My Problem With Christianity

[Rageaholic]

(this mostly applies to conservative Christianity, but can apply to Liberals too)


My problem with Christianity, as I pointed out in the afterlife thread, is that when it comes down to it, it's follow god or be punished. The more conservative and literal interpration of the bible claims that we are all sinners, thus making us unworthy of god and deserving of horrific eternal punishment by default. That has been discussed in this thread. While the more liberal of Christians downplay that trope, claiming hell isn't literal (just "seperation from God"), and that god doesn't literally send anyone there, the implication is still there.

Now I know what a lot of Christians would say, Jesus died for us so that's no longer a problem. But it still is. For one, non believers will still face punishment. More importantly, why would anyone need to be punished in our place anyway? God can't just forgive? I hear this bullshit about god being "just". SERIOUSLY? Someone has to be punished eternally simply for a lifetime of bad deeds? And let's not forget that the more conservative views state that one little sin is enough to deserve this fate. That could be anything from thought crimes to not praying.

And when you get down to it, that defeats the entire purpose of free will. You have a choice, but if you don't do it gods way, you'll pay dearly for it. Even with the whole sacrifice of Jesus, it still comes down to being a Christian or burning in hell. As I said in the afterlife thread, can't god at least let you cease to exist? I can't believe any human, let alone everyone who was ever born, deserves such a horrific fate. I've heard that god didn't want robots so he gave humans free will, yet when they excercise that will differently, he punishes them forever? WTF? God can't have it both ways. If he didn't want robots, he should have expected that some would have gone a different way.

To wrap it up, I think it's a pretty depressing world view and actually makes atheism look more appealing. While I know not all Christians take it to that extreme, the implication is still there. Of course part of the problem is also that I'm naturally skeptical and can't understand the supernatural. However, since that might damn me according to Christian dogma, I'm going to take issue with it.

[HYHYBT]

And when you get down to it, that defeats the entire purpose of free will. You have a choice, but if you don't do it gods way, you'll pay dearly for it.

Absolutely not.

Is it a violation of your free will that if you choose to jump off a cliff then you will go splat at the bottom? Is it a violation of free will that if you smoke five packs a day you'll have lung problems? I think it's the other way around: the only way free will can have significance is if our choices have consequences. One effect of that will of course be that sometimes the consequences are unpleasant. (See: "but thou must!")

[bunnyboy]

Absolutely not.

Is it a violation of your free will that if you choose to jump off a cliff then you will go splat at the bottom? Is it a violation of free will that if you smoke five packs a day you'll have lung problems? I think it's the other way around: the only way free will can have significance is if our choices have consequences. One effect of that will of course be that sometimes the consequences are unpleasant. (See: "but thou must!")

No that's called being stupid because we KNOW gravity, exists, and we know smoking is dangerous. However we don't know god exists.

Of course there's the whole dang thing about what actually qualifies and is almost literally from church to church, with only the older branches having something of a semi-unified view.

Most other afterlives are either consequences (good and bad) for the extremes, and usually only after some judgement day, until then it's the grave. The others tend towards nothingness, or very close to it.

[Kheldarson]

One, your hyperlink is kinda kinky. It's giving me an error.

Two, I think Pascal's Wager covers it. You are making a choice, and yeah, you might be making the wrong choice, or I might be making the wrong choice, but it's still a personal choice.

And all choices have consequences, good, bad, indifferent.

So having a consequence doesn't violate free will but instead validates it. What happens if you make a choice and nothing happens? You know, a big choice that should technically make a major change in your life. You feel cheated to an extent right? Same thing here.

Now, most Christians would tell you that, yeah, our idea of heaven is pretty much theory, and honestly, what theologians actually have said about heaven is pretty scary to an extent (basically, we become one with God and lose our individuality. I'm not too keen on that philosophy.)

But does that stop me from believing in God? No, because I find reason to believe from faith, my background, and experience. What happens after death is after death. When I stand before God, I know that there are things that I have done wrong and things I have done right and all I can say is "I lived my life the best I could." And that's all anybody should do.

Because honestly? I think God gives us what we deserve...and if your life led you to want to be left alone then He'll do that. But if it's just away from Him but with family and friends and you were a good person...I don't think He'd deny you that either.

[smileyeagle1021]

Because honestly? I think God gives us what we deserve....

I assume you are talking about in the sense of when it comes to final judgement, not that you are getting what you deserve on an ongoing basis, even in this life time, because if that were the case, then a whole new can of worms has been opened on why children in Africa deserve to starve, or why Jews in 1940s Germany deserved to be murdered in mass, or... well, you get the idea.

[draco664]

Two, I think Pascal's Wager covers it.

Pascal's wager is flawed. At least if you are using it to try and convince someone to believe in God.

It assumes the 'believe in God' choice is the only possible correct choice if God exists. What if you choose to believe in the Abrahamic God, but the 'real' God is Odin, or Ra, or Krishna, or any of a bajillion others? Presumably, believing in one over the correct one would be insulting to the real God, and thus send you to whatever hell that God reserves for those ungodly disbelievers.

Without proof that the God you believe in is real, then Pascal's wager suggests that disbelief is the most logical choice.

[Mytical]

I have a few issues with any religion...though I believe that what a person believes is between them and whatever deity they believe in..and not for me to judge.

My first issue is that nobody can explain to me how their deity is better/more real then any of the others..even ones now called 'myths' like Zeus/etc.

My second issue is that all religious text is made by man..and thus subject to being changed/altered/faulty/etc because man is not perfect...yet the religious text is 'perfect'. Perfection can not come from something that is flawed.

[Kheldarson]

I assume you are talking about in the sense of when it comes to final judgement, not that you are getting what you deserve on an ongoing basis, even in this life time, because if that were the case, then a whole new can of worms has been opened on why children in Africa deserve to starve, or why Jews in 1940s Germany deserved to be murdered in mass, or... well, you get the idea.

I was discussing heaven and final judgement seeing as that was the argument presented in the OP. I'm not getting into the other discussion because nobody'll be happy by the end of that one.

Pascal's wager is flawed. At least if you are using it to try and convince someone to believe in God.

I wasn't really using it to convince someone to believe in God. It's a flawed argument for proof of God, but a good argument for why there's benefits to believing in God whether or not he exists. But mostly it does show why free will is not violated by having either extreme consequence involved.

Honestly, looking back at my argument, I was obviously crashing harder from being off from work than I thought. See if I can't reorganize my thoughts later.

[HYHYBT]

Well, it depends... one thing I like to keep in mind is that God must forgive honest mistakes, or else we're ALL screwed.

[Rageaholic]

Absolutely not.

Is it a violation of your free will that if you choose to jump off a cliff then you will go splat at the bottom? Is it a violation of free will that if you smoke five packs a day you'll have lung problems? I think it's the other way around: the only way free will can have significance is if our choices have consequences. One effect of that will of course be that sometimes the consequences are unpleasant. (See: "but thou must!")

Bunnyboy covered it. In those cases, the consequences are not only obvious, but self inflicted. In god's case, he's going to punish people for excercising their free will. That's not exactly self inflicted. It's the same way it's a choice as it would be if a dictator would give you the choice between following his demands or going to jail for life.

Frankly, I don't know why god would even demand punishment simply for living a different life or making some bad choices.

[Kheldarson]

My question is: how is it punishment?

Let's put it this way (ignoring the other argument of whether God exists or not for a moment). You meet God and he says he's got a really sweet place and wants to show it to you. All you have to do is hang out with him for a while. You decline saying you have other things at the moment. He says "All right" and moves on, but let's you know that you can always get in touch. Now time goes on and you never get in touch with him. Then you get evicted from your place. Should God just let you in his house when you never met the initial condition of getting to know him first? And add in the fact that you pretty much ignored his offer until you absolutely needed it? If anybody of our acquaintance tried to move in with us under these conditions, we'd refuse. Why can't God? Especially when it was our choice to tell him "no"? He's just respecting our choice.

[Ree]

I am getting kind of tired of this recurring theme in the threads on here because it's all just a rehashing of the same old stuff as I see it.

I have been reading, but I haven't joined in any of the debates or discussions because, quite frankly, it seems like a waste of valuable time and energy.

It's just a whole lot of back and forth with the same points being made by the same people in every thread.

It's a losing battle for either side because it's not as if those who are into Christianity will suddenly go, "Holy crap. They're right. I can't prove there is a God so why have I wasted all my life believing in one?" and it's not as if the atheists or non-Christians will suddenly go, "Holy crap. You have a point there. Tell me more about this God of yours."

If you feel that way about Christianity, then don't become a Christian.
That's your right.
Nobody has a gun to your head telling you that you must believe in Christ or else.

Why does it bother the non-Christians and atheists so much that Christians have the beliefs that they do, and why does it bother the Christians that others choose not to take the same path?

I just don't get why it has become such a major issue that the theme has to dominate at least 3 threads in the past month.

[smileyeagle1021]

My question is: how is it punishment?

Let's put it this way (ignoring the other argument of whether God exists or not for a moment). You meet God and he says he's got a really sweet place and wants to show it to you. All you have to do is hang out with him for a while. .

The problem is, even if we accept God exists, that's not what he is doing.
He is providing us a book that assures us that such a place exists and asking us to trust him.
And he is asking for you to more than hang out with him, he is asking you to follow his rules, all of them, even the ones that contradict each other.

Nobody has a gun to your head telling you that you must believe in Christ or else.

Why does it bother the non-Christians and atheists so much that Christians have the beliefs that they do,

You're right, at least in North America, no Christian has put a gun to anyone's head (in recent history) to force them to convert, but that leads to the second point.
It bothers non-Christians what Christians believe because Christians have such a bad habit of forcing their beliefs on others, especially through the legislative process (blue laws, the attempts to outlaw homosexuality, attempting to force prayer in schools, etc).
Non-believes just want to be left the fuck alone, but that is too much for Christians to allow.

[Kheldarson]

Why does it bother the non-Christians and atheists so much that Christians have the beliefs that they do, and why does it bother the Christians that others choose not to take the same path?

I just get involved mostly because there seems to be some misunderstanding on the atheist side involving what Christians believe. We don't all believe the same things so why do they assign us all the same beliefs? I just get involved to provide extra definition.

The problem is, even if we accept God exists, that's not what he is doing.
He is providing us a book that assures us that such a place exists and asking us to trust him.
And he is asking for you to more than hang out with him, he is asking you to follow his rules, all of them, even the ones that contradict each other.

Except that that book of rules was written through human minds so therefor may be biased. Hence why most Christian denominations do not take everything in that book at face value. If you boil the book down into its basic message you get "Don't be a douche." So God's invitation is still to come get to know him and be a good person because he doesn't hang out with jerks.

It bothers non-Christians what Christians believe because Christians have such a bad habit of forcing their beliefs on others, especially through the legislative process (blue laws, the attempts to outlaw homosexuality, attempting to force prayer in schools, etc).
Non-believes just want to be left the fuck alone, but that is too much for Christians to allow.

And here's where I think we're taking a jump from just an issue to religion to an issue with politics. We're a nation based on democracy. Democracy is simply majority rules. Now, yes, we shouldn't completely override minority groups, which is why we're established as a republic. HOWEVER, overall, we still go back to the basics of majority rule. When that gets overridden for whatever reason (race, creed, sex, etc.), there'd better be a damn good reason.

And frankly, all of your examples are things that should be determined by the state. Which is why the phrase "vote with your feet" comes up.

[Gravekeeper]

And frankly, all of your examples are things that should be determined by the state. Which is why the phrase "vote with your feet" comes up.

Seperation of church and state would like a word with you. Several words really. Democracy is not a mechanism by which you get to oppress others.