The Marketing Of Christianity

The problem with this is that there's no way of ever knowing whether it's right or not, stuff is just being made up on the fly to support whatever argument you wish to make. Jesus is your flexible friend; he can be made to fit any circumstance - one minute a miracle worker and prophet, the next no more able to predict the days events than the next man. And that's ok apparently.But yet again, there's no answer to the unavoidable reality of how we are forced to live in the objectively obscene world of necessary violent competition. This is not a matter of historic speculation on primitive belief systems, nor an issue of free will. What's the answer?

If by consistent you mean you say the same stuff repeatedly, I agree. If you mean internally consistent - that it makes objective sense - it plainly doesn't. It's just a well spun story that suits your beliefs and has been adapted over time. I can't seem to get this point across. I'm not talking about the problem of suffering - you and nobody else has an answer to that. It's not a philosophical question I'm asking, it's a practical and pragmatic one. Why make life on earth competive and survival based? He had choices, he chose cruelty and crude survival over what any fair reading of 'what would Jesus do?'

What's the point of that? I HAVE read the gospel and I coclude that it's a total fabrication. What's more I've read history and science so I know the evidence not just the propaganda. You have a multitude of different real life examples of what Christians believe as a result of reading and believing the bible, they can't agree to the extent that they split into thousands of different groups.This need to speculate and hypothesise is a core part of the problem. (Sermons routinely extrapolate from a biblical verse into crazy personal fantasies.) People just pick a variant of a Christian belief that suits their personal needs then justify the choice by quoting, interpreting, 'putting in context' and reading the works of your favourite apologetics (who have no more knowledge of god and his intent than I have.)The other side of this need to fantasise is the avoidance of difficult questions - like why choose competion for survival as your means of creating us? What possible reason could there be for this, given the fundamental Christian idea of a loving god? It's a fatal flaw in the core argument that's just shoved to one side so that the business of belief can be go on with.

For what, rejecting obvious bollox when I see it?

So you are forced to admit that your god made things wrong and you are hoping he'll eventually put them right. Don't you see the problem with that? He's god, he's not supposed to make mistakes. Don't you think a more obvious conclusion is that this god of your is malicious? How else can you interpret the way the world is set up - kill or be killed; a short, brutal, survival game? Isn't 4.3 billion years time enough to fix this error?(That's putting aside science's explanation which is now well understood and accepted by you.) I think you've just admitted that it's about worshipping the god you would prefer to 'understand', whilst ignoring the only evidence you have of him - his cruel creation.

But why would you do that when you know it's just not true? Is there any reason you can think of why we couldn't all be vegitarians? Why can't all life on earth be either photo synthesisers or plant eaters? Why create preditors? Why does all life have to comptete for survival with other life? We'd still have free will, why create a world of suffering and competition? That's simply wrong. In biology it's called the food chain. Remind me, why did god feel the need to give me tooth ache last month? Thankfully, modern science created anti-biotics and root canal surgery. This simple infection created enormous harm in the past - it used kill people. There's no reason for this other than the fact that evolution has been set up to work that way. Yet we can all easily imagine a world that could be quite different. It abounds because it creates enormous quantities of redundancy. Because of competion for survival all life on earth produces vastly more offspring than would be necessary without it. Most of it dies or is killed and eaten before it can reproduce. You only have to watch a couple nature programmes to see that. Altruistic behaviour is found amongst members of the same family - it doesn't stop them killing and eating other species or, in human terms, killing other tribes. It's only our social institutions that have stopped us wiping each other out.

Well that's one. But more importantly our all democratic processes; our criminal justice (law, courts and policing), educational and healthcare systems, even - god help me - our churches.All the communal institutions that we've built are civilising processes that have so far prevented us from destroying ourselves.

1. Because it's a fairy story.2. Because it's more important to live a decent and honest life than to believe in a sky daddy that needs to be worshipped.3. Because 'He' thinks you're an idiot for thinking that only those that had the sheer luck to have been born at a time and a place where 'His' ideas were the fashion could be saved and all the rest of humanity - present and future - are damned.

This is just primitive sillyness. Our world was created about 4.3bn years ago. Life began about 3.8bn years ago. H. sapiens evolved only about 200,000 years ago. We've probably only had real consciousness - ie the ability to define right from wrong and act on it for a small fraction of that time.Where and when is this 'choice' supposed to have been made? Well quite. You're beginning to get it.

Now that's a weird thing to say - why do you say it? What are these lies?

Ok, maybe that's a complaint about an individual here - it's certainly not an accusation that can be raised against atheists generally; they could give a toss either way. Now this has to be a joke? The bible is stuffed full of myths and porkie pies. Talking snakes, parting waters, flooding the world raising dead - you name it, it's a bunch of children's stories. Objecting to people pointing this out is a bit lame.

I'd simply think you're yet another religious crack-pot. You act like this statement has never been said before. If Jesus was alive, I'd know about it wouldn't I? There sure is, the difference is that the second is at best redundant and at worst a lie used to manipulate others. What's science got to do with it? I'd tell - and did tell - my children to respect other people, be nice and help when you can. That's how decent societies get on.

You realy struggle with this don't you :-)I've only made my mind up because I have absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Jesus exists. None. Zip. Alternatively there's stack of evidence that he doesn't. Even your book said he was killed. Even if you believe the daft idea of resurrection, he buggered off into the clouds and was never seen again.But all that apart, if he showed up and performed a few confirmed miracles I'd be forced to accept that fact. That's just silly. If something was demonstrated to be possible, how and why would I reject it??? What sort of strange logic are you applying here? I'm not against the idea of a god, I just think that your's is preposterous, but if he showed up, then fine, I'd be wrong and I'd change my mind. In a flash.

This is problematic.If you can't get to heaven unless you're saved and god finds some but not others, that is plainly unjust. Additionally, if god imposes himself on some people in the way that the 'born again' kind say he does, wither free will?

I think you missed my point. Those that say god found them are pretty much consumed by it. I've never heard a single report of someone resisting his obvious approach have you? But Phat, it wouldn't be that way - when god finds you it's apparently overwhelming. We can't know that. We can't know that. That's anything but simple question, but it IS a rediculous question. If god existed why would anyone not be open to knowing him? (Whatever that means). To get back to my original point, If god doesn't reach out to some but does to others, then he's unjust. If he does reach out to some, he's interfering with their free will. How do you respond?