Why I cannot be Christian simplified

No but what if I did? For all anyone knows, the people in any congregation could be as reprehensible as this individual because religion attracts such people as you said.

 

LOLOL If you don't live in Uganda why are you worried about that video clip?

How old are you?

 

I'm not impressed. My point still stands.

 

Are you gay? Why would you care what some moron in Uganda is teaching?

 

For your information, I once attended a Pentecostal/Charismatic worship service where the pastor made an anti-gay sermon. I have a work colleague who is gay.

 

Don't take offense. Nothing wrong with being gay. Lots of Christians believe God made them too.

 

I'm glad we agree there. You have a Bible? If so, take a big black marker and blot out the anti-gay verses.

 

Don't get stuck in the bronze age.

 

That's why I never attend church.

 

I disagree because the legends of that flood are part of our earliest written records. Granted there is a gap of a few thousand years but people were already living in that region. That the legend does not match what actually occurred is how all of these legends came into being. It was passed down verbally and in that process it was embellished because there was no written record.

 

Too early. Black Sea breech occurred about 5600 BC. Gilgamesh is based on flood stories in Sumer (real floods) 2900 BC.

 

A lot of the legends predated the first written records.

 

Look up Ziusudra.. Its fascinating.. and its found in Bahrain among thousands of clay tablets that predate Judaism by 1500 years.

 

Agreed, there are a great many parallels between Noah and Ziusudra which is why the biblical flood is obviously an adaption of the earlier legend.

 

If you cannot you cannot. That's no big deal in the USA.

If you were living in Calvin's Geneva they would banish you, take your real estate and the possessions you could not carry out of the city, but it's no big deal at all in the USA.

 

I think this great flood happened in the basin between the Tigris and Euphrates.. There's geological evidence of flood sediment and the king's list to confirm that.

 

The bible and most religions are full of metaphors and prose which people mistakenly take as literal.

 

And they borrow and adapt myths from cultures around them

 

What conclusion exactly is it you draw from these two points?

Is it that you don't like Christianity? Or that you believe it to not be true? Or that it is inconsistent with some specific moral statements that Christianity makes? It seems to me your arguments can explain the first, but not really the second. The last I could certainly see happening, but you don't seem to make that argument, at least not in full.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter how objectionable the Bible or thought crime is. If it is true, then it is true, and what we think about the rest doesn't really matter. If the Bible says gays are evil and the Bible is true, then it follows logically that gays are evil. In my opinion, the way to break that logic is not to position ourselves on the side of evil inside the Christian framework, but to argue that the Bible isn't true anyway, and at that point, the finer details are a moot point. As such, my objections to Christianity (and most other views) are epistemological in nature.

That being said, that's from a purely logical point of view. The act of smearing an idea with badwill (however well deserved) can sway people, although it is not always considered a particularly good tactic. This post makes no mention of that though, so I'd like that confirmed before I argue that that is what you're trying to do.

 

All that you have said are valid points. You ask if the Bible is objectionable because it is untrue or if it is just my emotional reaction. Well, to answer that question I'd say it's the former.

Regarding thought crime I say it's because Christianity is setting human beings up to be a guaranteed failure from the outset. I suppose that's the point with the concept of original sin, but honestly from a logical AND emotional view, I don't see a newborn baby as already a failure in the game of life.

Regarding the Bible being objectionable, there is actually one angle I did not address. It's not whether the Bible is true or not. It's the fact that despite centuries of reforms, Christianity has so far failed to re-define itself to something I can find acceptable. That is the moving away from declaring the Bible is a book of ABSOLUTE truths to a book of history within the culture peppered with some wisdom to learn from. Keeping in the spirit of that I would also like to see Christianity move away from being the only praiseworthy lifestyle to something purely tribal. The same way many ethnic Jews call themselves Jewish despite not practicing Rabbinic Judaism. My Christian label I use to declare my partial European heritage and solidarity with other human beings who use that label and suffer for it. I do NOT use it to declare that my way is the ONLY way to salvation.

To drive the cultural and tribal thing further home, I'll also point out how European monarchies have successfully re-defined themselves. Instead of the monarchs being ordained by God to rule, people view them as ceremonial tourist attractions and symbols of the highest standards of dignity. Citizens are taught to be polite and present themselves well like the King and Queen.

 

If faith is defined as belief without proof, this poses a problem for anyone who realizes that all propositions rest ultimately on unprovable propositions.

 

Exactly. Most of them are from pagan mythology.

 

I don't think it is "smearing somebody" when you reveal facts like he did about the supernatural.

Consider "Christ The King". I am sure the aristocracy loves that soundbite.

 

Only if you require absolute certainty.

 

I don't see royalty being polite or presenting themselves as being polite.

I think it's quite the opposite.

I consider their lifestyles decadent.