What are your main beefs with Christianity?

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think we all make judgments. I don’t see any way to avoid it.
Don’t forget the humility ingredient. Most of us are a mix of right and wrong, doing some good things and making some mistakes. That’s Christians and non Christians. By all means, stand up for what you think is right, with the wisdom to know you will make mistakes that will help you learn and grow. With the integrity to admit those mistakes and learn from others who follow a different path.
[/QUOTE]

I do so every day. I catch myself judging and correct it. Do you think I am able to spot this most basic of human behavior by myself? He shows me the error of my ways so that I might walk this earth and be known as His child. I understand what you are saying be sure. And I appreciate your taking your time to council me.

162

[QUOTE=Omegaman]
You’re not allowed to sin ? My friend, you were born into sin . You can’t avoid it .
[/QUOTE]

This brings up another of my beefs with Christianity- the idea that thoughts can be a sin. For the most part, in Judaism, for something to be a sin, you have to actually do something. Not so in Christianity- it’s a lot harder to avoid sinning in your interpretation that says thinking about doing something sinful is itself sinful, even if you don’t do the sinful thing you were thinking about.

I’m not crazy about the idea that some Protestant denominations have that even the smallest sin is enough to keep one out of heaven (if you don’t ask for forgiveness and all that). I much prefer the Catholic idea of venial and mortal sins- it says some sins are worse than others, and some sins are not bad enough to keep someone out of heaven.

I wish that more Christians acknowledged that, according to their religion, judging others is a sin, and tried to keep from doing it. Too many people who call themselves Christian don’t seem to think that judging others is a bad thing.

163

I have a big problem with the rapture. I have not read the bible in a long time but I do not remember anything about that. Sorry, believers, but the thought that the righteous will be sucked out of their clothes into heaven by a huge vacu-suck leaves me cold. Where did the idea come from and how did it take root. ?

164

[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Well I appreciate your council. That is why I’m here . For know all I have is what I’ve read both in the Bible and here. It isn’t easy picking through some of the hateful shit that is spewed here and some of the interpretations in the Bible. I am here to learn and be a better man. But in the end the truth, for me anyway, has a way of shining through the chaff. Don’t mistake my willingness to quote the Bible as self-righteousness on my part. I am only a servant of God trying my best to do His will.
[/QUOTE]

You’re right. It takes practice and patience to figure out which posts contain some good honest info and which don’t. Some posters seem to enjoy just dumping on anyone with any religious faith. Others may not agree but they will communicate honestly and offer good information with sources to research. Once you learn to discern between the two I’ve found SDMB to be a very good place to examine your own faith by communicating with intelligent people who don’t agree and can explain their reasons.
Recognizing the need to learn and the having the ability to learn from others, even those you don’t agree with, is a wonderful thing. I applaud you for your efforts.

165

[QUOTE=Omegaman]
I do so every day. I catch myself judging and correct it. Do you think I am able to spot this most basic of human behavior by myself? He shows me the error of my ways so that I might walk this earth and be known as His child. I understand what you are saying be sure. And I appreciate your taking your time to council me.
[/QUOTE]

I struggle with it myself. All we can do is go forward willing to learn and trying to be honest with ourselves.

My sincere wish for Christians is that they learn to see Jesus in the loving actions and spirit of non Christians. It isn’t in the name or the traditional image. It’s what springs from the heart and reflects in the actions. If God is truly the well from which all love is drawn then any act of compassion and love is an act of God and we should honor it.

From your previous writings I think you understand that. It’s an interesting journey. I hope you hang around the SDMB.

166

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I have a big problem with the rapture. I have not read the bible in a long time but I do not remember anything about that. Sorry, believers, but the thought that the righteous will be sucked out of their clothes into heaven by a huge vacu-suck leaves me cold. Where did the idea come from and how did it take root. ?
[/QUOTE]
The rapture is part of the new end-times theology that was invented in the 1830s, or so. When mixed with various phrases and ideas taken from Revelation and Exekiel and Daniel, it relies on a statement in Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians 4:17

The idea is fewer than 200 years old, but it is very popular among a limited number of (but loud) denominations, nearly all in English-speaking lands and primarily in the U.S.

167

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I have a big problem with the rapture. I have not read the bible in a long time but I do not remember anything about that. Sorry, believers, but the thought that the righteous will be sucked out of their clothes into heaven by a huge vacu-suck leaves me cold. Where did the idea come from and how did it take root. ?
[/QUOTE]

Here is the Wikki article which includes the scripture which is claimed to support it. It’s interesting to me that it’s quite new. Since the 1830’s.

168

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I hope you hang around the SDMB.
[/QUOTE]

I’m here to learn from people like you. I can’t leave now that I have discovered what I can learn from everyone here. Not just Christians, but everybody who seeks the truth that will help us live together. There is a world of room for every religion that seeks this truth. I have learned things from children that the smartest and most learned people still do not know. Peace be with you.

169

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The rapture is part of the new end-times theology that was invented in the 1830s, or so. When mixed with various phrases and ideas taken from Revelation and Exekiel and Daniel, it relies on a statement in Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians 4:17

The idea is fewer than 200 years old, but it is very popular among a limited number of (but loud) denominations, nearly all in English-speaking lands and primarily in the U.S.
[/QUOTE]

Just to add a little context to the Thessalonianians quote (and speaking over Tom’s shoulder since he already knows this), it refers to the 2nd coming. Paul was responding to questions about whether Christians who had already died would still go to Heaven when Jesus came back (during the Pauline era, Christians expected that Jesus’ return was imminent – that it would happen during their own generation). Paul reassured those concerned about loved ones who had preceded them in death that the dead would ascend to Heaven first and then the living would join them. This was all about the Parousia, though, the 2nd coming, not a declaration by Paul that anyone should expect a preliminary “Rapture” event where only some people got sucked into the sky, leaving everybody else to fight it out with the Antichrist or face the “tribulations” or any of the other stuff that turns up in the variant forms of Rapture theology.

It’s not only the rapture that isn’t biblical, lmost none of the popular views of the endtime scenarios are Biblical (including the notion of a supernatural Antichrist).

170

[QUOTE=Omegaman]
I’m here to learn from people like you. I can’t leave now that I have discovered what I can learn from everyone here. Not just Christians, but everybody who seeks the truth that will help us live together. There is a world of room for every religion that seeks this truth. I have learned things from children that the smartest and most learned people still do not know. Peace be with you.
[/QUOTE]

I wanted to correct something I said here. There is a world of room for every Person and religion that seeks the truth.

171

I’d second most of the things Der Trihs stated upthread, plus add a couple of anecdotal instances of my own. In my experience Christianity simply breeds hypocrisy. On to the examples.

-I once dated a girl who turned out to be (and possibly was at the time-I’m not sure, and don’t care to know) one of the nastiest sluts as well as morally bankrupt individuals I’ve ever met. I’m talking about putting out for any swinging dick walking and doing virtually anything in her power to get her way. Yet, while we dated she coerced me into attending church with her (occasionally) and insisted that, if we were to continue to be together, I needed to be “saved.”

-I know another Christian girl, one whom I would consider a true friend a great person in nearly every facet. We drifted apart somewhat after she graduated college, and, upon having a rare IM conversation a couple of years later, she revealed that she was contemplating entering a relationship with a married man, who had a toddler no less. Her justification? In essence, she didn’t think “God” would place someone in her life just to tease her. It gets worse…

-I met another friend-male, not necessarily a Christian, but a theist brought up in a pervasively Christian area- by chance after hardly having seen him for 5-6 years. We, along with a couple of mutual friends, hit a bar to watch football and catch up. After a couple of hours he starts regaling us with his sexual conquests, a process which quickly devolves into a string of the raunchiest, most explicit stories I’ve ever heard, and I am a 24 year old guy. Sometime after the stories of depravity had subsided, I innocently utter the phrase “goddammit”. This person looks at me, stricken, and insists, vehemently, that I am going to Hell, thus implying that he has led a fundamentally pure life and is assured entrance into Heaven. I am not a saint, but I’ve haven’t partaken in threesomes or orgies, nor videotaped them, nor plied women with alcohol in hopes of fucking them, nor taken advantage of them when they are on the verge of incoherence, thus making them the subject of some ribald boast in what, I am sure, is one of the lowliest moments of their lives. Yet I was the one at the table who was damned.

You can say that I have cherry picked these episodes to bolster my anti-religious position, and I suppose I have. One reason I’ve presented them is that these three people probably comprise half of those I’ve spoken to who are my age and whose religious/theistic positions I know explicitly. And, more to the point, I feel they illustrate the damage that can be done when someone supposes either A)They will be forgiven, no matter what choices they make, or B) “God” has a fate chosen for each of us, thus negating our choices-they aren’t really ours to make and we have no responsibility for their ramifications. Either of those tenants can be pure poison, in the hands of someone who exploits them, or, sadly, merely believes them.

172

[QUOTE=Incensed]
I’d second most of the things Der Trihs stated upthread, plus add a couple of anecdotal instances of my own. In my experience Christianity simply breeds hypocrisy. On to the examples.

-I once dated a girl who turned out to be (and possibly was at the time-I’m not sure, and don’t care to know) one of the nastiest sluts as well as morally bankrupt individuals I’ve ever met. I’m talking about putting out for any swinging dick walking and doing virtually anything in her power to get her way. Yet, while we dated she coerced me into attending church with her (occasionally) and insisted that, if we were to continue to be together, I needed to be “saved.”

-I know another Christian girl, one whom I would consider a true friend a great person in nearly every facet. We drifted apart somewhat after she graduated college, and, upon having a rare IM conversation a couple of years later, she revealed that she was contemplating entering a relationship with a married man, who had a toddler no less. Her justification? In essence, she didn’t think “God” would place someone in her life just to tease her. It gets worse…

-I met another friend-male, not necessarily a Christian, but a theist brought up in a pervasively Christian area- by chance after hardly having seen him for 5-6 years. We, along with a couple of mutual friends, hit a bar to watch football and catch up. After a couple of hours he starts regaling us with his sexual conquests, a process which quickly devolves into a string of the raunchiest, most explicit stories I’ve ever heard, and I am a 24 year old guy. Sometime after the stories of depravity had subsided, I innocently utter the phrase “goddammit”. This person looks at me, stricken, and insists, vehemently, that I am going to Hell, thus implying that he has led a fundamentally pure life and is assured entrance into Heaven. I am not a saint, but I’ve haven’t partaken in threesomes or orgies, nor videotaped them, nor plied women with alcohol in hopes of fucking them, nor taken advantage of them when they are on the verge of incoherence, thus making them the subject of some ribald boast in what, I am sure, is one of the lowliest moments of their lives. Yet I was the one at the table who was damned.

You can say that I have cherry picked these episodes to bolster my anti-religious position, and I suppose I have. One reason I’ve presented them is that these three people probably comprise half of those I’ve spoken to who are my age and whose religious/theistic positions I know explicitly. And, more to the point, I feel they illustrate the damage that can be done when someone supposes either A)They will be forgiven, no matter what choices they make, or B) “God” has a fate chosen for each of us, thus negating our choices-they aren’t really ours to make and we have no responsibility for their ramifications. Either of those tenants can be pure poison, in the hands of someone who exploits them, or, sadly, merely believes them.
[/QUOTE]

Did you tell these folks exactly what you thought?

In the interest of balance do you also know a Christian or two who sincerely try to lead a decent moral life and give of themselves to others? I do.

Even though I revere the teachings of Christ I decided not to call myself a Christin anymore because my beliefs are to far from mainstream and I’m not happy with some of the major Christians getting a lot of press.

I agree with the two points you’ve made. It bothers me to bump into people who eagerly choose the label but see no real need to try and grow into the life described by Christ. All their human flaws are just normal except theirs are forgiven while yours and mine aren’t. I can only think it’s because that kind of crap is being stressed from too many pulpits, rather than talking about real personal transformation.

That being said I still think Christianity with it’s problems can and does serve as a working spiritual path for some. Having passed through there to where I am now I don’t see my time in Christianity as a mistake but as one part of my journey.

IMHO what is beginning to happen is that people are bringing issues like the problems you mention out in the open for discussion and in time {generations} the dynamics will change.

173

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

It’s not only the rapture that isn’t biblical, lmost none of the popular views of the endtime scenarios are Biblical (including the notion of a supernatural Antichrist).
[/QUOTE]

Except that II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 do teach the emergence of an anti-Christ personage that displays supernatural powers.

174

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Except that II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 do teach the emergence of an anti-Christ personage that displays supernatural powers.
[/QUOTE]

Dio will have a more complete response than I but the question that arises for me is why should anyone take this as literal rather than a metaphor for the inner spiritual battle?

It also seems that 2 Thes 1 is talking about the imminent arrival of Jesus which we know was not the case. If those folks misunderstood the teachings of Christ enough to believe he was coming back in their lifetime why should we then embrace II Thes 2 as a real prophecy about a real person that is also coming?

You may interpret them that way if you like but it’s purely a traditional teaching IMO.
My guess is that it’s also a teaching that is not 2000 years old or even close.

175

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Except that II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 do teach the emergence of an anti-Christ personage that displays supernatural powers.
[/QUOTE]

Neither uses the name “Antichrist.” The Beast of Revelation refers to the Roman Emperor (probably Domitian who was popularly believed to have been Nero in disguise at the time) and is not about the future.

The “Man of Lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians is more obscure. 2 Thessalonians was a forgery written in deliberate immitation of Paul. Its intention was to quell growing discontent with the the fact that it was now getting on towards the end of the 1st century and Jesus had still not returned (contradicting Paul’s prediction of a return within his own lifetime in 1 Thess). 2 Thess. tried to equivocate about this increasingly embarrassing predicament by inventing a new batch of circumstances which had to be fulfilled before the J man would come back. The “man of lawlessness” first had to be revealed and then Jesus would kick his ass. Only the MOL was currently being “restrained.” By what is anybody’s guess. I think 2:11 suggests that it’s God but other suggestions have been made as well.

The identity of the MOL in 2 Thess. is unknown (it seems to be expected that the audience will get it) but likely candidates are either Nero (or Nero 2.0) or to prevalent Gnostic heresies (and/or leaders/teachers in the Gnostic movement) which would fall in line with what the the word “antichrist” refers to in the Epistles of John.

In any vase, the popular conception of the Antichrist as a futuristic, supernatural supervillain is a syncretic, largely imaginative inferrence made from multiple unrelated passages and conflated to synthesize a single character. This character, as popularly imagined, is not actually spelled out or identified the way people think he is in the Bible.

176

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

In any vase, the popular conception of the Antichrist as a futuristic, supernatural supervillain is a syncretic, largely imaginative inferrence made from multiple unrelated passages and conflated to synthesize a single character. This character, as popularly imagined, is not actually spelled out or identified the way people think he is in the Bible.
[/QUOTE]

Btw, I did a quick check & as far as I can find so far, the earliest references to an End-Times “anti-Christian” super-ruler in Christian literature seem to be in The Didache and Justin Martyr’s Dialogues with Trypho, so that tradition definitely was
present by the mid-100s AD.

I don’t deny that the Beasts in Revelation and Paul’s Man of Lawlessness/Sin could well refer to the various Roman, Jewish &/or Gnostic opponents to the Church. The preterist case for a lot of “End-Times” prophecy seems almost as
strong as the futurist view IMO. I’m not ruling either out.

177

Cosmosdan-Unfortunately the situations didn’t really call for a rebuttal on my part. I wasn’t aware of the girl in the first examples’ promiscuity or manipulative nature until we’d split up, and, upon learning of such things, vowed to avoid her at all costs. With the second girl, I did advise her against pursuing a relationship with a married man, gently pointing out that she has many painful memories of childhood begotten by the fact that her parents divorced when she was quite young. Religion has been a topic of contention between she and I, and I didn’t feel the need to elevate the situation by spinning it in that direction-I simply tried to tell her that (enabling) adultery was wrong in almost any moral context. The guy from the third incident wasn’t aware of my atheism, which only served to heighten the hypocrisy-he was condemning me for the ‘sin’ of blasphemy, and nothing else, which was so stultifying in light of the escapades he’d recounted that I could do little more than laugh. There is no point attempting to reason with a person capable of that level of self-deception.

In the interest of fairness, yes I do know a few Christians, who, to varying degrees, are trying to live up to the faith-but, as stated previously, that number is small. I probably know 6 Christians, 3 Atheists and 1 Agnostic (who are my age and who I’ve heard declaim these things themselves) all told. Besides, the title of this thread is “…main *beefs * with Christianity” and I was sharing mine. You said;

“I still think Christianity with it’s problems can and does serve as a working spiritual path for some.”

I’d agree with that, although I’d have to say I think the number is small and, in my experience, the ones who derive the greatest benefits from Christianity are the sort of innate moderates who would thrive under any doctrine which taught abstinence from excess. You also said-

“IMHO what is beginning to happen is that people are bringing issues like the problems you mention out in the open for discussion and in time {generations} the dynamics will change.”

And I’d agree to that as well, although I think the shift towards acceptance of Atheists/Agnostics has already begun, and I expect to witness its maturation during my life time.

I’d like to say that, if Christians lived up to the tenants of their faith, I’d have no problem with them, but I cannot say that in earnest, since they must attempt to spread their religion in order to be a “Good Christian”, and, since I believe Christianity to be a follly, I adamantly oppose its proliferation. I think the world needs to be more reliant on rationality and causality, and this necessarily means dismissing the superstitions and inherited ignorance of our fore bearers, of which-I believe- religion is the foremost example.

All of that being said, the ‘if’ in the penultimate paragraph looms large. Hypocrisy in general is one of the main reasons that I am ‘incensed’, and the realms of organized religion (Christianity being the one I am most familiar with) seem to spawn it with alacrity.

BTW-Could someone please tell me how to ‘embed’ quotations? Thanks in advance.

178

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Btw, I did a quick check & as far as I can find so far, the earliest references to an End-Times “anti-Christian” super-ruler in Christian literature seem to be in The Didache and Justin Martyr’s Dialogues with Trypho, so that tradition definitely was
present by the mid-100s AD.
[/quote]

That’s true, but my contention was only that it was not in the Bible.

179

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
This brings up another of my beefs with Christianity- the idea that thoughts can be a sin. For the most part, in Judaism, for something to be a sin, you have to actually do something. Not so in Christianity- it’s a lot harder to avoid sinning in your interpretation that says thinking about doing something sinful is itself sinful, even if you don’t do the sinful thing you were thinking about…
[/QUOTE]

I’m not a fundamentalist Christian by any means, and I don’t mean to be insensitive. This just brings up a thought that’s been in the back of my mind for years.

Jesus said that one who even looks upon a woman to lust after her was already guilty of “adultery in the heart.”

That may seem different from anything Judaism says in its central claims (the Tenakh). But on the other hand, there is the Tenth Commandment, right in the Torah, which prohibits “coveting” property and wives. (Exodus 20)

As far as I can see, coveting is mental, not actual. Since a neighbor’s wife is included, I fail to see any divergence that would make anything Jesus said, in this instance, any different from what came before. (If I had full confidence in the idea, I could explore the question of whether anything at all Jesus said was an addition to moral statements in Judaism, but that would be an entirely new thread!)

To put it as simply as possible, Jesus was merely repeating part of the Tenth Commandment. AFAIK.

Now, of course it doesn’t include a clause or phrase about being a de facto breaking of the commandment against adultery, but it does place the seriousness right up there. The law was to be obeyed, and the decalogue was of first importance.

Tell me if I’ve misunderstood.

True Blue Jack

180

[QUOTE=True Blue Jack]
I’m not a fundamentalist Christian by any means, and I don’t mean to be insensitive. This just brings up a thought that’s been in the back of my mind for years.

Jesus said that one who even looks upon a woman to lust after her was already guilty of “adultery in the heart.”
[/QUOTE]

There’s a difference of emphasis between the Jewish interpretations of that commandment that I’ve read and the Christian ones. In at least one Jewish interpretation, there’s more to coveting than looking at someone or something and thinking, “gee, I wish that was mine.” You have to want it and want the person who has it to not have it any more, and you really have to dwell on the idea of wanting whatever it is at the expense of that other person, and possibly plan how you would go about getting it. The Christian interpretations, though, seem to emphasize more that the fleeting thought of “gee, I wish that was mine” is a sin in and of itself. (And yes, I know this may not be true of all Christian thought on the subject, or all Jewish thought, but it does fit with what I’ve read and heard)

It’s not necessarily the Biblical teachings that are different between Christianity and Judaism, but the interpretations of them and where the emphasis is placed.