|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:11 am
|
|
|
|
As a non-Christian, my biggest problems with Christian belief is less about who wrote the bible (does it matter?) and more to do with the actions of god vs. the belief in god as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and merciful. The god of the OT seems much more believable as an entity (not omniscient, certainly not benevolent etc) than the god of the NT, who is claimed to be all these things simultaneously. As a polytheist, I don't believe my gods are omni-anything, though they can be benevolent, they can be merciful, they can be incredibly loving, and they are terrifically powerful and wise. But as a polytheist, I don't have to grapple with the problem of theodicy.
Anyway, my primary issue with Christian belief is how a merciful, just god can condemn eternally otherwise good people who simply don't believe he exists. The problem of Hell as a place of eternal punishment is problematic also; how can it be just for there to be infinite punishment for finite crimes?
I also have trouble with a loving god who considers you deserving of punishment by default. How can an omnibenevolent god feel this way? Why would you follow any god - omnibenevolent or otherwise - who felt this way?
My major issue is not understanding how, from a practical perspective, Jesus would be necessary at all. If god is omnipotent and can forgive all sin, why would he need Jesus in order to do this? He could just wipe everyone clean from sin once a week, or whenever you asked, without the whole rigmarole of Christ.
I also have problems with the rejection of the more early non-canonical gospels wholesale. I understand there were a variety of reasons why they were not included in the canon, such as a problem of where to fit them in the narrative or the ideas clashing with the more generally or widely accepted ideas of the time. However I don't get why so many Christians reject them totally rather than reading and cherishing them as examples of early Christian thought and belief, if not as sacred texts relevant to their personal beliefs. As such, perhaps it is important for the apologetic to know why they personally prefer the canonical books (or indeed non-canonical books over some of the canonical ones). For example I find it interesting that Luther removed a few books from the bible when establishing Protestant canon... he also very much wanted to remove Revelation as he thought it was non-sacred but there was backlash against this idea so he did not.
I think these are pretty common problems with some of the major beliefs in Christianity that apologetics may wish to familiarise themselves with and develop answers to. I do not expect anyone to answer these questions for me here. I am just putting them forward as ideas for apologetics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 6:33 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|