in mind that I am the thinner, bearded one who is all-in-all pretty intelligent - not the Hobbit-like (Hobbitous) religioso commanding us to be honest, and also to be honest, and also to be honest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1KuMH6tjzM&lc=cjDz6wI7Q7KEO-EbhohKf25KXFLQfNnLmQAwvtvZD-0&feature=inbox

[AnimatedDirt]

Even if the the Bible were true, and Jesus somehow died for our sins, we should then recognize that it was a meaningless sacrifice (he went straight to heaven to live an eternity in paradise. He did not "die". He is better off than your average sinner on earth.), that a system in which death for some reason atones for sin is a cruel and sadistic one, and that the god depicted in the bible, generally speaking, is a dictatorial monster who refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes upon his creation. I use the Hitler analogy - if Hitler became omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and commanded that I love him, I wouldn't, and nobody should.

Thoughts?

It's ironic that you claim the God of the bible refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes...yet if you have truly read the bible, Jesus did not sin, yet was put on a cross and serves as atonement for all.  He died for at least a day and a half, but was dead on Friday, through Saturday and a small part of Sunday (therefore it is said he was dead for three days)  Also, he didn't go straight to heaven (maybe you would fare better having the fairytale story correct)...he serves as an example of the gift of God...eternal life.  That's why He is alive and in paradise.

BTW, Hitler is dead...and to my knowledge, no one is claiming otherwise.
BTW No. 2.  I didn't watch the video. 

[j.woodard24]

It's ironic that you claim the God of the bible refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes...yet if you have truly read the bible, Jesus did not sin, yet was put on a cross and serves as atonement for all.  He died for at least a day and a half, but was dead on Friday, through Saturday and a small part of Sunday (therefore it is said he was dead for three days)  Also, he didn't go straight to heaven (maybe you would fare better having the fairytale story correct)...he serves as an example of the gift of God...eternal life.  That's why He is alive and in paradise.

BTW, Hitler is dead...and to my knowledge, no one is claiming otherwise.

It's ironic? Are you aware of the proper definition of irony?
I don't think it's ironic at all that the vast majority of Christians are entirely unwilling to hold god accountable for shit like mauling forty-two children with two mother bears, for repeatedly and vehemently condoning or commanding genocide, for killing based on non-offenses (like turning around to look at a city), for condemning hosts upon hosts of decent people to hell for not accepting the arbitrary non-virtue of blind faith. If human beings did these things, it would be called sin. Therefore, it is a double moral standard, and one example of some not-sinning that goes on in the bible has absolutely nothing to do with the massive amount of evil that god does.

BTW, Hitler being dead has nothing to do with my analogy. It was a metaphor to explain why nobody should worship an asshole, even if he is all-powerful.

[Tank]

Please don't burn the forum down while I'm asleep.

Goodnight
Chris

[j.woodard24]

Please don't burn the forum down while I'm asleep.

Goodnight
Chris

You're going to sleep?
What timezone are you in?

[AnimatedDirt]

The irony is the claiming of knowledge in post one, yet not even knowing the basics as proved by lack of knowledge in post one. 

[no_god_know_peace]

Agreed ! even if god did exist I wouldn't worship him/her/it (whatever god is). This god charecter is sick, sadistic, controlling (telling us what to do in every aspect of our lives and sends us to hell/kills us off if we don't follow) and is also jealous ( remember the quote "my god is a jealous god" ?). Gives us nothing back but hit and miss answers to prayers ... this "relationship" a lot of ppl have with god is an abusive one.

[DeterminedJuliet]

In all fairness, I don't think anyone who takes a view that hostile to the bible is actually going to believe it's true and vice versa.

Maybe I'm just feeling extra kindly towards the theists today, but this seems to be a very obvious atheist position. No one is going to read the bible like God is a nutjob if they have already decided they believe in it - whether I think they should believe in it is another matter, but adding that "if the bible is true" bit is the part that gets me. No one would believe it's true and still interpret it that way, I don't think.

We interpret it that way because we obviously (and I think rightly) believe it to be false, you know?

[j.woodard24]

In all fairness, I don't think anyone who takes a view that hostile to the bible is actually going to believe it's true and vice versa.

Maybe I'm just feeling extra kindly towards the theists today, but this seems to be a very obvious atheist position. No one is going to read the bible like God is a nutjob if they have already decided they believe in it - whether I think they should believe in it is another matter, but adding that "if the bible is true" bit is the part that gets me. No one would believe it's true and still interpret it that way, I don't think.

We interpret it that way because we obviously (and I think rightly) believe it to be false, you know?

My argument is not based on interpretation, but rather that any interpretation that portrays god as benevolent, whether the bible is true or not, is an objectively false one, which is not an obvious atheist position. My point is that if it is true, and you then interpret it as a morally just document, you are wrong. Therefore, the vast majority of Christians do not only believe in something that is not rationally justifiable, but also spend a great deal of time making excuses and rationalizing away great evil. This is why, if the Bible were true, I still would not worship its deity - even though I would no longer be an atheist. It is impossible to be rational and read the bible like god is not a "nutjob".

The irony is the claiming of knowledge in post one, yet not even knowing the basics as proved by lack of knowledge in post one.

This is an entirely unsubstantiated claim - I mean to say, you're just saying something without even trying to back it up. Furthermore, I was a Christian for eight years, once upon a time considered myself an apologist, and have a perfectly fine understanding of what it's supposed to mean. I just happen to think it's nonsensical, which is what Christians commonly refer to as "lack of knowledge".

[Whitney]

There there is some theist that proposed that the Old Testament and New Testament are two different accounts of God (ie that the Jews got it wrong and Jesus came to correct them) and then there are even fewer believers who think the Old and New Testament are about two different gods....I believe it was Ecurb Noselrub who recently pointed that out in another thread.

So while I do agree that there are various issues with taking the bible literally; I think that if we somehow knew that the Christian god were real that there would be room for that god to not be horrible (perhaps my view is also affected by having been raised in the liberal Christian tradition).  I would also assume that if we knew god to be real that we'd have some idea of his/her/it's character outside of what is written in a book and would have a better perspective to use when trying to decide if the Bible was an accurate account or just man's attempt at accuracy (with a bit or a lot of agenda thrown in).

[Ecurb Noselrub]

There there is some theist that proposed that the Old Testament and New Testament are two different accounts of God (ie that the Jews got it wrong and Jesus came to correct them) and then there are even fewer believers who think the Old and New Testament are about two different gods....I believe it was Ecurb Noselrub who recently pointed that out in another thread.

So while I do agree that there are various issues with taking the bible literally; I think that if we somehow knew that the Christian god were real that there would be room for that god to not be horrible (perhaps my view is also affected by having been raised in the liberal Christian tradition).  I would also assume that if we knew god to be real that we'd have some idea of his/her/it's character outside of what is written in a book and would have a better perspective to use when trying to decide if the Bible was an accurate account or just man's attempt at accuracy (with a bit or a lot of agenda thrown in).

Yes, Marcion thought the OT God and the NT God were different Gods. I happen to see them as the same, but that the Jews of the OT interpreted their experience wrongly, and that Jesus came to set them straight, as you mentioned.  If we assume that Jesus is God in the flesh, for the sake of argument, there's nothing really bad about him.  He preached loved, healed people, and didn't tell his disciples to kill anyone.  Even the parts that talk about "hell" can be interpreted differently than the orthodox dogma, and the people who hung around him seemed to really like him.  As the Doobies said, "Jesus is just alright with me." The icing on the cake is that he made wine.  Ya gotta like a guy who can pull that one off.

[DeterminedJuliet]

In all fairness, I don't think anyone who takes a view that hostile to the bible is actually going to believe it's true and vice versa.

Maybe I'm just feeling extra kindly towards the theists today, but this seems to be a very obvious atheist position. No one is going to read the bible like God is a nutjob if they have already decided they believe in it - whether I think they should believe in it is another matter, but adding that "if the bible is true" bit is the part that gets me. No one would believe it's true and still interpret it that way, I don't think.

We interpret it that way because we obviously (and I think rightly) believe it to be false, you know?

My argument is not based on interpretation, but rather that any interpretation that portrays god as benevolent, whether the bible is true or not, is an objectively false one, which is not an obvious atheist position. My point is that if it is true, and you then interpret it as a morally just document, you are wrong. Therefore, the vast majority of Christians do not only believe in something that is not rationally justifiable, but also spend a great deal of time making excuses and rationalizing away great evil. This is why, if the Bible were true, I still would not worship its deity - even though I would no longer be an atheist. It is impossible to be rational and read the bible like god is not a "nutjob".

If the Bible is objectively true - you still have to define "how" it is true. I don't think the literal interpretation of the bible 100% depicts God as evil, but it is definitely a confused and convoluted picture. That's why I'd argue that it's practically impossible to read the bible without some kind of  interpretation. And that interpretation is going to be coloured by the person and what the person believes. If you're saying the Bible is "true", then I guess you are saying that the God depicted in it has to be true - if that's the case, I would argue that there is definitely "wiggle room", as Whitney put it, in justifying a God worth worshiping.

If the truth of the Bible is a fact and the truth of a God is a fact, I think those are pretty logical reasons to find a way to believe in the God and the Bible, even if getting there is the part that requires the most rationalization.

I say this because I was once a Christian who did exactly that. I assumed the Bible was true and then worked within that framework, and I don't think even then I was a blind or totally irrational person - it's the book itself which is irrational.

Now, if you want to argue that there is absolutely no reason why you should accept the Bible is true to begin with, well, I agree with you there.

EDIT: FYI, my husband is correcting papers next to me and I don't want to bother him, so I haven't watched the video, so correct me if some of this has already been addressed there.

[Sandra Craft]

Thoughts?

I've always considered religion a two-step process: 1) accepting the existence (or at least the probable existence) of a god or gods, and 2) determining the god or gods worth worshipping.  Just because a god exists doesn't mean it should be worshipped.

[Xjeepguy]

Thoughts?

I've always considered religion a two-step process: 1) accepting the existence (or at least the probable existence) of a god or gods, and 2) determining the god or gods worth worshipping.  Just because a god exists doesn't mean it should be worshipped.

You forgot step 3. pester anyone who does not believe in the exact same god you do.

[Sandra Craft]

Thoughts?

I've always considered religion a two-step process: 1) accepting the existence (or at least the probable existence) of a god or gods, and 2) determining the god or gods worth worshipping.  Just because a god exists doesn't mean it should be worshipped.

You forgot step 3. pester anyone who does not believe in the exact same god you do.

I don't consider that a requirement, it's more of a character flaw.