Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[shmogie]

Certain types of Christians consider science a threat and work actively to try to undermine that which contradicts their faith-based beliefs.



No, it is not.



Christianity isn't much different than Islam on paper. The main difference between the two is that Christianity has had the benefit of several centuries of humanist input. Here in the West, we've more or less stopped killing heretics, imprisoning atheists and blasphemers, throwing acid into people's faces, cutting off their hands, pushing them off towers, and burning them alive in cages.

Christians also no longer execute people for homosexuality, adultery, witchcraft, fornication, apostasy, impiety, blasphemy, and other crimes against Yahweh, whereas Muslims are still free to kill such people.

It wasn't until modernity and the rise of the secular state that Christianity began transforming into the more civilized religion we find today. The fact that Christians are not free to indulge those values in the West is due to the secular humanist influence in the West.

Below is a list of similarities. Ask yourself why these religions look so different today.

Spoiler: comparing Christianity and Islam

If you extract Christianity and Islam from their surrounding cultures in which they are rendered, and look instead at their religions on paper, they appear very similar.

Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, Yahweh and Allah, that is an angry, petty, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, capricious, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadistic, and prudish, and requires worship and submission.

Believers of both attend temples (Mosques or churches) and obey paternalistic, misogynisitic clergy.

Both religions embrace magical thinking, mythology, dogma, the supernatural, and ritual.

Each feature demons angels, prayer, an afterlife, a judgment, and a system of reward and punishment after death.

Each has its now centuries old holy book of internal contradictions, failed prophecies, and errors of history and science. I'm not as sure about the Qur'an, but it likely also contain vengeance, hatred, tribalism, violence, and failed morals that endorse slavery, rape, infanticide, and incest.

They each think they have the right to determine what sex is acceptable, who should be able to marry whom, and what women must do regarding their bodies.

Both are patriarchal, authoritarian, misogynistic, sexually repressive, anhedonisitic, atheophobic, homophobic, antiscientiific, use psychological terrorism on their children, have violent histories featuring torture, genocide and terrorism, and demand obedience and submission.

Each consider faith a virtue and reason a problem.

Each has a history of opposing human rights and science.

Each advocates theocracy over democracy.

There's some merit to this. Muslims and Christians typically don't respect one another. But the warring is not just about being Christian. Oil interests have played a role.



Some do. What do you think that these prominent and influential Christians see or saw for America?

* "We need to do more than win an election or win the House or win the presidency, my friends: we need to make this beloved country of ours God's country once again." - Pat Buchanan at the Christian Coalition 1995 Road to Victory Conference, as reported in the October 1995 issue of Church and State.

* "There is a value in spiritual violence, and it is time that you considered the role that you are playing or not playing and whether or not it's time for you to become more aggressive in your beliefs" - Matthew Hagee

* "I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism" - Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue

* "The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Christian Dominionist Gary North

* "I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be." - Jerry Falwell

* "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." - Pat Robertson

* "Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies." - Randall Terry​

Perhaps a handful do, and many would like to ban many books, but this does not characterize Christianity.



I haven't heard that one. Perhaps you're exaggerating. The American church is responsible for most of the hatred of atheists, gays, and transgendered people in that country (Isn't that enough?), but much of the hatred in the world is unrelated to Christianity.



Christians would like to convert the world and get us all into church. Would some Christians use force to make that happen if it were possible? I think so. You saw the quotes above from American clergy. Do you think that those people would compel you to submit to their religion if they could?



Christian atheophobia is well established. If you like, I can show you the scriptures that define atheists as lying, corrupt, vile, decadent, debauched, abominable, wicked, godless vessels in the service of darkness and evil, not one of which does any good, and fit to be burned alive forever as the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and the declared enemy of a good god.

As a result, atheists have been demonized and marginalized as immoral and despised by God. As a result, it wasn't until recently that atheists were considered morally fit to adopt, teach, coach, give expert testimony in court, or serve on a jury, and atheists still can't get elected in America.

And today? Atheists remain most disliked religious minority in the U.S.

And what is the basis of this bigotry? That we don't believe what the Christians believe, just as you suggested.

So I'd say that atheists have a legitimate gripe, and that anti-theism is justified. The church is not a friend, and hasn't been a good neighbor. You can still sense the residual hostility for atheists in these threads when the theists hit their wall and begin decompensating because the atheists aren't buying their claims and arguments. It's a three-phase process. It begins politely enough, but then devolves into insincere laughter, and finally overt anger.



America was not founded over religion or religious freedom. Some of the colonies were, but almost two centuries later when war broke out, it was about independence from an unpopular king.

The founders did, however, understand that the church would meddle in the lives of citizens unless prevented from doing so as it still labors to do today



Some do. You know, if there is a strain of some unpopular sentiment running through some aspects of Christianity but not others, you don't make it go away by exaggerating the claim and then striking down that straw man. Several of the elements on your list have some truth to them, but not in the extreme language you chose to depict them.



Again, this is true for some, especially fundamentalists and creationists, but not all. We have at least two Christians posting here that work as scientists, and they think pretty well - at least as well as the atheist scientists posting here.

But it falls off quickly from there.



That is correct. The Bible is full of errors in science and history, internal contradictions, unkept promises, failed prophecies, and both moral and intellectual errors attributed to a good and perfect god.



It's been retranslated many times. It gets reinterpreted with every advance in science and moral theory. And there are different Bibles containing different books.



That's not important either way. What is important is that Hitler claimed to be Christian and was apparently believed despite his atrocities, he was accepted as Christian by much of the German clergy and many if not most of the German people, who were predominantly Catholic and Lutheran, and who were easily manipulated by Hitler's frequent references to Christianity.

How do you think a nation of secular humanists would have reacted to Hitler as he attempted to rise to power?



The opiate metaphor is apt albeit a bit hyperbolic as well. Perhaps sedative or comforter is a better word.

And as I've indicated, I believe that the church would be as dictatorial and authoritarian as it is allowed to be.



You reap as you sow. Rude Christians will be dealt with accordingly. Behave civilly and you will be treated in kind. You want to cast unbelievers as angry and ready to attack courteous believers, but this comment from you was a little hostile and unprovoked.

What a bizarre rant.
Two interesting points you made however.
You stated atheists were a religious minority, ergo atheism is a religion.
To corroborate your spurious accusations, you carefully hand picked statements you allege are from leaders of Christianity, they are not. The quotations certainly do not represent mainstream Christian beliefs, but you know this. I would love to know the context of these statements.
Nevertheless,there are tens of thousands of leaders of Christianity. The doctrines and beliefs of every congregation are in writing, search these for true and accurate statements.
Your faux indignation over my statement to the OP re civility .
I certainly was not saying all atheists are inconsiderate, crude, cretins when discussing Christianity with Christians, only some are.

 

[shmogie]

The thing is shmogie, geocentrists are real. KJV-onlyists are real. People who believe you should carry around venomous snakes in church and you wont be hurt are real.

Should I spend a lot of my time, as a non-Christian, debunking what those Christians have to say? Personally I don't think so. I think there are versions of Christianity that are more serious and reasonable than those. So I'd rather spend my time considering what those people have to say.

So let's say for sake of argument someone, somewhere has uttered each of these things usfan listed some time in the last 2,000 years. So what? Wouldn't you rather interact with the strongest, most robust criticisms of Christianity than the weakest?

I see much in your post that is quite reasonable.
However, false accusations, repeated over and over, become very frustrating.

 

[Salvador]

As requested by a poster, i am listing a set of what i perceive to be caricatures and phony narratives about Christianity.

This assumes a specific, exact, historical definition of Christianity, as defined by the Founder.

1. Christians hate science.
2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.
3. Christianity is the same as islam, but not as peaceful.
4. Muslims would love us, and live in harmony, if they weren't triggered by the hateful Christians.
5. American Christians want a theocracy.
6. American Christians want to ban all books but the bible.
7. The bible is the source of all hate and oppression in the world.
8. Christians want to force everyone to believe, and go to church.
9. Christians hate atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, muslims, Hindus, and any who do not believe as they do.
10. America was founded by irreligious skeptics, who saw the evil of Christianity and tried to keep them from meddling in the lives of others.
11. Christians want to control and manipulate everyone.
12. Christians cannot reason or follow science, as they are blinded by their superstitions.
13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.
15. Hitler was a Christian.
16. Christianity is an opiate for humanity, squashing free expression.

There are more, and i am sure the helpful posters here will chime in with additional false narratives. We can debate the merits of each charge, to see if there is any validity, or if they are bigoted smears, from a competing ideology.

I look forward to a civil and informative discussion.

The God of the Bible and Christianity is false, because as I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.
Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

Of course, the Bible is wrong; in fact, there were people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ whom the Bible claims was spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

 

[Left Coast]

I see much in your post that is quite reasonable.
However, false accusations, repeated over and over, become very frustrating.

I can completely understand that. False accusations are very frustrating, and you're only human.
I hope you can understand that lots of false accusations also get thrown around about atheists. And gay people. And ex-Christians. And liberals. So on multiple levels, believe me that I completely empathize with your frustration.
So we each have a choice to make. We can get bogged down in those false accusations, no matter how silly and ignorant, and let it get us worked up and frustrated over and over. Or we can work toward being as kind, and reasonable, and educated as possible to hopefully, slowly overcome those stereotypes. And we can seek out dialogue with people who represent the best of their worldview, rather than the silliest.

 

[Sand Dancer]

As requested by a poster, i am listing a set of what i perceive to be caricatures and phony narratives about Christianity.

This assumes a specific, exact, historical definition of Christianity, as defined by the Founder.

1. Christians hate science.
2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.
3. Christianity is the same as islam, but not as peaceful.
4. Muslims would love us, and live in harmony, if they weren't triggered by the hateful Christians.
5. American Christians want a theocracy.
6. American Christians want to ban all books but the bible.
7. The bible is the source of all hate and oppression in the world.
8. Christians want to force everyone to believe, and go to church.
9. Christians hate atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, muslims, Hindus, and any who do not believe as they do.
10. America was founded by irreligious skeptics, who saw the evil of Christianity and tried to keep them from meddling in the lives of others.
11. Christians want to control and manipulate everyone.
12. Christians cannot reason or follow science, as they are blinded by their superstitions.
13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.
15. Hitler was a Christian.
16. Christianity is an opiate for humanity, squashing free expression.

There are more, and i am sure the helpful posters here will chime in with additional false narratives. We can debate the merits of each charge, to see if there is any validity, or if they are bigoted smears, from a competing ideology.

I look forward to a civil and informative discussion.

The thing is that the answers are different depending on whether we are talking about the Religious Right or Christian Left. I think most people know Christianity is not a monolithic thing. 13. It is full of errors. 15. Catholics are Christians. 16. Marx meant that it keeps people lulled, so they will not rebel against oppression.

 

[loverofhumanity]

True Christians only ever brought good to the world. They founded orphanages, hospitals, schools, charities and helped the poor and brought the lights of knowledge and virtue to humanity.

They transformed the character of individuals and society towards being noble and upright people.

Christians who sincerely follow the teachings of Lord Jesus are the salt of the earth.

As with any religion, those who only take the name but do not practice it in their daily lives have caused wars and innumerable problems.

Disobedience to the teachings of love and tolerance taught in the Gospels only leads to death and destruction for love is light upon light whereas hate is darkness upon darkness and against everything that Jesus taught.

 

[usfan]

Several clarifying points, about this thread:

1. The false narratives and accusations are generic. I have phrased them in more absolute terms, to debate their validity.
2. This is NOT directed at atheists. Many thoughtful atheists are sympathetic to Christianity, and see it as an important ideology in the advancement and civilization of humankind.
3. I am not saying that every non-Christian, or progressive, promotes and believes all points. But these narratives about Christianity are common, and are becoming increasingly so.
4. The narratives are directed at Christian ideology, not hypothetical individuals. I am sure that you can find individuals who are guilty of some or all of these things. The problem is when the entire IDEOLOGY is smeared, because of the activism of outliers. Does Christianity, as defined by the Founder, promote these caricatures, or are they smears from a competing ideology?

A few deny that any of these have even been aired. Some points are commonly agreed to, showing the sucess of anti-christian Indoctrination. The 'debate' here, is (or should be) to evidence, or justify the belief in any of the charges.

For example, these 2 on the list,

13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.

..seem to be universally believed, by the anti-Christian posters here. Do they evidence this claim? No. It is repeated, loudly, as a propaganda meme.. a NARRATIVE, with no factual evidence. These are NOT true, but are indeed, false narratives, to discredit Christianity as the competition.

No evidence is given, just assertions and repeating the narrative, as though that makes it self-evident.

I replied to this point earlier, with facts and logical arguments, but those are ignored, and the narrative repeated. All the indoctrinees nod like bobbleheads when someone repeats the false accusation, even though NOBODY has provided evidence for it. It an unjustified belief, with no evidence.

If someone actually wanted to debate or discuss the validity of any of these charges, they should do so with evidence, rather than general accusations.

Most posters went through the list, saying which points they agreed with, and which they didn't. That does not address the validity of the charge. Truth is not a democratic process, or something agreed upon by consensus. And neither are false accusations justified by the number of people indoctrinated to believe them. Facts and evidence, are needed to support any accusations against Christianity, or any ideology.

Belief in any, some, or all of the list is not the point. Do they have validity, as an accusation against Christianity? Is there evidence for the charge, or is it a lie and phony narrative?

 

[usfan]

What specific, exact definition is that? Have you spoken to the founder to glean this

No, the Founder has spoken to us. His followers recorded His words and life story for subsequent generations. He has given an exact, precise, 'definition' of historical Christianity. Offshoots and outlier ideologies can hijack the name, but that does not prove orthodoxy.

You're arguing against an atheist ghost

..not arguing against atheists, at all. This is a challenge for evidence, for any accusation. I've listed a few false ones.

You have no way of knowing this, because we have never seen the originals.

All the evidence says the bible is unchanged, from the earliest msnuscripts. Any accusation of 'change!', is false, and unevidenced.

How much did Irenaeus quote? Let me ask you this, how much of Irenaeus have you actually read yourself?

Ad hom irrelevance. Irenaeus quoted much of the early manuscripts. Someone has compiled the data and stated 21 of the 27 nt books.

The point is, ALL his quotes verified and corroborated the manuscripts that were used by the early church, and they have remained consistent and accurate to this day. There is NO EVIDENCE suggesting, 'changes!' in the content of the biblical canon. That is a false accusation.. a phony narrative, to discredit Christianity.

And, i have read a lot of Irenaeus.. not that it matters.

PS - if you really want to get to brass tax, even if we had the original texts, it wouldn't demonstrate that anything in the texts was actually true. I can write something down today and people can preserve it for thousands of years - that doesn't make it any more or less true.

I'm not arguing for the 'truth!' of the manuscripts, or the biblical canon, just their accuracy and historicity. People can (and do) believe whatever they wish. It helps if those beliefs are based on truth, instead of lies.

Reads more like a caricature of an atheist and the things mostly Evangelicals want to believe atheists believe and advocate for.

This thread has nothing to do with atheists. Why do some people think everything is about them?

13 through 16 are true or close to true you have not presented any evidence to the contrary.

I am refuting false accusations. If you believe a charge is valid, where is your evidence?

Must be rare and hardly worth mentioning. I'd like to see valid complaints about Christianity listed.

Knock yourself out. Add to the list, or evidence whatever complaint you have. I will address any actual evidence or arguments, but i can only dismiss unevidenced assertions.

Definitely a majority of oppression in the world throughout history was caused by Christians.

Thanks for confirming this narrative. How does 'Christianity', promote wars and oppression? Can you source the justification from the Founder?

Everybody made copies of the Bible when it was written and those people potentially made mistakes here and there, and Christians like to argue which copies are the best because the originals are gone.

Translations are not 'copies'. The copies, fragments, and extant sources of manuscripts all corroborate the historical accuracy and validity of the bible. It has NOT changed. That is a false narrative, indoctrinated by competing worldviews.

Hundreds of 'translations', into almost every human language, have been made. That does not change the originals, nor the actual exegesis of the texts.

The American church is responsible for most of the hatred of atheists, gays, and transgendered people in that country

Yes, so the narrative goes.

Christians would like to convert the world and get us all into church. Would some Christians use force to make that happen if it were possible? I think so.

perception becomes reality, sometimes.. justified or not. I believe this to be a propaganda meme, to smear xtian ideology.

You do realize that the Bible has changed over time. Once, it was just the Old Testament.

No, it has not. You have no evidence for this, just the propaganda narrative.

They certainly don't pertain to ALL Christians, though most definitely pertain to MANY Christians

'Christianity', is the target, here, not hypothetical individuals. I'm sure you can find someone who might agree with all the points.. at least this person can be imagined or fabricated, to create a boogie man.

 

[usfan]

The historicity and scholarship concerning the biblical manuscripts have centuries.. no, millennia, of facts to confirm it as a credible source for the message that the books of the bible convey.

The content of the messages.. the events and words of Jesus, for example, have historical and textual confirmation. Whether the reader believes it is a personal matter. But the historical, exegetical evidence is that the biblical writers conveyed their message as a literal telling of actual words and deeds.

That is the historical heritage of bible believing Christians. And while enemies rage against the biblical manuscripts, accusing, ridiculing, and mocking, none of their lies have a factual, scholarly basis. Christian scholars, over the millennia, have been much more critical, of the accuracy, source, and validity of the texts, handed down from the originals. ALL fragments and archaeological finds have confirmed the manuscripts, and refuted the accusations of 'change!'

All we have now, is the same old tired accusations that every generation of Christian scholars refute, again and again. The 'New', 'Groundbreaking!', accusations that are so popular on anti-christian web sites are the same old lies that have annoyed intelligent Christians for millennia.

"Centuries of experience have tested the BIBLE. It has passed through critical fires no other volume has suffered, and its spiritual truth has endured the flames and come out without so much as the smell of burning" ~W.E. Sangster

 

[usfan]

The God of the Bible and Christianity is false, because as I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man".

Your opinion is noted, but this is just speculation and conjecture. The things you assert as 'fact!', and the 'errors!' you refute are straw men.. personal interpretations and theories.. they are not compelled by the content of the books in question.

'Generations', in biblical genealogies are not necessarily exhaustive or conclusive. That is an unfounded (and unwise) assumption.

Your calculations of aboriginal genealogy is also speculative, and theoretical. There is nothing conclusive to declare, 'error!' That is a belief and a choice, based on speculations, assumptions, theories, and bias. The facts do not compel this conclusion.

 

[Left Coast]

No, the Founder has spoken to us. His followers recorded His words and life story for subsequent generations.

Christians claimed they recorded his words and life story. How do you know that's true?

He has given an exact, precise, 'definition' of historical Christianity.

I'll ask a second time, what is that exact, precise definition he gave?

All the evidence says the bible is unchanged, from the earliest msnuscripts. Any accusation of 'change!', is false, and unevidenced.

Simply untrue. Let me help you dip your pinkie toe in the water.

Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - Wikipedia

Ad hom irrelevance.

It's not ad hom to ask how much of Irenaeus you've actually read, when you're literally bringing up what he's said. You seem to be parroting a lot of what you're posting from some apologetics materials.

Irenaeus quoted much of the early manuscripts. Someone has compiled the data and stated 21 of the 27 nt books.

Irenaeus quoted 21 of 27 books? Or all ECFs combined?

The point is, ALL his quotes verified and corroborated the manuscripts that were used by the early church, and they have remained consistent and accurate to this day. There is NO EVIDENCE suggesting, 'changes!' in the content of the biblical canon. That is a false accusation.. a phony narrative, to discredit Christianity.

That's just simply not true, friend. Mark 16:9-20, for example. 1 John 5:7, for another example.
The thing is, because for the third time we don't have the originals, it's impossible to know how much they've been changed. But they've definitely been changed to some degree.

I'm not arguing for the 'truth!' of the manuscripts, or the biblical canon, just their accuracy and historicity.

If the Bible accurately records what the Apostles wrote down, but what the Apostles wrote down was untrue, then what difference does it make whether their words have been preserved accurately?

 

[usfan]

The thing is, because for the third time we don't have the originals, it's impossible to know how much they've been changed. But they've definitely been changed to some degree.

You just believe this, from speculation, assumption, and bias. There is no evidence of 'change!' The oldest fragments , extant sources, and archaeological discoveries, all corroborate the veracity of the nt manuscripts, with no evidence of 'change!' That is merely believed and accused, prejudicially.

You seem to be parroting a lot of what you're posting from some apologetics materials.

another false accusation? i post my own words, my own arguments, and source any quotes. I have been a student of the biblical texts for over 40 years, and am able to convey my own perceptions, and see through bluffs.

 

[Left Coast]

You just believe this, from speculation, assumption, and bias.

False. We don't have the originals. That's a fact. If you have them, please produce them.

Heck, I'm still waiting for you to just produce a first century copy, since you claimed that also exists.

Time to put your money where your mouth is, friend.

There is no evidence of 'change!' The oldest fragments , extant sources, and archaeological discoveries, all corroborate the veracity of the nt manuscripts, with no evidence of 'change!' That is merely believed and accused, prejudicially.

You keep repeating this, and yet you did not respond to any of the evidence I just posted. I'll wait.

another false accusation? i post my own words, my own arguments, and source any quotes. I have been a student of the biblical texts for over 40 years, and am able to convey my own perceptions, and see through bluffs.

You literally just said, "Someone has compiled the data and stated 21 of the 27 nt books." So no that wasn't your own words and argument, you got it from somewhere. For someone who claims to be defending the "Truth" against falsehood here, you sure are playing fast and loose with it.
Ignore my questions and the evidence I post much more, and I'm going to bow out because I'll assume you're just interested in preaching rather than dialogue.

 

[Salvador]

Your opinion is noted, but this is just speculation and conjecture. The things you assert as 'fact!', and the 'errors!' you refute are straw men.. personal interpretations and theories.. they are not compelled by the content of the books in question.

'Generations', in biblical genealogies are not necessarily exhaustive or conclusive. That is an unfounded (and unwise) assumption.

Your calculations of aboriginal genealogy is also speculative, and theoretical. There is nothing conclusive to declare, 'error!' That is a belief and a choice, based on speculations, assumptions, theories, and bias. The facts do not compel this conclusion.

Human genetic diversity is too great for there to have ever been a human population size that consisted of much less than ca. 10,000 individuals. Pairwise Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (PSMC) analysis confirms a population bottleneck in humans that consisted of no fewer than probably ca. 10,000 individuals. (Li, Heng and Durbin, Richard ) "Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences" Nature International Weekly Journal of Science 28 July 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v47...10231.html

If there were the most severe population bottlenecking such as one breeding pair that is portrayed in the case of the Biblical Adam and Eve, then there would be a maximum of 4 alleles passed on by Adam and Eve to their children. Furthermore, the subsequent inbreeding would cause some loss of alleles due to genetic drifting. There would not have been genetic diversity in the small group of Adam, Eve and their children who would've had to commit incest among each other for the procreation of their inbred children. A lack of genetic diversity would have persisted for thousands of generations until genetic mutations could cause the genetic diversity of today's population. Based on the number of different alleles there are for the number of genes within the current population and the known rate of mutations per nucleotide sites in humans, geneticists can calculate the minimum number of people needed to create the current amount of genetic diversity. Numerous genetic studies suggest that there were several thousands of people more than two people during the most severe population bottleneck which ever occurred in human history.

DNA segments (Alu repeats ) insert themselves at various chromosomal locations. There are various forms of Alu sequences and several thousand families of Alu. One well-studied family of Alu is called Ya5, which has been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If we were to have descended from a single pair of ancestors such as Adam and Eve, then we all would have each of the 57 elements inserted at the same location points of our chromosomes. "However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest". ( Venema, Dennis and Falk, Darrel ) " Does genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?" 5 April 2001 http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-p...mal-couple
Coalescent theory analysis of single nucleotide polymorphism and linkage disequilibrium indicates the mean effective population size for hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. "The effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium is a minimum of ca, 10,000 followed by an expansion in the last 20,000 years." ( Tenesa, Albert, Navarro, Paul, Hayes, Ben J., Duffy, David L., Clarke, Geraldine, Goodard, Mike E. and Visscher, Peter M. ) " Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium" Genome Research 17 April 2007 Ancestral Population Genomics: The Coalescent Hidden Markov Model Approach

Indeed, there is ample genetic evidence that the Biblical Adam and Eve never existed.

 

[usfan]

Ignore my questions and the evidence I post much more, and I'm going to bow out because I'll assume you're just interested in preaching rather than dialogue.

Please. I've ignored nothing. But you've provided no evidence, just assertions of 'change!', without evidence.

Does faux indignation substitute for evidence, in your world?

You keep repeating this, and yet you did not respond to any of the evidence I just posted. I'll wait.

You assume change, with no evidence.

How do you KNOW, the originals changed, since you claim we don't have them?

We do have fragments, from as early as the first century, and they corroborate the later ones, with no evidence of change.

We don't have the originals. That's a fact. If you have them, please produce them.

Re: 1st century manuscript. P137
This is the opinion of some. Others date it from AD 150-250. These are not available to open examination, but are private discoveries.

A decent article here:
New Mark Manuscript Is Earliest Yet

Exerpts:

The fact that the text presents us with no new variants is partially a reflection of the overall stability of the New Testament text over time.

It should be stated, however, that we have no shortage of New Testament manuscripts. There are about 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament of various sizes and dates. Such an “embarrassment of riches,” as they have been called, allows us to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with a high degree of confidence. As exciting as they are, textually speaking, new manuscript discoveries tend to confirm or at most fine-tune our Greek New Testament editions. As an example, our Greek New Testaments would be exactly the same with or without our current earliest New Testament manuscript, P52.

The main point here, is there is NO EVIDENCE of change, but all the fragments, extants, and archaeological discoveries AFFIRM and corroborate the existing greek manuscripts as accurate renditions of the originals.

Accusations of, 'The bible has changed!' are prejudicial opinions.. beliefs based on smears and false accusations, not empirical evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

1. Christians hate science.

No....... not hate.
They just cannot believe some simple tenets that disprove stuff like creation, etc.

2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.

No...... Not all wars, but quite a few, and Christians have had a poor record when it comes down to exploitation. Paul even supported the keeping iof slaves.

3. Christianity is the same as islam, but not as peaceful.

Very extreme Christians, the real nutters, many would seek executions of prostitutes, gays, etc....... That kind of Christianity is its own kind of Sharia Law.

4. Muslims would love us, and live in harmony, if they weren't triggered by the hateful Christians.

Who told you that? Some Christians would believe anything.

5. American Christians want a theocracy.

The real fundies..... yeah.
And what a terrifying world that would be.

6. American Christians want to ban all books but the bible.

Well, the most extreme Christian Forums do ban quite a lot of free speech, you know.

7. The bible is the source of all hate and oppression in the world.

No....... but extreme Christians do abuse the bible, cherry-p[icking which bits they like and ignoring those which don't suit.

8. Christians want to force everyone to believe, and go to church.

No.... not asll, ion fact some weird Christian groups are closed and exclusive.

9. Christians hate atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, muslims, Hindus, and any who do not believe as they do.

I was surprised when I first read a Christian who wanted to 'glass' or drop a nuclear device upon Mecca and Medina.
You've got some real nutters claiming to be the proper Christians.

10. America was founded by irreligious skeptics, who saw the evil of Christianity and tried to keep them from meddling in the lives of others.

Don't know about that, but anybody who can keep Christians from meddling with and manipulating others is a kind of saint, really.

11. Christians want to control and manipulate everyone.

Oh Yes. I've heard that you'd try to control women, their bodies, etc, and more.
A Christian Theocracy would be similar to an Islamic one in several ways.

12. Christians cannot reason or follow science, as they are blinded by their superstitions.

Yes....... some of us notice that on RF.

13. The bible is full of errors.

Absolutely. One example? Luke's nativity........ oh dear.

14. The bible has changed many times.

I don't know how many times, but it was changed, edited, messed with, added to.

15. Hitler was a Christian.

Ah..... yes..... that one. Total rubbish of course, but you must understyand that some atheists and anti-Christians are as extreme as the fundamentalist Christians out there.

16. Christianity is an opiate for humanity, squashing free expression.

Yes. Try some free expression on a Christian forum, and see what happens...

There are more, and i am sure the helpful posters here will chime in with additional false narratives. We can debate the merits of each charge, to see if there is any validity, or if they are bigoted smears, from a competing ideology.
I look forward to a civil and informative discussion.

Hmmmm..... not all your examples were false narratives, I'm afraid.

 

[usfan]

From a biblical scholar:
we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.
Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? - DTS Voice

There is more evidence for the accuracy of the nt manuscripts than ANY ancient document, person, or event. It is only prejudice to dismiss them.

 

[usfan]

Hmmmm..... not all your examples were false narratives, I'm afraid.

You seem to view most of them as 'self-evident fact!'

Is this from evidence, that Christianity compels such behavior, or from a competitor's smears?

My contention is that there is no evidence to smear Christianity with these phony caricatures.. that they are false narratives, to discredit Christianity as a positive human ideology.

 

[Left Coast]

Please. I've ignored nothing.

Bull. Go back and actually read what I wrote. You've ignored several things.

But you've provided no evidence, just assertions of 'change!', without evidence.

Funny how when you ignore it, it's like it's not even there.

How do you KNOW, the originals changed, since you claim we don't have them?

I dont claim we don't have them. We don't. Do you think we do? If so, let's see them.
We know they've been changed over time because we can literally compare copies to each other, and see the differences.

Re: 1st century manuscript. P137
This is the opinion of some.

The opinion of apologists, who were immediately called out by scholars for their BS.

From the papyrologists who actually own and first analyzed the fragment:

https://www.ees.ac.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=45d9d9f7-8df4-4e8f-9eb5-9af2b048ef60

"Dating this hand presents even more diffi culties than usual, since the sample is so small and damaged and the scribe inconsistent. Its most indicative feature is the juxtaposition of wide and narrow letters. Th is appears, in a much more emphatic form, in Turner’s ‘Formal Mixed’ style, whose objectively datable examples belong to the later second and the third cen- tury; it appears also in dated documents from the reign of Hadrian on (GMAW ² p. 22). For the more informal version in 5345 we could compare III 454 (+ P. Laur. IV 134 + PSI II 119, LDAB 3798; plate in GMAW ² no. 62), Plato, Gorgias, assigned to the later second century (the military accounts on the recto, ChLA IV 264, postdate 111). But this is taller and more angular. A closer parallel is XIII 1622 (pl. IV; LDAB 4052), Th ucydides II, assigned to the fi rst half of the second century since the contract on the verso (XIV 1710) is dated 148: note the narrow ε and ϲ, broad forms of the rounded letters, and in particular the shapes of μ and υ. Among New Testament papyri we fi nd a similar script in LXIV 4403, Matthew (¹0³, LDAB 2938, perhaps the same codex as XXXIV 2683 + LXIV 4405), which the editor assigned to the late second or early third century and P. Orsini and W. Clarysse to the third (ETh L 88 (2012) 471). P. Mich. III 138, Acts (³8, LDAB 2855), generally assigned to the later third or earlier fourth century, off ers another parallel, but to our eye one more developed and therefore later than 5345. "All in all, we incline to assign 5345 to the (later) second or (earlier) third century."

So no, not a first century fragment. Anything else?

Others date it from AD 150-250. These are not available to open examination, but are private discoveries.

You can see a photo of the fragment on the link above.

The fact that the text presents us with no new variants is partially a reflection of the overall stability of the New Testament text over time.

It's also a reflection of the dearth of early manuscripts.

It should be stated, however, that we have no shortage of New Testament manuscripts. There are about 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament of various sizes and dates.

As has been pointed out many times before by others, the vast majority of these "manuscripts" are like P137 - small, damaged fragments that contain a few lines at best.

Such an “embarrassment of riches,” as they have been called, allows us to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with a high degree of confidence.

Notice the word, reconstruct. We have to reconstruct it, because we don't have the originals. If the opinion of this Christianity Today author is that we have "high confidence" about the text, let's just say I'm not surprised.

Accusations of, 'The bible has changed!' are prejudicial opinions.. beliefs based on smears and false accusations, not empirical evidence.

I'll wait for you to actually respond to the evidence I posted.

 

[viole]

13. The bible is full of errors.

..seem to be universally believed, by the anti-Christian posters here. Do they evidence this claim?

I am sorry, but that one is quite obvious. You just need to read the first page to realize the nonsense in it. Earth created at the beginning? Before the stars? What? A first homo sapiens without ancestors but with nipples and a silent gene to grow tails? Lol.

Even a third grader would see that.

Unless you demote to figurative everything that is obviously wrong. In that case the Bible would be tautologically true. Alas, you just need the same amount of fantasy, and every other book would become true, too.

Ciao

- viole