Abandon Christianity? Reason 20: It Is Unoriginal

The Final Challenge

            We’ve reached the end at last. The final reason to abandon Christianity is because it is just a “copycat” religion. There is little to nothing original to it, therefore it’s not worth entering. Worship of Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Mithras, etc. all influenced Christianity to the point it just isn’t legitimate.
            Bogus.
            This “problem” with Christianity was popular from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Then Bible scholars demolished all the arguments, and the issue died. Then, in the late 1900s and early 2000s, some people decided to raise the issue again. This time they had the internet to help. Now Christians have to deal with this issue again. Oh well, this is how it will be until Jesus comes back.
            Before we get to it, let’s look at what is essential for a religion to have had before  it could’ve influenced Christianity: 1) it had to have been older than Christianity, 2) it had to have a god dying and raising from the dead, 3) it has to be literal history.
            If the religion doesn’t predate Christianity, the whole discussion is pointless. You can’t influence something if you don’t exist yet.
            Also, if it predates Christianity but doesn’t have its god dying and rising from the dead, it’s nothing like Christianity anyway. 
            Finally, if the cult isn’t claiming to be based off real history, then it isn’t like Christianity at all. Jesus didn't die to explain why nature is the way it is, but for people. I’ll start with this point first.

Cyclical religions

            Christianity is rooted in real, physical history. As in, dates and chronology. You know, with eyewitnesses and such (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
            Most of these “mystery religions” are based on the cycles of vegetation. For instance, when the fall/winter rolls around, the deity “dies”. Then, in the spring/summer, the deity “resurrects”.
            This is completely opposite Christianity. Jesus died once for sins (1 Peter 3:18), and rose once. He didn’t die to explain the weather and seasons. No, Christianity makes its stake in history, not the vegetation cycle.
            This eliminates the cults of Baal and Adonis among many others.

Does It Have a God Dying and Resurrecting?

            If a religion’s god doesn’t die and rise again, it is not like Christianity. It’s as simple as that. Let’s go through some religions that do not have gods that have done that.
            Attis: though this myth is older than Christianity, the first story we have of Attis rising from the dead comes after the first century. No, Attis couldn’t have influenced Christianity.
            Tammuz: there is uncertainty as to whether this god even died. No dispute with Jesus, we can say.
            Osiris: oh, Osiris sure died. In fact, he was chopped up. Oh, and he “rose” again in the underworld. But he never came back to the world like Jesus. So no, this wasn’t a resurrection because he stayed in the underworld after he died. “Zombification”, you could say*.
            Mithras: Mithras didn’t die. But he killed a bull. (How that could’ve influenced Christianity is beyond me)
            So you see, this also eliminates a lot of these mystery religions.

Does It Predate Christianity?

            Yes, some of the afore-mentioned religions do predate Christianity. Notably Tammuz and Baal. However, their gods didn’t die and rise again. If they did, it was to explain the seasons, not to make a claim in physical history.
            For an example of a religion that came after Christianity, I’ll use Mithraism. This religion is often used against Christianity because of some of the parallels in the birthdate (December 25th), secret meal (communion), and promise of immortal life (salvation).
            There is a small problem, however. Mithraism as a religion has no attestation before AD90. So… yeah, that doesn’t work.

Conclusion

            As anyone can guess, I am not an expert on this subject**. However, all one generally needs to know is the basics. To be like or to influence Christianity, a religion has to be older than Christianity, it has to make a claim on physical history (dates and chronologies, not the vegetation cycle), and it has to have a god that dies and resurrects. As I’ve shown, these three criteria together eliminate most “mystery religions”, including the main one used against Christianity (Mithraism).

*I borrowed this term and most of the information in this post from the fourth chapter (or Challenge Number 4, as it is called in the book) of Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus. An amazing book, I recommend it.
**I barely scratch the surface of what I do talk about in this post.

Abandon Christianity? Reason 19: The Bible is Full of Contradictions

(Warning: REALLY long post)

Part I

            Number 19 on freethoughpedia.com’s list? The Bible, Christianity’s basic text, is riddled with contradictions.
            I will freely admit that there are numerous instances where, on the surface, critics have a plausible case. These situations can make readers do a double-take. As usual, however, there are explanations. When it comes to doctrine, factors such as context, subject, and audience are key. When it comes to numbers (such as in the books of Samuel and Kings), the answer often lies in chronology (hypothetical example: one number was recorded early in a king’s reign, and the contradictory number was recorded later in the same king’s reign. The simple answer to the “contradiction” is that the number, whatever it represents, changed as the years went by).
            This issue is different than other “problems” with Christianity in that Christians have to explain every little potential contradiction instead of having a blanket answer for an issue. This can get tedious, for there are few jack-of-all-situations answers that you can apply across the board. Christians have to cover each contradiction individually and conclude, “See, no contradictions after all.” This can be a pain, but 1 Peter 3:15 states:
            “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (NKJV).
            I’ll quickly go through the words I italicized. Always means that Christians have to defend the Bible no matter the time or how unattractive the subject is. Defense doesn’t mean “plug your ears and tell the person to shut up”, but to logically give an answer to arguments (to the best of your ability). Everyone includes smart-alecks who really don’t care for an answer. Reason means arguments, and the more well-thought out the better. Meekness and fear excludes Bible-bashing, an unfortunate but favorite tactic used by prideful Christians (which means me sometimes).
            Now let’s get to the specific contradictions given in the article.

Part II: Contradiction I

            James 1:13 states, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (KJV).
            Okay, so what do we know? Based on context (surrounding verses), James is talking about trials and tribulations. When someone is enduring trials and is tempted to sin, she shouldn’t blame God for being enticed to sin in her situation. God isn’t dangling sin in front of her and saying, “Give in.” No, that’s the flesh (our nature that desires to sin). Don’t blame God for the flesh working inside of you. Now for the alleged contradiction:
            Genesis 22:1 states: “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him…” (KJV). The story goes on to tell of how God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham goes to obey God, and God makes it all work out in the end by saving Isaac and providing Abraham a ram to sacrifice instead.
            How can the contradiction be explained? One way is to simply point out that the word “tempt” means two different meanings here. When I tempt someone (James 1:13), I want them to fail. But tempt can also mean “test” (Genesis 22:1). God was tempting/testing Abraham’s obedience, not enticing him to sin.
            Put simply, God cannot tempt you to sin. He will never hold sin in front of your face, daring you to mess up. However, that doesn’t mean He won’t tempt your faith and obedience. The only way to see if something is real is to put it through tests. This can also be called “tempting”, but sin/failure is not the goal, but growth. God can tempt, but only the flesh tempts you to sin. God encourages obedience.
            Put even more simply, there is sinful tempting (where the goal is to get the victim to sin), and non-sinful tempting (where the goal is to get the “victim” to grow).

Contradiction II

            Jeremiah 3:12 states: “…for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.”
            For the sake of understanding the contradiction forthcoming, I will include verse 13: “Only acknowledge thine iniquity (sin), that thou hast transgressed (disobeyed) against the LORD thy God…” (KJV).
            The context is God talking to Israel (earlier in verse 12). By this time Israel and Judah were two separate nations, and they both rebelled against God. God, being merciful and just, was angry with Israel, but told them His anger would subside if they acknowledged their sin. Remember two things: 1) God is talking to Israel. 2) There was a condition that Israel had to meet before His anger would subside. Now for the contradiction.
            Jeremiah 17:4 states: “…for ye have kindled a fire in my anger, which shall burn forever.”
            The context is God talking to Judah (17:1). Also, if you read the context, there is a finality to His words. There is no condition of forgiveness in this section of scripture. Judah is cooked; God’s punishment will stand forever. Judah is at the point of no return, at least at the moment Jeremiah is speaking.
            The two examples, on the surface, are contradictions. But they aren’t because of two reasons: 1) the audience changes from Israel to Judah, 2) in one instance, there is hope for Israel if they repent. In the other, there is no hope for Judah, and God lets that be known.
            Before I move on to the next “contradiction”, let me say something on God’s judgement. Jeremiah 17:4 is completely accurate for those who don’t repent. God’s anger will burn forever, and there is an eternal punishment. But if we repent as God asks in Jeremiah 3:13, His anger won’t burn forever. There will be mercy.

Contradiction III

            (I like this one in a twisted sort of way. Very clever) In John 5:31, Jesus says, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”
            In context, Jesus was talking about obeying the Father and not Himself (5:30). Also, He is basically saying that it isn’t His job to say, “Look everyone, I am here!” That was the job of John the Baptist and Jesus’ disciples (5:33). Basically, Jesus wasn’t here to toot His own horn, but to obey His Father. Now for the contradiction.
            In John 8:18, Jesus says, “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.”
            In context, Jesus wasn’t talking about obedience (obeying the Father), nor fame, but truth. In every respectable culture, when someone makes a claim, there has to be witnesses. Jesus witnesses Himself, but that isn’t enough. He is saying that the Father also is bearing witness to His life and ministry.
            The difference is that Jesus is talking about importance and fame in John 5:31. He is of secondary importance to the Father. Also, His disciples, not Himself, are spreading His name. John 8:18 is talking about truth, and how God the Father is witnessing everything that Jesus is doing on earth.
            In John 5:31, “bearing witness” is talking about importance. 1) The Father, 2) the Son. Jesus was letting everyone else know that. In John 8:18, “bearing witness” is purely legal. Jesus isn’t closing Himself in and seen by no one. His Father is with Him every step of the way.

Contradiction IV

            I won’t bother with the verses in this one. Some say that God has never been seen. Others say God has been seen (as in Jesus and instances in Old Testament). This is a contradiction, right? Right?
            There are varying opinions on this matter. I hold that the Father has never been seen by His creation directly and in full glory. We wouldn’t be able to take it. However, the Son has been seen (Jesus, duh).
            I believe that the Father, if He has been seen, has held back His full form. He’s never been seen as He is. However, the Son can and has been seen.
            Some say that the Father has never been seen. Every time God has been seen, it’s been Jesus, not the Father. The Father, if He chooses to, speaks thru things. Such as burning bushes and angels and whatnot. But in His actual form, He’s never been seen.
            God’s been seen, but at the same time He (the Father) hasn’t been. Pretty nifty and completely true. The glory of the Father would kill us, which is why He doesn’t show us all of it.

Part III

            (Summary) The Bible has a lot to it, and some of its teachings seem to contradict each other. However, it is usually superficial due to word choice. As we’ve showed, “bearing witness” can mean several things, and so can “tempt”. The audience and context can determine these things and must be taken into account. Whenever a “contradiction” comes up, take a little time to study it. Problems will fall away.

Abandon Christianity? One, Two, Skip a Few… (18)

           I’m skipping to the end of freethoughpedia.com’s list of reasons to abandon Christianity. Why? Well, it’s simply because most of the reasons don’t have to deal with the doctrine of Christianity, but the conduct of individual Christians. Yes, some Christian/Catholic nations have messed up. Yes, Christian individuals and groups have messed up. But that has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity itself is true.

           The 18th reason (out of 20) states, “The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.”

           There we go! Finally we have a real, bona-fide reason that, if true, would mean Christianity is wrong. Christians hold the Bible to be a few things, namely the history (and future) of God’s plan to save mankind and the authoritative manual on how to live.

           Now, if the Bible isn’t reliable when it talks about Jesus… we basically can chuck the whole thing. Jesus is our rock, but if we don’t know what exactly He said and did, we don’t know how to think and act. We are called to live like Jesus, but that’s impossible if the Gospels (biographies on Jesus) are unreliable.

           But first, let’s examine the actual reasons given before we throw the Bible away.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

           1) We don’t know who wrote the Bible. Answer: That depends on what is meant by “know”. Paul writes in his epistles the usual “Paul, called to be an apostle…” thing at the beginning of his epistles. John writes in Revelation that it is him writing. Jude does the same. In the old Testament, Isaiah writes that he had a vision. Jeremiah writes that it is indeed him writing.

           I could go and on. A lot of the books mention* their writers. So yes, we know the people who wrote a lot of the Bible.

           But what about the books that don’t mention their author? Frankly, I fail to see how that affects the reliability of the Bible, seeing as how prophecies come true and lives change. Oh, and archeology supports and third party sources agree with the Bible. Does knowing who wrote the thing change any of that? Yes, it is nice to know, but I fail to see how that affects the reliability of Christ’s teaching.

            Now, if they were complaining that the Gospels were written too far after Jesus’ death to be accurate, that would actually matter. Oh wait…

            2) The Gospels were written between 30-200 years after Jesus’ death. His teachings couldn’t possibly be accurately recorded.

            The people who raise this as a problem simply don’t understand what they are saying. Are you kidding me?!?!  30 years! That is golden in terms of textual accuracy. What scholars wouldn’t give to have copies of Plato and Homer that were 30 years older than the originals.

            Even 200 years ain’t that bad, even though it is still wrong (scholars tend to view the gap between the originals and the oldest copies to be 30-150 years old). Copies of John, the “newest” Gospel, could be put anywhere from 60-120 years after Jesus died**.

            Besides showing that they really don’t understand the gravity of what they are saying, people who raise this objection also don’t understand the culture of that day. Stories and teachings were passed down orally. Everyone knew these things, so when someone told someone else about Jesus’ teachings, he had a whole community ready to correct him if he misspoke.

            In this age of misinformation, where the media is just as eager as its audience to spread the sensational, we don’t understand this concept of internal “accuracy police”. Look at what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:4-8:

            (4) “And that he (Jesus) was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;

            (5) “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

            (6) “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren (!) at once; of whom the greater part remain unto the present, but some are fallen asleep.

            (7) “After that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

            (8)“And last of all he was seen of me also…” (KJV).

            Now why would Paul go through all this trouble? He does this to show the Corinthians that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus who were still alive. He is saying that there are people who will back him up.

            Unlike Islam and Mormonism, the Bible was assimilated in the open. Paul didn’t go to a cave where Jesus suddenly appeared to him in secret. Paul didn’t lock his room where he met Jesus. No, what he was writing in his epistles could be backed up by Jesus’ teachings and His resurrection. Why? There were eyewitnesses.

            To summarize this point, at the time of the Gospels being written, there were eyewitnesses. These authors weren’t writing about something that had happened 150 years before, but around 20-50 years before. Due to their culture, they would have many eyewitness “spell checkers” who could correct them.

            30-200 years? Not a problem.

            3) Freethoughtpedia.com states that, according to a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar, only 18% of the statements and 16% of the deeds of Jesus actually have a high chance of actually happening.

            On the surface this seems tough. But let’s examine who these Jesus Seminar-ians are. Gregory Boyd, a highly respected Christian scholar, writes that the Jesus Seminar is a small group of very left wing scholars who are on the fringe of New Testament thinking. Lee Strobel*** writes that they deny the supernatural from the outset. Also, they say the Bible isn’t reliable while some in their camp champion questionable documents of suspicious origins.

            What stops me is the radical left description. Radical leftists deny the supernatural, opting for a more naturalistic approach to… just about everything short of salvation. Also, they tend to eisegete, which means they read what they want to into the text. If majority opinion says something in the Bible isn’t true, they’ll go with the opinions of the day.

            The Jesus Seminar went into the Gospels with a mindset of what could and couldn’t be legitimate, and their findings reflect this. Jesus couldn’t do miracles, therefore… He didn’t do miracles. Jesus couldn’t be God… therefore He wasn’t. Etc.

            The Jesus Seminar was composed of people who do not reflect scholarly opinion on the New Testament. They were and are extremely leftist, and y’all know what that means. They were almost a publicity stunt. They knew that what they said would be received with open arms, and they went straight to the public without first checking through academia.

            This third option fails because the Jesus Seminar, put simply, is not reliable****.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            Free Thought believes the Bible doesn’t accurately portray Jesus’ teachings. They give three reasons. The first one doesn’t really matter. The second one is not true due to eyewitness accounts. The third one is extremely questionable due to the party making the claim.

*If people say, "Well, how do you know those documents aren't lying?", you have to question the wisdom of talking to them. They'll deny whatever you say anyway. The simple answer to that question is, "Because there is no reason to doubt them."
**I used Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus here.

***Most of the information I used in this post I researched from Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ. He writes about the Jesus Seminar in several places, most notably in chapter 6.

****Gregory Boyd writes about the Jesus Seminar among other things in his book Cynic Sage or Son of God? 

Extreme Asceticism and Self-Denial

            We are to obey God (Deuteronomy 11:1). It’s really that simple. If God calls us to go, we go. If God calls us to drop everything, we do. Why do we obey God? Because we love Him* (Luke 10:27).
            Now here we get to self-denial. As soon as we are saved and start loving God, our worldly possessions and accomplishments are to be counted as a loss to us (Philippians 3:4-8). We are to kill our flesh daily. Now, some in times past and present take all the self-denial found in the New Testament and conclude that we are to have nothing on this earth (extreme asceticism). They became monks or wanderers**, and proclaim that what they are doing is true Christianity. You’re not a follower unless you have no worldly possessions.
            They miss the point, but have the correct mindset.
            They are correct with their starting point. Everything we have is to be counted as loss. If something is getting in the way of our relationship with Christ, we gotta chuck it (Matthew 8:19). For instance, television is a big obstacle for many Christians wanting to grow closer to God. Chuck it!
            After that, however, they miss the mark. What doesn’t get in the way of our relationship with Christ we have to view as God’s. If we view our time, talents, and possessions as God’s, we will use them in a godly manner (and no longer attach the word “our” to them). That’s “A-okay” with everything found in the New Testament.
           Now, if every physical thing we had got in the way of our relationship with God, ascetics would be correct. That’s why Jesus called the rich man to give up everything he had (Mark 10:17-22). That was the obstacle, so it had to go.
           But that is simply not the case. Not everything we own gets in the way of our obedience to God. If we view those things as God’s and not our own, we’ll use them correctly and we don’t have to get rid of them. Look at Paul’s possessions in 2 Timothy 4:13:
           “The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou (Timothy) comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments” (KJV).
           Admittedly, it’s not much, but that dismisses asceticism. Or at least the extreme side of it.
            If it’s not hindering your relationship with Jesus, and if God is not calling you to get rid of it, there is nothing in the New Testament that says we can’t use or have physical things. We are just to use them for God’s glory.

______________________________________________________________________

 

            Ascetics seek to define self-denial in a way that is not in the Bible. Self-denial is not disowning physical possessions (Jesus wore clothes, right? Right?), but forsaking them (Luke 14:33). No longer is what we have ours, but is entrusted to us from God. We don’t own any one thing, we have to leave it for His name’s sake (Matthew 19:29).
            For instance, I "have" a bedroom. Biblically, it is not mine, but God’s. Therefore I have to think and act like it is not mine, because it isn’t! That means if my sisters want to use it, I have to allow them (as long as they are being wise with their use of it). If my relatives are visiting and need a bedroom, I am to allow them to use my room. Why? Simply because God’s entrusted it to me so that I can bless others with it.
            Now, ascetics (extreme ones) would want me to go sleep on the street.
            See the difference? Asceticism contradicts Ecclesiastes 3:13:
            “And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, for it is the gift of God” (KJV).
            When we work, we earn money and/or physical possessions. That is (part of) the good of work, and Solomon says it is the gift of God. Ascetics would say we can’t have it.

______________________________________________________________________

            No, asceticism makes legalism of what is supposed to be a willing and joyful obedience. It is because we love Jesus that we no longer own anything. We want to give God everything. Asceticism*** takes that up a notch and says that God can’t bless us by entrusting us with things.
            It is because we love God that we obey Him and deny our flesh. When you take a voluntary sacrifice out of love and make it a requirement to fulfill a duty (extreme asceticism), there goes the loving relationship. No longer do we look at God as a loving Father who bids us fellowship with Him, but a set of requirements that we must meet before we are acceptable in His eyes.

(Update on 1/18/14: This was my first stab at writing about self-denial. Looking over the post, it is okay at best. There are several other problems with extreme asceticism I didn't touch. Also, I didn't stress putting everyone above yourself. Living unselfishly not only with possessions but also time and actions. Oh well, I'll try again sometime.)

*I once had a mini-argument with someone over this. He said we are supposed to obey Christ out of love, not out of legalism. I agreed, but said obedience out of love is still obeying Him, because God calls us to obey Him out of love! We kinda went in circles over this. Good memories.

**Monks have done many wonderful things, and so have ascetic missionaries/wanderers. What I have to say about asceticism does not take away from that.
***Besides telling us we can’t have anything, extreme asceticism has another problem. It tends to glorify the lifestyle, and not God. Why is an ascetic a Christian? Well, because of his lifestyle, right? No, the correct answer is because he accepted Jesus’ free gift of salvation. Living life without things becomes the focus, not living for God. Everything becomes works-oriented, not heart/faith focused. But that’s another post.

Abandon Christianity? Reason 7: Christianity Is Cruel

(Warning: Long Post)
           
            Is Christianity cruel? No, but humans often are cruel, so sometimes Christians can 

be cruel. We are human, too.

            Freethoughtpedia.com has a list of 20 reasons why people should abandon 

Christianity. This one is number seven. The reason why I didn’t throw it in with my last 

“Abandon Christianity” post is that there is actually potential Biblical support for it. I 

couldn’t do my usual “this has nothing to do with truth or falsehood” retort, because, if the 

Bible condones masochism (the enjoyment of self-inflicted pain) and/or sadism (the 

enjoyment of pain in others), there are some serious problems with Biblical contradictions 

and Christian conduct.

            In this post I will focus on masochism because, frankly, I don’t see a lot of Biblical 

support for sadism. Jesus wasn’t sadistic, Paul wasn’t sadistic, etc. If you read the New 

Testament, you’ll find that most of the time Christians are the ones who experience the 

pain. They don’t dole it out.

            But what about masochism?

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            Some read the words of self-denial written all over the New Testament and think 

Christianity encourages self-inflicted pain. I will quote the most obvious verse. Paul writes 

in 1 Corinthians 9:27:

            “No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to 

others, I myself will not be disqualified” (NIV). (Similar readings are found in the ASV and 

ERV)

            Now, that seems real tough. So, to be like Jesus, I have to beat myself? Not so fast. 

Other versions read something a little different:

            “But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I 

myself should be disqualified” (ESV). (Similar readings are found in the KJV and NLT)

            See the difference? Some versions say that Paul struck or buffeted his body and 

made it his slave. Others say that he simply brought his body under control.

            I use mainly the KJV, so here I could simply gloss over the issue and say, “In my 

version there is no problem.” But I know many others will encounter this issue, so I won’t.

            The simplest explanation for the versions that potentially encourage masochism is 

context. In the preceding verses, Paul was talking about training oneself so that he can run 

the race of this life well. When athletes train, they punish themselves physically to achieve 

the fitness level necessary to perform at a high level. So Paul was talking about training 

himself to obey the Lord.

            Either way, the Bible does not encourage masochism. In contrast, there are 

numerous verses about enjoying this life. In fact, Solomon says (somewhat) to party it up in 

Ecclesiastes 2:24. Matthew 6:34 says to not worry about the next day. In 3 John 1:2, John 

writes to Gaius, telling him that he (John) hopes he (Gaius) is in good health.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            So far I’ve gone through the most commonly cited verse for Christian masochism. 

I’ve gone through a few verses about living well (physically and mentally). Are there any 

verses that specifically condemn masochism? I think I’ve found a couple.

            Leviticus 19:28 writes, “You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor 

make any tattoo marks on your head: I am the LORD” (NASB).

            This one deals specifically with masochism, but someone might point out that Moses 

adds “for the dead”. They would say that the Bible is alright with masochism as long as it’s 

not “for the dead”. Well then, here’s some more. In Matthew 6:16-18, Jesus says:

            (16) “Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they 

disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They 

have their reward.

            (17) “But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

            (18)“That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy father which is in secret…” 

(KJV).

            Here Jesus specifically condemns people who disfigure themselves so that they 

appear pious. He says to look normal. This dismisses Christian masochism, where the 

worse you look the better. The more you mess your body up, the more Christian-like you 

are.

            No, that is not Christ-like. Look normal and go about God’s business.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            Before going on to point #8 given by freethought, I’ll write a little about self-denial 

in my next post. Some take it to the extreme (masochism), some to the next extreme 

(asceticism), and some to the correct “extreme”. This “extreme” is extreme in that the 

world doesn’t care for it, but God calls us to it. This extreme is not about works, but about 

the heart. Everything, including our bodies, is God’s. We are to deny our self (flesh) and to 

live for God solely. Occasionally this means renouncing our worldly possessions. 

But anyhoo, that’s for next time.

They Make a Good Point Nonetheless

            Though I am annoyed by the lack of logical arguments freethoughtpedia.com puts 

forth, they do make a point. Christian (and Catholic) nations, Christian groups, and 

Christian individuals have messed up badly. We haven’t represented Christ in the past, so it 

is an obstacle when we try to spread the Gospel.

            Before we can even start speaking about Jesus, we are bombarded with:

            “What about all the priests who have molested children? Is that Christianity?”

            “What about all those pastors who have had affairs? Is that Christianity?”

            “What about all the (insert oppressive actions) Christian nations have done? Is that 

Christianity?”

            And so on, and so forth. Because we haven’t lived like Jesus, our past actions are 

something we have to overcome today. Like Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13, we can do 

everything we want. We can have all truth on our side. We can move mountains and do 

miracles.

            But if we don’t love, it means nothing. Right now we are reaping the fruits of being 

unloving.

Abandon Christianity? Reason 3… and 4 and 5 and 6

            Okay, now I am kinda getting bored. Here we have another “argument” that 

does nothing to attack Christianity’s truthfulness.

            What is it this time? Christianity is based on dishonesty.

            Yes, some Christians have been dishonest *glares at certain unnamed 

televangelists*, but Christianity is not based on dishonesty. If Christianity is the truth, then 

it is based on…truth. If it is false, it is based on… untruth.

            I'm just going to knock out reasons 4, 5, and 6 while I'm on this train of thought.

4. Christianity Is Extremely Egocentric.

            Yes, some Christians can be obnoxious know-it-alls who think they are the center of 

the universe. But whoever compiled this list didn’t read about Jesus. Jesus came down 

from Heaven as a nobody. He died a hated criminal. In between those two things, He even 

washed feet. God calls us to be like Jesus. That doesn’t sound very selfish, ya’ know?

            Yes, Christians can be egocentric. But God calls us to be servants, which isn’t exactly 

the most egocentric thing to be.

            And finally, this point has nothing to do with whether Christianity is the truth or 

not.

5. Christianity Breeds arrogance.

            Yes, certain Christians are little arrogant know-it-alls who think they are the center 

of the universe. But look at the description of Jesus given in Isaiah 53. I won’t write out the 

whole chapter, but here are some points about Jesus:

1) He wasn’t physically attractive (2)

2) He was despised and rejected (3)

3) He bore our (your, my) grief; He carried our sorrow (4)

4) And so on, and so forth. Jesus suffers, we benefit.

            So you see, Christians who are arrogant miss the whole point of Christianity. We are 

to be like Christ, which means we may very well suffer. This should not breed arrogance, 

but humility (for more on this, read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship).

            And finally, this point has nothing to do with whether Christianity is the truth or 

not.

6. Christianity Breeds authoritarianism.

            Yes, certain Christians are know-it-alls, which means they think they know it all, 

which means they try to lord it over everyone else. But again, the people who are like that 

aren’t living like Christ. They are being selfish.

            Also, certain “Christian” nations have behaved… uh, how should I put it… incorrectly 

when it comes to authority. Again, the Bible does not condone authoritarianism, but 

servitude. And again, Isaiah 53 would be a good Bible chapter to check out.

            And finally, this point has nothing to do with whether Christianity is the truth or 

not.

Abandon Christianity? Reason 2: Preying on the Innocent

            Next up on freethoughtpedia.com: Christianity preys on the innocent (specifically 

children). This website specifically mentions how some Christians (Catholics, in the specific 

example given) tell children scary stories about the punishment for sins, and how this 

terribly affects children.

             Just like in my last "Abandon Christianity" post, I realize that this reason has 

nothing to do with whether Christianity is true or not. But oh well, here is my answer.

            Christians are not, and have never been perfect. Some Christian adults do use the 

“you’re going to Hell for your sins” method as their main way of trying to cajole children to 

obedience. This is wrong because it should be a child’s love for Jesus that spurs him to 

obedience, not a fear of Hell.

            But just like last time, this website still gets it wrong. Though Christians have 

preyed on children’s innocence (to force obedience, or else…), Christianity (i.e. doctrine, 

the Bible, etc.) does not. If Christianity is true, then there is a punishment for sins. Telling 

everyone about this punishment is merciful (as long as parents or others don’t use it for 

selfish purposes), for it is through this knowledge that people ask, “How can I avoid this 

punishment?” That’s an opening for Jesus, His love, and salvation if there ever was one.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            However, some non-Christians* go beyond the whole “Hell” thing with their 

definition of “preying on innocent children”. They believe that children should not be told 

about the supernatural at all. Then, when a child is old enough, he or she can learn about 

Christianity if he or she wants to know about it. They say that everything that pertains to 

God, not just the Hell aspect, preys on the innocent.

            By this definition, yes, Christians prey on the innocent. All Christian parents say 

something about the supernatural to their children, so they are all “guilty” of this.

            I am “A-okay” with preying on the innocent if it is defined in this way.

*Not freethoughtpedia.com. Their definition, from what I gathered, is that “preying on the 

innocent” is telling children about Hell and punishment.