Christianity is based on fear Christianity preys on the innocent Christianity is based on dishonesty Christianity is extremely egocentric Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality Christianity breeds authoritarianism Christianity is cruel Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex Christianity produces sexual misery Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils Christianity depreciates the natural world Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization Christianity sanctions slavery Christianity is misogynistic Christianity is homophobic The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings The Bible is riddled with contradictions Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html
Please justify why the following are bad? Christianity is extremely egocentric. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. Christianity breeds authoritarianism. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization. Christianity sanctions slavery. Christianity is misogynistic. Similarly, explain how Christianity: Christianity preys on the innocent. Christianity produces sexual misery. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality. Christianity depreciates the natural world.
http://www.evilbible.com/ and by the way, i think you're a bent, sick, asshike I suppose you need everything spelled out or dilineated for you. The textbook is blatantly so, the institutionalization of religion has a political purpose, character and shows its true colors and operates like an organism despite it cloaking mechanisms. Get a clue and come up with your own conclusions.
Actually Christianity is based on love and forgiveness. Though it is easy to see how you could confuse the two principles. Has never seen this. Then again I have seen no innoccent people in my live, except maybe newborns to toddlers. Still haven't seen how Christianity preys on the guilty even. Really? you said before it was based on fear. Perhaps you are confused. So striving to help your fellow man is egocentric? Really? Really I don't feel chosen. I mean I chose to repent and to be forgiven, but anybody can do that. Not that I have noticed. Society breeds authoritarianism. So being forgiven for the wrongs you do to others is cruel? Really, my church encourages reading and discovering the world for ourselves. My Pastor is an avid historian and his wife is a medical doctor. Seems quite intelectual and scientific to me. No, people do and sometimes that comes up in their religion. Again that is the individual's fualt You say that like it a bad thing. Again that is people not the religion All of the above credited to people and not the religion I will admit it is not perfect becuase of constant translation and rewriting to suit the author, but hey if you can read it and think for yourself about what to use then more than likely you are golden. It's ceremonies yes, myths no, as it is not myth. Suck it up
I do not deny that the Bible is filled with all sorts of wickedness, but I fail to see how many of what you claim to be evil, is. Ought we not to care for ourself? Ought we not to view ourself as the best and those similar to ourselves as also good? Is Democracy to be viewed as the only proper system? It is rather absurd at its roots. Heirarchy is natural, sound, and occurs always. Is slavery such an abrogation that one cannot view that it is possibly not so horrible? Who determines what is "misogynistic" and what is not simply recognition of the marked differences of the sexes? How is it preying on the innocent to attempt to persuade a child of something which one views as positive? How is it that we self-control over our sexual urges in pursuit of a good is immoral? All morality demands self-control. Why ought one to adopt a broad view of morality? Can not any broad system of morality be considered too narrow by some? For instance, to the immoralist, the moralist is too narrow -by definition- of narrowing his view of morality to anything but "whatever I want to do is fine". In what way does a religion which espouses, in part, a conception of stewardship over the natural world depreciate the natural world?
No. You ought not. That is what causes empires to fall. And generally, nobody likes arrogance. I agree with you here. Indeed, but only on a family level, and based on the most fit to lead(determined by force). Society has corrupted this system by putting everyone on an equal level and basing who leads on opinion, and not truth to who is more fit. If a man I don't know leads me, this is not natural. Depends on what kind of slavery. Punishment slavery= no. Inherited slavery= yes. Most "devout" christians just have fear of hell out of their ignorance to reality. Teaching a child to "belief" anything that is not PROVEN fact is wrong, simply because it is imposing you morals on those who cannot destinguish for themselves what they believe. By taking children only to a catholic church, for example, and not exposing to other religions, that is brainwashing them. To me(not sure about thread starter), it's more of the idea that marraige must happen before sex than self control. In the wild, it is logical that humans, as many animals would have many mates. I was wondering that too.
^ Geez, you people are not only stupid but psycho. Whats wrong with mysognism? Whats wrong with slavery? Oh, whats wrong with me bashing your face in? I suppose nothing.
Nothing is wrong with you bashing my face in, society, particularly government has made that distinction. I am opposed to slavery, but it would be a good alternative to prisons. Economically, and ethically(a term I avoid usually).
you can abandon every church... and temple... but you cant abandon jesus..... jesus loved ya man... dont forget that. even if he was a totally wacked out crazy man.... he was still cool. and everything he said... was also ... cool. he was right... always... its really cool. the messed up part... is all the stuff the apostiles wrote... besides the quotes of jesus. the quotes of jesus.. should be the foundation of christianity.... but modern churches... dont do that... and they will tell you lots of reason why. but dont abandon jesus.... he may not of died for our sins, but he died a horrable way, and it was all, atleast in his mind.... for us. and so while it may mean nothing to you... as a modern man. imagine what it would take, for YOU, to give your life as a sheep for the sacrafice for the hypothetical sins of the world. that you were strapped down and thick nails hammered into your wrists and feet, and you were made to hang in agony for days until you died. he new it was coming... and he did it anyway. thats cool. and i dare say, no other historical human being... not one... was as cool. -MT
Jesus was an excellent philosophical teacher in terms of enlightenment, that is..If he existed. I'm not sure of this, but I've read articles stating he did not, with quite a bit of supporting evidence.
Oniw17: "No. You ought not. That is what causes empires to fall. And generally, nobody likes arrogance." Then what ought we to think of ourselves? That we are lowly and worthless? Common? For in thinking ourselves great, do not we have the capacity to then become great? I am not suggesting mere delusion, but also to aspire to the greatness entailed by the belief in oneself as a God, as it were. Moreover, it is the people with that will towards perfection and greatness that truly shape the world. What was Alexander but such a man? Or Caesar? Or Napoleon? "Indeed, but only on a family level, and based on the most fit to lead(determined by force). Society has corrupted this system by putting everyone on an equal level and basing who leads on opinion, and not truth to who is more fit. If a man I don't know leads me, this is not natural." This is very true. We have a very corrupted view from the natural heirarchies that develop organically and are based, on you say, most fit to lead determined by force(s). That being said, I shall slightly disagree with you on the last point, only in the sense that one can imagine such a system existing on a large scale. I think you have a flavour of it in Sparta, perhaps. The kings were Spartans par excellence. "Depends on what kind of slavery. Punishment slavery= no. Inherited slavery= yes." Yes, I am less inclined to support inherited slavery. "Most "devout" christians just have fear of hell out of their ignorance to reality. Teaching a child to "belief" anything that is not PROVEN fact is wrong, simply because it is imposing you morals on those who cannot destinguish for themselves what they believe. By taking children only to a catholic church, for example, and not exposing to other religions, that is brainwashing them." It is an inevitable thing that we impose, in one way or another, our beliefs on others. That at least the impetus is some sort of positive belief on the part of the individuals, is not so terrible. However, yes, I agree that it is setting them up for bad things in the future, in that much of Christian principle is contrary to reason. "To me(not sure about thread starter), it's more of the idea that marraige must happen before sex than self control. In the wild, it is logical that humans, as many animals would have many mates." It is possible and potential, yes, but the institution of monogamous marriage also has its benefits and likely its genesis, at least in part, in the necessity of strong knit families and societies that can distinguish their own from other. Bastard children produced from promiscious relationships are generally not something an early human society can cope well with at a certain point. Though this may sound "misogynist", it is really more an issue for the woman to be monogamous rather than the man for societal purposes. Possession of the woman is often important for men and, in terms of family and genetic purity, is a necessity for the man to know that the child in that womb is his.
I'm a fan of being humble, but I understand what you're saying. You are suggesting a sort of confidence, and the benefits of that confidence. I agree that confidence is a good thing, but arrogance is blinding. Ceasar was killed because of his arrogance, and you have to take into account people like Hitler or Mussolini who were very arrogant, Mussolini believe he was the reincarnation of Ceasar. There is some point in the middle where our mindset should be. Perhaps this is encompassed in what some call enlightenment.
Shouldn't this be titled: 20 Reasons to Abandon belief in God 20 Reasons to Abandon monotheism? .. .. .....
