• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Free will is the foundation stone of Christianity, the right to choose.

I think that the fundamental message in Christianity is to submit. Free will is anathema to Christianity, the enemy of submission, and a potent indicator that the god of the Christian Bible did not create mankind, or else screwed up when it did. Free will is antithetical to the entire Christian message, which is to quash your free will and obey. Christianity doesn't respect the right to choose. It doesn't allow one to hold any religious faith or none at all, but to only worship its god. It tells you that there is only one way to avoid perdition, and that is through submission and obedience to the will of its god, not your free will or mine.

I'm sure that you disagree, but perhaps this time you can do so unemotionally and without personal comments.

Unlike the religion of peace, our, foundation documents prescribe no coercion by violence or any other means to convert.

Documents don't matter to the outsider looking in. It's the real-time rendering of the religion that matters. The believer points to the Bible and says that this is what a true Christian is like. The outsider looks around himself and at the news to decide what Christianity actually is and what it does - what kind of people it makes, and what effect it has on them and the rest of us.

it isn't about others it is about us.

Yes, we know.

Christians should hate science ? why ?

Should? The comment was, "Christians hate science." This was not a recommendation.

But yes, many Christians are afraid of science for contradicting what they have chosen to believe by faith. That's what happens when you guess, and guess wrong. The evidence contradicts you, so you need to contradict the interpretation of that evidence or pretend that it doesn't exist.

Surely you've seen plenty of this on these threads - people telling others, for example, that there is no such thing as evolution beyond what has been directly observed due to some unseen barrier employing some unseen mechanism to halt the process of evolution after a few generations. These people feel threatened by the science.

These are same people who tell us that a living cell seems too complicated to them to have arisen naturalistically, and that therefore something orders of magnitude more complex, a god, must exist to account for the cell. Does that come off as sound thinking to you?

you carefully hand picked statements you allege are from leaders of Christianity, they are not

Not what - Statements promoting theocratic ideas, or prominent theologians?

Yes, I carefully hand-picked examples that support my thesis that there is a theocratic movement in America. What do you suppose all of the Brett Kavanaugh fuss was about, or all of these recent anti-abortion bills? These are evidence of efforts to get the state to do the church's bidding. Those are theocratic tendencies already in high places in government. It's clear that theocracy is what they have in mind.

Did you have a rebuttal beside "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.

Feel free to do your own research. I can't imagine that any surrounding context would change the apparent meaning oof their words. For example, what do you propose that Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue, might have said either before or after, "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" that turns that into anything other than an angry, hateful, threat to the US Constitution and Americans' freedom from religion?

You call these people like Terry, Falwell, and Robertson outliers, yet they are precisely the type of Christian that rises to power and influence, and names that are well-known to Christians and non-Christians alike. Their messages resonate with unseen millions of people watching them on TV at home, and sending them checks. These are not outliers. They are a huge chunk of Christianity.

I certainly was not saying all atheists are inconsiderate, crude, cretins when discussing Christianity with Christians, only some are.

Your contempt for atheists is palpable. You conceal it for awhile, but then get angry, and there it is.

True Christians only ever brought good to the world.

This is a famous fallacy, No True Scotsman, which really ought to be renamed No True Christian, since it's almost always in precisely this context that the fallacy ir resurrected.

There are no true or false Christians, just those that you think reflect well on the religion and those that you would like to distance yourself from, often by pointing to scripture. As I mentioned elsewhere, all Christians are true Christians, even the ones that embarrass Christianity. Robert Lewis Dear, who shot up a Planned Parenthood to save the babies was a (true) Christian. The skinheads proclaiming white Christian superiority are (true) Christians.

If you want to know how good a car is, you don't go by the literature in the dealer's showroom. You test drive the car and see how it performs. Likewise with Christianity. Forget the book. Look around you to discover what (true) Christianity is.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.

I wouldn't care how many times the Bible did or didn't change, since I don't consider it to be more than another book written by men, and we don't consider Christianity the competition. Competition for what? We're not collecting souls or tithes.

As for the Bible being full of errors, that's been covered elsewhere. This post discusses the flaws with the flood story.

I gave you plenty of evidence. I showed you how Christianity and Islam were similar on paper and gave you the argument that this was due to the tempering influence of secular humanist values in the West. I provided multiple quotations of prominent Christians intent on theocracy. I made the case for Christian atheophobia being a real and destructive phenomenon. That was about all I could squeeze into the post.

We don't need to discredit Christianity. It discredits itself - in the news. Christianity has a terrible PR problem that seems to mystify Christians, who see the criticisms of their church and religion as unprovoked and undeserved persecution.

Christians tend to be blind to the public face of Christianity. Many seem unaware of how Christianity appears to outsiders. They just can't imagine why there is so much animus for this institution. It must be irrational and mean-spirited persecution, they conclude

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.

That sounds like the creationists we see here.

So we're all bobleheaded indoctrinees that mindlessly nod and accept what we are told uncritically, make false claims about Christianity, and "NOBODY" gives evidence? Is that your position?

You've done a pretty good job of concealing your feelings for atheists so far, but it's starting to slip a bit. I don't remember a comment like that one from you before.

It's in your interest to avoid slipping down the slippery slope of decompensation and present a tranquil and even demeanor to the thread. Don't give others reason to think that your faith is teaching you to diseasteem your critics.

I believe this to be a propaganda meme, to smear xtian ideology.

I believe that what you are witnessing is the natural transition of a society from a more religious phase to a less religious one. Science and technology (Internet and TV news) showed us that religion is optional, and that religion-free life was not only tenable, but for many, desirable.

Who do you think is behind this propaganda effort? What would be their motivation? Where would they get their funding? Do they have a think tank somewhere where they chart the demise of Christianity? What are their media outlets to get these memes to their intended targets?

I just provided you with a nice capsule summary of the news involving the church over the last few decades - the Catholic pedophile scandals, the duck dynasty guy, the Duggars, Westboro Baptist Church, etc. That's a big part of Christianity's image problem.

But just as important is that atheism is becoming socially acceptable as young people see their peers opting for it over their parents' religion.

The point is that atheists and their memes are not the church's problem. The church will continue to decline for decades to come because people increasingly see it as irrelevant to their lives. Who wants to take moral advice from people that behave immorally?

But that should be of no concern to any Christian. Anybody that wants to be a Christian will always be able to find a congregation even if they become scarce. He'll still be free to worship as he pleases. There'll just be fewer such people. Does anybody really need more?

Religion is the phase of human development that connects the time when man first wondered how the world worked until he discovered the answers.

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.

Why would this be an issue for the nonbeliever? Why would he care if the message was preserved intact or modified over the centuries if he doesn't consider the words authoritative in his life?

enemies rage against the biblical manuscripts, accusing, ridiculing, and mocking, none of their lies have a factual, scholarly basis.

Critics are enemies, and criticism raging? Am I one of your raging enemies? I'm just here to help you with your list and give you another unbeliever's take on it. Didn't you invite us to do that? Is this not why you started this thread?

Take a step back and look at what has transpired. You created a list that you presented as lies that are told about Christianity. Many posters told you what parts they agreed with you would be inaccurate, and which of those comments had merit. I don't recall anybody being rude or anything but constructive. Your reaction was to treat it as persecution, as was you chief ally's.

Why do you care anyway? You're free to practice your faith and ignore the critics. It's the church that has a problem, not you.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Just citing the dating of extant manuscript fragments, etc., doesn't tell the whole story about how old a New Testament manuscript is. There's also the use of linguistic phrases, the titles used of officials, and a myriad of other things such as we see in the following article: The Dating of the New Testament

So in that respect claiming that "we have no fragments or manuscripts from the first century" doesn't mean the Gospels and Epistles weren't written in the first century.

The Earliest Mention of the Resurrection

"1 Corinthians is dated 50-55 A.D. Since Jesus was crucified in 30-33 A.D. the letter is only 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. But the actual creed here in 1 Cor. 15 was received by Paul much earlier than 55 A.D.

As Scholar Gary Habermas notes:

“Even critical scholars usually agree that it (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) ) has an exceptionally early origin.” Ulrich Wilckens declares that this creed “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” (8) Joachim Jeremias calls it “the earliest tradition of all.” (9) Even the non-Christian scholar Gerd Ludemann says that “I do insist that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional foundations is one of the great achievements in the New Testament scholarship.”

"But Habermas – and others – think the creed (in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) goes back even further: between 32-38 AD, when Paul received it, in all likelihood in Jerusalem. Three years after Paul’s conversion, he traveled to Jerusalem to interview the Apostles Peter and James. Habermas draws our attention to the fact that, when Paul described this trip in Galatians 1:18-19, he uses the Greek word historeo, which indicates a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection was being made. So, in all likelihood, this creed was delivered to Paul by the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus, Peter and James."

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Jesus, and why more writings about him are not available

“New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, who served as an editor and contributor to a large scholarly work on the Gospels (‘Gospel Perspectives’), provides four reasons why more was not written on Jesus in his time: “the humble beginnings of Christianity; the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman empire; the small percentage of the works of ancient Greco-Roman historians which have survived, and the lack of attention paid by those who are extant to Jewish figures in general.” We know that about half of what the Roman historian Tacticus wrote is no longer available. Only a fragment of what Thallus wrote in the first century about ancient Mediterranean history has survived. Seutonius was aware of the writings of Asclepiades of Mendes, yet his writings are no longer available. Herod the Great’s secretary, Nicholas of Damascus, wrote a Universal History in 144 books, none of which have survived. Livy, the great Roman historian, has suffered a similar fate. Only his early books and excerpts of the rest survived.”

“We also know of several early Christian writings that are no longer available. For example, an influential church leader of the early part of the second century named Papias wrote five books that are quoted by several early church fathers. However, none of these books survived. Only a few citations and slight summary information remain. Quadratus was a Christian leader who wrote a defense of the Christian faith to the Roman Emperor Hadrian around 125. However, if Eusebius had not quoted a paragraph and mentioned his work, we would be totally unaware of its composition. The five books of ‘Recollections,’ written by Hegesippus in the second century, have likewise been lost.” – The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, page 127

One other thing, it’s entirely likely that numerous other historical works were lost when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70 AD. But we do know of at least forty-two authors, nine of whom were secular, who mentioned Jesus within 150 years of his death. Scholar Gary Habermas, in his Book "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" (p.233), listed the following: 9 authors from the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. 21 early Christian writers outside the NT - Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophious of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. 4 heretical writings - Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection. And 9 secular non-Christian sources, including Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celcus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonius, and Thallus.
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
I think that the fundamental message in Christianity is to submit. Free will is anathema to Christianity, the enemy of submission, and a potent indicator that the god of the Christian Bible did not create mankind, or else screwed up when it did. Free will is antithetical to the entire Christian message, which is to quash your free will and obey. Christianity doesn't respect the right to choose. It doesn't allow one to hold any religious faith or none at all, but to only worship its god. It tells you that there is only one way to avoid perdition, and that is through submission and obedience to the will of its god, not your free will or mine.

I'm sure that you disagree, but perhaps this time you can do so unemotionally and without personal comments.



Documents don't matter to the outsider looking in. It's the real-time rendering of the religion that matters. The believer points to the Bible and says that this is what a true Christian is like. The outsider looks around himself and at the news to decide what Christianity actually is and what it does - what kind of people it makes, and what effect it has on them and the rest of us.



Yes, we know.



Should? The comment was, "Christians hate science." This was not a recommendation.

But yes, many Christians are afraid of science for contradicting what they have chosen to believe by faith. That's what happens when you guess, and guess wrong. The evidence contradicts you, so you need to contradict the interpretation of that evidence or pretend that it doesn't exist.

Surely you've seen plenty of this on these threads - people telling others, for example, that there is no such thing as evolution beyond what has been directly observed due to some unseen barrier employing some unseen mechanism to halt the process of evolution after a few generations. These people feel threatened by the science.

These are same people who tell us that a living cell seems too complicated to them to have arisen naturalistically, and that therefore something orders of magnitude more complex, a god, must exist to account for the cell. Does that come off as sound thinking to you?



Not what - Statements promoting theocratic ideas, or prominent theologians?

Yes, I carefully hand-picked examples that support my thesis that there is a theocratic movement in America. What do you suppose all of the Brett Kavanaugh fuss was about, or all of these recent anti-abortion bills? These are evidence of efforts to get the state to do the church's bidding. Those are theocratic tendencies already in high places in government. It's clear that theocracy is what they have in mind.

Did you have a rebuttal beside "they are not"?



Feel free to do your own research. I can't imagine that any surrounding context would change the apparent meaning oof their words. For example, what do you propose that Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue, might have said either before or after, "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" that turns that into anything other than an angry, hateful, threat to the US Constitution and Americans' freedom from religion?

You call these people like Terry, Falwell, and Robertson outliers, yet they are precisely the type of Christian that rises to power and influence, and names that are well-known to Christians and non-Christians alike. Their messages resonate with unseen millions of people watching them on TV at home, and sending them checks. These are not outliers. They are a huge chunk of Christianity.



Your contempt for atheists is palpable. You conceal it for awhile, but then get angry, and there it is.



This is a famous fallacy, No True Scotsman, which really ought to be renamed No True Christian, since it's almost always in precisely this context that the fallacy ir resurrected.

There are no true or false Christians, just those that you think reflect well on the religion and those that you would like to distance yourself from, often by pointing to scripture. As I mentioned elsewhere, all Christians are true Christians, even the ones that embarrass Christianity. Robert Lewis Dear, who shot up a Planned Parenthood to save the babies was a (true) Christian. The skinheads proclaiming white Christian superiority are (true) Christians.

If you want to know how good a car is, you don't go by the literature in the dealer's showroom. You test drive the car and see how it performs. Likewise with Christianity. Forget the book. Look around you to discover what (true) Christianity is.


Randall Terry on His Gay Son Jamiel and the Shame and ...
https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2004/04/hes-bringing-great-sadness-to-our-home.aspx
Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry talks about his gay son. Longtime anti-abortion activist Randall Terry in recent years has campaigned against gay marriage and homosexuality.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. Christians hate science.
This is truest out there on the right. It's not the slightest true of the ones I dine with.
2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.
Christianity as such has been the motivator of many atrocities and wars, but a monopoly? Nah, that's just idle bragging.
3. Christianity is the same as islam, but not as peaceful.
It has quite a lot in common with Islam, including evangelism, conquest, a history of forced conversions, and a dodgy set of documents; but if in doubt, the Christians are the ones with the crosses.
4. Muslims would love us, and live in harmony, if they weren't triggered by the hateful Christians.
Why, everyone knows that Christians don't care what you believe as long as you're a decent person, and decent people are always welcome at the Christian table. Or am I thinking of pagans?
5. American Christians want a theocracy.
It was fear of other Christians imposing a theocracy that led to the first amendment ─ nothing to do with Muslims or atheists at all. So American Christians have certainly thought that in the past, and many on the right would very happily do so.
6. American Christians want to ban all books but the bible.
I heard they'd done a deal to allow Harry Potter books too.
7. The bible is the source of all hate and oppression in the world.
It certainly records a fair bit of it, but nah, not even close. There was hate and oppression long before there was even Yahweh.
8. Christians want to force everyone to believe, and go to church.
Blame The Handmaid's Story for that one.
9. Christians hate atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, muslims, Hindus, and any who do not believe as they do.
Out on the right they dang sure hate atheists and suffer from terminal homophobia. But even that may soften.
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.
If only ...*sigh*
11. Christians want to control and manipulate everyone.
And if they can't, they want to pack 'em off to hell. Well, the right would like to.
12. Christians cannot reason or follow science, as they are blinded by their superstitions.
I tell you, if you can get rid of that right wing, you'll never look back.
13. The bible is full of errors.
Not the teensiest weensiest doubt about that one. To be fair, many of them were the best opinion going at the time they were written.
14. The bible has changed many times.
Both the Tanakh and the NT are arbitrary collections of books from a pool of candidates, and we know a number of those candidates came in multiple versions; so that's an overstatement, but it's not essentially wrong.
15. Hitler was a Christian.
Well, he wasn't a Jew and he wasn't a Muslim, and he wasn't an atheist, and he wasn't a Buddhist. And he got on famously with the RCC. and pretty well with the Lutherans.
16. Christianity is an opiate for humanity, squashing free expression.
It wasn't the atheists who passed all those blasphemy laws. The English didn't abolish theirs till early this century, and some US states still have 'em.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You seem to view most of them as 'self-evident fact!'
Yep

Is this from evidence, that Christianity compels such behavior, or from a competitor's smears?
Objective witness, I'm afraid top say. Competitor? I'm a Deist and don't mind how large or small Christianity becomes, as long as it's the kind loving Churches that pay more attention to Jesus than Paul. Some Churches ordain folks regardless of their sexuality, and will marry Gays, for instance. Less hypocrisy and more love is great, and some Churches show this.

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.
You might benefit from getting about a bit more.
Some of the most extreme Christian forums might really embarrass you.[/QUOTE]
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
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.

The 'No True Scotsman' defense.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
So no, not a first century fragment. Anything else?
The actual dating is debatable. It was trumpeted a '1st century!', at its discovery, and some scholars agreed (note my last referenced post). The point is, it is evidence for the UNCHANGED book of Mark.

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.
As is should be expected. But this does not evidence 'change!', in any way.

Notice the word, reconstruct. We have to reconstruct it, because we don't have the originals.
And there is NO EVIDENCE of 'change!', just repeated accusations, to promote a narrative.

The fragments from the earliest discoveries, up to recent years, have all corroborated the veracity of the manuscripts. The charge of, 'changed!' is false.

I'll wait for you to actually respond to the evidence I posted.
I have provided evidence, from the earliest manuscripts, that evidence no changes in the manuscripts. Your accusations of 'change!' are baseless and prejudicial, with no evidence.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
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.


The first Muslim hospital was an asylum to contain leprosy, built in the early eighth century, where patients were confined but, like the blind, were given a stipend to support their families. The earliest general hospital was built in 805 in Baghdad by Harun Al-Rashid.
History of hospitals - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
The actual dating is debatable. It was trumpeted a '1st century!', at its discovery, and some scholars agreed (note my last referenced post).
It was trumpeted as a first century manuscript by apologists who were immediately rebuked by the scholarly community. The guy who claimed it as such in a debate with Bart Ehrman had to publicly apologize for spreading what turned out to be false information:

First-Century Mark Fragment Update

It's a 2nd-3rd century manuscript. No one in the scholarly community disputes this any longer. Continuing to claim otherwise is disingenuous on your part.

The point is, it is evidence for the UNCHANGED book of Mark.
It's a few lines of text from the 2nd-3rd century. I've already linked you to a summary of the discrepancies between two of the major codices we have of the complete NT. Again, you continue to ignore.

As is should be expected. But this does not evidence 'change!', in any way.
Again, you've responded to none of the evidence I've posted. Was Mark 16:9-20 part of the original Gospel? Was 1 John 5:7 originally part of that epistle?


And there is NO EVIDENCE of 'change!', just repeated accusations, to promote a narrative.
You can scream this as loudly as you want, it doesn't make it any more true. You aren't responding to the actual evidence I've given.

I have provided evidence, from the earliest manuscripts, that evidence no changes in the manuscripts.
No, you haven't. You've provided one 2nd-3rd century fragment containing a couple lines from one book.

Your accusations of 'change!' are baseless and prejudicial, with no evidence.
This is becoming tedious. Reply to the actual evidence, or save us both time and stop replying.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I think that the fundamental message in Christianity is to submit. Free will is anathema to Christianity, the enemy of submission, and a potent indicator that the god of the Christian Bible did not create mankind, or else screwed up when it did. Free will is antithetical to the entire Christian message, which is to quash your free will and obey. Christianity doesn't respect the right to choose. It doesn't allow one to hold any religious faith or none at all, but to only worship its god. It tells you that there is only one way to avoid perdition, and that is through submission and obedience to the will of its god, not your free will or mine.

I'm sure that you disagree, but perhaps this time you can do so unemotionally and without personal comments.



Documents don't matter to the outsider looking in. It's the real-time rendering of the religion that matters. The believer points to the Bible and says that this is what a true Christian is like. The outsider looks around himself and at the news to decide what Christianity actually is and what it does - what kind of people it makes, and what effect it has on them and the rest of us.



Yes, we know.



Should? The comment was, "Christians hate science." This was not a recommendation.

But yes, many Christians are afraid of science for contradicting what they have chosen to believe by faith. That's what happens when you guess, and guess wrong. The evidence contradicts you, so you need to contradict the interpretation of that evidence or pretend that it doesn't exist.

Surely you've seen plenty of this on these threads - people telling others, for example, that there is no such thing as evolution beyond what has been directly observed due to some unseen barrier employing some unseen mechanism to halt the process of evolution after a few generations. These people feel threatened by the science.

These are same people who tell us that a living cell seems too complicated to them to have arisen naturalistically, and that therefore something orders of magnitude more complex, a god, must exist to account for the cell. Does that come off as sound thinking to you?



Not what - Statements promoting theocratic ideas, or prominent theologians?

Yes, I carefully hand-picked examples that support my thesis that there is a theocratic movement in America. What do you suppose all of the Brett Kavanaugh fuss was about, or all of these recent anti-abortion bills? These are evidence of efforts to get the state to do the church's bidding. Those are theocratic tendencies already in high places in government. It's clear that theocracy is what they have in mind.

Did you have a rebuttal beside "they are not"?



Feel free to do your own research. I can't imagine that any surrounding context would change the apparent meaning oof their words. For example, what do you propose that Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue, might have said either before or after, "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" that turns that into anything other than an angry, hateful, threat to the US Constitution and Americans' freedom from religion?

You call these people like Terry, Falwell, and Robertson outliers, yet they are precisely the type of Christian that rises to power and influence, and names that are well-known to Christians and non-Christians alike. Their messages resonate with unseen millions of people watching them on TV at home, and sending them checks. These are not outliers. They are a huge chunk of Christianity.



Your contempt for atheists is palpable. You conceal it for awhile, but then get angry, and there it is.



This is a famous fallacy, No True Scotsman, which really ought to be renamed No True Christian, since it's almost always in precisely this context that the fallacy ir resurrected.

There are no true or false Christians, just those that you think reflect well on the religion and those that you would like to distance yourself from, often by pointing to scripture. As I mentioned elsewhere, all Christians are true Christians, even the ones that embarrass Christianity. Robert Lewis Dear, who shot up a Planned Parenthood to save the babies was a (true) Christian. The skinheads proclaiming white Christian superiority are (true) Christians.

If you want to know how good a car is, you don't go by the literature in the dealer's showroom. You test drive the car and see how it performs. Likewise with Christianity. Forget the book. Look around you to discover what (true) Christianity is.
You speak as though you understand Christianity, but then your words betray your total ignorance.

Your hyperbole regarding free will is a case in point.
You contend that free will is not a foundation principle of of the faith, which is total balderdash.

From the very beginning Christ spoke about people making a free informed choice about the Faith. He prescribed quite clearly that if the message is rejected, the believer is to move on. Paul, whether it was in Athens discussing the Greek unknown God, or as a prisoner waiting to die for his faith, emphasized the importance of believers making a choice. In fact, all of his writings to a greater or lesser extent emphasize the same point over and over again.

So now you will trot out all the bad things alleged Christians did when they allowed themselves to join in an unholy alliance with government.

I will point out some of the greatest atheists of the twentieth century,Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Apparently their atheism allowed them to freely murder close to one hundred million people.

Christians want a theocracy ? Your paranoia about the faith you love to hate is showing.

Christians revere the Constitution very highly, everything within the four corners of the document is deeply respected.
Please tell me where the Constitution would allow the establishment of a theocracy, oops I used the magic word, establishment. Look up the clause that goes by that name, you should rest easier.

Atheists seek political power because they feel their idea's are best for the country. Abortionists seek political power for the same reasons, ditto for socialists, communists, progressives, democrats, and libertarians.

However, you tell me there is something wrong with Christians seeking political power for the same reason, it really disturbs you, why ?

I hate the idea's of abortionists, socialists,Muslims progressives and communists and democrats, yet I don't condemn them for their political actions.

Could it be that you just hate Christians so much, that you want to deny them the right to be politically active ?

Stalin would certainly agree with you.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The first Muslim hospital was an asylum to contain leprosy, built in the early eighth century, where patients were confined but, like the blind, were given a stipend to support their families. The earliest general hospital was built in 805 in Baghdad by Harun Al-Rashid.
History of hospitals - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals
That is completely debatable.At the same time, perhaps before, EVERY Christian church of any size had an established hospital that freely treated, housed, clothed and fed the sick.



Wikipedia is not the final authority on anything. I suggest you verify what you find there with an established source.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
That is completely debatable.At the same time, perhaps before, EVERY Christian church of any size had an established hospital that freely treated, housed, clothed and fed the sick.



Wikipedia is not the final authority on anything. I suggest you verify what you find there with an established source.

St. Basil of Ceasarea (330-379), founder of the first hospital in 369. As a means of caring for those who were ill, St. Basil of Caesarea founded the first hospital (c. 369). Christian hospitals grew apace, spreading throughout both the East and the West. By the mid-1500s there were 37,000 Benedictine monasteries alone that cared for the sick.
The Christian Origins of Hospitals - BibleMesh
biblemesh.com/blog/the-christian-origins-of-hospitals/
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That is completely debatable.At the same time, perhaps before, EVERY Christian church of any size had an established hospital that freely treated, housed, clothed and fed the sick.



Wikipedia is not the final authority on anything. I suggest you verify what you find there with an established source.
Or you could find the citations in the Wiki article and click on them ...

https://www.aramcoworld.com/CMSPage...2425737c26be133f6bc34747ef7db4861acbddb0bb7bf
Mending Bodies, Saving Souls
Islamic Culture and the Medical Arts: Hospitals
The Islamic Roots of Modern Pharmacy - AramcoWorld
Husain F. Nagamia, [Islamic Medicine History and Current practise], (2003), p.24.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
It's a few lines of text from the 2nd-3rd century. I've already linked you to a summary of the discrepancies between two of the major codices we have of the complete NT. Again, you continue to ignore.
I will agree about tedium..

The point, i repeat, is that these affirm the manuscripts . They do not indicate change.

I don't appreciate the, 'you ignore!', when i have replied to your posts. Perhaps i will actually begin to ignore you...

Again, you've responded to none of the evidence I've posted. Was Mark 16:9-20 part of the original Gospel? Was 1 John 5:7 originally part of that epistle?
Those are variants.. there are thousands of them in the biblical manuscripts. Typos, copying mistakes, perhaps even a zealous fixer of some perceived ambiguous passage. They have been clearly noted and documented, over the centuries. Both major greek texts note them.

A variant is not an 'error!', or a 'change!' They may be questioned, or dismissed, but they do not alter the central message of the book, and it is a false impression to accuse, 'The bible has been changed!', over textual variants.

decent article on variants:

These places where the manuscripts differ from one another are called variants. A textual variant is any place among the manuscripts in which there is variation in wording, including word order, omission or addition of words, even spelling differences.

Most scholars put the number of variants for the New Testament at around 400,000. This is a staggering number when coupled with the fact that there are only about 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. That means there are almost three variants per word.

Do you feel the weight of this challenge? You should. No other document from the ancient world has this many textual variants. Yet, I believe that the New Testament is the most reliable document from antiquity. How can this be?

When it comes to the New Testament, it’s not the number of variants that’s important, it’s the nature of the variants. It’s not the quantity of the differences; it’s the quality of the differences.

There are four kinds of textual variants. Variants are categorized by whether or not they are viable, and whether or not they are meaningful. A variant is viable only if the variant has a good possibility of being part of the original wording. A variant is meaningful only if it changes the meaning of the text.
..
Most variants are trivial, affecting nothing. In fact, more than 99% fall into this category.

There are only a small number of meaningful variants that are viable. But even these affect no cardinal doctrine. The New Testament has an impressive transmission history that should give Christians confidence that we have the words written by the apostles.


Textual Variants: It’s the Nature, Not the Number, That Matters | Stand to Reason

Everybody can believe whatever they want, about the content of the biblical manuscripts. But it is a false narrative and distortion to accuse, 'Bible! Change!', when it is the most credible historical group of documents from that era.
 

tosca1

Member
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.


CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS ARE NOT REAL SCIENTISTS!
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
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 intelli
gent 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

while enemies rage against the biblical manuscripts, accusing, ridiculing, and mocking, none of their lies have a factual, scholarly basis. Christian scholars

So anyone who challenges the bible and authenticity is raging and or an enemy. This tells me your mind set is anyone who does not agree with 100 percent of fundamentalist Christian theology is an enemy.Its paranoid black an white.But considering everyone as an enemy who does not think exactly like you suggests you are not rational enough about this topic to describe and explain your theories.

The 'New', 'Groundbreaking!', accusations that are so popular on anti-christian web sites are the same old lies that have annoyed intelli
gent Christians for millennia.

Many Unity folks who are Unity Christians and Quakers who study the bible also question the facts that the bible is perfect, copies of copies of copies, and its not tired and the same old stuff. We have found out that many passages from the original and many words from the original bible are left our in what we read including a few books.

But yet we read the bible and consider ourselves to be Christians though we don't worship Jesus as God. So this whole black and white spin you have going with everyone not agreeing with your ideas of the bible are enemies of Christianity and God and the bible is a fantasy.

We are Christians too The bible is word and we read it as the good book but its not perfect. But you color everyone who does think the exact way as you as enemies and haters, ,I have a word for that, brain washed.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I will agree about tedium..

The point, i repeat, is that these affirm the manuscripts . They do not indicate change.

I don't appreciate the, 'you ignore!', when i have replied to your posts. Perhaps i will actually begin to ignore you...


Those are variants.. there are thousands of them in the biblical manuscripts. Typos, copying mistakes, perhaps even a zealous fixer of some perceived ambiguous passage. They have been clearly noted and documented, over the centuries. Both major greek texts note them.

A variant is not an 'error!', or a 'change!' They may be questioned, or dismissed, but they do not alter the central message of the book, and it is a false impression to accuse, 'The bible has been changed!', over textual variants.

decent article on variants:

These places where the manuscripts differ from one another are called variants. A textual variant is any place among the manuscripts in which there is variation in wording, including word order, omission or addition of words, even spelling differences.

Most scholars put the number of variants for the New Testament at around 400,000. This is a staggering number when coupled with the fact that there are only about 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. That means there are almost three variants per word.

Do you feel the weight of this challenge? You should. No other document from the ancient world has this many textual variants. Yet, I believe that the New Testament is the most reliable document from antiquity. How can this be?

When it comes to the New Testament, it’s not the number of variants that’s important, it’s the nature of the variants. It’s not the quantity of the differences; it’s the quality of the differences.

There are four kinds of textual variants. Variants are categorized by whether or not they are viable, and whether or not they are meaningful. A variant is viable only if the variant has a good possibility of being part of the original wording. A variant is meaningful only if it changes the meaning of the text.
..
Most variants are trivial, affecting nothing. In fact, more than 99% fall into this category.

There are only a small number of meaningful variants that are viable. But even these affect no cardinal doctrine. The New Testament has an impressive transmission history that should give Christians confidence that we have the words written by the apostles.


Textual Variants: It’s the Nature, Not the Number, That Matters | Stand to Reason

Everybody can believe whatever they want, about the content of the biblical manuscripts. But it is a false narrative and distortion to accuse, 'Bible! Change!', when it is the most credible historical group of documents from that era.

There are texts (cuneiform) from Sumer. Dilmun and Ras Shamra that are older.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You contend that free will is not a foundation principle of of the faith, which is total balderdash. From the very beginning Christ spoke about people making a free informed choice about the Faith. He prescribed quite clearly that if the message is rejected, the believer is to move on.

You didn't address my point that it was submission, not free will, that is fundamental to Christian theology. As is always the case when that happens, my position doesn't change as you would expect. I continue to believe and proclaim that the central Christian message is not free will, nor love, nor salvation, but submission

You have shown that Jesus spoke of free will, but not that its use was encouraged or that He valued it. Free will is a big problem for Christianity. It allows people to not listen to proselytizing, to not observe the Sabbath, to not worship the god that its scriptures command be worshiped, to not tithe, and the like. They're called Commandments for a reason. One's contradictory opinions and free expression of them in either word or deed are most unwelcome.

The church very much wants to control the thoughts and actions of its adherents, but must grapple with their freedom to do as they please even as it condemns them for making choices it disapproves of, like getting an abortion. It hates that free will can be expressed in that area and labors to prevent the free expression of that will.

Christ acknowledging that people have free will does not make it a fundamental principle of Christianity. Christianity does not esteem free will. It deals with it as a problem.

So now you will trot out all the bad things alleged Christians did when they allowed themselves to join in an unholy alliance with government.

I have already done that twice recently. Why shouldn't such things be offered as evidence?

I think my first introduction to politicized Christianity was the Moral Majority of the nineties, whose "unholy alliance with government" I recognized as potentially dangerous and something to be watched closely. I had already been an atheist for more than a decade, but I had no negative feelings about the religion until then.

I will point out some of the greatest atheists of the twentieth century,Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Apparently their atheism allowed them to freely murder close to one hundred million people.

Yes, atheism permits murder. It pretty much permits anything, just like aleprechaunism, or the lack of belief in leprechauns. Such people get no moral guidance from their unbelief, either. Maybe it was Pol Pot's aleprechaunism and not his atheism that caused him to kill.

Christians want a theocracy ?

Some do. I gave you the words of some prominent ones advocating for Christian rule of the government. Are you familiar with the Reconstructionist / Dominionist movement in Christianity? It's pure Handmaid's Tale stuff.

You are likely unaware of these things because you have no exposure to them and no interest in pursuing such things. You're not only not motivated to discover how Christianity affects and wants to affect the lives of non-Christians, you might be motivated to not see it when it is shown to you as is probably the case with topic.

Now that you've been exposed to these claims, you will either research them if you are interested in learning about theocratic efforts in the States, or you will be uninterested and not look into it. Do you care if there is any validity to the claim that there are efforts to promote theocracy in America?

I suspect that most Christians don't, which is not consistent with your claim that follows :

Christians revere the Constitution very highly, everything within the four corners of the document is deeply respected.

Really? Then why aren't they all speaking out against inflicting Christian beliefs on non-Christians with all of this recent anti-abortion legislation? I'll tell you why. Very few object to the church piercing the church-state wall, which is an extremely anti-American, anti-Constitution action. If you want to talk authentic founding principles, secular government would be one, and anybody advocating using government to enforce religious preferences is no friend of the Constitution.

Please tell me where the Constitution would allow the establishment of a theocracy

It doesn't, which is why theocratic tendencies are un-American and un-Constitutional, and Constitution-loving Christians should object to any incursion of the church into the state.

However, you tell me there is something wrong with Christians seeking political power for the same reason, it really disturbs you, why ?

No, I didn't say that there is something wrong with Christians running for elected office. They just need to be Americans first, and Christians second. They should be there to do the bidding of all Americans, not just the Christian ones

Mike Pence once said, " I am a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican--in that order!" American didn't even make the list.

Could it be that you just hate Christians so much, that you want to deny them the right to be politically active ?

I don't hate Christians. You've seen me interacting with dozens of them, two on this thread including you, and there is no hatred there. What you're seeing is me disagreeing with Christians' claims about their religion - about how good and wholesome it is.
 
Top