by James Buckner
answers and responses in blue
by
John Love-Jensen
(raised
in Roman Catholic Christianity)
Through years of participation in the life and culture of evangelical Christianity, a number of "difficult to understand" issues came to my attention. The approach to these problems endorsed by evangelical Christian leaders is for thoughtful Christians to accept the "difficulties" as inscrutable but nevertheless true, and to endeavor to strengthen one's faith in other areas where "difficulties" are not a hindrance. I acquiesced to this approach while I lived my busy life, until such time as I should be able to search out the solid answers that evangelical theologians had undoubtedly derived from their more thorough and sophisticated study of scripture. After years of studying the Bible as an individual and in groups, listening to sermons, attending Christian conferences, leading a small group Bible study, reading evangelicalism's best apologists, and even preaching from the pulpit once, I was dismayed to discover that the church cannot answer the tough questions about Christianity. And I was heartbroken when I finally recognized, quite contrary to my own wish, that the cumulative force of the so-called "difficulties" thoroughly and unquestionably discredits Christianity.
Anticipating that many Christians will not accept my conclusion, and that they will urge me to come back to church and continue "searching," because of Jesus' promise that those who seek will find (Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9), I have listed some questions the church must answer if it hopes to regain my attention.
The questions that follow have been organized loosely into categories to aid in referencing them. Many questions could legitimately be placed in other categories. Their current placement reflects my own judgment of where the weight of the questions carries the most force.
The list is not exhaustive. There are innumerable serious issues with Christianity laid out in the existing body of skeptical literature. The list that follows is a sampling from a variety of sources. Not a few were independently discovered by myself before I learned of the existence of serious skeptical literature, a few are original with myself, and a few actually come from Christian sources.
Some biblical references are given, but all are not. I am assuming that any Christian knowledgeable enough to address these questions intelligently will not have trouble finding the biblical passages at issue. In addition, some questions assume a general familiarity with certain biblical and extra-biblical subjects which are not practical to reference because the relevant knowledge is widely dispersed through a large body of literature; for unreferenced items, a Christian who does not understand the issue probably is not well-read enough to attempt an answer.
1. Why does the evangelical church say there are no contradictions in the Bible when they are plainly there for anyone to see? (These are too numerous even to list a representative sample here. There are many books and monographs on this topic in the skeptical literature.1)
The evangelical church is lying and deluded.
2. Why does the Old Testament teach that there is no hell, while the New Testament teaches that there is? The idea of "progressive revelation" does not explain the conflicts in the biblical texts.
The New Testament is making an extraordinary claim without any extraordinary proof. My logical positivist side says the New Testament is making fallacious claims.
3. Why does most of the Old Testament teach that there is no afterlife (see Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, for example), while later Old Testament writings and the New Testament do?
Once again, my logical positivist side says the New Testament is making fallacious claims.
4. Why does the church say that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), when many biblical passages flatly contradict this?2
The God of the Bible (Jehovah or the Trinity, take your pick) doesn't exist. The biblical God is imaginary. Since that god is imaginary, any claims can be made about the merits of their imaginary god.
5. Was God known by the name Yahweh prior to Moses (Exodus 6:3), or was he not (Genesis 4:26, 5:29, 9:24, 22:14, 27:20, 27:27, 28:20-21)?
Well, the God of the Tanach was known by several different titles. Transliterating from Hebrew into English, it's YHWH (pronounced YAHweh). Which stands for "I AM WHO I AM" which is attributed to Moses in the book of Exodus.
6. Which "Ten Commandments" are the Ten Commandments - the ones listed at Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, or the ones listed at Exodus 34? Only the list at Exodus 34 is explicitly called the "Ten Commandments" in the biblical text.
I count 29
commandments in the decalogue.
1.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2.
Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image.
3.
Thou shalt not make any manner of likeness of any thing that is
in heaven above.
4.
Thou shalt not make any manner of likeness of any thing that is
in the earth beneath.
5.
Thou shalt not make any manner of likeness of any thing that is
in the water under the earth.
6.
Thou shalt not bow down unto any likeness.
7.
Thou shalt not serve any likeness.
8.
Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain.
9.
Thou shalt remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.
10.
Thou shalt not work on the sabbath.
11.
Thou shalt not let your son do work on the sabbath.
12.
Thou shalt not let your daughter do work on the sabbath.
13.
Thou shalt not let your manservant do work on the sabbath.
14.
Thou shalt not let your maidservant do work on the sabbath.
15.
Thou shalt not let your cattle do work on the sabbath.
16.
Thou shalt not let your stranger within your gates do work on the
sabbath.
17.
Thou shalt honor thy father.
18.
Thou shalt honor thy mother.
19.
Thou shalt not murder.
20.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
21.
Thou shalt not kidnap.
22.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
23.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
24.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
25.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's manservant.
26.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's maidservant.
27.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox.
28.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass.
29.
Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's.
Some
of them have merit in keeping a community together by setting
ground rules for social interaction. Some of them are
theocratic (remember, Judaism back then was a theocratic form of
government, and its theocracy is comingled with its theology).
7. Was the Law given by Yahweh perfect (Psalm 19:7), or wasn't it (Hebrews 8:6-8)?
No, it wasn't. Yahweh doesn't exist, he's imaginary. The Law "given by Yahweh" was written by some unknown author, and then attributed to Yahweh to give it authority.
8. Why can't the six accounts of the resurrection be reconciled?3 Paul says that without the resurrection, the Christian faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14). How could the biblical accounts possibly disagree on such an important narrative?
The earliest account is Paul's rendition where he speaks of a vision of Jesus rising spiritually from the dead. No cave. No stone rolling back. No people. No angels. Later accounts embellished the big fish story all out of whack. Ever play the telephone game?
9. Why were the disciples surprised by Jesus's resurrection after Jesus had told them repeatedly to expect it?4 An angel even reminded the women that Jesus had told them of his impending resurrection (Luke 24:6-7). How is it that the women remembered his words (Luke 24:8), but the disciples didn't (John 20:9, Luke 24:12)? Even Jesus's enemies remembered that he had foretold that he would rise again (Matthew 27:63).
The disciples weren't surprised. The event never actually happened. It's a fabricated story, in part to explain how such a terrible thing (the Roman's crucifying Rabbi Y'shua) could occur, and to give credibility to the assertion of Jesus' divinity..
1. Why is the Bible unclear about how to be saved? Is there anything more important that the Bible could communicate? Why is it ambiguous and contradictory on this subject?
Because the Bible is unclear what it means to be saved. And to be saved from what? In my religion, I am "saved" from ignorance, superstition, mysticism, falsehoods and the illusory, by reason, knowledge, logic, understanding, truth and reality.
2. Why does Jesus teach salvation by works in the synoptic gospels, but John portrays him teaching salvation by faith?
Different political agendas, and one or both misquote (or misrepresent) the teachings of Rabbi Y'shua.
3. Why does John not teach in his gospel that it is necessary to repent of our sins, since he states that his gospel was written specifically for the purpose of showing people how to be saved (John 20:31)?
What exactly is sin? In my religion, sin is one of two things: transgression of societal convention (law) of how to live together. Or sin is the propagation of lies, misinformation, deceptions, delusion, fallacy, falsehoods and fabrications (that is, those which are being passed off as truth and reality ... not things such as fiction, theatre, drama, entertainment, and such).
4. Why is the nature and practice of the two sacraments - baptism and the Lord's Supper - left ambiguous in the Bible, and a cause of discord among churches?
Probably because those two sacraments became of import later in the development of the Catholic Church, and the later Roman Catholic Church.
5. Why is the book of Revelation incomprehensible if it is really "not sealed" (Revelation 22:10)? Why are the prophecies in the book of Daniel actually easier to understand, if they are sealed (Daniel 12:9)?
The book of Revelation is incomprehensible because it is impossible to understand or comprehend. It is "not sealed" in the sense that it is written down and available to everyone, but the Illuminati Trilogy is "not sealed" in the same way ... that doesn't mean that it contains a shred of truth or reality in it.
6. Why doesn't the Bible provide unambiguous answers for major divisive doctrines like efficacy of baptism, pædobaptism, mode of adult baptism, soteriology, Christology, trinitarianism, satanology, angelology, nature of the afterlife, eschatology, fundamentals of the faith, the standing of Jewish believers in relation to the Law, the standing of Gentile believers in relation to the Law?
Because that would take away the flexibility to mandate changing catechism from the (now defunct) Catholic Church. [Note: I'm distinguishing between the present day Roman Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church established by Constantine I.)
1. Why did the writers of the New Testament feel free to misquote and misinterpret the Old Testament and conflate verses?5
The writers of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint, which was the Greek translation of part of the Tanach (Judaic Holy Scripture). The Greek translation had many erroneous or questionable translations.
2. Why did the gospel writers use the Septuagint, an inferior translation of the Old Testament?6 Did the Holy Spirit fail to inspire them with the more accurate Hebrew text, the one accepted today?
The gospel writers wrote about with that which they were familiar. They were familiar with the Greek texts, not with the Hebrew texts. I'm familiar with several English translations of the Bible, I'm less familiar with the expositor's Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic version (but I have them...).
3. Why did Matthew and Peter take Old Testament passages out of context to make them into prophecies, when they were never indicated to be prophetic by the Old Testament author (Acts 1:20 versus Psalm 69:25, for example)?
Because Matthew and Peter were using occultism. They were emprophecizing passages to help defend their religious assertions. You could consider them amongst the earliest Christian apologists.
4. Why did Mark misreference an Old Testament prophet (Mark 1:2)?7 How can we rely on Mark to explain Old Testament prophecies to us if he is even mistaken about the source?
Because Mark wasn't properly knowledgeable about what he wrote. I'm sure he wrote from the heart, but sincere and hartfelt and the truth and reality are not always in concurrence.
5. Why does Jude quote the non-canonical Book of Enoch as prophecy (Jude 14-15)? Did the Holy Spirit fail to inspire Jude with the fact that the Book of Enoch would not be accepted into the canon?
Canonical books vary between both Judaic sects of the Tanach, as well as the books of the Christian Bible(s). One denomination (or sects) canon is another's apocrypha. The Judaic and Christian religions and their various sects and denominations have a long history of religion-a-la-carte.
6. Why does Matthew quote a non-existent Old Testament prophecy (Matthew 2:23)? Was he using non-canonical writings, too?
People write what they know. The only test of truth is experiment, and many of the passages of the Old and New Testaments are untenable.
7. Why does Matthew attribute a quote about the potter's field to Jeremiah, when Jeremiah has no such passage, and the closest one in the Old Testament is Zechariah (Matthew 27:9-10; Zechariah 11:12)?
Matthew probably got the two confused.
8. Why doesn't Paul ever quote Jesus from the gospel accounts, or show that he knew anything at all about Jesus's teachings and life as portrayed in the gospels?
Because Paul didn't know anything about Jesus' teachings and his life. Paul espoused Paul's religion. Some sort of mix between Mithraism, gnosticism, mysticism, occultism, superstition, messianism, and self-promotion. He rode the wave of Jesus' rebellion against the established Judaic theocracy and Roman rule (or oppression, if you prefer).
9. [1] Why is no single hermeneutic adequate for interpretation of scripture? [2] Why were the New Testament authors so free and loose in their hermeneutics? [3] How could it be that the meanings of some words and phrases have been lost? [4] How could it be that some cultural references have been lost? [5] How can it be that many books and passages admit of multiple interpretations? [6] Doesn't God want us to understand his Word enough to protect the knowledge of its referents and use unambiguous diction and phraseology?
[1] Because the apologists have so much inconsistancy and blatently erroneous passages of the Bible to justify and rationalize.
[2] The "New Testament Authors" were not writing the Bible. They were writing their own opinion pieces. Others collected those books and letters (epistles) as the Bible, proclaimed them inerrent, inspired by God, infallible, sacred, holy, inviolable, hallowed, blessed, et cetera. The earliest "Bible" was a syllabus of other books (and epistles) to refer to. Eventually, those separate books and epistles were put together into what we call "the [sic] Bible" (or any particular version of) today.
[3] The meanings have been "lost" because of mistranslations. Some of the mistranslations were simple translation errors. But others were systematic changes based on bias, politics, prejudice, and personal (or sectarian) agendas. Some of the changes were made to cover up blatent inaccuracies in the original documents, others were made for literary license. For example, the King James Version (the Authorized Version) is a beautiful work of literary elegance and wording, but is one of the poorest translations of the original documents. the KJV/AV modified the meaning of many passages and introduced religious doctrine (and thus "established" the basis for the doctrine) retroactively (so to speak) into the Bible. Rather 1984-ish.
[4] Culture changes over time, it's called evolution. The agrarian basis of the Bible's authors makes for some ideology that doesn't hold with our industrial and information age. Just as in Shakespeare's works, topological references that may have been amusing (or downright titillating) in one of his plays may have no point of reference in today's society.
[5] The authors of the books of the Bible were rather footloose with definitions and concepts. For example: what, exactly, is sin? What is a soul? What is heaven? What is hell, limbo, or purgatory? What exactly is "the afterlife"? What do they mean by "life" in "eternal life" if you aren't actually living? How is sin kept track of? What exactly is a miracle? What exactly is "god" (Jehovah or the Trinity)? All the authors speak of these notions with the assumption that everyone has a clear understanding of what they are talking about. But when you talk a closer look and try to analyze and investigate the concepts and notions of the Bible, the first thing you find is that you have to clearly and explicitly define the particulars of those assertions. At which it often becomes crystal clear that many parts of the Bible are either wrong or untenable. Which is to be expected of a mish-mash document such as the Bible, written by a multitude of authors and redactors with no guiding vision. It mixes legend, myth, folklore, customs, mores, history, theocracy, theocratic law, theology, proverbs, allegories, metaphors, parables, aphorisms, anecdotes, hearsay, rumor, simily, homily, apologue, precepts, adages, maxims, religion, spirituality, and government.
[6] The existance of the "God" of the Bible is not an established fact, but an (untenable?) blind faith tenet. His attributed "Word" is that written by people, and then canonized by other people. It's ambiguity is a result of a poor theological model of reality. When the map (Bible) and the terrain (reality) differ, trust the terrain.
I believe in god, but not in the God of the Bible, nor any other god that cannot be proven to exist. Nor do I worship human beings as gods, such as Heracles, Alexander the Great, any of the Pharaohs, Rabbi Y'shua (Jesus, in the Latin form), Prince Siddhartha, Nichiren, et cetera. I disbelieve in apotheosis and the deification of human beings.
My god is
that of all of totality. Everything that exists. All
past, present, future; all hopes, dreams, fears; all clouds,
humans, bugs, bacteria, stars, galaxies; all space-time; all
thoughts, concepts, imaginings, truth; all of reality; the cosmos
in toto. That which is not my god is that which does
not exist: lies, fallacy, illusory, fabrication,
falsehood. The veritas-sophismata dichotomy (truth
and reality vs falsehood and illusory).
1. Why doesn't prayer work, when the Bible promises that it will (John 14:14, for example)?
What kind of prayer? Prayer of thanksgiving works ... it is an expression of gratitude of an individual, it comes from within. Prayer of contemplation works ... it is a form of meditation, perhaps even Zen satori (discoupling of the conscious mind from thinking and thoughts; a free-form association or "day-dreaming" if you will). Prayer of fortitude works ... that is the power of positive thinking, and has a well established psycho-somatic facility in the medical studies. But intercessory prayer can be empirically proven to fail, time and time again, statistically without merit.
2. Why aren't Christians doing greater works than Jesus did, since he himself said they would (John 14:12)? The context is clearly referring to miracles.
I see miracles every day. The new sunrise. A baby's smile. Summer showers. Green grass growing. Waves on a pond. Getting up in the morning. There are also the miracles of computers, entertainment, aircraft, spacecraft, and the advances of modern technology. And the miracle of understanding of gravity and general relativity, quantum mechanics, gene research, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, engineering, and the bleeding edges of science.
Surely some of these miracles are being done by Christians?
"I
like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians
are so unlike your Christ."
[Mahatma
Gandhi]
1. [1] Why have no prophecies been demonstrated to have been fulfilled? [2] Why are many Old Testament prophecies too vague to be tested? [3] Why are many Old Testament prophecies "yet to be" fulfilled? [4] Why has it been impossible to demonstrate that the Old Testament prophecies were written prior to the events forecasted?
[1] Many of them have been "demonostrated" to have been fulfilled, by Christian apologists. Unfortunately, the "prophecies" are so vague as to be betise, and the "fulfillment" is often poor, which requires the apologist to minimize or trivialize the events that don't fit the prophecy, and maximize the events that are in accord with the prophecy. The greatest example I can think of the that of the messiah, who is supposed to have freed the Jewish people from their oppressors and establish a new Judaic country. Jesus did neither. And that got his early Christian followers in trouble (and the wrath of the Romans, and their persecution) when they attempted to overthrow Roman rule in the second half of the first century.
[2] If they are vague, then they are flexible.
[3] Keeps the clergy in power.
[4] Not impossible, several older books of the Old Testament (and New Testament, for that matter) that were written in prophetical style have been conclusively shown to have been written after the incidents of which they write. It's relatively easy to have accurate prophecy when the prophecy is written retroactively.
2. Why wasn't Tyre destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar as prophesied by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 26)? When it was destroyed by Alexander the Great, why didn't it remain desolate as prophesied by Ezekiel?8
Ezekiel was wrong, on both counts. It happens. The Bible isn't infallible. Only those who eschew reason, logic, common sense, and rationality could claim the Bible was infallible and inerrant.
3. How can it be that Isaiah prophesied a temporary destruction of Tyre, while Ezekiel prophesied a permanent destruction (Ezekiel 26:14,21; 27:36; 28:19 versus Isaiah 23:13-18)?
One of them was in error.
4. Why wasn't there a 40-year period in Egypt's history when the whole land was devoid of people and animals, as prophesied by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 29:11-12)?
Give it time. When the sun goes nova and the earth is a dark, charred cinder, Egypt will be a fairly inhospitable place.
5. Why is so much of New Testament prophecy incomprehensible? Why produce a prophecy at all if it cannot be understood?
Makes it easier to use it as a tool of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
1. Why haven't any of the miracles recorded in the Bible been independently confirmed?
Most of the Biblical "miracles" are parables, metaphor, hearsay, rumor, legend or myth. Some have been independently confirmed, but the recording of the "miracle" neglects to mention certain key information (such as using wood alcohol instead of "water", and the hand of God igniting the >ahem< "water").
2. Why don't verifiable miracles happen today? What better way is there to convince people of the Christian message, and isn't that the commission given to the church by Jesus?
There are plenty of miracles that happen today. As I've mentioned above: the sunrise, getting up in the morning, love, birds singing, a dog's tail wagging, recovery from dire illness, the beautiful moon, the planets, stars, galaxies, colors, sounds, smells, food, existance, clouds on a lazy afternoon, a good book (such as Pratchett's Discworld series), a child's smile. Miracles are all around and abound ... you only needs to open your eyes.
3. Why don't evangelical Christians accept miracle stories recorded in ancient non-biblical works? Isn't it the case that evangelical Christians have decided a priori to accept biblical miracles and reject all others? Aren't the apologists' "objective standards" for accepting or rejecting extra-biblical miracles post hoc?
You've answered your own question correctly. Christian apologists have arbitrarily endorsed biblical miracles, and rejected others. Without basis, but only upon blind faith of the infallibility, inerrancy, and literal interpretation (or selective interpretation) of the Bible.
1. Why is the authorship of most books of the Bible disputed? Why do many books of the Bible have no statement of authorship? Why are some books in the canon pseudepigraphical (lie about authorship)?
Many of the books of the Bible have no particular designated author. There are scholarly educated guesses, but in even those cases the personality, opinion, situation and character of the probably authors is not known. The pseduepigraphica, apocrypha, and deuterocanonical books of the bible are definitely in dispute, depending on the Christian denomination or Judaic sect opinion, agenda, doctrine, tenets, and catechism.
2. Why did the early church not revere the scriptures as Christians do today, so that they added interpolations and made emendations?
The early Catholic Church? Or the earlier (pre-catholic) Christian cults?
The early Catholic Church decided which books are in the Bible (the syllabus of which books, old and new, and epistles were canon) after it's formation in 325 CE. The books were added based on political power of the now-state-endorsed-cults. Those Christian cults that were ostracized from the new Catholic Church continued to be persecuted, but now Christian persecution meant persecutions of Christians (cults) by Christians (backed by the power of the Roman government), based on doctrinal conflict.
The earlier Christian cults had no uniform scripture. Many cults held to one gospel, or book, or oral tradition, or set of epistles. They developed very different and incompatible ideas of what a "Christian" was, and what was important.
Thus the vast doctrinal differences between the Catholic Church, the Coptic Church and the Assyrian Church. All of which were formed fairly independently in the primordial period of Christiandom. (The Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church schism came about much later.)
Note: "cult" is used in the sociological sense, not in the pejorative sense.
3. Why hasn't the Bible been transmitted to us in perfect condition if it is so important and if God had his supernatural hand in it? Why did both Israel and the church add interpolations, emend, and conflate the texts?
Because the Bible did not have a supernatural hand in it. It is a human work.
Israel and the Church interpolated, emended and conflated the texts to serve their interests. It's about power, control, authority, and domination.
1. Why is the Mosaic injunction against false prophets ignored in the canon? Deuteronomy 18:20-22 should disqualify Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Jesus, and Paul.
Ignored by who? Personally, I've ignored Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Jesus and Paul. But I've also incorporated portions of their teachings that I find meritous into my life. I test everything, and accept only the proven, and true.
Jesus (Rabbi Y'shua) had many good parables whose stories' morals are laudable. Likewise, some stories purported to be about Jesus, if true, soils Jesus' character, and if false slanders Jesus' character. Especially questionable are those espoused by Paul.
2. Why is the canon disputed by the church? Is God content to let uninspired writings falsely be proclaimed as his Word? Furthermore, how do we know the canon is complete?
Once again, which canon and which Church?
An imaginary God (Jehovah or Trinity) cannot be content nor discontent.
The opposite is true, we know the canon is incomplete because it contains lies, falsehoods and untenable assertions. Also, the trappings of the Christian religion (rites, rituals, ceremonies, heirarchy, pomp, circumstance) have come to be more important than the unadorned essence of Christianity (...whatever that is!).
3. Why has no one been able to describe a consistent objective basis for establishing the canon? Why was the canon established by vote instead of on objective principles? Why was the canon not directly revealed by God?
Because you cannot have an objective basis for untenable assertions.
The canon was established by vote because it was chosen a-la-carte by the different Christian cults in political power at the time of the foundation of Catholic Church. Later Christian denominations, especially after the Protestant Revolt (or Protestant Revolution, for the non-Catholics), selectively reconstructed their own doctrine and catechisms based on their own agendas, biases, politics, and preconceived notions.
The canon was not directly revealed by God, because the Christian "God" is imaginary and does not exist in reality. It exists only in the imagination and fancy of Christian adherents.
4. [1] Why is so much of New Testament doctrine revealed through the use of occasional letters instead of in systematic books written, authorized, and canonized specifically to define Christian doctrine? [2] Why didn't God deliver these himself, as he did the Law to Moses? [3] Maybe this explains why the Old Testament Law has more clarity than the New Testament doctrines. [4] Why did God leave the writing of systematic theologies to modern, uninspired writers, who cannot agree with one another?
[1] Because the books and epistles of the New Testament were not originally written to be part of the Bible. They were written by different people at different times and places, with different target audiences for each of the items in question. Many attempts have been made to systematically define Christian doctrine (such as the Catholic Catechism and the Papal Bulls), but I have yet to find one that I find even remotely credible.
[2] Once again, the Christian "God" does not exist in reality, it is an imaginary god, which exists only in concept. The object of that concept does not exist or is untenable. As a logical positivist, untenable and does-not-exist are on the same side of the fence.
[3] The Old Testament Law was, to a large extent, located in a few locations in the Tanach. Remember, though, that the Tanach was a work that incorporated Judaic law. That is, Judaism was more than just a religion: it was also a theocracy. Rule of the people by their ecclesiastical authority. The Tanach was the embodiment of their laws. The New Testament is a collection of testimonials, anecdotes, rumor and hearsay. It was not an attempt (systematic or inadvertent) to be a codification of laws.
[4] See [2], above.
1. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, why did God lie about what the outcome would be (Genesis 2:17),9 while the serpent told the truth (Genesis 3:5,22)?
The Adam and Eve fable is a fable, it's not a historical event. It's a story of how people came about, world creation, how come humans are intelligent and have dominion over the other animals, et cetera. It is also a metaphorical coming-of-age story; which relates how kids become independent adults.
As a Scandinavian, my cultural heritage says my ancestors were Ask and Embla, who were created out of a ash and elm tree (respectively) by the Aesir gods. I no more believe that creation story than I do the Judeo-Christian Genesis creation story.
2. Why are women treated as chattel and inferior to men throughout the Bible?10
For most of recorded history, women (as well as slaves) have been considered property and inferior to men. A "might makes right" mentality that I find detestable.
It probably also has to do with male biological urges to spread one's seed far and wide, and a female biological urge to have a strong protector and provider. I don't know if this biological hypothesis has any merit.
3. Why is the Old Testament and most of the New Testament addressed only to free men, and not to women or slaves? Does God deal only with free males?11
Because the Old Testament's target audience was Jewish men. The Jewish religion deals only with Jewish men on a first-class-basis. Others, women, children, slaves of Jewish men, and gentiles are all second-class people.
4. Why does the Bible condone slavery?12
Until recently, slavery was practiced world wide for millenia. Now, slavery occurs in only a few countries and on the black market (especially the sex/slave trade).
5. Why does Yahweh command genocide,13 including the killing of infants? Why does he command that all women who have "known a man" be slaughtered, but the soldiers are to keep the young virgins for their own use (Numbers 31:14-18)? Why does the Bible portray Yahweh as worse than Hitler (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)? Isn't it blasphemous to call the Bible "God's Word," when it libels him so?
It's easier to assuage the guilt of a heinous deed if you can justify it by stating that you were commanded to do it by your god.
By keeping the young virgins for their own use (and endorsed by their God), the Jews warriors were able to satisfy their lusts. By killing the woman that have "known a man" they were sure of keeping the bloodline "pure" (note: one cannot be a Jew unless his/her mother was a Jew, or if one completes the proscribed ritual to become a Jew...hmmmm).
Hitler's efforts were endorsed and blessed by the Roman Catholic Church. It just turned out that they backed the wrong horse. Note: Deuteronomy never mentioned Hitler.
I'd concur that it would be blasphemous to call the Bible "God's Word" if the God of the Bible actually exists, has an opinion of the matter one was or another, and if He (or They) find it to be a defamation of character.
6. Why doesn't the Bible condemn polygamy? Is it not really a sin? In fact, the Bible seems to condone polygamy through examples of God blessing polygamists and by its explicit statements regarding David.
The widespread condemnation of polygamy is a recent development, mostly of puritanical origin, especially in the United States. There has been polygamy throughout the ages, and in contemporary life as well. There has also been monogamy in ancient times as well as in present times.
Those who condemn polygamy are projecting their own opinionative mores upon others. I'd recommend to those people who condemn polygamy to not take more than one spouse.
7. Why wasn't Lot condemned for giving his daughters to be abused by the men of Sodom (Genesis 19:8)? The Bible actually calls him righteous (2 Peter 2:7)!
Because women were devalued in the Old Testament.
8. How can Christians say that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion is based on Judeo-Christian ethics when Deuteronomy 13:6-10 and 17:2-7 flatly contradict this?
Because those Christians are once again a-la-carte-Christians. They pick the parts of the Bible that they like, and ignore those parts that they dislike. Note, as expressed before, the books and epistles of the Bible itself is a-la-carte syllabus, this is just pick-and-choose at a finer granularity.
9. How can being mauled by a bear possibly be a just punishment for name-calling (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Doesn't this contradict God's own edict of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?"
It's a punishment, but it seems completely inappropriate for the deed.
It does contradict the edict of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", but you'd have to prove to me that the Judaic God exists, and then prove that the Judaic God made that edict (whether or not its attributed to him in the Tanach).
10. Why is faith - believing something for which there is no evidence - a virtue?
Faith (or better termed blind faith) is not a virtue. It's condoning ignorance. It's only a "virtue" if you want to control the ignorant masses.
11. [1] Why is rational skepticism a vice? [2] If Christianity is true, won't the truth hold up under scrutiny? [3] Shouldn't the church welcome and promote rational skepticism as a way of confirming and spreading the faith when people see that it fails to undermine Christianity? [4] Why isn't skeptical literature studied and refuted in Sunday School classes?
[1] Rational skepticism is not a vice, it is a virtue.
[2] The truth does hold up under scrutiny, Christianity is not "true". It's fallacious.
[3] The [sic] Church knows that the religion is not "true" and that rational skepticism and scrutiny undermine Christianity and the authority of the Church (any denomination). So it is not in their best interests for Christianity to be scrutinized.
[4] The skeptical literature requires that those studying have an analytical, reason-oriented, logical, rational, empirical, and/or scientific approach. As my Evangelical Covenant Minister step-mother says, "The Bible is not history, and it is not science [i.e, it is not scientifically factual]; the Bible is theology."
1. Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on marriage and divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10). How is an honest Christian supposed to know what to do in this area?
Because they had different opinions. I guess an "honest" Christian chooses which tenet he/she wants to follow, a-la-carte, and uses the appropriate passage to justify his/her actions.
2. Why does the New Testament teach by example that major decisions should be decided by lot (in Acts chapter 1 when Matthias is chosen)?
I don't know, seems like a ludicrous method to make a major decision!
3. [1] Why doesn't the Bible provide unambiguous guidance for major divisive issues like abortion, divorce, war, church discipline, lending and borrowing money, etc.? [2] Doesn't God want the church to be united? [3] Doesn't God want individual Christians to know how they should live?
[1] Some of those divisive issues weren't issues when the books and epistles (of whichever Bible is being referred to) were written at the time.
[2] An imaginary God has no wants. The adherents can project wants upon each adherents imaginary conception of his/her God. Some adherents probably have their imaginary God wanting a unified Church; but others (preachers and Churches) have condemned other Churches practices, beliefs and tenets and apprently do not want some sort of ecumenical Christianity. Or (not to leave out the other major religions) a unified Shintoist / Hinduist / Judaic / Mahayana Buddist / Theraveda Buddhist / Vajrayana Buddhist / Taoist / Wiccan / Pagan / Secular Humanist / Natural/Scientific Pantheist / Zen Buddhist / Confucianist / Islamic / NeoPagan / Religious Atheist / Roman Catholic / Coptic / Assyrian / Greek Orthodox / Methodist / Presbyterian / Anglican/Episcopalian / Lutheran / Mormon / Adventist / Evangelical / Pentecostal / Quaker / et cetera all-encompassing Church.
[3] An imaginary God has no wants.
1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noah's flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)
Because the ancient authors of the Old Testament were making up explanations for that which they had insufficient information.
2. Why does the Bible teach that goats will have striped offspring if they see stripes when they drink at the watering trough, when this has been discredited by modern genetics?
Because the ancient authors of the Old Testament were making up explanations for that which they had insufficient information.
3. [1] Why does the Bible record scientifically impossible events as factual? For example, the creation narrative, Noah's deluge, a solid dome over the sky, Earth supported by a foundation. [2] Why has the evangelical church produced "Creation Science" explanations that are complete nonsense? [3] Why is it that none of the more rational reconciliations of science and the Bible survives scrutiny?
[1] Because the ancient authors of the Old Testament were making up explanations for that which they had insufficient information.
[2] Creation Science [sic] is an attempt by Christian faithful to defend their untenable position in the face of all logic and reason. What they should do is concentrate on the positives of the Christian beliefs and focus on moral/ethical philosophy and metaphyical philosophy, and leave the natural philosophies to their respective sciences.
[3] Because the Christian apologists are defending all aspects of the ill-defined "Christian doctrine" from any sort of erosion. No matter at what cost. They'd rather have the religion perish than adapt.
4. [1] How can it be that Psalm 16 and Romans 1 teach that the creation is a reliable means of knowing God ("natural theology"), but the scientific study of biological and geological origins contradicts the creation narrative in Genesis? [2] Why does "natural theology" contradict "revealed theology" (the Bible)? [3] Is the creation bearing false witness? [4] Is the Bible bearing false witness?
[1] The answer to this one is pretty straightforward: Psalm 16 and Romans 1 are both in error.
[2] Because the Bible's explanatory stories regarding natural philosophy are based upon authors who had insufficient information, but had to provide some sort of rational for effects noted at the time. Things such as: what happens when we die, what is the sun/moon/stars, the nature of animals, where did we come from,
[3] "The creation" [sic] cannot bear false witness. It is reality. What is, is. It is the terrain. That which is all of that which exists is my god.
[4] Yes, the Bible is bearing false witness in the strict sense; it attempts to be a map for the terrain, but it is a poor map. But I'm willing to give it some slack: I believe it does so out of ignorance and misinformation, not out of malice and spite.
1. [1] Where is the justice in punishing us for Adam's sin? The Bible itself says that children will not be punished for the parents' sins (Deuteronomy 24:16). [2] Furthermore, if God really created Adam not knowing either good or evil (Genesis 3:22), how could such a harsh and enduring punishment as death for Adam and all his descendants possibly be just? [3] Our secular courts are more just than God when they show mercy on people who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, such as children and the mentally handicapped. [4] And why isn't this doctrine of original sin found anywhere in the Bible except in Paul's writings?
[1] There is no justice in punishing us for the fictional character "Adam" and the sin of Adam from the story of Genesis.
Keep in mind that the story of Genesis is not a historical event. It is fiction. The "original sin" is a metaphor of the Bible's doctrine of humans falling from grace (grace -- the freely given and umerited favor and love of God). It is a doctrine that I find to be likewise false.
[2] The "original sin" is supposed to explain the dismal conditions of life in the Judaic agrarian society, and an theological explanation to explain why death is part of the human condition.
[3] The imaginary Judeo-Christian God is not bound by the mercy of secular courts.
[4] Because Paul wasn't a disciple of Jesus (Rabbi Y'shua). He taught his own doctrine, but attributed to Jesus. He became Jesus biggest promoter, proselytizer, and evangelizer; but he didn't promote Jesus' teachings and doctrine. Most of Paul's religious foundation reflect Mithraism. (Mithraism was a widespread Persian religion, at the time of Jesus and Paul.)
2. Where is the justice in punishing Jesus for our sins? If our courts of law were to accept the punishment of someone else in the place of the criminal, we would not say that justice has been done, but that injustice has been added to injustice. Would the church have me believe that two wrongs make a right?
Jesus (Rabbi Y'shua) was not punished (crucified) for "our sins". He was a rebel, and was inciting the people to act against the theocracy of the Parisees. The Parisees retailiated by having Jesus killed (or rather, murdered), using the imperial might of Rome to act as the means.
The idea of punishing someone else in the place of a criminal really falls back on ancient (in Jesus' time!) Judaic beliefs and customs. That being a village would have a celebration where everyone would pin a token or scrap of paper that represented a "sin" (or, by some accounts, a high priest would symbolically lay the sins of the people) onto a goat, and the goat would be run out of town and let loose into the wilderness. Just after Yom Kippur.
3. How can sacrificing Jesus on behalf of the sinner atone for another's sin? This would be like killing my child to reconcile for the misbehavior of my neighbor's child. I have the capacity simply to forgive and forget without demanding compensation for small offenses. Why can't God do this? Does he simply want blood?
The whole basis of the justification is shaky at best. First, look at the framework where this is even logical. You must have sin, atonement for sins, reconciliation of sins, forgiveness of sins, forgiveness through proxy, a judgemental deity (eg, Judeo-Christian God), an afterlife, a ghost-like soul ... all of which are untenable.
More likely, the Christian promoters are using sophistry to convince people that they have to "believe" (have blind faith) in Jesus and all the other rigmarole of Christianity in order to control the people, garnish power, and generate revenue.
"The
very concept of sin comes from the bible. Christianity offers to
solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a
person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a
bandage?"
[Dan
Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith"]
4. Why pray? If it changes God's mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change God's mind then it is superfluous.
Prayer is good for your soul. You can use it to profess your thanks and gratitude. You can use it to meditate and reflect. You can benefit by its power of positive thinking.
It does not change the Christian God's mind, since the Christian God is imaginary and does not have a mind. But that's only applicable for intercessory prayer.
Note: soul -- see previous definition.
5. How can the doctrine of the Trinity possibly be true? Any attempt to make sense of it leads to contradictions. If it is so important, why isn't it clearly taught in the Bible? Why shouldn't an objective student of the doctrine conclude that it was created by the church to hide biblical inconsistencies about the nature of Christ behind a shroud of mystery?
It's not true. It's make believe. Also note: it wasn't taught by Jesus nor in the Old Testament, it was promoted by Paul.
6. Why is God concerned about humans at all? We are less than a speck in the universe. Christianity has the hallmarks of being a religion made by humans for humans.
The God of the Bible is imaginary, it's incapable of concern. The God of the Bible is an anthropomorphic deity created in the image of its creators: the authors of the Bible and the proselytizers of the Christian and Judaic religions.
7. Why have all the rational arguments for the existence of God been successfully refuted? If God exists, is it unreasonable to suppose that there would be at least one irrefutable proof of his existence?
The rational arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God have been successfully refuted because they all make an assertion that relies on untenable information.
However, god does exist. My god, the god which is all of totality, the universe, the cosmos in toto, can be touched, tasted, smelled, heard and seen. It is ameniable to scientific examination. It is all powerful (nothing is more powerful than everything), it is immanent (it exists everywhere/everywhen), it has aseity, it created us (earth, humans, sun, life, et al), it is all known (okay, this is sort of a kluge: all the constituents of my god the universe, of which you and I are part, collectively (fixed past, current present, and the unknown future) embody all known knowledge).
What more could one ask for in a god?
Oh, and it isn't an anthropomorphism, personification, embodiment, deity-entity, sentient (as a whole) nor even sapient (as a whole). Nor is anthropocentric, geocentric, solarcentric. No ghost-like "spirit realm", "astral plane" or "multidimensional parallel dimensions" mumbo-jumbo. The only statements we can make about my god are those that are substantiated and provable. Logically or empirically. Materialism, monism, naturalism, pantheism. The veritas-sophismata dichotomy.
8. Why haven't the existing proofs of God's non-existence been refuted? Surely believers, who have the advantage of an indwelling Holy Spirit with an "infinite mind," cannot be stumped by "finite minds" of unbelievers working within the confining limitations of reason, can they?
In logic, you cannot prove the non-existence of anything. You (nor I, nor anyone) cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. It's not provable. Existential proof of something not existing is not possible. But the burden of proof is not on the shoulder of those who disbelieve the assertion that some sort of Judeo-Christian God exists; on the contrary, the burden of proof is upon those who assert that Jehovah (or the Trinity) does exist.
9. Why is it that some teachings are conveniently tautological (i.e., circular)? For example, you must pray the will of God in order for prayer to be answered; you must believe the Bible in order to understand the Bible; and the is the Word of God, therefore it is true.
It's not tautological. Tautologies are perfectly reasonable, in logical. They are circular reasoning, which is illogical sophistry.
The Bible is fraught with illogic, mysticism, gnosticism, occultism, and absurdity.
10. [1] How exactly does "loving God and enjoying him forever" give meaning to life? Any satisfying secular activity can give meaning to life. [2] Why does the Christian assume that a metaphysical meaning for life is necessary? [3] Isn't it the Christian who imposes meaninglessness on this present life, declaring that meaning depends for its existence on the life to come? [4] And if Christians did not believe they will live forever, would they continue to love and serve God? [5] Isn't it really eternal life that the Christian loves, and not God? [6] If purpose in this present life is really derived from loving and serving God, then what sense does it make for Christians to make meaning dependent upon a future life?
[1] For some people, I'm sure that gives their life meaning. Look at the number of televangelists and other sincere Christian believers. It doesn't for me; I give my life its meaning.
[2] Maybe they are unhappy with the alternatives.
[3] I can only feel pity for those who are unwilling to create a purpose for their life. [autotelic philosophy]
[4] Don't know.
[5] The fear of death is a strong, instinctual fear. The promise of "eternal life" is a soothing balm for the desire to have continuity. The desire for continuity (ie, after-death sapient existence), tied with humans being a conscious, thinking animal, is a drive that feeds into such metaphysical philosophies like cosmology, eschatology, and others. And is squarely in the realm of religion.
[6] I disagree with the premise that there is a loving and serving God. So I see that it makes no-sense for Christians to make meaning in this life dependent upon a future "life".
11. [1] Where is objective, verifiable evidence that a soul or spirit exists and survives the body after death? [2] Why does the Old Testament deny such an idea until the later writings, which show the influence of Greek ideas? The idea of "progressive revelation" does not explain this.
[1] The soul is ephemeral, it dies when a person dies. The soul is one's neural network and chemical bath that makes the individual who they are. One's mind, one's consciousness. (See above for a fuller description.)
The spirit can be distinguished as the human spirit and the holy spirit. The human spirit is the structure and processes of the human body and the human soul. The holy spirit is the structure and processes of the universe (god). When the human spirit fails the human dies. The human spirit is becomes part of the holy spirit. Note: even when there was a identifiable human spirit, that human spirit was still always part of the holy spirit. At no point in time was that human spirit separate from the holy spirit; it was just independently identifiable ... a sub-categorization, which we humans are pretty good at.
The body is eternal, for energy cannot be created nor destroyed. (Matter is but one form of energy.) The human body is not dependent on it's structure or processes, it's just the energy and matter in no particular arrangment nor in any particular state. The human spirit is that which gives structure to the human body; and a living human has the functioning processes of the human spirit working. Death is the cessation of the human spirit, and the loss of the soul. The body is still there, and the constituent energy will "live again" (reincarnation?) when the body decomposes, and is reabsorbed into the local ecology to "live again" as a multitude of new organisms.
A human "being" is rather a misnomer ... it's something static, and humans are always learning, growing, and evolving. Rather, each one of us would better be served by being called "a human becoming". But that's sort of sappy.
[2] Because Judaism was influenced by ideas from the Greek religion (Zeus, Hera, Poseidon), the Greek Theogeny, and the golden age of the Greek philosophers. One of the reasons that parts of the Hebrew Tanach were translated into the Greek Septuagint.
1. How could Adam and Eve ever have sinned if God had actually created them perfect, even if they did have free will? If God created them imperfect, how could a perfect omnipotent being create anything imperfect?
Adam and Eve were fictional characters is the Genesis parable.
2. How can evil exist in the world if God is simultaneously good, omnipotent, and loving? Why is it that no theodicy stands up under rational scrutiny?
The Judeo-Christian God is imaginary. it is not simultaneously good, omnipotent and loving. The pantheist theodicy stands up under rational scrutiny.
3. Why does the church say God did not create evil, when he himself claims that he did in Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Amos 3:6?15
Because it's not in the Church's (Catholic Church?) best interest.
4. [1] Why does God expressly take credit for creating disabilities (Exodus 4:11)? [2] If these are God's doing, then why does the evangelical church insist that disabilities are the result of the fall, or of Satan's work?
[1] The author is attempting to rationalize the existence of disabilities.
They are my god's "doing". My god (the cosmos) does them, since everything that exists is part of my god. They are not done with intention or willfulness, they are part of the good and ill fortune that can befall us all.
[2] The evangelical church is promoting the doctrine that there is absolute good (embodied by Jehovah or the Trinity) and an absolute evil (embodied by Satan). It's a device in order to frighten the laymen, and drum up more donations through fear, uncertainty and doubt.
5. Why would a loving, omnipotent, benevolent god cause people to believe falsehoods so that he can condemn them (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)?
A loving, omnipotent, beneolent god wouldn't cause people to believe falsehoods so that he could condemn them. Those attributes and that action are irreconcilable.
6. Why is the Bible inconsistent on major theological issues such as the nature and existence of an afterlife, the efficacy of works of the Law with regard to salvation, and the distinction between soul and spirit?
Because the Bible was written by many authors who were not working collaboratively. Their independent works were then sanctioned by whatever authority and proclaimed canonical.
7. Why does the evangelical church speak of absolute values when the Bible teaches situational ethics?16
The evangelical church likes to promote the concept of absolute good, and absolute evil. They try to enforce the faith tenet that certain morality is divine law.
Whereas in my religion, there is divine law. Divine law cannot be broken. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light. You must conserve energy. You must conserve angular momentum. These divine laws are not laws that you could break even if you wanted to.
8. Why is it not possible to formulate a systematic theology that agrees with the Bible in all points? Roman Catholic theology introduces unbiblical and irrational ideas; Calvinistic reformed theology stumbles at the existence of evil; covenantal theology muddles the biblical distinctions between Israel and the church; dispensational theology is too hopelessly complex to be credible because every major inconsistency is explained away by spuriously introducing a new "dispensation;" and Arminianism destroys the sovereignty of God.
Actually, you can, but you'd have to put more books and epistles from the Bible into the apocrypha. And you'd probably have to redact the few existing works into a cohesive whole. In the end, you'd end up with a book that you'd be happy with, but other Christians not-of-a-like-mind would discount. Thomas Jefferson did exactly that with his Jefferson's Bible, and I've heard that Leo Tolstoy did as well in his Tolstoy's Bible.
9. Why doesn't the Bible itself present its own "revealed" systematic theology. Doesn't God want us to have a consistent and complete framework of theology to support right decision making and teaching others?
The Bible was written by many people over
many centuries. Each with differing opinion and
convictions. The Judeo-Christian God doesn't
"want" anything, since it is imaginary. The
theology that Christians have is that which is promoted by the
various denominations:
Anglican
. . .
Anglican Catholic Church
. . .
Anglican Province of Christ the King
. . .
Church of England
. . .
Episcopal Church
. . .
Reformed Episcopal Church
Assyrian
Catholic
. . .
American Catholic Church
. . .
Antiochan Catholic Church
. . .
Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch
. . .
Old Catholic Church
. . .
Roman Catholic Church
Cathar
(Assembly of Good Christians)
Celtic
Christian
Science
Jehovah's
Witnesses
Logictarian
Messianic
Judaism
Metropolitan
Community Churches
Mormon
(Latter-day Saints)
. . .
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
. . .
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints
Orthodox
. . .
Antiochan
. . .
Coptic
. . .
Greek
Protestant
. . .
Assemblies of God
. . .
Association of Vineyard Churches
. . .
Baptist
. . .
Calvary Chapels
. . .
Calvinist
. . .
Christadelphian
. . .
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
. . .
Christian Reformed Church
. . .
Church of Christ
. . .
Church of God, International
. . .
Church of God (Seventh Day)
. . .
Church of the Nazarene
. . .
Evangelical Free Church
. . .
Independent Fundamental Churches of America
. . .
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
. . .
International Churches of Christ
. . .
Lutheran
. . .
. . . Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
. . .
. . . Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
. . .
. . . Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
. . .
Mar Thoma Church
. . .
Mennonite
. . .
Methodist
. . .
. . . Evangelical Methodist Church
. . .
. . . United Methodist Church
. . .
Moravian
. . .
Pentecostal
. . .
Presbyterian
. . .
. . . Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
. . .
. . . Orthodox Presbyterian Church
. . .
. . . Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
. . .
Protestant Reformed Churches in America
. . .
Reformed Church in America
. . .
Salvation Army
. . .
Seventh-day Adventist
. . .
United Church of Christ
. . .
United Church of God
Quaker
(Religious Society of Friends)
Swedenborgian
Unification
Church
Universelles
Leben
Yaohushua
1. Why does the church worship on Sunday, when the seventh day was established forever? There is no biblical support for Sunday worship; it is a tradition of the Catholic Church which Protestants accept.
That probably occurred near 325 CE, near the time when the Roman Empire went from an eight-day week to the Egyptian seven-day week. But I'd have to dig deeper and research the issue more to have a substantive answer.
2. Why do many evangelical churches deny that baptism is essential for salvation, when the New Testament clearly teaches that it is?17
I don't know.
3. Why do some churches object to wine since the Bible indicates that it is a gift from God (Psalm 104:14-15)?18 How can they continue to object even when they acknowledge that Jesus turned water into wine? Is this anything more than a holdover from prohibition? In fact, the Bible promotes drunkenness in Proverbs 31:6-7.
Those Christian prohibitionists are using the Bible to force their own mores upon others in their congregation.
4. [1] Why does the modern evangelical church embrace the extra-biblical doctrines of "having a personal relationship with Christ," having a "quiet time," "journaling," and the necessity of belonging to an "accountability group?" [2] Doesn't the church understand its own religion? [3] Why is it caught up in pop-religion? [4] If these are not really doctrines of the church, then why is there social pressure to conform?
[1] Probably because it sets up a positive feedback loop, and form of distributed self-monitoring among the evangelical church members.
[2] No. There are many doctrinal conflicts that each denomination picks a-la-carte based on the agendas, biases, and prejudices of those in authority within that denomination.
[3] It is a pop religion. I don't believe in any New Age religion; I don't believe in any religion that's less than a billion years old.
[4] Humans are social animals, there is always pressure to conform and xenophobia for those "not like us". Having a personal relationship with Christ gives each member an imaginary, invisible friend, like a teddy bear for grown ups.
5. [1] Why does the church teach tithing for Christians, when it is only commanded of Old Testament Israel? [2] Why didn't Paul teach tithing to the New Testament church when he had the opportunity to (2 Corinthians 9)?
[1] The Church (any denomination) needs money to sustain itself.
[2] Good question, I don't know.
6. [1] Why do some churches ignore controversial teachings in the Bible, such as speaking in tongues, baptism for the dead, the requirement for women to wear head coverings and to remain silent, the identification of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, the necessity of poverty in order to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33), etc.? [2] Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal the true meaning of these passages to believers? [3] If so, why do sincere believers come to opposite conclusions on their own, and why aren't they able to come to agreement when they dialog with each other? [4] Surely, Jesus is with them to guide them when two or three are gathered together in his name, isn't he, even if they misapprehended the Spirit's guidance when they were on their own?
[1] Because those churches pick-and-choose a-la-carte which Christian doctrines they promote, and which the squelch.
[2] The Christian "Holy Spirit" (whatever that is), much like the Judeo-Christian Jehovah, is imaginary and doesn't exist.
[3] The sincere believers have sacrificed reason, rationality, and logic on the altar of blind faith. I'd be surprised if they could come to an agreement.
[4] No, Jesus is not with them. Jesus was crucified almost 2000 years ago. Now he's dead. Although, with every breath you (and I) take, we're breathing in about 200,000 chemical atoms that Jesus (Rabbi Y'shua) breathed in himself, so in that sense we are connected with Jesus, and he is present bodily. But his soul (mind, consciousness) and his spirit (structure and processes) are gone.
7. [1] Why must Christians resort to divination (looking for "guidance," looking for "doors of circumstance to open or close," etc.) if the Holy Spirit dwells within them? [2] What is the benefit of an indwelling Holy Spirit if it doesn't manifest itself in day-to-day living, and it has to be coaxed into revealing God's will in major decisions?
[1] Because the Christian Holy Spirit only dwells in their imagination, and is only capable of "revealing" what their conscious or subconscious knows. My religion's holy spirit (as a whole) is not sapient.
"You
can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when
it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
[Anne
Lamott]
[2] The Church (any denomination) can use the Christian Holy Spirit as a boogie-man to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
8. Why do Christians pray about whether to marry someone, when Paul says that if they want to get married they should just do it (1 Corinthians 7)?
Some Christians pray for lots of things, and ignore Paul. Once again, a-la-carte Christians. But then again, if a Christian was to try to follow all the precepts of the Bible in total, I'd fear for their safety and sanity.
9. Why does the evangelical church rail against one-world government, since they say it is God's plan as revealed in Revelation? How can they justify speaking and acting against God's revealed plan?
I did not know that the evangelical church rails against a one-world government. Maybe they only want a theocratic evangelical church government.
1. [1] Why is the evangelical church subject to the same social movements as the rest of society? [2] If the church is headed by the living Christ, shouldn't the institution be a steady keel in a stormy sea?
[1] Because the evangelical church is made up of people. Real people. People who have ideas, preconceptions, misconceptions, goals, hopes, dreams, personal bias, onerous mores enforced upon others, and aspirations which may or may not be in line with stated goals of some idealized evangelical church.
[2] The church is not headed by some living Christ. There is an imagined Jesus Christ, but imagined things are not real things. They do not have such properties as "living" or "wants" or "intentions". Thus the institution may not be a perfectly "steady keel in a stormy sea".
But, by-and-large, those people that make up the constituency of the evangelical church express enough self-less altruism as to keep the evangelical church's reputation and esteem on the positive side.
Note, however, that in my opinion the "stormy sea" is fairly calm already. The state of the world is in far better shape today than it has ever been in the past.
2. [1] Why does the church trail rather than lead in social reforms? (For example: the rise of capitalism, rise of the scientific method and critical thinking, abolition of slavery, eradication of Nazism, women's suffrage, civil rights of African Americans after the abolition of slavery.) [2] And why does the church dishonestly claim leadership in these reforms after the fact?
[1] The church, as with all major religious organizations, is strongly conservative. They are slow to change, and slow to adapt. Which, in many respects is laudable. Fashion and fads come and go. If the church was to take a stance on every hot issue, the stress of such divisive issues would fragment the congregation into a multitude of splinter groups. On the down side, some of the members of the congregation may feel stifled or that their church is stodgy and behind the times.
[2] Because they can write their version of history with 20/20 clarity. What is dishonesty to a religion that condemns truth and reality in favor of ignorance, nescience, provincialism, and absurd doctrine?
3. [1] Why are the church's day-to-day practices guided by cultural norms rather than by the perfect, absolute, unchangeable norms of God and the Bible? For example, why do churches separate children from their families and age-grade them like the schools, why does the church propagate self-help ideology when the message of the Bible is dependence upon God, why does the church accept and participate in competition where it has rejected it in the past,19 why has the service of women in the church been addressed only after secular culture has addressed women's issues, why does the style of music in the church and church architecture follow cultural patterns instead of defining cultural patterns?
[1] The question is based on two unproven (and untenable) premises. 1) that God of the Bible exists, and if it exists, is perfect, absolute and unchangeable. Since the claim of such a deity has yet to be proven, it can at best be said to be an imaginary [existing only in the imagination or fancy; not real; fancied] god. 2) that the Bible is perfect, absolute, unchangeable. This one is easily disproven: the [sic] Bible cannot be "unchangeable" since 3000 years ago, it did not even exist. The [sic] Bible is not perfect, since there are thousands of variations that differ is non-trivial doctrine. The [sic] Bible cannot be absolute, since there are differing apocrypha depending on denomination. If "the" Bible is subject to the opinion of each individual that choose a-la-carte what parts are included and which are excluded, I'll start by taking a blank ream of paper and calling it "the Bible", which contains all the original editorials and essays of Jesus (Rabbi Y'shua) himself.
4. [1] Why doesn't the church understand Jesus's teachings? [2] Why are most preachers afraid to preach straight through a gospel from beginning to end? [3] Why do they skip over Jesus's "difficult" sayings and the enigmatic passages?
[1] The church (any Christian denomination) exists to first-and-foremost promote that church. Secondly, to promote the doctrine of that church as determined by the elected or self-nominated authoritive body (or individual) of that church. Finally, they promote the teachings of Jesus to which they see fit, and suppress those teachings of Jesus with which they disagree.
[2] I would not call them afraid, they intentionally skip over those passages with which they disagree.
[3] They skip over Jesus' "difficult" sayings and enigmatic passages because they (or their church) find them heretical (religious opinions contrary to those accepted by the church or doctrines prescribed by that church).
1. [1] Why has the church done so little good and so much harm in 2000 years, while science has demonstrated remarkable progress in only 500 years? [2] Why is the period when the church dominated western history universally referred to as the Dark Ages, while the period of breaking away from church dogma is called the Enlightenment?
[1] Credit where credit is due. "The" church (all of Christendom) has had tremendous positive impact upon society. It has also had reprehensible behavior and responsible for horrendous events, in the name of their imaginary god. All these actions, good and bad, were effected by people. The organizations do not exist in a vacuum. They are human institutions that make mistakes; some of them doozies.
[2] The Dark Ages were a result of the Catholic Church's draconian oppression on free-thought, freedom, liberty, and scientific endeavor. The Church wielded its power abusively, to manipulate, control and dominate the ideology of the people in its jurisdication.
The Enlightenment was not a breaking away from the Church (and other denominations that had splintered from the Catholic Church and later Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox), as it was a new golden age of freedom, free-thought, liberty, and scientific endeavor. Almost all the great thinkers, scientists, and artists of the Renaissance were members or clergy of Christendom. You cannot make a blanket statement that condemns all of Christendom without also condemning those meritorious men and women, as well.
Some members of Christendom promoted learning, research, and philosophy. While other conservative and vindictive factions preferred the masses to be ignorant and pliable, and used their authority even to present times to try to keep their constituency in a stupor, uneducated, and their critical thinkings skills hobbled.
2. Why are the Crusades and the Inquisition and other church-sponsored atrocities politely ignored in many church education programs, leaving church members to learn of these in other venues, or, more likely, to remain ignorant of the heritage of the institution to which they belong and contribute.
<