1. 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!

Featured Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by usfan, May 28, 2019.

  1. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +462
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
  2. Left Coast

    Left Coast Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    798
    Ratings:
    +590
    Religion:
    None
    You didn't do what I asked! I asked you to reply to "caricatures" and "false narratives" that people actually said in that thread, not things you made up.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  3. AT-AT

    AT-AT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +2,358
    Religion:
    I finally figured out what direction I should go, when I studied the revelations of the Baha'i faith
    Yeah, I mean, why not tell us in this new thread what you saw that was so bad.

    :cookie::cookie::cookie:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +462
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    These are common accusations, in the public discourse. I've heard them all, multiple times. The question is not blaming WHO said them, or started it, but the validity (or not) of the accusations.

    Documenting those who use any of these narratives is not really helpful. Dissecting them, for discovery of truth, is.
     
  5. AT-AT

    AT-AT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +2,358
    Religion:
    I finally figured out what direction I should go, when I studied the revelations of the Baha'i faith
    Yeah but, there was a thread, and you kind of jumped in and accused people of caricatures, to which I responded a little sarcastically with a gif. Surely you must have saw something specific and are not just going on rants?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Left Coast

    Left Coast Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    798
    Ratings:
    +590
    Religion:
    None
    What specific, exact definition is that? Have you spoken to the founder to glean this information?

    Some do, not all. More typically, they are just ignorant of it, which is not unique to them.
    Who has said this? Christians are responsible for some of this, not all.

    Again, who has actually said this? Christianity is similar to Islam, but not the same. The peacefulness of each religion depends on who's interpreting it.

    I don't know who "us" is in this statement. Muslims already do live peacefully in many parts of the world, including alongside Christians.
    Some of them do, not all. See: Dominionism.

    Again, who has actually said this?

    Again, who has actually said this?

    They used to. Thanks to the secularization of society, they don't really have an appetite for that anymore, society enjoys religious freedom and pluralism too much now that we've tasted it.

    Some of them do. I dont think most do, however.

    America was founded by a variety of folks who didn't all agree with each other. Quite a few of them were nominally religious and deist types who appreciated the moral values in Christianity but saw the supernatural stuff as silly. The Right has often inflated the degree of religiosity of the Founders, up to and including inventing fake quotes from whole cloth.

    Again, who said this? I think some of them do, but not all. Not unique to Christians at all.
    Some are, not all.

    Jesus, took until #13 to actually get to a realistic criticism. The Bible is full of errors both internal and external, but that would require a whole thread of its own, probably even more than one.

    This is also true, as we've literally discovered manuscripts that have been altered, intentionally and unintentionally, by scribes who copied them. We dont have the originals of any of the Biblical texts, so it's impossible to know exactly how much they've been changed over time, we can only compare copies to other copies.

    He was baptized a Christian as a child, and happily used Christian rhetoric to consolidate public support from German Christians. Privately it seems like he was into New Agey pagan stuff.

    I'm not sure exactly what this means - again, who said this? Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, but he didn't single out Christianity.
     
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • Like Like x 3
  7. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +462
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    This is another thread, with another topic. It can be discussed, ignored, or reviled, like any thread. ;)

    The specifics of what 'inspired!' a thread are really immaterial. Each topic must stand or fall on its own merits.

    It is a list of perceived 'false narratives'.. if you think some or none of these have been said, that is your prerogative. But that does not invalidate other's experiences.
     
  8. Left Coast

    Left Coast Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    798
    Ratings:
    +590
    Religion:
    None
    Eh, no, they're really not for the most part. They're mostly strawmen that over-generalize or exaggerate what critics of Christianity have actually said.

    Knocking down strawmen is a waste of time. Wouldn't you rather discuss the strongest criticisms of your worldview rather than the weakest?
    This is why I asked who actually said these things, because most of my secular friends wouldn't phrase things the way you have. You're arguing against an atheist ghost.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  9. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +462
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    this is a phony narrative, to smear Christianity by association with Hitler. It is a 'reductio ad Nazium' fallacy. But he esteemed islam much more, as a warrior ideology.

    You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness? ~Adolf Hitler

    I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. ~Adolf Hitler

    Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so. ~Adolf Hitler

    Good article here, and the info is widely available to any who seek truth, not just affirmation of the narrative.
    Why Hitler Wished He Was Muslim
     
  10. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +462
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    That's ok. This is your opinion or perspective of this list:
    Strawmen
    That is why we debate and discuss things, to air our perspectves.
     
  11. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +462
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    I agree that delving into evidence, and 'proofs!' of the charge is beyond the scope of this thread, but a general reply or perspective is in order.

    There may be 'some' copying errors, but careful comparisons with the earliest manuscripts (some from the first century), have proved a consistent, reliable, accurate rendition of the originals.

    The early church fathers quoted every passage in the new testament, and plenty from the old. There is no substantive disagreement with our current translations. All the historical manuscripts have lots of corroboration from other documents. The biblical manuscripts have a long history of scholarship and textual criticism by a continuous line of biblical scholars, translators, and historians.

    Arguments of incredulity do not prove 'error!'

    You can certainly disbelieve the accounts in the biblical canon, but the accuracy, historicity, and credibility of the manuscripts are impeccable.
     
  12. Left Coast

    Left Coast Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    798
    Ratings:
    +590
    Religion:
    None
    You have no way of knowing this, because we have never seen the originals.

    Also, we have no manuscripts of the NT from the first century. Second century is the earliest you'll get, and those are extremely few and far in between. The earliest we have for most of the the NT comes from the 3rd or 4th century.

    The ECFs quoted lots from the NT, I don't know about "every passage."

    I don't know what this means. Non-Christian sources quote the NT? Or non-Christian sources confirm what the NT claims? Certainly not any of the supernatural stuff.

    Yes they do. I suspect you're not aware of a great deal of that scholarship though. The fact that the Bible contains errors and has been changed over time is well established by mainstream Biblical scholars.

    You would need to actually demonstrate this to change anyone's mind here.
     
  13. AT-AT

    AT-AT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +2,358
    Religion:
    I finally figured out what direction I should go, when I studied the revelations of the Baha'i faith
    Okay. I'm opting out of this debate, as I don't perceive in my human perception that we have the same understanding of things when it applies to making arguments and what to base them on and how best to approach a given subject.

    I wish I had some golden advice for you. As for me, I just plan to grow from this forum's advice and my own pursuit over time, and strengthening. RF means a lot to me. I more or less hope you find exactly what you're looking for on here too.

    I look forward to maybe seeing you around the forums.

    I've ended up approaching this subject to the best I could, and I'll have to try and have peace about it.

    197337928002202.gif

    I have some pictures which cover my principles in list form, I could show them for debate purposes to make sure we all agree on them and see things eye to eye, but maybe it's better I didn't and just called it a day and did something a bit more productive.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  14. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +462
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    I am. ;) that is why i put it in this list. But 'changing minds!'? :eek: !! Please don't put that burden on me. I can only present my perspective.

    1. There are fragments of NT manuscripts from the first century
    2. Early church fathers (like Irenaeus, 2nd century), quoted from 21 of the 27 books of the NT... extensively.
    3. The canon was not compiled, 'settled', or officially recognized as a Christian consensus until the Nicean Council (4th century) but the manuscripts were all in use prior to that time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +462
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    The 2 main Greek NT compilations, the Nestle-Aland text done by the German Bible Society, and The Greek New Testament done by the United Bible Societies, are the historical standards. Extant variances are noted, for the serious scholar, and comparisons can be made.

    I used the Nestle-Aland, in my studies, before the internet. Now, greater tools are available for studying the most minute detail of a passage.. really only useful for nerds or bible aficionados.

    But it is a false narrative, with NO HISTORICAL or scholarly basis, that the texts we have today are 'different!' than the originals. They are not. We have extant fragments from the first century, EXTENSIVE quotes from the second century, and all of them provide the basis for, and are the source of, our current bible. Nothing has changed.. not even the false accusations.

    There is an unbroken line of scholarship, historical scrutiny, archaeological discovery, and continuity for the NT bible. It is essentially identical to the one we have today, and any slight variances or even typos are noted. Christian historians and scholars took their duties very seriously, and knew they were preserving the Holy Scriptures for future generations. Nobody has changed ANYTHING, for 2 thousand years. It is distortion and false propaganda from opposing, contrary ideologies that promote these narratives.
     
  16. Left Coast

    Left Coast Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    798
    Ratings:
    +590
    Religion:
    None
    Source?

    Ah, I see, so now the goalpost has moved. ;) Originally your claim was that the ECFs quoted "every passage in the new testament." Now that's been pushed back to they "quoted from 21 of the 27 books." Not the entire books, just quoted from them. That's quite a difference.

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

    You're aware that most of the guys we call the ECFs lived in the 3rd century and beyond, yes?


    Yikes, friend. You really need to do some research outside of whatever apologetics websites you've been reading.

    Go actually read the text of the Council of Nicaea. It's available to you online. They did not decide on the NT canon there. You will see the various edicts they passed on a variety of subjects referred to as "canons," but don't get confused, that's not a reference to the canon of Scripture.

    Second, "the manuscripts were in use" is vague and meaningless. All NT manuscripts were not "in use" (if you mean, read during the liturgy/regarded as Scripture) in all places. Different Christian communities used different NT texts and passed them among each other. There was more consensus about some texts than others. Some texts that are now in the canon were widely disputed, other texts were widely accepted and used, and didn't make it into the canon.
     
  17. Left Coast

    Left Coast Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    798
    Ratings:
    +590
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,136
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Religion:
    Christian
    You have done a superb job in listing the litany of lies told to advance the anti Christian agenda.
    Sadly, I suspect your civil discussion will not last long.
    The anti Christian mindset gives itself permission to adopt incivility as acceptable in conversing with us.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    55,763
    Ratings:
    +18,558
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Reads more like a caricature of an atheist and the things mostly Evangelicals want to believe atheists believe and advocate for.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  20. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    9,117
    Ratings:
    +4,138
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Here is my take.

    No. But they should if they were coherent.

    Of course not. Example: the Roman wars.

    Not true. Anymore.
    Not true.

    Maybe some.

    Not true. Example: the books of the banana man.

    Of course not. Example Pol Pot.

    No. But they should if they really believed what they say and they were moral.

    Of course not. They love us.

    Partly agree.

    I doubt it.

    Many do. they just follow the science that does not contradict their bronze age book, for some reason.

    That is quite obvious.

    Unfortunately not.

    I doubt it.

    The former is true, the latter less so. But not much less in some cases.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    #20 viole, May 28, 2019
    Last edited: May 28, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...